Is the internet a democratic medium?

Setun

Recently wrote an essay for college about cybercultures and democratisation. I found it incredibly interesting, and the more I researched the less sure I became about it. Thought this would be a good topic for discussion seeing as all boards users are members of a cyberculture.

Just wondering what the rest of you all think? Does the internet allow for greater democracy? Or is it just democratic in comparison to other communicative mediums ie tv/radio?

dr_manhattan

If i wasn't laid up with a broken arm, i'm not sure i'd be replying to this... actually given it's a friday night and xmas... I know i wouldn't be ;-)

Okay, by "democratic" do you mean, of the people for the people? Cos then, no it's not cos its resources and accountability are to western governments, and it carries the same biased mefia that everywhere else does. That alone, in qa global context mean it's not 'fair' - the fact that large web companies actively help china - for example - censor its web access means that in the simplest sense, no it isn't democratic, it's anyone's ho for the right money.

But if you mean "democratic" in the way it's increasingly used: ie pro western, english speaking economic slavery disguised as "choice" and "freedom" then yes, the internet is the very essence of that.

After all, all the blogs in the world don't have the power of one consistently published CNN headline. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone can hear you if other, better placed people just speak over you.

The internet is increasingly becoming like the type of democracy being installed in iraq: seedy, fake, and only free as long as you do it our way, using western dollars and western information houses.

my 2 cents...

Moriarty

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Okay, by "democratic" do you mean, of the people for the people? Cos then, no it's not cos its resources and accountability are to western governments, and it carries the same biased mefia that everywhere else does.

It carries anything people are willing to put up on it. You only have to look as far as Iraqi insurgent recruitment videos for that.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

That alone, in qa global context mean it's not 'fair' - the fact that large web companies actively help china - for example - censor its web access means that in the simplest sense, no it isn't democratic, it's anyone's ho for the right money.

Isn't that more of a problem with China imposing censorship on its population in the first place though..?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

After all, all the blogs in the world don't have the power of one consistently published CNN headline. Freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone can hear you if other, better placed people just speak over you.

I don't think that's true either. There's been a number of important stories which have broken via blog posts at this stage. If bloggers build a reputation for themselves, they'll be listened to.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The internet is increasingly becoming like the type of democracy being installed in iraq: seedy, fake, and only free as long as you do it our way, using western dollars and western information houses.

my 2 cents...

Again, I disagree. The internet is moving in the other direction - it is being internationalised, control is being ceded from the US government to international agencies. That process is pretty damned slow, but it is happening.

dr_manhattan

"control is being ceded from the US government to international agencies."

just as the media focus on certain aspects of blogging as being life changing when in fact the main effect of 'citizen journalism' has been the downgrading in quality and authenticity of material, issues like 'net neutrality' are a US political sham, not any real move to spread out political power.

The internet, very much like the english language for example, has immense value as a communications tool: but exactly like a language, once it is commodified and coopted by liars, it becomes of limited value as it cannot be trusted anymore.

And just like any language, its power to subtly condition the user should not be underestimated. In short, the internet appears valuable to us because we can verify - to a degree - it's content. 80% of the world cannot, due to poverty or censorship.

And radical fundamentalist websites - both jihadi and zionist - are a perfect example of how the the internet is seriously undemocratic, and can be used to not just manipulate opinion but also give fraudulent impressions of support and intention, in order to manipulate so-called democracy.

As for your assertion that china's oppression is the CCP's fault - i agree: but i'm not talking about china's opression of chinese nationals. I'm talking about our active, profitable interaction with china, and our cooperation in its suppression of a workforce that supplies us with cheap goods. Don't twist the issue.

And if you're saying that capitalism has a duty to do business with the cheapest provider, then fine: just don't call it 'democratic' when we turn a blind eye to slavery in order to keep our consumer society going.

The chinese example also perfectly illustrates the sleazy, fake democracy that the internet also stands for: we don't *do* anything about guantanamo bay or chinese labour or genocide in chechnya, but we read endless, conflicting, poorly researched opinion on it all day, and call that democratic.

If it's only democratic for us, then it's not democratic.

Moriarty

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"control is being ceded from the US government to international agencies."

just as the media focus on certain aspects of blogging as being life changing when in fact the main effect of 'citizen journalism' has been the downgrading in quality and authenticity of material, issues like 'net neutrality' are a US political sham, not any real move to spread out political power.

