Mario Carlón 282 Four criteria are used to differentiate one system from another. 1) The dimension of power: for in- stance, in the mass media system, institutions reign; in that of social media networks, amateurs emerged; and in the Underground, many that are absent even in social media networks. 2) The pres- ence or absence of protocols: such as publication protocols, present in the mass media, less in so- cial media networks, and much less in the Underground. 3) Access: we observe here whether ac- cess to discourses and their circulation is public or not. 4) The transformations that these systems generate and enable in the social construction of public, intimate, and private spaces: for instance, the current dominant logic of construction in the era of Mass Media was the national one; in Social Media Networks, the news of the private/intimate life of amateurs; and in the Underground, the media space itself is already radically private and in- timate (a fact that changes when these “media” are used publicly, something that already happened with the telephone when it was articulated with mass media such as radio or television).” (Carlón, 2022: 256) To summarize: so far, we have referred to the use of the concept of hypermediatized society whose main characteristic is that due to the crisis (but not disappearance) of the mass media and the emergence and consolidation of newmedia systems, it becomes a society of “stratified mediatization.” We have also provided details about the three main systems that characterize it and the dimensions fromwhich those systems were distin- guished. Next, we will dwell on hypermediatization as a process and face a crucial question: what is its relationship with a close notion: hypermediatizated circulation?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz