The internet is a political force. For the last few decades, researchers have been attempting to figure just what kind of force it really is. Is it a democratic force? An authoritarian force? Neither? Both?
There are good arguments to be made either way. But researchers have found that, ultimately, the internet is a tool. It can be wielded for many different purposes depending on who is doing the wielding, and it is probably a little naïve to think of the internet as containing inherent political motives. As Clay Shirky put it in Foreign Affairs, "the use of social media tools - text message, e-mail, photo sharing, social networking, and the like - does not have a single preordained outcome." We have seen the internet turn governments upside down through the power of organized protest, and we have seen propaganda and censorship plague the online world to the liking of autocrats. It varies greatly from country to country, but in each case, we can see some clues as to which side is winning.
One major clue is when governments take the bold step of blacking out the internet in the entire country. And it isn't a hint that the government is winning.
Over and over again, we have seen corrupt governments take this step when the pressure is too high - when the protests become too difficult to ignore. Once they reach that point, the only choice is to shut them down, lest you lose your grip on the country. Most governments would prefer to do this quietly, and to do that, shutting down the internet is most effective.
Its happening in Belarus, as scores took to the streets to protest the continued reign of Europe's last dictator. And this is not the first time Lukashenko has done so.
Its happening in India, as an extraordinary number of farmers in the world's most populous country are taking to the seat of government their dissatisfaction with new, harmful policies.
It's happening in Myanmar, where citizens are rejecting a military coup.
If it wasn't, the autocrats wouldn't shut it off when protests mount.
I like your post/blog. This is a very interesting read. I agree with you that arguments can go both ways
ReplyDeleteIt’s inevitable that for every breakthrough in the world of science, technology, medicine, the means for disseminating information, that was originally intended to heal, to make people’s lives easier, to help the production of food for starving people, to allow people to communicate with each other, eventually becomes a tool in the hands of people wishing to do harm, so it is with social media. Are “social networking platforms” necessary to hold governments accountable and ensure freedom and equality for its citizens? Are they a necessary or a convenient way for people to communicate with each other on a more intimate basis? Assuming this was the intent behind the creation of the various so-called “social networking platforms,” it didn’t take long for those with ulterior motives to create a specialized tool to suit their own purpose. Part of the problem rests with our elected officials in Congress, who rather than take on an unpopular task of controlling social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., they abdicated their responsibility of protecting the public that elected them by instructing the various social media platforms to police their respective platforms. This is like telling the fox to guard the henhouse, it allows each platform to impose their political ideology on anyone using their platform. These people are accountable to no one, they are not elected officials and can allow or restrict information to gain favor with whatever administration is in power at the time, thus the proliferation of the Dark Web, giving anyone with a cause, a platform.
ReplyDeleteSorry, forgot to put my name on last post.
ReplyDeleteHerb Porath - February 11, 2021
It’s inevitable that for every breakthrough in the world of science, technology, medicine, the means for disseminating information, that was originally intended to heal, to make people’s lives easier, to help the production of food for starving people, to allow people to communicate with each other, eventually becomes a tool in the hands of people wishing to do harm, so it is with social media. Are “social networking platforms” necessary to hold governments accountable and ensure freedom and equality for its citizens? Are they a necessary or a convenient way for people to communicate with each other on a more intimate basis? Assuming this was the intent behind the creation of the various so-called “social networking platforms,” it didn’t take long for those with ulterior motives to create a specialized tool to suit their own purpose. Part of the problem rests with our elected officials in Congress, who rather than take on an unpopular task of controlling social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc., they abdicated their responsibility of protecting the public that elected them by instructing the various social media platforms to police their respective platforms. This is like telling the fox to guard the henhouse, it allows each platform to impose their political ideology on anyone using their platform. These people are accountable to no one, they are not elected officials and can allow or restrict information to gain favor with whatever administration is in power at the time, thus the proliferation of the Dark Web, giving anyone with a cause, a platform.
This is definitely a massive issue going on in quite a few countries around the world. In the modern age where media and internet communication is so important, silencing voices online can wind up silencing whole movements.
ReplyDeleteIt is crazy because I haven't even really heard much about this on social media or the news. I know that we are blessed with the "freedom" we have here in the states but wow. I hope all these countries gain their rights and freedom back. Great post.
ReplyDelete