Slashdot Mirror
The Net — Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?
Alex writes "On April 6, 10,000 protesters organized in Moldova against the nation's Communist leadership by utilizing new media like Twitter and Facebook, demonstrating the ever-increasing potential of the Internet as a democratic and liberating tool. But in the current Boston Review, Evgeny Morozov critiques the view that the internet will inevitably democratize autocratic regimes like China, Russia and Iran. He argues that the Net's democratic effects are not inherent, and that autocratic regimes have been successful in controlling electronic media to disseminate their ideology. Will the net ultimately spread American democracy, or just American entertainment?"
Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.
Is Russia really considered autocratic? I don't know what the state of the democracy is there, but really, autocratic?
Any Russian people here who could comment on that?
In Moldova, the web (Twitter, etc.) was outside the government's control, hence the citizens control the net. In China, Russia and Iran the net is well inside the government's control. Hence the net (and the government behind it) controls the citizens.
This is why the copyright debate is so important. Who gives a s**t about Mickey Mouse and who watches of doesn't watch him? The real game is who controls what gets seen, heard and written over the Internet. Copyright is just the government's cover and the RIAA-government relationship is a convenient symbiosis.
I can't believe it.
You had and have Actors as heads of state, only two parties one can vote for, tolerate torture, infiltrate other countries ...
WTF is democratic about that. Please go away and do not spread ANYTHING in the world, thank you.
The net has the potential to be a near indestructible tool for democracy and free exchange of information if, and only if, full anonymity were possible.
And that is why this aspect of the net is seen as the ultimate danger to authoritarians, and so no effort is to be spared to destroy any attempts at fully anonymous net. And so enter the "save the children" crusaders and witch-hunters, who somehow, strangely, rather then focus on abused children seem to focus on thought crimes which, also incidentally, require wholesale removal of anonymity from the net to "stop" ...
Combine this with efforts at whipping up frothing-at-the-snout frenzy and moral panic amongst the general population and the author of the article is right: the net will slowly but surely become the tool of power holders.
Of course there are all sorts of other excuses (like libel etc) why the net has to become non-anonymous, all of them bogus in light of what is being lost versus what is being gained. But then again that is the point, as the "cost" to the ruling elites everywhere is frightening.
Sure, we want them to be democratic, but we don't want the American system, because your system is shit.
You need a system where minor parties have a greater say. The Australian method is much, much better in this regard.
Perhaps they will import Australian democracy - after all, even America copied our practice of voting by secret ballot.
I am anarch of all I survey.
America must get over the ideology of spreading American democracy around the world. While it's wonderful as a system, imposing it on other nations is often counterproductive, and nary worth the American blood and treasure used to achieve it.
Rigged voting machines, lying government, involved in wars all over the globe under false pretense, constant and flagrant erosion of our rights yada yada yada thank god for america.
I thought it was a Corporatocracy, based on the ample evidence that just about everyone in Washington is bought by one corporation or the other with campaign donations and backroom deals.
I know Americans get to vote every now and then, but a substantial portion of the results are suitably processed by unverifiable digital "voting systems" to ensure that the people won't accidentally vote wrong. Not that it matters much as both US parties are essentially the same.
The Internet is nothing more than a worldwide infastructure that is capable of linking any 2 devices that can communicate over IP.
If someone wants to deliver media, simply setup a device that can serve it over IP. If someone wants to organize a group of people for some purpose, setup a device that uses IP to let people do that.
America has just spent the last 5 years torturing people and invading a country against international law with American soldiers massacring its population with impunity. It's a terrible role model for democracy.
Is American the best kind of Democracy we can come up with? I'd at least hope for one where lobbying isn't a full time job, where how much money you doesn't matter when running for office, and where every vote counts. Not one where 51% is just as good as 100% (state level).
We are all God's parents.
This is just to hype twitter.
The problem is the security forces are all over twitter, facebook.
Read up on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
They where using 'online' to co ordinate national strikes back in the 1980's.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Ha! You mean the one we can witness in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment?
The Bush administration's rendition (torture) policy, and Obama's approval and continuation of it? The unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens? Attack wars on sovereign nations for oil and political dominance? The notion of the executive branch being untouchable by any law?