I think you've misunderstood "net neutrality" as the term has come to be known. Then again, that wouldn't be difficult as it's such a nebulous call to arms in the first place. It has very little to do with political control over the internet. It's to do with what ISPs and carriers should be allowed to do with internet traffic passing over their networks. What I was referring to was the discussions surrounding ICANN.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The internet, very much like the english language for example, has immense value as a communications tool: but exactly like a language, once it is commodified and coopted by liars, it becomes of limited value as it cannot be trusted anymore.

I think a more apt comparison in your example would be that the internet is the printing press and publisher instead of the language used. The internet is not a political entity. Anyone has the ability to publish anything on the internet.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

And radical fundamentalist websites - both jihadi and zionist - are a perfect example of how the the internet is seriously undemocratic, and can be used to not just manipulate opinion but also give fraudulent impressions of support and intention, in order to manipulate so-called democracy.

I don't see it as any worse than anything else that has come before, from the simplest town meetings up. Campaigns of any kind nearly always aim to appear as if they have more support than they do. That's just as true on the internet as in your town hall.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

As for your assertion that china's oppression is the CCP's fault - i agree: but i'm not talking about china's opression of chinese nationals. I'm talking about our active, profitable interaction with china, and our cooperation in its suppression of a workforce that supplies us with cheap goods. Don't twist the issue.

And if you're saying that capitalism has a duty to do business with the cheapest provider, then fine: just don't call it 'democratic' when we turn a blind eye to slavery in order to keep our consumer society going.

Fair enough. Do you think that chinese people - again as an example - are better off with access to a restricted internet or no internet at all?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

The chinese example also perfectly illustrates the sleazy, fake democracy that the internet also stands for: we don't *do* anything about guantanamo bay or chinese labour or genocide in chechnya, but we read endless, conflicting, poorly researched opinion on it all day, and call that democratic.

If it's only democratic for us, then it's not democratic.

I don't think that's true. I can't see people being any less likely to do something about bad things because they've read about it on the internet. On the other hand, I think it would be fair to say that your average internet user might know more about the wider world than if that person didn't use the internet.

JC 2K3

The internet is not democratic, it's anarchaic.

Moriarty

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The internet is not democratic, it's anarchaic.

.. Explanation..?

JC 2K3

There are no consistant, enforced laws governing internet content and the behavior of those online that are agreed upon by the majority of internet users.

The internet is essentially a free for all for users with unrestricted access to it, it is anarchaic(implying the lack of any ultimate laws or rules rather than suggesting disorder, as the word "anarchy" might imply).

dr_manhattan

"I can't see people being any less likely to do something about bad things because they've read about it on the internet."

Actually I can: it's called any number of things: desensitisation, catharsis, panic...

"The internet is not a political entity"

This reminds me of hurricane katrina, when people constantly said :it's not race, it's economics" - and that's true. However when you look at americas history you realise that race IS economics so it's moot.

Of course the internet is not a "political entity" - but it is a massive coordinated infrastructure and it is owned, leased and paid for by cash bases that, like all large cash bases, have vested political interests.

For the same reason that the corporate lobby in every western country makes true democracy completely unworkable, so does corporate ownership of internet infrastructure.

I mean come on, when ISPs are readily handing over transaction details to not just US security but the US private sector, how can you claim the internet is not political?

It's not, but what does that matter? George bush's telephone isn't a political device, either, it just tends to be used to influence world events. The person who owns the switchboard he uses can do a lot with that. Clumsy analogy i know.

dr_manhattan

"anarchaic(implying the lack of any ultimate laws or rules rather than suggesting disorder, as the word "anarchy" might imply)."

So you mean, "anarchic"

Which does not mean "without laws". It means "without leaders".

Moriarty

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Actually I can: it's called any number of things: desensitisation, catharsis, panic...

Well then we're screwed anyway and might aswell pack up and give up the pretence.. and if that's the case, it was inevitable to begin with. I don't buy that.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

This reminds me of hurricane katrina, when people constantly said :it's not race, it's economics" - and that's true. However when you look at americas history you realise that race IS economics so it's moot.

Of course the internet is not a "political entity" - but it is a massive coordinated infrastructure and it is owned, leased and paid for by cash bases that, like all large cash bases, have vested political interests.

For the same reason that the corporate lobby in every western country makes true democracy completely unworkable, so does corporate ownership of internet infrastructure.

