Restrictions on internet use in China, for example, tend automatically to be treated in Washington as a government curbing the politically worthy activities of the country's freedom-loving citizens. Meanwhile, calls to restrict internet use in America or Europe mark the efforts of responsible governments to protect the minds of their Google-addled youth from offensive content, online scammers or worse. "It's as if we can't ever imagine that Chinese or Russian parents, too, might have some valid concerns about how their kids spend their free time," Morozov notes.
Is he seriously suggesting that the Chinese or Russian governments are primarily interested in protecting their kids? Bear in mind, I think attempts to keep kids from "offensive content" is a waste of time, money and effort.
Morozov is on the most intriguing ground of all, however, when he steps into the debate over not only what new technology should or can do, but what "the masses" actually tend to use it for: entertainment and personal validation. Here, he joins a long and withering line of thinkers stretching back through Kierkegaard's critique of the "irresponsible and uncommitted" nature of newspapers to Plato's suspicion that writing itself damaged critical thought.
Oh, "the masses" again. What business is it of his or anyone else's what people use it for? One man's "slacktivist" is another man's hipster.
What we need, he argues, is to become "cyber-realists" – people able to "make the internet an ally in achieving specific policy objectives".
Whose policy objectives? Policy objectives are what politics is about. I would prefer that the internet not be used for policy objectives -- anybody's. For all his lamentation over "the masses" in his native Belarus and their lack of "democratic spirit" -- who would have thought you could drown "in a bottomless reservoir of spin and hedonism" in Belarus, of all places, and I wonder why people there were rioting there over the recent election; how ungrateful of them -- Morozov's is clearly an authoritarian mindset -- Slavoj Žižek without the pizazz.
I would rather read the book first before attempting to criticise Morozov. You are, I suspect, misrepresenting at least some of his views by taking them out of context, and out of context in what is merely a review. An example:
ReplyDelete'Is he seriously suggesting that the Chinese or Russian governments are primarily interested in protecting their kids?'
Even from the review, it's perfectly clear that this is not what Morozov is suggesting. The problem is rather that
'Restrictions on internet use in China, for example, tend automatically to be treated in Washington as a government curbing the politically worthy activities of the country's freedom-loving citizens.'
The emphasis is on an automatic, push-button assumption in Washington. And on the hyprocrisy behind governments in the West claiming that their attempts to restrict internet freedom have purely altruistic goals i.e. the protection of its users, especially youth.
And whether or not you fancy the term 'masses', lots of research in the West indicate that in fact entertainment and personal validation underlie most internet use - and shopping, which he appears to have overlooked but I suppose might be classified as a form of validation [sarcasm alert!].
However, I agree with you that the internet should remain as neutral as possible. Just how likely is this going to be? Perhaps Morozov is simply being realistic.
You might also check out a different review, in which Pat Kane states:
ReplyDelete'Morozov builds up an almost unarguable case that the internet is easily deployable by authoritarian states to serve the time-honoured oppressors' trinity of censorship, surveillance and propaganda. Much of his book is a useful tour d'horizon of the ways that the security regimes in Russia, Iran, China, Turkey, his homeland Belarus and many others are matching, mimicking and populating the best of Web 2.0 - all those idealised "social tools" from the coding labs of California.'
Not exactly 'primarily interested in protecting their kids', is it?
And then there's this:
'Throughout The Net Delusion, Morozov shows a degree more sympathy for the kind of diligent democracy-promotion of the diplomatic classes revealed by the WikiLeaks cables than he does for the crackers, hackers and platform-makers of digital evangelism. Indeed, his central caution is that the unthinking Western promotion of cyber-tools as enablers and organisers of dissent under authoritarian regimes - sometimes driven by Cold War nostalgia, sometimes by a lazy and mistaken search for "diplomatic efficiency" - can sometimes make things worse.'
Here's the link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-net-delusion-how-not-to-liberate-the-world-by-evgeny-morozov-2177713.html
Well, I have to say that now that I know that Morozov is sponsored by George Soros I trust him even less. Also, I don't think it is clear from the review that Morozov is not drawing a facile parallel between parents concern over internet content and Chinese suppression of free speech. The review may misrepresent that, but it seems pretty clear to me. It is precisely the sort of question I would have put to the reviewer had he turned in this review to me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as I recall - though I could be wrong -- Amazon and others voluntarily cut off WikiLeaks, and the latter tried to sabotage PayPal et al. Personally, of course, I am in favor of a free-for-all fight to the finish. Assange picked a fight. Hope he's in for the long haul.
And no, hailing as I do from the American underclass, I do not fancy the term "masses."
"Also, as I recall - though I could be wrong -- Amazon and others voluntarily cut off WikiLeaks, and the latter tried to sabotage PayPal et al. Personally, of course, I am in favor of a free-for-all fight to the finish. Assange picked a fight. Hope he's in for the long haul."
ReplyDeleteWikileaks didn't go after Paypal, Amazon, Mastercard, Visa or other sites. It was the Anonymous group, whom Assange is not associated with.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/anonymous_internet_group/index.html?scp=2&sq=anonymous%20paypal&st=cse