The Age of Paine Revisited

Long ago -- so it feels -- in a galaxy far away, I wrote a story for Wired Magazine called "The Age of Paine" in which I prophesied a utopian outpouring of digital pamphleteering, individualism and democracy, all sparked by the liberating powers of the Net. Like other writers and editors at Wired then, I imagined a new kind of digital citizen, empowered by all the information the Net would bring him by the Net's distributed architecture. The digital citizen would be smart, civil and rational, outgrowing labels like "liberal" or "conservative", engaged in civics, technology, business and government; transcending dogma and cant. Maybe he or she will pop up, but probably not in my life.

I had no doubt that I was seeking the start of a transformative global revolution. The fervor and excitement I felt then are still fresh in my mind, though few of those fantasies have yet materialized and some, as the years pass, are seeming increasingly unlikely in my lifetime. And I'm still not sure I was wrong.

Many of the ideas in that essay were indirectly inspired by the hell-raiser of the American Revolution, a writer I've admired all my life. Thomas Paine, a media pioneer, one of the first people in the world to advance the notion of free information in an open society, of individual liberty flourishing amid the demise of institutions and monarchies. In my piece, I imagined Paine online, flaming and blasting away.

In the overheated Wired environment of the time -- some of the people running the magazine were true political radicals, a rare breed in popular media -- the prevailing idea was that the Net would sweep away hoary institutions like Congress, Big Media and Wall Street, changing more or less everything. Top-down, exclusive, closed and proprietary entities would tremble and collapse at the outpouring of ideas, intellectual property, education, democracy and ideas that the Net would provide. One magazine columnist even gushed that illiteracy among the young would vanish because kids all over the world would be so desperate to get online.

I was Wired's easternmost correspondent, based not in California but New York; as such, I got a first-hand look at just how the Net was traumatizing Eastern media. The spectre of all these weird kids hacking together this exciting new kind of many-to-many information culture really shook people up. The bland, filtered, from the top-down media, Wall Street, Congress -- they were all scared to death. They hated the Net then; they still do. (Though just this week, I noticed the stodgy New York Times op-ed page appending e-mail addresses to its regular columns; a landmark of sorts.) Yet as much as the Net has evolved, it's shocking to see how little traditional politics or the popular press has. Real interactivity, perhaps the most political idea ever in media, barely exists off-line.

In my essay, published in the April, l995 issue of the magazine, I wrote that the pamphleteering Paine, who had no children, did have a descendant

"where his values prosper and are validated millions of times a day: the Internet. There, his ideas about communications, media ethics, the universal connections between people, the free flow of honest opinion are all relevant again, visible every time one modem shakes hands with another. The Net offers what Paine and his revolutionary colleagues hoped for in their own new media - a vast, diverse, passionate, global means of transmitting ideas and opening minds. That was part of the political transformation envisioned when he wrote: 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.' Through media, he believed, 'we see with other eyes; we hear with other ears; and think with other thoughts, than those we formerly used.'"

It isn't clear whether we -- you -- began the world over again. We do -- thanks to the Net -- see with other eyes and hear with other ears, and think new thoughts. Those are still prescient and timely words.

Paine's ideas about a free press, an outpouring of individual opinion and a ferocious sense of social justice seem especially alien to the corporatized, homogenized, blow-dried practioners of "objectivity" who have inherited the American press. The Net suggested a rebirth of Paine's fading values.

Did it deliver? For sure, the pamphleteering model was true. The explosion in weblogs, pages, mailing lists, groups, topics, threads, message boards and p2p systems has introduced nothing less than a new age of individual expression. The personal archives now on the Net are unprecedented in human history, from family bios to discussions of gardening, dogs, politics and sex. Sites like Napster, Deja and EBay -- even Amazon -- have revolutionized business and consumerism. Sexuality has been liberating online, and TV and other forms of entertainment are sure to become subordinate to the Web. Cultural movements like open source have spread far beyond software in terms of their impact on society. The Net has made anyone with a computer a world-wide communicator or entrepreneur, at least potentially. Individuals are freer than ever to talk about sex, engage in heresy, sound off, connect with others, and distribute their thoughts. People with unimaginably diverse interests can now find one another instantly. It's easier to be a gay teenager, a member of a militia, an ex-Marine, a rabbit lover, a scientific researcher. Thanks to computers, there are now a million Paines out there.

But some things have been lost, as well -- influence and commonality. This new individualistic medium is so personal it's become self-absorbed, almost narcissistic. Individuals are speaking out, but it isn't clear who, if anyone, is listening. And it isn't always democratic either. There are few common grounds, town squares or open spaces online. People frequently use blocking and filtering software and programs to stick with the like-minded, not explore the different or experience other points of view. Ideas fly all over the Web, but they often end up on the screens of people who already agree, otherwise they would have long ago unsubscribed. Teenagers and political fanatics have turned the Net's public forums -- on Slashdot, CNN, ABCNews and MSNBC -- into hostile electronic cesspools. To have actual conversations online, you're forced to join clubs where membership and speech boundaries are regulated, even to the point of specialized blocking programs that permit people to gauge levels of hostility or agreement. The digital citizen isn't always very free and open to new ideas. Some of those sites are great, but this doesn't exactly constitute an open and democratic environment, one of the great early dreams of the Net. Joining a rational discussion of a common issue has become virtually impossible on any Net forum that's not restricted by membership or other restrictive tools.

In practical ways, the Net has proved more revolutionary than most of us thought. In l995, few people imagined how ubiquitous e-mail would become, how much of a family communications tool, how natural a medium for teenagers and college students and for grandma and grandpa, how fundamental to research and text, how threatening to copyright and intellectual property traditions. I hardly expected within a few years that a U.S. President would be passing along URLs in a speech before Congress. The explosion in gaming and online entertainment was similarly unforeseen -- most people took the new medium too seriously for that. Almost nobody predicted how specialized online communications would become, how polished online retailing would get, or imagine the marketplace potential of an entity like eBay. We did lots of heavy breathing about the rise of the virtual community -- expectations that have not been met. The hostility bred by the Internet wildly exceeded anyone's expectations, and is nothing less than a tragedy for the idea of the digital citizen.

The Net is, if anything, bigger than people thought it would be now, a part of more people's work and personal lives. Also their creativity -- art and writing flourish online, even when they can't make it off. But its primary impact has been practical, not ideological. Instant messaging has probably had greater import for younger Americans than digital pamphleteering has.

The hacker universe has sobered up as well. Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop? Or that that one of the primary champions of Linux would be IBM? In the post September 11 era, hackers are in for a rough time, and the environment of the Net may change again. In the name of national security, authorities will be more vigilant and visible online, with the authority to throw up roadblocks all over the Net. The consequences of cyber-terrorism would now be staggering, and the spectre of the Twin Towers will give government the upper hand politically in its long brawl with the free spirits online.

Nor did anyone quite expect the speed of the transition from capitalism to corporatism, an era in which global corporations acquire media, commerce and popular culture; control copyright and intellectual property; and become the primary funders and corrupters of the political system.

Despite the flowering of individual voices on the Net, we live in an arguably less democratic culture than we did a decade ago, even before Attorney General Ashcroft's sweeping actions.

So does this add up to grim news? I don't know yet, and may not know in my life. The rise of individualism online seems irreversible. If individuals can't reach mass audiences, they can't easily be shut down, either. It seems inconceivable that our society will ever return to a few-to-many model of information, when masses of people waited for a handful of information gatekeepers to parcel out information. But as for the contemporary armies of Paine's some hoped would emerge from the digital din, make themselves heard, even achieve influence -- I'm still waiting for them.

Comments

Microsoft

[sulli]

Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop?

IIRC MS-DOS and Windows 3.x were the leading OS in 1991. What's changed?

Whoa.

[Gannoc]

It's easier to be a gay teenager, a member of a militia, an ex-Marine, a rabbit lover, a scientific researcher.

Katz is one busy dude!

For Those Who Don't Speak Katz

[PinkStainlessTail]

People frequently use blocking and filtering software and programs to stick with the like-minded, not explore the different or experience other points of view.

Translation: "Goddamnit! Stop choosing to block my articles from your front page view!"

(Something I haven't done obviously. He's just too entertaining.)

Re:For Those Who Don't Speak Katz

[Jason Earl]

What Katz doesn't understand is that for some people don't want to be a part of these "liberated" communities that he is so happy about. What he calls expression, I call pornography. And where he sees discussion, all too often all I see is pointless drivel aimed at the absolute lowest common denominator.

Now, I believe firmly that everyone has the right to think as they choose, but that does not mean that I want to participate in their idiocy with them. Katz sees filtering software as discriminatory, but I see filtering software as necessary for the survival of true open minded discussion. As we have seen on this very forum, without a way to filter out the background noise it is utterly impossible to have a rational conversation.

All mankind is created equal, but all opinions are not equal. Some people, no matter how passionately they hold their beliefs, are wrong.

Onion Headline

[Kengineer]

Sounds like an Onion headline to me:

Jon Katz Quotes Self

- insert witty phrase here

Why would the net make people more active?

[jonnythan]

Whatever you like to think, people in general are still lazy, apathetic, and just plain don't care.

No amount of information overload or internet connectivity will change basic human nature. Simply giving everyone net access (or whatever) won't turn them into caring, conscious, active, wonderful citizens.

Re:Why would the net make people more active?

[Jason Earl]

Even more importantly, most of the people that are now getting onto the Internet don't share the same values as Katz. Instead of being excited about the "sexual revolution" they are trying to find ways to keep their children from being immersed in pornography. And they certainly aren't interested in what gay teenagers are doing online (other than trying to make sure that they aren't trying to solicit sex from their sons).

Many of the caring, conscious, active, citizens that are using the Internet for information disagree with Katz and most everyting he stands for. For example, they see the fact that the U.S. government is a Republic (and not a pure democracy) as an important safeguard to their liberties. They believe that the government should take an active role in supporting morality. They support the First Ammendment, and would give their lives to defend it, but they are saddened that all too often the First Ammendment is used as a cover for pornographers instead of in support of actual political thought.

Katz has made the mistake of thinking that his definition of the perfect society is universal, but it isn't, not by a long shot.

Katz Notes™ (Cliff Notes for a Katz article)

[Unknown Bovine Group]

Thomas Paine was a political revolutionary. Jon Katz worked with some would-be political revolutionaries at Wired. They thought the net would revolutionize the world, destroying all bad things and empowering the common man, who would somehow go from being a greedy bastard to being a righteous do-gooder. This hasn't happened. What's up with that?

(These Katz Notes provided for those others who began earnestly reading the article only to have their eyes glaze over as they continuted to scroll down....)

The Internet changes nothing

[Stiletto]

Before the Internet, most people were dumb, passive consumers. Let me just buy things and watch TV, and let others produces things, let others make decisions, let others tell me what my opinions are.

The Internet hasn't changed this. It's turned into Just Another Medium through which we dummies can be told what to wear, what soft drink is cool, who to vote for, who to fuck, and consume, consume, consume!

Today, like years ago, we are told that the masses are meant to be all-consuming pac-men, and the few are meant to produce, lead, and make decisions.

The Internet is not going to bring about a global outpouring of creativity and information sharing, simply because most people can't be bothered to come up with an original thought, much less published writing or software. How many people post to /. as opposed to how many who read it? I bet I can take a pretty accurate stab at the ratio, and I bet it's about the same with most "open forums" on the net. I bet it's the about same with USENET too.

People are still human

[Reality Master 101]

Why would anyone expect the Net to "change everything"? People have always had the ability to stay informed through the quality newspapers, magazines, etc, but very few take the time to try and understand complex issues.

On the one hand, the Net gives us the ability to ready any Joe Blo's rants about subjects he knows nothing about, which actually reduces how informed the average citizen is because of all the noise.

On the other hand, if you are selective about what you read and believe, you can occasionally find gems of wisdom that give you information that might not have otherwise found. Take Slashdot -- the editor's are HUGELY ignorant and foolish about things (*cough*michael*cough*), and the posters are usually even worse. But where the editors do a good job is in their story selection. That attracts the smart, knowledgeable people that occasionally post these gems.

The question is whether the Net is a net loss or a net gain in educating the public, and I'm just not sure.

[controversial opinion alert] One huge win in my opinion that the Net has been a great influence on bringing the American ideas of freedom to the rest of the world. The greatest evil of the world, next to communism, is Socialism and I would like to see it finally die like it should have died last century as the failed experiment it was. The more socialism, the less freedom. [/alert]

And please spare me the "America WAS the home of freedom" blah DCMA blah blah. That's a great example of the narrow-minded, single-issue ignorance that I'm talking about. If you think any of these minor issues are significant in the big picture of freedom, then you need to expand your views are what freedom is.