I don't follow. How does an ISP being a company impact on the internet? How is internet infrastructure impacted at the moment by this?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I mean come on, when ISPs are readily handing over transaction details to not just US security but the US private sector, how can you claim the internet is not political?

Links? Proof?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

It's not, but what does that matter? George bush's telephone isn't a political device, either, it just tends to be used to influence world events. The person who owns the switchboard he uses can do a lot with that. Clumsy analogy i know.

So that makes the national telephone network a primarily polticial tool? It sounds to me like you're describing the white house website..

JC 2K3

dr_manhattan wrote: »

"anarchaic(implying the lack of any ultimate laws or rules rather than suggesting disorder, as the word "anarchy" might imply)."

So you mean, "anarchic"

Which does not mean "without laws". It means "without leaders".

Apologies for the misspelling.

And the word "ultimate" was very important in the part of my post you quoted. There can be rules in anarchic systems, just no ultimate ones imposed from above. There are rules on boards.ie for example, but they are different from the rules on other forums and websites. They don't have to conform to any rules, they make their own.

dr_manhattan

"Well then we're screwed anyway and might aswell pack up and give up the pretence.."

nope, we simply recognise that what we call "democratic" is in fact only democratic *for us* and stop pretending that the internet serves everyone equally. Give up the pretences, yes, but not pack up.

I have similar opinions on Iraq.

"How does an ISP being a company impact on the internet?"

How does CNN being a company affect the news it transmits, or the focus of the people who watch it? Please. And don't say "just change the channel" cos the news market is all about trusted brands.

"How is internet infrastructure impacted at the moment by this? "

First off I said the reverse: i said ownership of infrastructure affects the "democratic" nature of the web.

And you know what, if you can't grasp that "the west" pretty much owns and operates this "free internet" then who am I to explain it to you?

Try going to www.theregister.co.uk and searvhing up articles on ICANN, for example... i'm not that arsed. I think it's much more obvious than complex negotiations: the internet is a western shopping mall, and is *exactly* as democratic as one.

dr_manhattan

"There are rules on boards.ie for example, but they are different from the rules on other forums and websites"

true, but don't mods have hierarchical power...?

;-)

Moriarty

dr_manhattan wrote: »

nope, we simply recognise that what we call "democratic" is in fact only democratic *for us* and stop pretending that the internet serves everyone equally. Give up the pretences, yes, but not pack up.

The internet serves everyone equally. Services on the internet may not. Agree?

dr_manhattan wrote: »

How does CNN being a company affect the news it transmits, or the focus of the people who watch it? Please. And don't say "just change the channel" cos the news market is all about trusted brands.

The comparison doesn't follow. The internet is the television/transmission system of the tv medium.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

First off I said the reverse: i said ownership of infrastructure affects the "democratic" nature of the web.

And you know what, if you can't grasp that "the west" pretty much owns and operates this "free internet" then who am I to explain it to you?

Again, I'm failing to see how who owns the internet (no one/lots of people) has to do with how "democratic" it is, considering what the internet is and how it runs.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

the internet is a western shopping mall, and is *exactly* as democratic as one.

Lots of stuff on the internet is like a shopping mall. Again, lots of stuff is completely unlike a shopping mall. Just because that's your internet, doesn't make it everyones internet. It's awfully big, there's room for all sorts..

solsqeez

The internet is democratic, autocratic, communist, anarchist and more. The internet doesnt fit into one system, it is worldwide and open to everyone to organise sub-internets within it.

dr_manhattan

Now this little quote illustrates exactly what I mean:

"The internet doesnt fit into one system, it is worldwide and open to everyone to organise sub-internets within it."

No it isn't.

It is open to "everyone" that has the spare time, equipment, electricity, education, access, language, infrastructure, training, and most importantly the global perspective - to use it.

So in otherwords far, far, far from "everyone". Please, stop fooling yourselves: You are talking about 20% of the world has access in a way that gives them control. The rest are free to use a cafe if they know where one is, or is they can spare time from working 80 hour weeks or dodging bullets.

Hell, even beyond that: so-called "plain language" markup languages such as HTML are in "plain english", not "plain language". Pretty much every code I've ever encountered uses english. There is no french or italian version of HTML, let alone an arabic one or a chinese one.

So learning to use the internet and learning to speak english are two very similar and mutually involved processes.