Wow, I cerainly hope the net is not about spreading that ideology.
Why is it that the US is a major target of Amnesty International again? What about your warrentless wire-tapping? Exceedingly low voter turn out. Etc, etc, etc.
Seriously, if you want to spread democracy, then the first step would be to actually have one.
Do you think democracy has ever been applied? If the Web was left uncontrolled do you think that it would grow democratically or maybe crowds always glue into tribes who delegate to a leader? Can that be called democracy? Are examples like Wikipedia or even Slashdot good products of democracy?
The Printing Press - Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?
How about disruptive technology and useful tool? How it is used depends on the people, not the technology.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
FTA "autocratic regimes like China, Russia and Iran"
they forgot to add Nazi 2.0, Germany, Norway, etc, or any other country that is currently filtering any kind of content available on the net.
the internet used to be a free enterprise, if we dont start standing up NOW that little bit of free enterprise as we still know it (or what is left of it) will be gone with the blink of an eye.
It's obvious to intelligent people familiar with technology that tech advancements can generally-- perhaps always-- be used in pro-overdog/state (surveillance, intimidation, security, mass-murder) and pro-underdog/individual (whistleblowing, crypto, terrorism) ways. Note that even this dichotomy is not morally obvious-- techniques from both sides of the state/individual axis can be what used for good or ill. Some of the people I would trust most came from the military and are either still there, or work for weapons contractors. The more I learn, the more I doubt.
The question is, how universal and balanced is this fairly obvious trend? Lately, the state (I'm speaking in general, world-wide) seems to have more and more of an advantage. But it's quite possible that this is a short-term trend, that the authoritarian types will grab too much and lose their balance, tipping themselves over; this seems to be the case with monopoly businesses which crush their innovative competitors (think banks, telcos; even Microsoft would be probably be a footnote if it had succeeded in its impulse to smother the Internet in its crib). With greed-based personalities, it's not enough to win, everybody else must lose. But the biggest winners, in the long run, are on top of a pile of winners.
Okay, specifics: until a couple days ago, I have been an enthusiastic of peer to peer semantic web markup technologies. I daresay it's the next major leap beyond Google, the only thing I can see which could unseat Google from its throne. But the way things are going now-- Obama mostly kowtowing to Bush's interests (albeit perhaps more competently), most of the Western states heading in the same direction, NO state (outside of Scandinavia, a bit) resisting this tide much-- gives me pause. How much more control would states and business have if they could easily know/search/prove the *intent* behind every search? Hand in hand with semantic search would come a way of indicating your profile-- your identity, affinities, trusted sources, and preferences. It was one of my fondest dreams, but in today's context, it's too horrible to contemplate.
There aren't too many individuals, and probably no organizations, that I'd trust with that kind of power. In fact, I think that's the beauty of the U.S. Constitution-- flawed as it may be, as weird as I find it to trust almost religiously a document composed by wealthy white men who had never seen a light bulb-- most of it is written to *limit* the power of any entity. It was progressive for its time; it's impossibly radical for ours. A triumph of reason and compromise by the Schneiers, Stallmans, Pauls, and Torvalds of that age. In other words, by people willing, in principle, to be governed by the same standards as they ask of their neighbors.
I fear it will never happen again. Certainly not without a populace equipped with the tools of logic, statistics, empathy, courage, and doubt. Therefore-- I don't know. Do what you can, where you can. Anybody with more specific ideas, I'm listening.
Moldova is democratic. The Communist party won the popular vote. That's how democracy works. Don't like it? organise protests, that's how democracy works. The summary is pure flamebait.
As a Chinese, I would say the Internet does have influence in China, and it's becoming more and more important for Chinese people. We have cases that some corruptions are exposed first over the Internet.
However, now the government is trying its best to control everything online, because it's currently an obvious threat to them. They've setup Internet filtering mechanisms, known as Great Fire Wall, to filter all the traffic in and out China. Also, they have a strict rule for web-sites in China, and they've already shut down many web-sites, especially blog providers, like Bullog.