Re:People are still human

[Tackhead]

> Face it; most people lack the ability to evaluate the value of information on the Internet.

s/on the Internet//g.

Apart from that, you hit the nail on the head -- non-netizens have spent their entire lives learning not to think about the information with which they're presented.

Netizens, exposed daily to the most fascinating truths, the wildest conspiracy theories, and the most mind-bogglingly-high piles of utter bullshit, have, by virtue of our existence, been forced to learn how to think critically about every piece of information we're offered.

When I see pictures of kids rejoicing at their liberation in Afghanistan, I'm skeptical. I've seen enough reports of Westerners being torn limb from limb by angry mobs that I think maybe the folks on camera are only rejoicing because the camera crew tossed them some food, and that there are a bunch of people who, while glad the Taliban are gone, will be even happier when we leave, too.

When I see the someone whining about the unjustness of collateral damage and how the war must be stopped now, I'm equally skeptical. Because I've known enough soldiers to know that (1) we don't target civilians, and (2) collateral damage and friendly fire casualties are a fact of war. Doesn't matter how high-tech your weapons, sometimes things malfunction, and sometimes the humans who fire them, make mistakes. In combat, shit, as they say, happens. (And besides, during the first days of the war, the only pictures we could get were the ones our enemies wanted us to take. Of course, we're only gonna see the mistakes! Duh!)

Ask Joe Sixpack -- "Of course everyone in Afghanistan loves us! I saw the pictures on CNN! But why are we only bombing Red Cross centers?" -- and you can only despair.

Well, duh

[autopr0n]

on Slashdot, CNN, ABCNew and MSNBC -- into hostile electronic cesspools. To have actual conversations online, you're forced to join clubs where membership and speech boundaries are regulated, even to the point of specialized blocking programs that permit people to gauge levels of hostility or agreement.

What did you expect, for all your utopian dreams, you forgot one thing. Most people are fucking stupid. And a great many of them are annoying as well. "giving everyone a voice" (the phrase) might sound good, but actually giving everyone a voice won't. leveling the playing field for everyone and you end up with a world awash in moronic penis bird posts and SPAM promoting porn sites.

The hacker universe has sobered up as well. Who would have thought, a decade back, that one company, Microsoft, would in fact achieve everyone's paranoid fantasy and conquer the global desktop?

What is this supposed to even mean? The "global desktop"? Lots of people run windows on desktops across the globe, but M$ hasn't got central control over much of anything, just lots of revenue streams. And its not like their market share has gone up much since the DOS days anyway.

Just had to get a swipe in...

[toupsie]

Despite the flowering of individual voices on the Net, we live in an arguably less democratic culture than we did a decade ago, even before Attorney General Ashcroft's sweeping actions.

You just had to get a swipe at the AG in there, eh? All this digital hand wringing about the High Lord of Evil, John Ashcroft, is really stupid. I live about 1/2 mile north of what was the World Trade Center. I lived through military checkpoints and police blockades for 2 weeks to get into my apartment. Outside those that lost loved ones, were injured by the attacks or lost jobs, I have had a lot to put up with to get my life back together the way it was before 9/11. None of the barriers were created by AG John Ashcroft. His actions have actually made me feel more comfortable about my situation.

But then I have to listen to the Chicken Little's of the Civil Liberties gang. The group of "well meaning, good intentioned" Americans that only believe that effective policing can occur when the "Cops" are handcuffed and blindfolded. You got to love their arrogance when they proclaim that non-US citizens are guaranteedprotection of our Constitution even though they never lived in the US. I am sure that would be a shock to those folks living in China that were run over by tanks 12 years ago.

The amazing thing at the end of the day, no matter what Ashcroft w/ Congress has done, I feel no loss in liberty. No evil corporation is holding me down. Jack booted thugs haven't beat down my door or surrounded my place of worship with tanks and set it on fire. I have no fear to speak my mind. And to prove it, I am going to say the most controversial thing I can imagine, "John Katz is an insightful, intelligent, fully informed writer focusing on the issues that matter to citizens of Cyberspace and his witty commentary is a favorite of all Slashdot readers." It might not be true but I have no fear in saying it. Just like Jon Katz, I have the Constitutional Right to be full of sh*t and spout it out to the masses. Don't worry Jon the High Lord of Evil, John Ashcroft, is not going to gag you no matter how bad your writing is.

