Slashdot Mirror
Open Networks, Closed Regimes
kris writes "First Monday has an interesting article on Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule, presenting evidence that The Internet may not be automatic downfall of authoritan regimes as anecdotes commonly suggest.
In their words: The authors trace Internet use in eight authoritarian and semi-authoritarian countries: China, Cuba, Singapore, Vietnam, Burma, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. They discover that authoritarian governments, far from fearing the information age, have chosen to direct Internet development in ways that bolster the state. At the same time, many regimes are struggling to cope with the potent challenges posed by new technologies. The authors encourage policy makers in the U.S. and other industrialized democracies to promote specific Internet-based initiatives that foster political liberalization, rather than perpetuating the myth of the Internet as an unstoppable "virus of freedom.""
they forgot the US
Fleur de Sel
the vast majority of the users, authors, etc would like the internet to be an embodiement of freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to post whatever you want, etc. While the internet was still becoming popular, before TV commercials posted website URL's in their ad's, corporate America (or the culture that embodies it) didn't have such a vicious stake in the ground. Yes, it allowed things like Napster, for a short while.
As technology is challenging old business models (the way mp3's have suposedly challenged traditional casette and CD purchasing), it is creating an increasing number of conflicts between the information eutopia and the ruling bodies (i.e. countries) it spans.
Does anyone have an idea on what the future will look like for the internet?
--------
Free your mind.
...the ultimate mechanism to bolster repressive regimes, soon to appear at a store near you.
So many of the comments here say that Internet leading to freedom is a myth because it hasn't worked yet. The problem is that there is no way it can work quickly. Does anyone really think that just giving someone the Internet is going to make the population of some country slap themselves on the collective forehead, and say "How dumb were we?" At best, it will take years before even relatively free desemination of information will undermine a totalitarian regime. The flow information must cause ideas to germinate, discussion to start, groups to form, and a movement to start. Just look at the Vietnam war protests. They didn't happen overnight. It took 10 years for them to develop into their full-blown power. Or even the American Revolution, that didn't happen overnight in 1776. There were years, arguably decades, of events leading up to it.
IMO, it is neither correct to say the US isn't or is authoritarian. Incidents occur, it's just a matter of scale and what the trends are. for example, here is an (randomly selected google reference) infamous example of obvious presidential abuse of power, ie "authoritarianism"
h tm l
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.
Granted, relatively minor-but not for the victims. Reality and POV change once it ceases being a theory or opinion and becomes a fact that affects someone. I am sure there are any number of millions of similar examples, the vast majority of which are relatively unknown to anyone except the victims and their immediate friends and family. Hmm, the recent story about the lost wallet and the overreaction by armed police and a family dog is an example of "authoritarianism" carried to a harmful degree. Another, ask any relative of a kent state student shot and killed or wounded, their opinion will be different perhaps. It's scale and relativity to any "incident" that would make or break an "absolute" statement.
I would say that it is more correct to say that the US right now isn't "as bad" as those other named countries, not that "they are" and "we aren't", and that "status" can change on a political whim. Right now, codified into law and challenged and upheld in a "court", all of your US alleged "born with" civil rights may be abbrogated if the executive branch classifies you as an "enemy combatant" or as a "terrorist", with no other anything required but their say-so. A "terrorist" by codified definition (one definition) is anyone who destroys governmental property or a contract. That's a rather broad brush, but it's "de law" now. And once identified as such-again, just because "they say so"-you are rather en-screwed. It used to take either a grand jury indictment to do that, with some still remaining "rights", or being caught in the immediate commission of a crime by a sworn officer. This is no longer the case. That's a pretty good example of the "trends" lately into authoritariansim. There's another one I recall, there's a doctor associated with the investigations into the waco case, he's been held without charge for over 5 years now (IIRC), and been under forced drugging. The story is, he was developing and was about to release some rather embarassing evidence. So he (Charles Thomas Sell, D.D.S, just googled for his name) got snatched up a la the gulag with their historical "psychiatric" abuses for "dissidents". The US "court" has ruled this is perfectly "lawful".
hmmmmm
I guess it just depends on where you are standing at any given point in time, and who you are, and what's going on, what "authoritarianism" really is, and whether or not some "state" can be classified as such.
I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Singapore, and anyone who mentions them both in one breath is insane. Saudi Arabia is a society where religious police patrol the streets looking for and beating people who don't go to prayers, who keep their stores open or use pay phones during the 5 daily prayer periods, or who are women and show their ankles or noses. It's a country where government agents hang around in the mosques listening for rabblerousers, who are summarily dragged off for interrogation.
Singapore, on the other hand, is basically what you get if you combine the social conservatism and corporate-centricity of the USA with the ridiculous libel laws of the UK. It's far closer to the USA than it is to Saudi Arabia.
And the big difference is, in Singapore, people want it that way. They have one of the world's highest income levels, they have safety, they have long life and good health, and they have enough freedom not to feel stifled. One of the greatest achievements is that there's basically no sectarian trouble despite significant Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu populations all sharing a small and dense space. Any number of polls has turned up time and time again that the vast majority wouldn't change a thing.
Singapore is effectively a one-party state. In part that's because only a minority have wanted change. It's also because the PAP is aggressive in its use of libel action to silence non-member candidates who make too much noise.
Personally, coming from a tradition where freedom of expression is a cherished core social value, I find that uncomfortable. But it doesn't change the fact that it works for Singapore. And it's not the sort of country where people would feel like they couldn't complain to me because they'd get taken away by the secret police.
Anyway, by conflating these - though the material online was too thin to really be able to get to the bottom of their evidence - they seem to elide over the likely fact that the internet's open expression is a far greater threat to a regime like Saudi Arabia, which is unpopular anyway - than to one like Singapore's. Without relatively complacent countries like Singapore and UAE to soften the mix, I doubt their thesis would stand. Additionally, the inclusion of countries like Burma and to some extent Vietnam, where internet is a non-factor in general society, clouds their point further.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
And again in terms of small countries which have embarrassed the US - Vietnam is another example. It's almost beyond belief that a US-funded study would call Vietnam's government authoritarian. What would they call the puppet government they tried to prop up from the 1950's on, where memoes and even Eisenhower's memoirs say the US leaders didn't want an election in Vietnam because they knew the anti-colonialist/imperialist candidates would win? And before that the Western leaders (US, France, England etc.) were trying to keep it a French colony.
I'm tired of having the faults of only the countries who US leadership feels is not to their liking at the moment pointed out. I am an American, but I often think leaders who are criticized in the corporate press (Chavez, Lula) are better people than the ones glossed over. I find more common cause with the working class people like me in these countries than I do with the owners of the press and elite of my own country frankly. As the Bible says, check out the log in your own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else's.
Yes, I agree that the US government is too strict about plenty of things. However, getting authoritarian and totalitarian governments confused (or worse yet, assuming they are the same) is a mistake. The US, no matter how much you dislike their policy, is not Sudan or Saudi Arabia. We don't have legal state-sponsored slavery, we don't have state-sponsored gang-raping a woman as punishment for her brother's misdeeds, we don't have the death penalty for adultery, etc. While the US does indeed have plenty of flaws, I challenge you to find 5 states that lack similar legislation.
I'm not saying we should settle for American government. I'm saying that going off and saying that America is equivalent to Sudan is just plain ignorant and seems to follow this "might-makes-wrong" doctrine that is currently screwing over the world. Military, political, and economic power does not have anything to do with a nation's power. I'm sick of seeing constant criticism of the US (and Israel, and the UK, and a few other nations) becaue they aren't ashamed that they have a powerful military whereas ethical transgressions of poorer countries are excused or even supported (consider the Sudanese slave trade) because they're poor and weak. Last time I checked, power/wealth and ethics are entirely unrelated.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?