I have always maintained that an essentially two-party system is NOT a democracy. You can see the results in the US, in England, in France to a degree... Political systems like the one in Belgium are more like a democracy, where there are a whole lot of independent parties and new ones can spring up at any time. (a party that is now like two years old already has about 15% of the votes here).
The flipside of course is that it takes longer to get things done, but then again, that is the price you pay for democracy. Either you go with a dictator who can solely decide everything, meaning it takes but a snap decision to change policies, or you go to the other end of the spectrum, a true democracy, where every possible opinion has to be weighed in and a satisfactory conclusion has to be reached. America leans much more towards the dictator regime then the democratic one, whilst most of Europe's political systems lean towards the democratic side.
If you want true democracy, then everyone must have equal access and opportunity. The views of each individual must be considered with equal vigour and there must be a mechanism for getting true numbers for those who hold views - thereby negating the possibility of one person having a hundred online personas.
What the internet gives us at present is a fair approximation of mob-rule. A tiny minority of a population make a suggestion that suits them and everyone else who stumbles across their view says "yeah, right" or "no way" or has opposing views crushed and deleted. If these views are picked up by the media (or even, started by them) they are given a weight far beyond what's due from the actual number of different voices heard. Any web 2.0 site where people vote (or moderate up/down) on the views of others, would be an extremely bad way to run a country. Would you really like to live in the People's Democratic Republic of Slashdot? I wouldn't.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Here's an excerpt from that article. It's an interesting read, though a little tinfoilish. (lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026241.html#more)
So what is fueling this revolution? A brief glance at the website of one of the Moldovan NGOs leading the effort to overthrow the elected Moldovan government, that of the "Hyde Park Organization," reveals an interesting benefactor: at the bottom of the page, next to a seal of the United States, one can read that "This website is hosted free of charge through the Internet Access Training Program (IATP). IATP is a program of the Bureau of Educational & Cultural Affairs (ECA), US Department of State, funded under the Freedom Support Act (FSA)."
Digging a bit further, one can see on the website of the US Agency for International Development that the United States government, through cut-out organizations like the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, is funneling large sums of money to Moldova for programs with such fascinating titles as "Strengthening Democratic Political Activism in Moldova (SPA)." USAID boasts that this program is "cultivating new political activists who can formulate and pursue concrete political objectives..." No doubt.
Another program, titled the "Internet Access and Training Program" may hold a clue as to where all these Twitterers came from. According to the US government, this program "provides local communities with free access to the Internet and to extensive training in all aspects of information technology." Does the training come with iPhones?
The media, with story-line already inked out, mock the Moldovan president's claims that the protests were "well designed, well thought out, coordinated, planned and paid for," but isn't that what the USAID website has already claimed? After all, to what end does the US train and fund NGOs in projects such as the "Moldova Citizen Participation Program," whose goal is to "build... the capacity of citizens to create tangible and positive change in their own communities through civic activity and democratic practices...by providing training, mentoring, and funding for citizen-initiated projects and strengthening the capacity of NGOs and citizen groups to mobilize their community, advocate for change, and hold government accountable"? In the previous color revolutions we have seen the perversion of "democracy" to mean getting enough people getting to the street to overthrow an elected government.
Will the net ultimately spread American democracy, or just American entertainment?
What is this thing you are speaking of?
I always thought they were the same.
A theater to distract from what's really going on.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
What exactly is "autocratic" about American entertainment? Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Wheel of Fortune, Crossfire, whatever? I don't think so.
Military intelligence .. and today:
Religious tolerance
Business Ethics
American democracy
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
A one party system, right-wing capatalists, with the party machine (wall-street) fronting two men to choose from? A russian journalist commented on a past US election that it was almost like back in the days of the soviet empire and their "free" elections. Pick any guy, just as long as we support him.
US democracy where the number of voting irregularities would have any other election in the world condemend as invalid by the "free" world?
The US is far from the worsed exampel of democracy but holding it up as an example for the world to follow shows that slashdot editors REALLY need to start reading their own stories a bit more.
