Mainly, I’m focusing on activist groups in other countries, and their goals of a more open and tolerant government system. What’s interesting about these groups is how they’ve evolved over the past years – their governments obviously had an infinitely tighter hold on them when instant communication and social networking weren’t even conceived yet and the only communication was face-to-face (risky, because who knows if anyone is on your side?). But when things like the Internet rolled around, there was next to no risk of anyone finding out your identity as you planned your revolts and gathered your information from thousands of points across the nation.
As the article I’ve found says, “These multiple networks of connected citizens and activists transform the ‘dumb mobs’ of totalitarian states into ‘smart mobs’ of socially active personages linked by notebook computers, PDA devices, Internet cell phones, pagers and global positioning systems (GPS).” Indeed, all these and more now connect not only citizens wanting a government that better serves their needs, but also groups and organizations that would benefit from a better system, including women’s rights groups, labor unions, LGBTQ activists, and more.
On the other hand, terrorist organizations and hate groups can use the Internet for exactly these functions. Nobody is as bold as when they are anonymous, and this is a bad sign for the victims of those that use the Internet to work up the courage to commit atrocities in real life.
In addition, we also have the hacking groups that, while having intentions for a better and freer Internet and computer systems not monopolized by corporations, cause more problems than they solve. In fact, their method of getting their message across almost seems that it will ensure that a considerable fraction of readers will deliberately ignore it as “just a hack, nothing to be paid attention to.” Yet sometimes, the hacking is helpful and gets the message across to the population of the Internet – the public is informed about what can be done in the realms of monitoring online done by the government and the risks of online communication. The article claims that this has led to a wider dislike and opposition of Internet policing, showing that the hackers really do know what they’re doing, in terms of social activism at least.
A last quote that I thought was relevant and interesting was “…it has continued to evoke the potential for a participatory democracy that can be actualized when publics reclaim and reconstruct technology, information and the spaces in which they work.” We still hope for a direct democracy, and it seems like we’re still not getting anywhere, but this shows us that there is still potential out there if we’re willing to work for it.
As always, thank you for reading.
Referenced article: Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner, “Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical/Reconstructive Approach.” Academia.edu, 2005. http://antiochla.academia.edu/RichardKahn/Papers/76699/Oppositional_Politics_and_the_Internet_A_Critical_Reconstructive_Approach
This post makes a really valid point, in that it underscores the ways in which the internet can be used by any organization to promote any goal, not just the "good guys." Just as those who oppose totalitarian governments can now fight back without compromising their identities, so can the minions of those oppressive tyrants. The internet provides a medium for those trying to make positive change in society to come together, voice their opinions, and organize, but it also allows bigots, perverts, and sociopaths to do the same.
ReplyDeleteIn its forum for free expression of all forms, whether positive or negative, constructive or destructive, we also see factors that make us worry about the future of society. Commentators on every news website, YouTube videos, internet forums, and other arenas for discussion often highlight the very worst of humanity -- ideological extremism, malice, vitriol, deceit, mob mentality, racism, sexism, general bigotry, anti-intellectualism, pretension, and other forms of ignorance and antisocial behavior.
"Nobody is as bold as when they are anonymous." This phrase rings true -- the internet is a place where one can see every manner of human behavior and idea exemplified uncensored, from the noblest and best to the foulest and worst. This raises a concern about the very nature of the democracy that optimists are so sure the internet will spread: if the way the "masses" behave on the internet is any indication of what they actually are like, how stable can a system in which these people exert political power actually be?