Slashdot Mirror
The Web Won't Topple Tyranny
An anonymous reader writes "Joshua Kurlantzick of the New Republic online writes that the internet--once heralded as a revolutionary force in politics--has turned out to be surprisingly nonthreatening to dictators and tyrannies. Reminds me of Howard Dean, and the trend to see technological change as a politically progressive force. Maybe this is not such a good idea?"
After all, the people don't control it. Revolution isn't profitable to those who do control it.
There's quite a difference between a person who puts up a blog and a person who, for example, leads an armed insurrection against a bastard dictator. I submit that the ability to type and the ability to forcefully overthrow a government have little in common...
I don't get this guy.. He's pointing out that he visited an internet cafe in Laos, and despite its existence, their oppressive regime still stands!
How strange. Or?
Most people in Laos can't afford to go to an internet cafe and read the censored news - or possibly gain access to the uncensored ones. How could it possibly make a difference?
The internet is a medium, not a means. You need to have an organized opposition to effect change. You need support. You need a lot of things other than just the means of communication.
Instead, he should be looking at the places were these kinds of things are in place. Such as Iran. And you will also see the use of the internet. And these places are progressing*.
(*Although I'll be the first to admit to the recent setbacks in Iran. But on the other hand, the Ayatollahs wouldn't be acting if they weren't threated, would they?)
I am of two minds on that, if people are really looking for facts and views they can find them quicker. The rise of Fox News and talk radio shows that there is another group that is just looking for a filter that reinforces their viewpoint without any disturbing debate entering without being spun.
I think most people are like me. We know that the pol are lying, if it isn't about not having sex it is about overthrowing another country's government. Go ahead and play your games just leave us out of it. The pol like it like that and most Americans like it like that. Democracy is fairly dead when only 45% of the registered voters vote and only 50% of the people register to vote.
Let the political class and those who like politics play their game. All I ask is that you don't screw up the economy for the rest of us so we can enjoy our family and community. The pols just don't seem to get that little fact.
"Another shortcoming of the Internet is that it lends itself to individual rather than communal activities. It "is about people sitting in front of a terminal, barely interacting," says one Laotian researcher. The Web is less well-suited to fostering political discussion and debate because, unlike radio or even television, it does not generally bring people together in one house or one room."
That's a big Whisky Tango Foxtrot. A huge one.
Where has this guy been? The reason why the internet is so useful is EXACTLY that reason. It doesn't need people in one house, or one room. People can be comparing ideas and improving them from across the street, across the state or across the world.
The world is run by ideas, and only by improving and refining those ideas can any progress be made.
It's open source politics, that's really what it is. And to think that it's not changing things, well..you might as well think that linux isn't changing things.
Check out Eschatron or Daily Kos to get some of the best examples of this principle at work.
Here Here... When will people figure out that the west is not the only way to live.. Bobdamn Ethnocentrists. You put it well.
Techno-utopianism predates the Internet; it goes back to the Macintosh:
"HyperCard is uniquely suited for activist causes. It goes without saying that its great ease of use and flexibility favors the underdog. Activist groups have often relied on people power and maneuverability to counteract the brute economic and political force of various Powers-That-Be; HyperCard can enhance both of these advantages."
-- "Signal: Communication Tools for the Information Age (A Whole Earth Catalog)," Kevin Kelly, ed. Foreward by Stewart Brand. Point Foundation, 1988, p. 164.
Today the same religious zeal can be found among Google cultists.
The internet also provides an outlet through which the average somewhat Internet-savvy person can do their own pissing and moaning about the state of things.
Those who live under tyrannical governments do not be an outlet through which they can express their opinion without their being repercussions, therefore the internet as a political tool is largely irrelevant in said countries.
But the internet has been a tremendous tool in turning the tides against political apathy. That, or those who were already politically aware and active are just using a new tool to get their views out. Regardless, it can only be viewed as a good thing in terms of it leading to more political awareness.
Well, there are several issues to be considered here before Mr. Kurlantzick gets ahead of himself.
The internet is a relatively new phenomenon. In many areas of the world--especially Laos--it has not undergone mainstream proliferation. Many Laotians do not have access to the internet, and contrary to this article's claims, many of them are still illiterate. Those who can read can only read the Lao language. Until the Internet has mainstream acceptance among the mainstream of Laotians, there will be little revolutionary activity. This will take time, of course, because revolutions aren't born overnight. As says the historian Howard Zinn, "so far, human history has consisted only of short runs."
This, of course, assumes that people want to revolutionize. Erich Fromm's _Fear of Freedom_ suggests that "individuals, and therefore societies, have an innate tendency to revert to systems of political and cultural restraint rather than to take advantage of opportunities for freedom or emancipation--and that they may actually seek out governments to control them rather than face the prospect of individual freedom." That Laotians do not revolutionize is not an inherent limitation of the internet but rather an inherent aspect of human nature.
It's nice to see some people pointing the finger at others besides just he US government.
