Party Pooper

Morozov is certainly the life of the party.  Innovation is currently being celebrated as the bringer of democracy and Morozov has issued a noise complaint.  I think his main target is cyber-utopians in government and the press.  However, I began thinking on where our belief in technology stems from.  Morozov believes the culprits are writers and scholars.  However, much of our enthusiasm comes from commercials.  I nerdily (yeah, I made it an adverb) get excited over Microsoft’s vision of the future videos.  They show all of the positives our future will hold because of their efforts.  Technology companies are guiding us to a bright future, where increased communication will dispel conflicts of race and religion.  Perhaps this idea that the internet is purely a source of good comes from our commercialist society.  This is just a passing thought that holds little bearing on the actual nature of technology, but it expands Morozov’s argument that we are blind to include why we are blind.  I agree with Morozov that many are blind to the negative impact of technology on the world.  Like Morozov reminds us, technology is a tool that is used by both “good” and “bad” individuals.

Warning: there are about 4 censored expletives   

I hesitantly brought up Anonymous in class to demonstrate Morozov’s grey vision of the internet.   It’s entertaining to argue with people on this issue, because it is a sensitive subject and not just in the traditional way.  Describing Anonymous as simply as I could, I stated that they are an organization of hackers that were known by their attacks on Scientology and various other groups and governments.  I expected backlash from those that knew about them.  The first criticism was on using the word “hacking.”  “Hackers” merely refers to programmers, yet I, like most, used the term out of convenience.  The second criticism was that they are not an organization, though no one could describe what term I should have used.  I’ve heard them described as a collective, but to each their own.  I have to be more politically correct dealing with IST and Computer Science majors than with students of Political Science.  

 source: www.xkcd.com

The collective known as Anonymous represents the chaotic nature of the net.  They are a destructive force, praised when they destroy something “bad” and condemned when they destroy something “good.”  Whether you agree with their actions or not, they use an odd way to assert their causes.  DDoS attacks attempt to flood so many fake information requests to a server that it fails, effectively removing an organizations presence online for a short time.  So Anonymous, proclaimers of internet freedom, fight those that would bring control to the net by silencing them.  This digresses from the majority of freedom fighters, who often quote Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  These were actually the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (the more you know), but Anonymous would add “unless you’re wrong.”

The reason that the internet is not a harbinger of freedom and democracy is because it’s a service.  Like all other services, it is offered by somebody who has intentions.  Whether those intentions are to extend the human right of free speech or control it decides the effect the internet will have on the world.  The internet grew in popularity because of the freedom it offered and now it has integrated itself so much into our lives, we believe that our freedom is dependent on it.  Maybe it was a mistake for us to offer so much for convenience, but that tends to be the direction of the world.