Radhika Nataraj
MA131235

The article in The Economist, ‘The new politics of the internet: Everything is connected’ gives us a brief overview into the world of internet activism and how it has been shaped into a political movement protesting several issues and how it has created a forum for free speech and innovation globally. The article traces the development of net activism in relation to the environmental movements of the 1960s and 70s. It also elaborates on the role of the internet as a platform in the anti-SOPA protest , the creation of ‘pirate parties’, and discusses the impact and construction of the net activism movement. In contrast to this article, Astra Taylors ‘How the internet is transforming from a tool of liberation to one of oppression’ on the Huffington Post, deals with how search engines, social media and other networked technologies earn wealth and power by constantly surveying internet activity of an individual. Taylor talks about how internet users are viewed as ‘targeted customers’ and explains how ‘more clicks equal more money’ in the article.
The article in the Economist quoted Barry Commoner who said, “The first law of ecology is that everything is connected to everything else”. This quote is especially relevant to the internet which is basically a networking technology connecting people and their interests globally. In the 1960s and 70s, varied issues like cleaning the Hudson river and banning nuclear tests, came together to form a single, powerful environmental awareness movement. With the internet, blogs and other social media give a platform for people to come together. An example is the ‘fandom’ phenonmenon that has taken over the net, with fanclubs protesting issue together like cyber bullying or celebrity controversies. Commoner’s quote is also in tune with Taylors’ article. On our Facebook newsfeed or on the Google search page, we see advertisements of products that may be of our interest or related to something we may have searched for before. This is no coincidence. Giant technology companies like Google, Amazon, Twitter and Apple monitor our internet activity and make note of our personal data. This data is used to show advertisements that link us to goods or services that will induce an individual to exercise his purchasing power. Every advertisement or pop up we see on the internet is connected to our past searches, the kind of websites we visit often and the products we purchase on the internet. Taylor condemns this form of surveillance in her article.
People all over, who wish to protest government and corporate involvement in the regulation of the internet form similar interest groups. There are consumer groups that defend online privacy, researchers who push for open access to scientific journals online, hackers rejecting far reaching software patents and so on. This helps in strengthening the net movement by allowing participation from various interest groups. The Economists article says that these groups share Manuel Castells concept “culture of the internet.” This concept talks about a culture that believes in the progress of humans through technology. The article suggests that these groups share this ‘culture’ and its members believe in technological progress, the free flow of information, virtual communities and entrepreneurialism. They have an online forum that will enable its members to share content and help eachother.
The Economist article draws several similarities between the Green movement and net activism. The environmental movement saw organisations like Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Army protesting while the internet world saw a ‘hacktivist’ collective who took down websites in Sweden as a protest against efforts to extradite Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Both movements saw great leadership like that of Barry Commoner and Paul Ehrlich for the environment and Lawrence Lessig and Yochai Benkler for the internet. Lessig in his book ‘Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace’ explains how computer code may regulate conduct the same way legal code does. He argues for the law to protect against illegal copying on the internet. In his book ‘The Wealth of networks’, Yochai coins the term ‘commons based peer production’. This refers to any coordinated internet-based effort whereby volunteers contribute project components, and there exists some process to combine them to produce a unified intellectual work. This is seen in open source software communities where volunteers write and debug code.
Looking at the economics of both movements, the article in The Economist explains it in relation to Garrett Hardins essay ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’. Hardin said that common properties are over exploited; that is, the people who exploit them gain benefits but the cost of exploitation falls on everybody. Environmental issues are seen as “negative externalities” and making the polluters pay carbon taxes (tax levied on the carbon content of the fuel) and cap and trade regime (The "cap" sets a limit on emissions and the "trade" creates a market for carbon allowances, helping companies innovate to come in under their allocated limit. The less they emit, the less they pay) are called “internalising the externalities”.
The externalities of net activism are more postitive then negative. In this case, the more it is used and shared among the people, the more beneficial it is to all the users. The internet is ‘non rival’ in the sense that an individuals use of the internet does not harm the usage of another individual. The article says that some amount of internalising is needed though in the form of intellectual property rights. If original content produced by the innovator is not duly credited then he loses the incentive to create. Limiting the use of the internet by pricing can also bring down innovation as well as usage. The article stresses the property rights without treating the content as is if only one individual or group can claim interest for it.
The article in The Economist elaborates on the anti-SOPA protests and Germanys Pirate party. SOPA or the Stop Online Piracy Act was the ability of intellectual property owners (like record labels and movie studios) to effectively remove foreign sites against whom they have copyright claim. For example, if Disney says that a site in New Zealand is torrenting a copy of The Lion King , the studio can demand that Google remove the site from its search results or for ad services to pull out all ads from the website and most importantly, for the site’s ISP to prevent people from using it. In its original construction, it enabled the owners to take action without a single court appearance and all that was required was a letter claiming “good faith belief” that the targeted website has infringed upon its content.
The anti SOPA protests began on the net through social media platforms. Blogs like Techdirt wrote about the proposed legislation. The people started voicing out their opinion on groups such as Avaaz, Fight for the Future and Demand Progress and in turn these groups sent letters to the American Congress protesting the issue. Wikipedia joined the campaign later as well.To protest SOPA, Wiki made it such that you get to see the article you want for a flash, but are quickly pushed to an ominous, black page with an explanation of the protest and a tool for contacting a representative, Other websites like Wired.com, where they redacted their homepage till you mouse over the content and even Google where they blacked out the logo but retained the sites basic functionality showed their support to the anti SOPA protests. The protests claims that SOPA violated the First Amendement by curbing freedom of speech resulted in shelving the act in the end.
As told by the article in The Economist Germanys Pirate party called Piratenpartei captured four regional seats after campaigning rigorously on social media. They run a party conference on an online platform called ‘Liquid Feedback’. The articles says that ‘Rather than voting on an issue directly or electing representatives, party members can delegate their votes on given issues to another member whose opinion they trust—and take them back if they do not agree with the delegate’s decisions. Delegates can in turn pass the votes they collect to another member, thus putting together long and fluid “delegation chains” on how this online platform functions’. But not all pirates make use of this forum and the party is criticised to be macho and elitist.
Although the internet isn’t listed under the basic necessities of life, the stats shown in the article say it might as well be. People are willing to alter lifestyle habits for internet access. For alot of people, their careers and social life revolve around the internet. There isn’t much focus brought upon the money making schemes that take place behind the doors. Taylor whose career pretty much revolves around the net says that the internet isn’t a revolution but rearrangement. Problems like commercialization, consolidation and centralization that were present in the old model have merely adapted into an online form and perhaps even intensified, as Taylor said.
Both articles neither glorify nor disregard the power of the web. Taylor doesn’t overlook the platform the internet has provided for innovation and free speech and The Economist article does not particularly vouch for net activism as the next big thing. But both essays reiterate the platform for free speech provided by the internet.