As for the internet helping democracy. Mmmm, we got plenty of democracies around the world, most far older then the internet. Exactly how many democracies have come about SINCE the internet? I think that is pretty much your answer right there.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"Will the net ultimately spread American democracy, or just American entertainment?"
Let's hope neither.
J.K.
When the establishment in first world democracies attack third world democracies to protect their own "interests" they also attack their own citizens democratic interests. Now our economic influence is waning we find our own democratic constructs under attack by our own legislators intent on comforting us and making us feel secure.
Democracy is never safe, or pretty. It was paid for in blood. The internet is just like another democratic nation that also needs our protection lest it be used as a tool to suppress us all.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
1. Moldova isn't communist, it's parliament republic and has elected president
2. Oragnizing a mob against current (and new) elected president will quickly land you in jail in most western democracies and rightfully so
3. US of A isn't a democracy for a while, all it spreads around the world now is a greed for oil and messing with other countries
4. Concerning Iran, Russia, China: if someone doesn't leak USA ass doesn't mean you have to go and "liberate" them. It's another country - leave them the fuck alone already. Don't want to have relations with them? Fine. Don't.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
The story subject is a question. It evaluates "false" or is answered "yes" because it is a Democratic Panacea and an Autocratic Tool. Education is the antidote to bad government, and it is the greatest educational tool that has ever been. But the governments can also use it to keep tabs on us, so it's potentially harmful at the same time. Don't even need to RTFA to know that :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
i keep being told that USA is run as a republic, not a democracy...
color me confused...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
It is a "Federal Constitutional Republic".
BIIIIG difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch but in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system.
Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes.
The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
i fear that its not just entertainment that gets exported, but also cultural elements.
just like USA is a mix of cultures that over time blend into each other, so it seems that more and more US centric culture is blending into other cultures around the world thanks to entertainment exports.
for instance, turkey, a very US bird, is starting to show up on european tables as a christmas/new years dinner. hell, im just waiting for thanksgiving being celebrated by people that has never had any relation to USA, thanks to it showing up in US produced entertainment all the time.
and halloween. a mix of european and aztec traditions thats become a world phenomena to rival christmas...
hell, i have heard about people wondering about heir "miranda rights" when cops show up. nope, they where not americans living abroad...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
please keep your kind of democracy to yourselves.
We think that at its heart it's a great idea but we'd rather prefer a sensible implementation.
Thanks,
The World
A gun is also an indestructible tool for democracy... or an indestructible tool for totalitarianism. The American founding fathers used them to (try to) create democracy, but the British of the time also used them to try to prevent it. Tools are, by definition, agnostic to the human "causes" to which they are applied.
Democracy doesn't require the sort of anonymity you're promoting. No one else in human history has ever enjoyed or needed it for the sake of democracy. The founding fathers didn't need it. The American Constitution, contrary to popular misunderstanding, does not enshrine it; it is not a basic "right".
Actually, what is enshrined in our democratic system is quite the reverse: the right to be able to confront one's accuser. That is one of the fundamental tenets of our jurisdprudent system.
You can't have it both ways, but you and other misguided people will no doubt keep trying, for selfish reasons.
The U.S. doesn't have a democracy, it has a republic, and an ill functioning one at that because the leaders refuse to follow even the most simple laws.
So, does this autocratic tool run off of mains power or will I need to buy batteries for it? Will it become available at my local Home Depot or Lowe's soon?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Or you could try to understand that Slashdot is a US-centric website and tends to tell it from an American perspective.
Everything on the web doesn't need to be done from a perspective that you find acceptable.
America is a republic. Often attributed to Ben Franklin, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
The problem we have in America is too many people trying to turn our republic into a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. A republic places restriction on its government so that the majority cannot simply vote away the rights of a minority. Without those restrictions on government we don't have liberty.
It saddens me when I see people demand a democracy. I don't want democracy, I want liberty.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Threat or Menace?
What is this obsession so many of my countrymen have with spreading our model of democracy to every country in the world? There are so many different possible versions, some dramatically different from one another. Even our own democracy has changed significantly over since 1787. The current model we use, one person one vote without regard for their contribution, is fraught with obvious dangers (once the number of people feeding off the system exceeds the contributors, the system could spiral down into economic collapse). Yet, while we're walking through this marsh trying to find a way ourselves, we keep convincing others that our path is the only righteous one. It's almost as if to some this wasn't just another political system but a religion.