So please, stop pretending the internet serves everyone equally: sure it's "democratic" but so -we are told - is the current situation in Iraq. They match each other perfectly, with poor, uneducated, non-english speaking people on the outside of control, and wealthy, english speakers with qualifications from western countries on the inside of control.

It scares me more, the more I see that "freedom" to most of my fellow westerners means "freedom to speak a european language and participate in a western geopolitical environment"

And btw- how can something be "anarchist" and "communist" at the same time? Communism is not "without leaders" it's a bureaucracy.

Problem is that the internet very much and veryu literally fits into one system: telecommunications infrastructure. There is no internet outside of telecommunications infrastructure, no matter how you want to put it. No phone lines, no sattelite, no cooper wire or fibre optics = no internet.

and if you think for a second that:

1. the companies that build comms infrastructure

2. the conditions under which comms infrastructure are built by these companies in a 'developing country'

3. the economic environment that provides access to comms and to the internet

Are "fair and democratic" then you are vastly mistaken.

It's funny: everyone knows Oil pipelines are nasty, corruption bringing devices and they are - but in *theory*, they are about people being paid for their oil reserves, not people sucking areas dry of oil.

In that same way, everyone assumes that telecomms pipelines are there to help "empower" local poor people and give universal access. They're not. They're there to allow marketing opportunities for western telcos. Anyone who thinks they're not is seriously kidding themselves.

solsqeez

Its true the internet exists thanks to the existance of telecom infrastructure. I meant it doesnt fit into one political system.

The internet is a network of networks. And a network can be communist if it wants to be or autocratic or whatever, academic and business networks for example.

dr_manhattan

"The internet is a network of networks. And a network can be communist if it wants to be or autocratic or whatever, academic and business networks for example."

A network that owes its entire existence to globalised large scale infrastructure companies that all have roots in western hegemony can never be anything but a puppet for said interests. Think Halliburton. Think Cable and wireless. Think about what telcos are and how they make their money.

But sure, "democracy: is not free, and is heavily biased in favour of western interests... so yeah I guess the internet is "democratic"

But "free"? Please.

Multinational business is incapable of creating anything that does not owe it money.

Moriarty

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Hell, even beyond that: so-called "plain language" markup languages such as HTML are in "plain english", not "plain language". Pretty much every code I've ever encountered uses english. There is no french or italian version of HTML, let alone an arabic one or a chinese one.

So learning to use the internet and learning to speak english are two very similar and mutually involved processes.

English is the main language of the internet because it was mainly developed in english speaking countries and institutions. Moves are being made to make it more accessible to non-english speaking people with fully internationalised domain names. The reason it hasn't been done before are mainly (1) there wasn't the demand before now and (2) technical issues limiting easy deployment. There is no grand conspiracy of the english speaking world to forever control the internet. English is used as the international language of programming because it is clear, concise and well understood in all parts of the world. This is all down to english already having been the dominant language of international relations, science and industry throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. You are confusing cause and effect.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Problem is that the internet very much and veryu literally fits into one system: telecommunications infrastructure. There is no internet outside of telecommunications infrastructure, no matter how you want to put it. No phone lines, no sattelite, no cooper wire or fibre optics = no internet.

and if you think for a second that:

1. the companies that build comms infrastructure

2. the conditions under which comms infrastructure are built by these companies in a 'developing country'

3. the economic environment that provides access to comms and to the internet

Are "fair and democratic" then you are vastly mistaken.

.. all of which is entirely irrelevant when you're actually on the internet. This thread isn't about whether capitalism or telecoms companies are democratic. As long as the internet is provided as it was designed to be - open, standards based and non-discriminatory - it is a fair and open medium.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

It's funny: everyone knows Oil pipelines are nasty, corruption bringing devices and they are - but in *theory*, they are about people being paid for their oil reserves, not people sucking areas dry of oil.

In that same way, everyone assumes that telecomms pipelines are there to help "empower" local poor people and give universal access. They're not. They're there to allow marketing opportunities for western telcos. Anyone who thinks they're not is seriously kidding themselves.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Access to the internet is demand driven. No one forces the internet on anyone. Further, no one forces specific parts of the internet on anyone if they choose to connect in the first place. Saying that the only reason companies provide "poor people" with internet access is to market to them is as outlandish as saying the only reason any of us have power piped to our homes is so that marketers can invade them through the tv, radio and internet.