To say the French government all but carried out the Rwandan massacre is over-stating it. Boutros Boutros-Ghali knew (got Egypt to start selling them weapons before being SG), the US knew, the Belgians knew, the Vatican knew and the World Bank knew. The French were bastards as usual (this coming from a French citizen), but you can't lay all the blame on them.
In most cases, the French, Russians, UK and US have common foreign policy objectives. Burma and Iran could be democratic if any one of them would be so kind as to stop their support for nasty regimes.
And that brings up a fundamental point the reporter seems to have missed: if we in the west can use the internet (not just the web- he apparently can't tell the difference) to pressure our governments to stop supporting dictatorships, and companies to stop doing business with them... we might actually see a bit more democracy.
This is happenning slowly, and as pressure increases on dictatorships, we might see another wave of democratization.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
In the early days of radio some people actually believed that putting radios in police cars would end crime and that radio was a force for world peace. When television was new it was assumed that it would be educational and raise the level of literacy.
I don't see much difference between these earlier beliefs and current superstitious ramblings on by baby boomer journalists about the power of the internet.
The internet eventually will make a difference in politics because it's how people communicate. It just won't be as magical or quick as some of these writers assume
True. Non-violent action usually does.
Remember the fall of the Berlin wall? Around that time a third of humanity rid themselves of dictators mainly through non-violent action.
Now, non-violence does not always work (Tien an men square...), nor does it always work fast (South Africa, India, Burma, Tibet...) but then neither does violence. With Afghanistan slowly going back to the Taliban, that lesson should be clear.
Also keep in mind that the people that you train to use violence can then use it against you- another lesson that should have come out of Afghanistan.
I'd rather trust in organized, informed non-violent groups than in gun-toting ideologues. I'll choose the internet over guns any day.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
While studying CS in school, our graphics teacher said the holy grail of computer graphics was to produce an image that was indistinguishable from a real photo. I asked him if he considered the social implications of such technology...he said "no"...that chilled me then, and still does.
you think it's easy, but you're wrong...
No, we insulted the Iraqi people by destroying their country for them, rather than backing them in a revolution toppling them. So we've set up a tremendous victory for those "crazy" Shia mullahs (and their crafty Ayatollah Sistani), whose sharia constitution was stopped only by interim dictator L. Paul Bremer's veto. The French could have screwed the cause of American liberty in the 1770s by fighting the British on our behalf, and we'd all be speaking French now. That "end justifies the means" ignores the living artifacts of the means that bite us in the end. Now we've got an Iraq which wants the US multinational carpetbagger corporations out of their oilfields, a Mideast which wants the US invaders out of any "peace process", an old world which wants the US out of any WMD control program, a globe which wants the US out of any human rights or military engagement regime, an American people which can't trust Presidents about terrorism and war linkage, an American military which can't trust Presidents or the Pentagon about terror/war linkage. Sounds like a debacle to me. We can't undo that - we have to clean up the mess. But we can't pretend that Iraq wasn't an unprecedented mistake. Otherwise, we'll just do it again - and the damage is cumulative.
--
make install -not war
Yes, that's what the pen is for. Instigation. By itself it does nothing. Sam Adams was able to pass out broadbills inciting the people to oppose the government, but on the back of some of those broadbills was an unobtrusive little bit of paper that said what amounted to, "Please start stockpiling guns and powder. Eat this after you've read it." The real history of the American Revolution is about how they went about such stockpiling. The Battle of Bunker Hill was only "lost" because they hadn't managed to stockpile enough powder.
But you have to remember that the government has just as much access to whatever comminications technology exists. In a represive regime considerably more access. That even applies to the internet. The invention of telegraphy, telephony and radio allowed "the people" more ready access to communicating with other over broad geographic areas to form networks that otherwise would not have been possible, but it also allowed the government to better orginize itself. Soldiers and policeman have radios and know how to use them. The history of communications isn't the history of freedom, it's the history of dictatorship.
What's more, all of these technologies allow the government greater ability to monitor and attack dissident groups. You can eat the paper. A whisper in a back alley doesn't even require that. Telephones can be taped. Radio can be freely intercepted. The internet can be monitored and traced.
As an example from current events, people traded music freely before the internet, without fear and without reprisal. The internet didn't bring the free trade of music, it brought the most virulent repression of trading we've ever seen, right up to the law being modified to support that repression. In the country that traditionally stands as the model for freedom.
The internet, in its way, actually incites and enables repression.
If you wish to trade music freely you can still just do it the old fashioned way. It works. It's easy. It's invisible.
The same goes for inciting revolution. It happens with whispers in back alleys, not using a technolgical medium. I've experienced this first hand as an American traveling behind the Iron Curtain. The black market took place right out in the open to Americans, invisible to the KGB.
"Pssssssssttt, Hey. American. What do you want for those Levis you're wearing? You want to change some money? I'll give you 10% better than the government bank."
And when it's time for the shooting to start the whisper is, "Hey, start stockpiling guns and powder."
You'd have to be an idiot to do that over the internet. The black Ford Falcons would be there in a jiffy.
KFG