Katerina started from the notion of identity as a network of interactions, with focus not on the network but on the transformations inherent to the network, mainly in representation and construction of meaning. The key question refers to the role of the Internet use or non-use in building  and transformation of this identity – in answering the ‘who am I’ question. Is technology merely a transmission tool, or does it use imply something deeper?

The medium and the genre have particular features which may play a part in phenomenological shifts in the sense of self, leading some web-content authors to experience the net as possessing particular potency as a means of self-presentation. This is related to the involvement of social media in changing of the relations between the public and private; between the identity characteristics and the values of the new social structure revolving around the web, such as individual freedom or open communication. Katerina discussed the fluid concept of identity by making a comparison between its previous construction through the static content of the personal homepages, and the dynamic one today which uses social media.  Furthermore, she referred to the issue of reliability of the constructed identity – multiple identities on personal homepages versus single identities on blogs. Finally, he increased element of interactivity and network communication influences the contemporary identity construction dynamics.

Irena’s presentation Housing and Belonging in Cyberspace: Politics of representation and recognition focused on strategies of identity construction on virtual terrains. Taking the net utopian position of endlessly investing in absolutely free and fluid virtual identities as a starting point, the presentation attempted to identify nostalgic users, belonging to and seeking recognition within the cyber world. If we accept the notion of virtual communities as imaginary communities (T. Adorno), user behavior, communication and discourse can be interpreted through terms such as housing and belonging. Virtual communities are often constructed for specific categories of people such as females, gays, lesbians, or category of people constructed through narrow intersection of two or more communicates, such as ‘Queer and Asian,’ ‘Black and Lesbian,’ ‘Black and Fat Lesbians’… These communities insist on identification and construction of a stable identity through strategies of exclusion of all other categories of people. Community safety is used as an alibi for exclusion. “The question now is not if you are a lesbian, but are you a lesbian enough,” said Irena. Mechanisms of identity construction were examined also through phenomena such as the kicking scenario (kicking, net jargon – exclusion of a community member from the social media group) and the use of spatial metaphors.

Suzana presented a post-structuralist philosophical analysis of a case study of the role of social media played in the first organized public outburst against collective identity in Macedonia: protests called initially by architecture students in Skopje against the governmental and court decision to fund the building of a church on the main city square (public space) using public funds, a decision made without consultation with the public. The demonstrations ended in violence.

The mainstream media, largely politicized, represented the event differently: the ruling party media represented the protests as ‘students provoking violence under the direction of the opposition party.’ The opposition party media represented it as ‘terror against democracy’ performed by a group of hooded counter-demonstrators, where the police stood by and let the students get physically beaten. The social media responded with several Facebook groups, with several thousands of followers. A Facebook event organized a third protest demonstrating against the previous two protests.

Interestingly, charges or incitement of violence have been pressed against the students. However, even the students’ supporters do not really see the students, points Suzana, but see the opposition party instead – the students were expected to have acted on behalf of this or that dominant party, and not on their own behalf. The students are victims, said Suzana, not plaintiffs: according to Lyotard, victims have not only lost something but have also lost the power to represent their loss.

Suzana referred to the notion of belonging, with focus on the oscillations between universality (collective identities) and particularity (student protest – belonging). On the background of fixed and collective identities, social media, she concluded, enabled new powers in negotiating identities, but they can also add more fuel to severe public reactions, which can be used by the dominant regime for prosecuting individual citizens or small groups not belonging to the dominant groups.

When speaking of social media, citizen journalism and global green or humanitarian actions may come to mind. “However, the same tools are available to a human rights activist and a terrorist,” said Jelena Maksimovic in the presentation Nationalism and Social Media: The Dark Side of Social Media. Jelena examined a case study of a self-declared nationalist association in Serbia – the Serbian National Movement 1389. Among similar nationalist movements, this one has consciously stepped outside the anonymity of Internet forums, actively using social media platforms (blogs, Facebook, YouTube) as community mobilization tools.