That, of course, assuming that democracy is even the correct path for everyone to take. Considering that it is contrary to basic laws of nature (domination over others assures better propagation of our own DNA), I wouldn't even be so sure of it. I think we should display a little more intellectual honesty and admit we're in early testing stages. Nobel prize is still far beyond the horizon.
End anonymous moderation and posting on
The net's going to spread whatever people use it to spread.
The net is a good way to stay informed.
Unfortunately, it's an even better way to stay misinformed.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
"false dichotomy" sound familiar to anyone?
Just because they chose to publish anonymously doesn't mean that it was necessary to the process, and the influence of the papers might have actually been greater had the authors been known at the time. They were eventually revealed, voluntarily by Hamilton IIRC.
Democracy doesn't require the sort of anonymity you're promoting.
Yes, it does. It is called secret ballot. Without secret ballot government would know who to target. Citizens in democracies vote freely because they do not have the fear of persecution for their vote. And fear of persecution is as effective as persecution itself. For totalitarian states it only takes a few locked up activists/leaders in order to destroy entire popular movements.
You are reaching for straws.
Regardless of whatever arbitrary definition of "need" you wish to employ, the fact is the founding fathers most definitely used anonymity and furthermore our supreme court has long recognized that anonymous speech is an integral part of the right of free speech.
Furthermore, you make the rather silly error of conflating the right to face your accuser when you are put on trial with a right to know who is merely calling you names. Absent being formally charged with a crime and facing legal conviction, there is nothing in the constitution to suggest your interpretation has any merit.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
As someone already pointed out to you, the simplest and most effective way to destroy democracy is to remove an ability of the voters to vote anonymously. Thus anonymity is essential and fundamental to democracy.
Wholly untrue. The anonymizing technology which the past generations have used is called "the printing press". One would simply produce thousands if leaflets and nail them to lamp posts in the middle of the night, or cast them from tall buildings onto market-squares and what-not. You should note a very profound relationship here: the very first inclusive (as not comprised exclusively of land owners) democratic government did not become feasible until affordable printing presses appeared. That is because they allowed, for the first time, an effective anonymity coupled with wide reach of the anonymous political messages.
Well, the need of the governed to have their government being accountable to them, and not just a tyranny, was always seen by some, like the "nobility", various other would-be usurers, and apparently you, as "selfish". If only the "selfish" peons would realize their place and act like the inferiors they are then their "egalitarian betters" would not have to "teach them lessons" about how the world works .... no?
As I have watched the U.S. and Internet develop, I have seen the truth of something I've long known. "If it exists, it will be abused." The only thing that is different between the U.S. and other nations is the Constitution. It's a document that give the few, (government), rights granted by the many, (The People). This doesn't stop the aggressive from trying to conquer the world! I think this is actually what we are seeing. A war between the "leaders" or wanna-be leaders. In the end, it will collapse under the effort to "control". JMHO.
Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted!
The problem with the internet as a means of fighting autocratic regimes is that the internet depends on a real-time connection that must pass through centralized connections. There are only two solutions: 1) Decentralize the connections. Create ad-hock long distance wireless networks that can't be scrambled but can be masked to appear as simple noise. 2) Switch to a store and forward technology and rely on smuggling of data back and forth across borders. This can be facilitated by simply smuggling thumb drives around but that is quite slow. It can also be accomplished by using the wireless connections in 1) above but connecting only at appointed times. This is to reduce the chance of being detected and located by the authorities. These times can be randomized according to an algorithm such that the two ends know when to turn on but the times are difficult to predict by watching the RF traffic. The data must be transmitted in a store and forward manner and in short bursts but it would still go relatively quickly. Something like NNTP would work fine. If multiple forwarding stations were set up, then they could even choose a random path for each burst of data to make detection even more difficult. The beauty of store and forward is that even if the wireless connections go down, then other methods like smuggling thumb drives could seamlessly take up the slack.