| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | First draft finished and ready for review. Comments or suggestions welcome! |
| | Protecting and Promoting Dissent and Free Expression in the Digital Age
-- By ThomasHou? - 01 Dec 2011 |
| | This theory holds true more than ever in the 21st century. Free expression serves another role today, that of innovation. Developing new ideas and ways of communicating them to the public is as vital. We have more tools. But we still need to do it. And on the world wide web, we need to protect not only those with new ideas, but also those who receive and can benefit from the new ideas. They can share and experiment with new ideas, and challenge old ideas. What we need is a "democratic culture," which Jack Balkin describes as a place where ordinary citizens can participate in digital creativity and not just be passive observers or consumers. Our free expression culture must adapt to that end. The 19th century was about property rights; the 20th about political rights; the 21st must be about innovation. |
|
>
> | The past two hundred
years have not been "about" innovation? Surely there is a way to make
your point without bombast? |
| | Section II: New Threats to Free Expression and Dissent |
|
<
< | Suppressing dissent and new ideas is not unexpected - it is human nature to do so. What has changed are the tools available and who uses them. Yesterday, it was the government and state actors who controlled the official channels of communication and often were the censors. Today, network providers are the primary censors because they control the access and flow of information upon which millions of people rely. They control the switches. Moreover, their control will persist so long customers are dependent on them to supply access to the Internet. With mass media and hyper-connectivity dependent on network providers, their powers and potential for censorship are unabated. |
>
> | Suppressing dissent and new ideas is not unexpected - it is human nature to do so. |
| | |
|
<
< | That does not mean the threat of government suppression is gone or diminished. Government now relies on network providers to help with censorship. Earlier this month, India approached Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to stop seditious comments about the Indian government. In the U.S., we have learned about how law enforcement and various governmental agencies are using social media and networks to collect information and curb the spread of dissenting or unapproved ideas. In fact, it is now easier for them because they are not necessarily exposed to state action and the constraints of the Constitution. |
>
> | Do you need to make that
assertion, which is not self-evident? Do you really need an
essentialist view of the abuse of power to make the rest of your
argument? |
| | |
|
<
< | Section III: What Should Be Done |
>
> | What has changed are the tools available and who uses them. Yesterday, it was the government and state actors who controlled the official channels of communication and often were the censors. Today, network providers are the primary censors because they control the access and flow of information upon which millions of people rely. They control the switches.
To some extent. To some
extent, state actors do, and to a large and variable extent, neither
of them does. Freedom Box could be defined as an attempt to expand
very significantly the quantity and power of
democratically-distributed switching capacity. Once again, you seem
to be expressing a proposition that isn't necessarily right, that by
asserting you acquire a responsibility to prove, and which you
probably don't need anyway. |
| | |
|
<
< | The battle over free expression in the 21st century will not be fought in the courts. It will be done through the design and technology of the Internet, and how the important stakeholders - regulators, network providers, end users - divide and allocate control over cyberspace. Free expression advocates must focus their attention on the underlying technology and design of the Internet. It is up to individual users, too, who must defend and even fight for their right to free expression against encroachment by regulators and network providers. A theory based on the importance of free expression to innovation and social change may resonate as loudly or even louder than one based on political rights or seeking truth. |
>
> | Moreover, their control will persist so long customers are dependent on them to supply access to the Internet. With mass media and hyper-connectivity dependent on network providers, their powers and potential for censorship are unabated. |
| | |
|
<
< | I am ambivalent about the utility of a major informational law along the lines of the SOPA legislation debated in Congress recently. On one hand, such a law is necessary to protect many of our values - including free expression and commercial fairness - on the Internet. Congress is probably the actor that can best represent everyone's interests. On the other hand, the Internet as a whole does not work well with regulation and relied on individual innovation to spur its development. Furthermore, involvement of Congress increases the power of regulators and businesses who have captured regulators, at the expense of the public. Citizens feel differently about the ability of Congress to solve such large scale problems (given current poll ratings, prospects are bleak), but it's an area in need of reform. A bottom-up approach seems more feasible and effective. |
>
> | No. See
above. |
| | |
|
<
< |
|
>
> | That does not mean the threat of government suppression is gone or diminished. Government now relies on network providers to help with censorship. Earlier this month, India approached Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to stop seditious comments about the Indian government.
Not sedition, just
unfavorable comment on Mrs. Gandhi and her family. And not just
"approached." Now there is sweeping litigation brought by government
pawns.
In the U.S., we have learned about how law enforcement and various governmental agencies are using social media and networks to collect information and curb the spread of dissenting or unapproved ideas. In fact, it is now easier for them because they are not necessarily exposed to state action and the constraints of the Constitution.
Section III: What Should Be Done |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | The battle over free expression in the 21st century will not be fought in the courts. It will be done through the design and technology of the Internet, and how the important stakeholders - regulators, network providers, end users - divide and allocate control over cyberspace. |
| | |
|
<
< | |
>
> | Are you saying there
will be no efforts to litigate issues concerned with how the
stakeholders "divide and allocate control over cyberspace"? Doesn't
that seem superficially improbable?
Free expression advocates must focus their attention on the underlying technology and design of the Internet. It is up to individual users, too, who must defend and even fight for their right to free expression against encroachment by regulators and network providers. A theory based on the importance of free expression to innovation and social change may resonate as loudly or even louder than one based on political rights or seeking truth.
"May"? This comes down
after all to "maybe this is important and maybe it isn't because
maybe people will be more engaged with this meme over here than that
closely related meme over there?" If that's what this essay boils
down to, the reader is likely to be both disappointed and somewhat
resentful.
I am ambivalent about the utility of a major informational law along the lines of the SOPA legislation debated in Congress recently. On one hand, such a law is necessary to protect many of our values - including free expression and commercial fairness - on the Internet.
Why?
Congress is probably the actor that can best represent everyone's interests.
Really? At last count,
91% of Americans didn't think so, and the approval rating of Congress
is 9%. Should we ignore that, in light of your assertion to the
contrary, without any facts?
On the other hand, the Internet as a whole does not work well with regulation and relied on individual innovation to spur its development.
No, the Internet is not
a world of individualism, it's a world of consensus and trust. Its
technical standards are developed not by individual effort but by
"requests for consensus." Its operational procedures depend on good
faith and mutual cooperation. Your sentence implies a false
dichotomy and is misleading.
Furthermore, involvement of Congress increases the power of regulators and businesses who have captured regulators, at the expense of the public. Citizens feel differently about the ability of Congress to solve such large scale problems (given current poll ratings, prospects are bleak), but it's an area in need of reform. A bottom-up approach seems more feasible and effective.
But you haven't actually
described one. In fact, whatever the essay's point really was is
still obscure; up to this point, we've been given the preface to some
actual idea that never quite arrived. The most obvious route to the
improvement of the essay is to start from the actual idea and build
an outline around it that reduces what's here by 75% or so, and uses
these points as introductory only to the primary theme, whatever
"bottom-up" approach it was, or will be when we see
it. |
| | \ No newline at end of file |