NP: Filter - Anthems for the DamnedLooking at the news these days, it's plain to see we live in interesting times. Much like the
much misappropriated Chinese curse, this can be construed as both a condemnation and a boon. One prevalent catalyst of these changes is a phenomenon which affects us across the world - in the past twenty years, it's changed the way we work, the way we live, and the way we think. It connects people from different sides of the planet, and can provide elucidation, information, titillation and meaningless ephemera to all. Of course you know what I'm talking about here, it's the thing which is allowing me to write this and make it avaialbe across the world, and the thing which is allowing you to read this - the internet. So much more than a mere network of wiring (or, as some would have it
a series of tubes), the internet has grown into such a massive force in today's world, you would have had to been living under a pretty seriously sized rock (and possibly one without even a 56k dialup modem) for a long time to not have heard of it, witnessed its brilliance and foolishness, and been sucked in by the sheer addictive quality of its connectivity. I'm sure that last word was used badly, and probably stolen from some Microsoft manual, but it's important you understand the point I'm trying to convey here - it's the force which makes the internet brilliant - it's the communication, the fascination, the sheer "people power", which makes it more, much more, than the aforementioned set of wires, and it's a central point to this discourse.
Much like the
series of tubes speech by Senator Ted Stevens which was parodied in the link in the previous paragraph, one strata of society has been realising of late just how vitally important the internet is, and, if ignored, can become a destructive force against you. This group are those in charge - governments (elected, in the majority) corporations (not elected, but, on the other hand, could be seen as such, if you count spending power alongside political power, except they don't go away after eight years), and the various sorts of governing bodies in between. From the government in Iran realising that dissidents are
using social networking sites to voice their protests, (with some
amusing results), to the government in this country producing the
Digital Britain report, to address issues such as getting the country connected, organsing how to adapt broadcasting to the internet, and the thorny topic of file-sharing, it's becoming increasingly apparent that those in charge are waking up to the fact that we are living in a digital world, and it's a much bigger picture than before.
One of the aspects of why the internet was created, namely as a military network that was too widespread and modular to be knocked out by a single strike, has become one of the biggest thorns in the side of these decision makers. Much like the mythical hydra - if you cut off one head, two grow in its place - the internet, with its decentralised nature, means that it's very hard to clamp down on those speaking or acting against you - once you close down one part, you find more rising up to replace it. This principle is the active ingredient which fuels several aspects of the internet, such as file-sharing, blogging and so on, which, at first seem like a perfectly good idea, and then those in charge feel they should step in and control. Don't believe me? Well, the case of
the Nightjack blogger being ruled last week by the High Court that his identity was part of the public domain is a good example of this. We're meant to live in a country with free speech, and the internet is certainly meant to be a domain of such. Therefore, if a bobby (that's a copper, or policeman to those of you outside the UK), wishes to voice his dissent on the internet anonymously, surely that's his perogative? How long before every whistleblower (as in the informant kind, not the old-style policeman variety) has their identity laid bare to the recriminations of those they are trying to illuminate the misconduct of? It seems that those in power, once again, are trying their best to counteract the whole essence of the internet - true freedoms and actions, which end up becoming damaging to the governing power's interests - perhaps those in charge are becoming conscious of why exactly "governments should be afraid of their people", as George Washington once put it.
The thing is, to take a moment from this, I'm not actually trying to convey some impression of an "us versus them" situation here - not in the slightest. Politically, as in many other aspects of life, I'm actually an optimist, and would like nothing more than to see governments and their people getting along - I'm quite a fan of the idea of benevolent leadership (and not benevolent dictatorship). The problem here is the attitude which those in charge seem to take towards problems like this - they wish to become opposing forces, flying against everything which they find distateful, without taking a moment to look into it, how it works, and the reasons why people are doing it. I certainly think that, if a more understanding attitude was taken towards such issues, things may not seem so difficult - compare the difference between the Obama administration's attitude toward things, and that of the previous one, and you'll see what I mean. Listen, understand, adapt.
How will this play out? I hope it never will - I hope that the internet remains a place for free speech, where you can express an opinion on anything from John Woo's latest film to the actions of the Chinese Government without recrimination, and those in charge learn how to listen to those online, understand their reasoning, and adapt as best they can to accomodate their thinking.
