| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | The proliferation of the Internet over the last two decades – like the invention of agriculture, the drawing of the written word, and the rise of industrial capitalism – is a historically disruptive techno-cultural development that is fundamentally reorienting the contours of human life. In this brave new world, the manner in which power operates is unprecedented– it is subtle, decentralized, and uncontained. If the primary responsibility of civilization is to regulate power, the extant generation must respond effectively to these new dynamics. How will we punish bad behavior and enforce social norms? What are the duties and rights of ordinary citizens, and what values must those obligations serve? Our species has asked itself these questions many times over 10,000 years. Yet at each inflection point, the answers have changed. | |
>
> |
First of all, here begins my use of the confusing phrase "regulate power" that I repeat multiple times but to which I ascribe little in the way of substantive meaning. Second, my desire to hook the reader has allowed the introduction to lose focus. The essay is about two things: (1) the capacity of the Internet to democratize the levers of power from nation-states to ordinary citizens and (2) the obstacles facing those citizens in utilizing that power effectively (which more or less center around control of their thought-flow by private industry). The Reader should know that this is the conceptual framework in which I will be operating, but she does not.
| | | Situating Power in the Internet Society
The Ontology of Power
Before we regulate power, we must understand its conceptual geography. First, power is socially constructed, possessing no independent form. When an actor wields power, that power can only be defined in relation to the object on which it is exercised. Second, power is heterogeneous and fluid – it circulates through people, who often act as relays or serve as both subject and object. Third, power can either be coercive or non-coercive. Power is exercised through violence, but also through ideological constructions that influence beliefs, perceptions, and values. Fourth, power is not a means; it is an end. History is replete with examples of those in power exhibiting hypocrisy, abandoning principles, and deceiving others – all to maintain a grip on power. The objective of power is power. | |
>
> |
The relevance of all this background to the rest of the argument is tenuous and therefore is likely a waste of space. I should work on just saying what I what I need to say, which is that the best way to comprehend power in modern society is by looking at how it non-coercively shapes human behavior at the lowest level.
| | | What all this means is that the study of power must begin locally. Its essence is not in the halls of government or any corporate headquarters, but at the outer limits of society– in the seemingly ordinary ways that power reshapes human activities at the lowest level, whether in the way we drive cars, or purchase groceries, or, indeed, interact with a computer screen. Online, power acts on us constantly – through advertisements, articles, the order of search listings, and the like. Increasingly, the cultural material that happens to be presented to us in the digital world is reshaping our belief systems and economic activity. If fully rational and conscious decision-making is indispensable to human freedom (hint: it is), we must not allow those who control these levers to prey on our cognitive-affective frameworks.
The Information Epoch | | | The importance of this change cannot be overstated. In the Internet universe, data *is* power. At any moment, Mark Zuckerberg could, if he so chose, decide the fate of businesses, change the reading material of hundreds of millions of people, and alter the outcome of an election. Of course this man will give away 99% of his wealth. What are green pieces of paper worth to him? He already has more power than Warren Buffet could ever dream about, and it will cost him not a penny to maintain it. | |
>
> |
Again, all this theoretical background may help me conceptualize the problem in my head, but the need for its inclusion in the essay is questionable. The Zuckerberg tangent feels out of place, and there are probably better ways to illustrate the centrality of information/data to social control.
Also, money is still very powerful in contemporary society, so an acknowledgment of that reality is needed.
| | | Searching for an Answer
The corporate data miners have, for now, used their newfound power primarily to affect shopping behavior and leisure activities. Yet even this seemingly innocuous task is incredibly damaging in a rapidly changing world. 21st-century civilization is facing a stampede of cataclysms —persistent unemployment, violent extremism, anthropogenic climate change, and the ballooning cost of higher education. In the face of these problems, we are fostering a generation that struggles to think creatively. Instead of solving problems together as citizens of human society, we are distracting ourselves with consumer fetishes, Buzzfeed quizzes, and news entertainment. The data miners will never help us find transformative solutions, but are more than willing to exploit our habits, emotions, and unconscious triggers for their own gain. | |
>
> |
The link between the consumption of mindless drivel and social problems is not obvious here. Humans have always had leisure time, and it is not readily apparent that going on Buzzfeed when you are not at work is this horrible thing. What is important is that the data miners are using us for our own gain and thereby preventing our self-fulfillment. All this other stuff is secondary.
| | | Will the nation-state save us? This organ functioned well in the industrial age, but increasingly it appears unable to regulate power in a decentralized, globalized, and data-centric world. This shortcoming could be tied to any of the 21st-century problems described above, but none better than the ongoing struggle between the American government and ISIS. Traditional tactics will simply not defeat an enemy tied together by globalized networks and possessing no centralized base of operations. Government surveillance is also not working, precisely because sophisticated actors know how to protect their data. Instead, the best way to shut down a decentralized enemy is to interrupt their communication networks. Denial-of service attacks have proven an effective weapon, but for that solution to be comprehensive, there must be more individuals attacking ISIS websites than combatants making new ones. Nation-states will never have sufficient manpower to fight this battle. The task falls on ordinary citizens – hacktivists – acting with clear mind and a sense of duty. | |
>
> |
The argument is that the inefficiencies of centralized top-down bureaucracy are exacerbated in a world where the Internet structures the majority of communication. The discussion of DDoS? is nice, but it doesn't really capture the point. The point should be that when you have a technically capable, fully conscious, fully free citizenry, you don't need silver bullets anymore and systemic weaknesses are not as easy to exploit. Starfighters beat Death Stars 100% of the time.
I also need to make an argument for the inherent "goodness" of democracy at some point. Many people prefer philosopher-kings, and these need to be acknowledged.
| | | Conclusion
The mechanics of power have changed, and sometimes the simplest description is the most accurate. We are rapidly entering an age of direct democracy, and the struggle for the human soul is quickly devolving into a war of numbers and know-how. No longer can we rely on governments to protect our species from mindless violence, environmental degradation, and corruption. Many citizens have already gotten the message, and are learning the technical skills necessary to protect their data, reclaim their thought-flow, and perform their obligations to human society. Others just finished a quiz telling them which “Game of Thrones” character they most resemble.
Soon, we will see if this great experiment we call “human civilization” is going to work. I do not how it will play out, but someday future generations will. | |
>
> |
I think the conclusion would be more or less fine if I had done what I needed to do in the earlier sections. But I need to show that the state necessarily withers away and anarchy prevails as well as do a better job explaining what I mean by "obligations" and how that ties in with my conception of freedom. Overall, the central ideas need to flow more seamlessly.
| | |
|
|