| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondEssay" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | The proliferation of the Internet – like the invention of agriculture, the drawing of the written word, and the rise of industrial capitalism – is a historically disruptive techno-cultural development. Like each of those prior events, the Internet has brought with it new freedoms, new forms of expression, and new potentialities for the human race. When communication is freely accessible and outside the control of centralized power, ordinary citizens gain a greater capacity to live, learn, and create, all on their own terms. Yet with every new freedom come new risks, dangers, and forms of exploitation. The Internet is no exception. It is in fact the unprecedented challenges that have arisen in a decentralized, globalized world that are opening the door for the institutions of old to temporarily reclaim their grip on power. | | | | |
<
< |
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. | >
> | What those institutions will not admit is that their outdated instruments and tactics will never work in a world that has fundamentally changed, so the goal of the free software movement must be to admit it for them. Surveillance will never stop violent extremism. Competing nation-states will never stop climate change. Corporations and corrupt politicians will never reverse wealth inequality. What those problems call for instead is a citizenry that is fully informed, creative, technically capable, and openly collaborative. Insofar as a citizenry that is all those things is mutually exclusive with one that is under surveillance, that is limited by nation-states, and that is manipulated by corporations and corrupt politicians, free software is not just the end; it is the means to the end. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | What We Have Won | | | | |
<
< | Situating Power in the Internet Society | >
> | What we have won is the spectre that haunts Europe. The masses are gradually coming to terms with the nature of their struggles, and we are ready to provide what they crave. In a world shrouded in darkness, we are shining the light. In a world that grows increasingly cynical, we are the voice of hope and optimism. In a world that has been told to love that which oppresses it, we are providing a path to genuine human freedom. | | | | |
<
< | The Ontology of Power | >
> | Edward Snowden took away their plausible deniability. The government is spying on us, taking our personal data and using it for their own purposes. The question is no longer “are they doing it?,” but, rather, “is it acceptable?” The whistleblowers we are fighting to protect are creating a world in which governments and corporations will not be able to hide their malfeasance from humanity. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | Meanwhile, the masses are losing faith in the capacity of centralized government to solve the really existing problems affecting their lives. All across the world, people are demanding change faster than their governments can provide it. On the one hand, people are turning away from traditional political rhetoric and searching for new kinds of leaders. But more than anything, they are turning their attention online, finding new ways to express their hopes and frustrations. The democratic forum we have been fighting for is opening, slowly but inevitably. | | | | |
<
< |
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.
| >
> | The internal contradiction of capitalist accumulation is coming to fore. Production demands that workers are efficient, but consumption demands they remain distracted. The masses are viscerally disgusted by profit-driven attempts to control their thought-flow and waste their time. Gradually, often unconsciously, they are finding ways to avoid being manipulated. In doing so, they begin to seize control of their own destinies. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | What We Must Still Win | | | | |
<
< | The Information Epoch | >
> | What we must still win is a population that understands there is nothing to lose but its chains. The People of Earth are afraid. The challenges they face appear insurmountable to them, so they are turning to the devil they know. The best way to fight this inclination is to forge viable alternatives using the resources we already have. It is not enough to show them that freedom and democracy are possible. We must demonstrate that freedom and democracy are worth fighting for. | | | | |
<
< | The emergence of the Internet is creating a revolutionary shift in the operation of power. Under feudalism, power primarily acted through control of the land: lords exerted complete and total dominance over the serfs and resources residing under their domain. Under capitalism, power operates through money-capital tied to commodity production: the wealthy affect human behavior and resource distribution by investing in labor and capital markets. In the Internet society, however, the currency of power is data and the mechanism by which it operates is surveillance. The more data an actor controls, the more it can manipulate human activity, reconstitute belief systems, and affect distribution patterns. | >
> | In our rush to critique the evils of surveillance, we are allowing it to emerge, more or less unchallenged, as the most viable solution to violent extremism. To be clear, there is no tradeoff between freedom and security. Surveillance is an ineffective tactic against dedicated combatants, and its usage by governments and profit-driven enterprise stifles the creativity of ordinary citizens. We must give substance to this argument by directing our existing creative machinery and know-how toward promoting liberal and democratic solutions to prevent violent behavior. DDoS? attacks show promise here, but we need more people to participate in such efforts and also develop new solutions along the way. | | | | |
<
< | 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.
| >
> | The seamless links between privacy and creative democracy, and between creative democracy and innovation, must become readily obvious to any rational observer. Climate change in particular is a problem area for corporations and governments because it is becoming increasingly clear that profit motivation and nationalism are standing in the way. We must attack this pressure point by finding ways to finance and develop clean energy solutions through crowdsourcing. Efforts such as solar panel roadways have shown that this approach is possible, but we must make it a point of emphasis for members of our community. | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | Finally, we must foster a generation that is situationally aware and technically capable. The weapons of coding and free information must be presented as such by teachers and mentors who know how. Students must have the freedom to apply the promise of Internet technology to the problems around them, not merely the ones that are spoon-fed to them by classroom exercises and, eventually, corporations. Structure can be the enemy of creativity, and we must not allow it to be. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | What Will Remain | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | What will remain is either a direct democracy built around a citizenry that is empowered or a direct democracy built around a citizenry that lives in fear. Because of what we have already achieved, the nation-state-corporation apparatus is withering away, but it is our task to ensure that humanity is prepared to rise out of the ashes. In order to get there, however, we must each recognize the mutual dependency of freedom and obligation. The change we are searching for must come from within. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | This draft is imperfect, but I believe it accurately reflects the materialism I have been searching for. Thank you for giving me the freedom to find it. | | | |
|