Going through many examples of online wars and propaganda, Jelena observed that extreme nationalism, which is somewhat suppressed in the mainstream media, is reigning free online and, combined with the overwhelming tabloid culture, constitutes a new mainstream public sphere of unregulated conversations. She questioned whether participation in the social media, in this manner, can lead to social change, albeit the one not desired by the social media advocates.

Nationalism, as a value neutral concept, is the cohesive force linking the individuals and the nation on one hand, and the nations and the global society on the other. It is presently undergoing significant changes because of the impact of social media. Nationhood is not related to territory: the diaspora and transnational nationalism flourish worldwide. Nationalism is no more contingent to the centers of power as well, as it utilizes the power of the communication from-below that social media has. Its expression and the very content become dynamic and “permanent” – nationalism is happening in real time and what was once the “imaginary” discourse nowadays is being written down and perpetuated.

The presentation engaged in an analysis of the evolving concepts of social media and nationalism drawing upon a variety of examples gathered from social media platforms. In conclusion, the social media did not diminish nationalism by promoting globalism; in fact, social media and nationalism seem to go well hand-in-hand together. Moreover, if one replaces the word ‘nationalism’ with another negative social phenomena, such as ’sexualism’ or ‘racism’, the observations would be the same.

Ferzan Ozyasar presented An Example of Internet Censorship in Turkey: YouTube, with the aims to assess the ways of internet censorship in Turkey against human rights and the culture of democracy.

Up until 2009, access to 1,475 websites was banned by the Turkish Information Technologies and Communications Authority, in addition to the 280 websites banned by court order.  Access to websites is banned mainly through barring the access to their IP addresses. In practice, this implies that access to international networking and sharing websites, such as YouTube, Blogger or WordPress, all tools for sharing personal opinion, can be and has continuously been barred by various courts. Most of these sites have been banned because of presence of child pornography, encouragement of suicide and insults to Ataturk –which, in Ferzan’s opinion, gives a political and anti-democratic tone the legal execution.

Political censorship, in particular, violates the human rights of access to information, expressing freely a personal opinion, and the right to a fair trial. The top-to-bottom decision making chain on  access to media, including media censorship, is against the establishment of a democratic culture.

The 7^th Session of Glocal 2009 was introduced by Vladimir Davcev from Sts. Cyril & Methodius University of Skopje. The first speaker, Ljupco Gjorgjinski from the DiploFoundation, presented Framing Openness: Protecting Net Neutrality Through Legal Principles.

On 21 September 2009, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission of the US, Julius Genachowski, proposed a way forward on protecting the neutrality and openness of the Internet through legislated principles that would hence become legal rules.   This marks an important precedent and a new turn in US policy on Internet Governance which will have global consequences.

At the core of the debate is whether a principle that has stood as a bedrock in the structure of the internet should be put into law. This principle states that the data that move through the Internet should move without any regard of their content and type. However, lately there have been increasing inclinations to do exactly the opposite, mostly by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that feel threatened that their core services may be seriously challenged by this principle. For illustration, many ISPs are telephone companies, which have a vested interest in interfering with VoIP technologies — especially as the Internet moves increasingly to mobile devices.

The current paradox is that, for most of the Internet’s history, any regulations — especially by government — have been seen as dangerous for the Internet, and especially for the preeminent principle of net neutrality. Now, it is government regulation that is seen as the only way to preserve the net’s rightful neutrality.

Still, the regulations is seen not through laws but through principles. Four principles have so far guided the FCCs approach. These four principles can be summarized as: “Network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network” (Genachowsky 2009). The FCC’s Chairman is now proposing that two more principles be added, and the lot of six to become Commission rules.

“The fifth principle,” as proposed for discussion and adoption by the FCC, “is one of non-discrimination — stating that broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications… The sixth principle is a transparency principle,” the proposal concludes, “stating that providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network management practices.” The critical junctures of Internet traffic should be open for review, though not in a way that may compromise the security of the network or the competitive advantages of specific companies.

The discussion is open and vibrant, and it will affect the way the Internet develops and is used in the future all over the world.

Tina Zdovc started her presentation with a video on online carrier services, presenting My Future, an award winning Australian governmental website and a social media tool founded in 2002, which by now has over one hundred million hits.