| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
Our Internet and Our Democracy | | | The State and the Internet | |
<
< | Max Weber defined the state as a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a territory". The internet (as it is and not as it ought to have been), however, posed a challenge to such a characterization of force and monopoly of the state. It gave rise to a new kind of virtual force with almost no territorial boundaries. A few corporations held immense power over information dissemination shaping human behavior and communication, and the state did not have any monopoly or arguably even significant control over this force. Naturally, the state wanted in on this unprecedented scope for surveillance and manipulation of data. And as it has been observed, the collection of data of billions of people in the hands of a few makes its misuse inevitable. | | | The pioneers of free software had recognized that digital technology facilitates mass consumer culture which gives birth to new social conditions based on which class antagonism perpetuates itself. The government or a political party vying for power, through big data and social media companies, uses the data made available through carefully logged tracks of consumerism (where the primary currency is attention) to exacerbate the antagonism in service of its objectives. Essentially, the market for attention creates the market for information about the people paying attention. One does not need to look long or hard to find instances of authoritarian leaders in a democracy co-opting the power of the oligopoly comprising of the big technology companies to influence what we see, and when and how we see it. The internet, whether in its presence or in its absence as in the case of the recent shutdown by the government and information blockade in Kashmir, is being used as a manipulative tool by political leaders to undermine democracy. Social media companies have imperiled democracy through manipulation of the election process, incitement of violence and perpetuation of information asymmetry.
Internet, Democracy and the User/Citizen | |
<
< | In the path the internet has taken to arrive where it is today and in the form it will assume moving forward, there are four key stakeholders: (i) the technology / social media companies; (ii) the proponents of free software; (iii) the government / political leaders; and (iv) individuals as consumers / users / citizens. | >
> | In the path the internet has taken to arrive where it is today and in the form it will assume moving forward, there are four key stakeholders: (i) the technology / social media companies; (ii) the proponents of free software; (iii) the government / political leaders; and (iv) individuals as consumers / users / citizens. The free software movement is particularly important because in offering an alternate form of the internet that “allows the users to control the software they use, rather than vice versa”, it provides a practicable counter-narrative. It demonstrates that we can, in fact, opt for a version of the internet that preserves our freedom and community whilst still retaining the “convenience” we are currently used to, and that fighting against those who control the internet is not fighting against the existence of the internet itself. | | | | | | As Croll puts it, "big data is our generation's civil rights issue", and it is about time we see how inextricably the future of our internet is linked to the future of our democracy. The user, and prioritization of her rights and freedom, was meant to be at the center of the internet. Any ideation on the formulation of the new net should treat this aspect as being non-negotiable. For this aspect encompasses within itself the fundamental features of democracy – liberty, equality, freedom of expression and access to information. The way to salvage the internet is, therefore, perhaps the way to salvage democracy. | |
<
< | Having looked at what needs to be done and why, we need to consider how we can start moving in that direction. To leave it to the government to make regulations is to simply wait for it to exercise more control over what it is already exploiting; and to trust self-regulation by companies is to hope privatization of democracy will yield favorable results. To be sure, governments and companies ought to act – but not in isolation. But rather in response to actions of society which tantamount to calls for a shift in structure that places the user at the center. We ought to reclaim our status as citizens and users instead of mere consumers / data sets. We need to start paying attention to what we are paying attention to and how that attention is being manipulated. Sustained engagement, technological education to encourage collaborative redesign of free software, and changing patterns in online behavior would perhaps propel the change we need. Until we prevent corporations and political parties from colonizing our minds, democracy may be working its way backward to a different kind of colonization; or worse still, to the Orwellian 1984. | >
> | Having looked at what needs to be done and why, we need to consider how we can start moving in that direction. To leave it to the government to make regulations is to simply wait for it to exercise more control over what it is already exploiting; and to trust self-regulation by companies is to hope privatization of democracy will yield favorable results. To be sure, governments and companies ought to act – but not in isolation. But rather in response to actions of society which tantamount to calls for a shift in structure that places the user at the center. We ought to reclaim our status as citizens and users instead of mere consumers / data sets.
Such consciousness is a crucial first step for it leads us to the question that follows – how may we begin this exercise in reclamation? Systemic changes in governance frameworks and educational initiatives are important but such collective action is necessarily a long term goal that remains contingent on numerous variables including political pressure, limited resources and a pervasive power imbalance. What individual action can we take in the short term to propel such collective action in the long term? The answer perhaps lies in the primary motivation that drives the tech market - user preference - to force a change in the architecture of the internet.
Market solutions and the approaches adopted by tech companies are informed primarily by user preferences and the signals she sends out. We need to alter the manner in which we use online platforms, that is to say, we need to inquire into who is collecting what kind of information about us and for what purpose. Next, it is upon on us to act on such information and demonstrate a clear preference. One of the way in which this can be done is by opting for platforms that respect the users’ privacy over those that do not. For instance, a surge in users who choose DuckDuckGo? over Google, would reflect that consumer choice is aligned with privacy protectionism. This will necessarily exert pressure and propel changes in technology. Contrary to how inseparable our generation has made these platforms seem from our conception of identity, expression and convenience, the truth is, the platforms are nothing without its users and not vice versa.
Change, therefore, is required on both ends of the spectrum - in the distribution and design of services and in the habits of users. We ought to remind ourselves that the latter wields significant power over the former. If the citizen in a democracy acts in a certain manner, the corporate citizen will be compelled to react accordingly. Eventually, consumer behavior and democratic action will collectively lead to gradual systemic change
We need to start paying attention to what we are paying attention to and how that attention is being manipulated. Sustained engagement, technological education to encourage collaborative redesign of free software, and changing patterns in online behavior would perhaps propel the change we need. Until we prevent corporations and political parties from colonizing our minds, democracy may be working its way backward to a different kind of colonization; or worse still, to the Orwellian 1984. | | | |
|