The Internet and U. S. Communication Policy-Making in Historical and Critical Perspective: McChesney

McChesney, Robert W.

doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1996.tb00177.x

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cuci'nin oğullarından biri olan Tokay Timur soyundan gelen Astrahanîler, Tokay Timurlular (Toqay Timurids) olarak bilindikleri gibi hanedanın kurucusu olan Can Muhammed'den dolayı Canoğulları (Janids) olarak da anılmaktadırlar. 65 Ancak Audrey Burton, Astrahanîlerin ilk hükümdarının kim olduğu konusunda bazı soru işaretlerinin varlığına temas etmektedir. Tıpkı Cuci soyundan gelen Şeybanîler gibi Astrahanîlerin de aynı soydan geldiğine değinen Burton, onlara adını veren Can Muhammed Han'ın ilk hükümdar olarak kabul edilmesinin tartışmalı olduğunu savunmaktadır.…”

Section: Buhara Hanlığı'nda Astrahanîler Dönemi (1599-1785)unclassified

Bukhara Khanate During the Astrakhanids and Mangits (1599-1920): Its Sources and Political History in General Lines

DUMLUPINAR

2023

Genel Türk Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT The Khanate of Bukhara was founded in 1500 in Transoxiana by Mohammed Shaybani, a descendant of Shiban, one of the sons of Genghis Khan's eldest son, Cuci, and continued to exist until 1920 with dynastic changes. The dominance, which started with the Shaybanids (Abu'l-Hayrlılar) in 1500, was continued from 1599 to 1785 by the Astrakhanids (Canoğulları, Tokay Timurids) who were descendants of Tokay Timur, who was also one of the sons of Cuci. The question of who was the first ruler of the Astrakhanid period, as well as the date of the beginning of the dynasty, is in question. As a result of the struggle for the throne in the Astrakhanid period, the help requested from the Mughal ruler, the wars with the Khwarezm Khanate and internal conflicts prepared the environment for the unstoppable rise of the Mangit dynasty. The fact that Nadir Shah took advantage of the authority vacuum and made Iranian dominance felt in Turkestan also coincides with this dynasty. This Iranian occupation has completely changed the internal political balance not only in Bukhara but also in the Turkestan khanates. After the death of Nadir Shah, the Astrakhanid dynasty came to an end in Bukhara and was replaced by the Mangit dynasty. The Mangit dynasty ruled over the Bukhara Khanate from 1785 to 1920. The period of Mangıts generally passed with efforts to establish authority over other Turkestan khanates, to ensure political stability and to establish a policy of balance with Russia. However, this danger gained seriousness for the Bukhara Khanate as the Russian Tsardom began to occupy the Turkestan khanates. In these years, when Turkestan was under the influence of the British and Russian rivalries, the Bukhara Khanate took an attitude in favor of Russia. In this period, the jadid movement led by Kazan and Crimean Tatars began to make itself felt in Turkestan, and the khanate was divided into two socially and culturally. The conflicts between the supporters of innovation belonging to the Jadid movement and the opponents who supported the continuation of the traditional structure also played an important role in the political life of the khanate. As the Russian railways began to extend into Turkestan, inevitable invasions followed each other, and the Bukhara Khanate was occupied by the Russians during the Mangits period. Although the Bukhara Khanate gained its independence in 1918-1920 with the collapse of the Russian Tsardom, this situation did not last long. The effects of the civil war between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks during the First World War had an important share on the existence of the khanate. The ideas presented by the Bolshevik movement also influenced the intelligentsia in Bukhara, but these ideas, which the Bukhara jadids found reliable, caused the khanate to be occupied by the Bolsheviks, and their political results were not exactly as they had predicted. After Alim Khan, who was defeated by the Soviet army and had to leave the khanate in 1920, the khanate passed under the control of the Soviets. Cultural and social changes were effective in the transition process of the Khanate to Soviet domination. In the study, these changes were examined through the activities of the pro-innovation staff on this subject. The khanate, which was renamed the Bukhara Soviet Socialist Republic in 1923 as a result of the administrative restructuring in the Soviet Union, was completely abolished politically in 1924. While examining the political aspect of the period of the Bukhara Khanate under the rule of Astrakhanids and Mangits, it also aims to introduce the period sources and current sources related to this period.

show abstract

Section: Buhara Hanlığı'nda Astrahanîler Dönemi (1599-1785)unclassified

Bukhara Khanate During the Astrakhanids and Mangits (1599-1920): Its Sources and Political History in General Lines

DUMLUPINAR

2023

Genel Türk Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…190-211). The representative institutional arrangement of the U.S. media system is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (McChesney, 1996). Section 230 of this act essentially provides ISPs with a "safe harbor" which allows platforms to use their technology and capital power to seize market position while being exempt from regulatory measures on the grounds that they are technology companies defending freedom (Rolnik & Avrie, 2020).…”

Section: More Pragmatic Goals In the Governance Of Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving toward a “middle ground”?—The governance of platforms in the United States and China

Cai

Wang

2022

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How has the governance of platforms evolved between the United States and China in recent years? There is already an abundance of literature written about the governance of platforms pertaining to each country respectively. Despite this, a dual‐track accounting of the governance of platforms in the United States and China in tandem is still lacking. This paper argues that with the historic turbulence of the United States–China relationship and the escalating challenges that governance activities have encountered, the governance of platforms of these two countries are actually more similar than they seem, and have been moving towards a “middle ground,” characterized by multiple governance subjects, more pragmatic and balanced goals, as well as a full range and tit‐for‐tat governance measures. To prove this trend, this paper uses documentary research and a comparative approach to analyze changes in the subjects, objectives and means of governance of platforms for the United States and China. Following that, this paper explains the motivation behind the trend towards the “middle ground” governance of platforms in the context of United States–China relations.

show abstract

“…29 Although bloggers do not directly monetize their blogs, this does not negate the effects of commercializing online space that dystopian theories of the internet warn about. The move into mainstream then eliminates a merit that authors like Beacham 30 and others argued about the internet-its freedom from government and corporate constraints. Even though the blogs themselves are not monetized, the bloggers have still capitalized on their online popularity and commercialized not their spaces but their status and fame.…”

Section: Shifting To Mainstream Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial Sustainability and the Demise of the Egyptian Blogosphere

Sayed¹

2020

Media Industries Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternative media platforms in general and social media and bloggers in particular have had great impact on pushing media agendas, breaking barriers, and discussing issues that were previously ignored by mainstream media. People have found social media and blogs to be platforms for dissidence in a limited media environment. But bloggers who were once alternative voices presenting nonmainstream coverage and analysis of events and enjoying more freedom than traditional journalists are increasingly disappearing from the blogging and microblogging scenes and moving to mainstream platforms due to lack of congregated blogs, financial backing, and advertising. This article aims to look at how the lack of a viable financial model to support blogs and microblogs is resulting in the demise of the Egyptian blogosphere. This article then looks at financial sustainability of bloggers through the comparative analysis of and interviews with popular blogs and social media users in Egypt.

show abstract

The Internet and U. S. Communication Policy-Making in Historical and Critical Perspective: McChesney

Cited by 10 publications

References 15 publications

Bukhara Khanate During the Astrakhanids and Mangits (1599-1920): Its Sources and Political History in General Lines

Bukhara Khanate During the Astrakhanids and Mangits (1599-1920): Its Sources and Political History in General Lines

Moving toward a “middle ground”?—The governance of platforms in the United States and China

Financial Sustainability and the Demise of the Egyptian Blogosphere

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About