P.S. Jon if you are talking about the US, I need to remind you that we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy, evil would reign via the power of the ballot box -- majority gets to force the minority to do anything it wants.

Re:Just had to get a swipe in...

[ethereal]

His actions have actually made me feel more comfortable about my situation.

I know they do. And it would likewise make me feel more comfortable if the government would lock up great numbers of people that make me nervous, without any particular evidence, and with restricted or no access to legal counsel. Hell yes, lock up everyone that looks funny to me! But guess what: the Bill of Rights was not written to make either you or I feel more comfortable. It was written to guarantee basic human rights to those who come into contact with the U.S. government. And in at least some cases recently, this has not been the case.

I'm sorry that you're nervous about living in NYC; I'm nervous about similar things in my city. But going overboard in our efforts to feel comfortable is not and will never be the correct solution if we have to destroy the very ideas that constitute this nation in order to reach that comfort. Our support of the principles of this nation need to be strongest in times of trouble - anybody can be a flag-waving freedom fighter when it's the Chinese government that's cracking down, but real patriots will stand up for the Constitution even against misguided members of their own government when they try to use a crisis to advance their own agendas.

In short: the Founding Fathers never promised you a rose garden, and they would be spinning in their graves if they knew what Mr. Ashcroft is trying to do in order to provide you with one.

Who's Manipulating the Dump Katz Poll?

[Nova Express]

Tuesday, December 4, when I looked at the "Dump Katz" poll page at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/11/16/184223 &mode=thread, the "Dump Katz" were winning with something like 2800 votes to 2100 (round numbers because, oddly enough, I didn't feel a need to write down the results). But today, when I looked at the results, more than 1500 anti-Katz votes had mysteriously disappeared. The current numbers are Dump Katz (1178), Keep Katz (2098). I'm not making this up, and notice that I'm not posting as an AC.

Sayeth Katz [everything sic, bad formatting artifacts and all]: "Still, I?ve come to trust interactivity and believe in it. A big difference between this culture and the old one is that ideas have to stand the test. And I?d rather write about other things. So I suggested to the Commander that we move this discussion forward by sticking a poll box next to this column, and make me the topic. Let the geeks speak for themselves...Vote to dump the jerk or keep him."

While it could be a glitch, it's hard to imagine a glitch that just loses the anti-Katz votes. It seems like someone doesn't want to let us "speak for ourselves". As Stalin once said, "those who cast the votes determine nothing. Those who count the votes determine everything."

What happened to more than 1500 anti-Katz votes?

Re:The crossbow and the long gun

[Tackhead]

> Since Ashcroft refuses to match gun purchase records with arrested terrorist suspects [nytimes.com] - claiming that would infringe on gun rights - but wants to closely monitor the Net - it's clear which he and his friends are more scared of.

1) The terrorists we're looking for probably aren't worried about acquiring their guns illegally.

2) The terrorists we're looking for probably are using the publicly-available communications infrastructure, even if they're not using crypto. We also know they're using it for money-laundering, even if they're not using it to discuss their operational plans.

Ergo, if you want to find the terrorists, monitor the communications infrastructure, not gun purchase records. > Thinking that a computer is scarier than a gun is about as rational as prefering a musket to a crossbow. Isn't it?

Who was the mobster who said that he'd teach his son computers rather than bank-robbing, because you can steal a lot more money with a computer than you can with a gun?

I'd say Ashcroft's on the right track. We use guns on the battlefield today, not crossbows, no?

what is politics?

[POLS1OH]

15 years ago I began studying politics intensely with the notion that there were real answers out there to public policy questions. Actually began my quest trying to figure out why my guy lost the election, I must obviously know something that 52% of the population didn't.

Now, as a PhD in political science I realize how true the following statement is: The fundamental nature of politics is the distribution of resources among people according to ones moral and ethical beliefs.

One can change the mechanisms for obtaining information. One can spend large amounts of money on campaigns, one can wire houses for some sort of electronic democracy. But these are only foolish dances around the core issues. Moral and ethical beliefs do not change significantly for an adult. Societal norms only change with new generations and advances in education and income (which allow individuals more liberty to contemplate instead of planting corn).

Technology will have an effect on politics, but only because it creates wealth and perhaps accelerates the underlying growth in access to education.

Sort of interesting to note that media exposure actually tends to result in more ephemerial political attitudes, not really a more serious contemplation.