The internet is the defining media platform of the contemporary media landscape; its ubiquity within media, society and politics make it one the most powerful tools of communication available. Such power is not available unrestricted however, there are many who influence and alter its availability and content. This essay will attempt to identify those who claim control of the internet and examine their purpose for doing so.
Before we can analyse the control of the internet, it is important to address the globalisation of the internet and new media, specifically the boundaries and borders surrounding them. Many saw the internet as a global network that would result in the breakdown of the nation state and the rise of global borderless community (Gilder 2000). This idea is understandable we live through communicating; it is human nature to connect and create communities, and share information like a collective intelligence, it is reasonable to understand why people hoped for the end of national barriers. But the world doesn’t operate this way; instead there is government and capitalism and therefore borders. Geographical borders within the internet allows for categorisation and control. From a commercial perspective borders allow online companies to create targeted advertising and appeal to the user’s cultural conditions (ie writing in their native language, showing prices in local currencies and providing location specific details such as weather). But borders are also essential for control, especially control from governments trying to implement laws; this brings us to territorial laws and internet governance.
The internet must seem a scary thing to those in power; an open global network of communication that empowers the user; Dutton (2009) terms the internet a ‘fifth estate’ where individuals can freely source and distribute information. Such freedom opens the way for abuse, evidently demonstrated through the distribution of child pornography, illegal merchandise and terrorist plans. It is clear that the internet must be regulated in some way, but due to its globalised nature whose laws apply. The Yahoo vs. France case of 1999 examines this issue; an American company was put on trial under French law, with the judge deciding Yahoo was liable under French discrimination laws, for selling Nazi memorabilia to French citizens (Goldmsith and Wu 2006). This raises the question of whether internet users and companies will have to curb their activities to conform to the strictest foreign laws; if China enacts a law saying no one can look at pictures of horses or you’ll get ten years in prison, will everyone avoid horse pictures to not risk breaking foreign law? This will essentially make the most restrictive laws global and place the internet under the control of tyrannical governments due to user fear.
This raises the issue of propaganda, censorship, human rights and digital democracy. If governments seek to control the population through the distribution of information, as is a common thing, then the internet with its ubiquitous, easily accessible nature is a communications goldmine. Thanks to media convergence the majority of media communications and content is distributed in some way using the internet (Wu 2010). The internet can therefore become the speakerphone or silencer of the government. Although domestic governments may not always be able to take down content on foreign servers they can certainly pressure local intermediaries, such as search engines and ISPs to censor incoming content. Local censorship is becoming an increasingly common norm, especially in conservative and communist areas (Deibert and Rohozinski 2010). The great firewall of China for example blocks a list of keywords such as ‘multi-part elections’ and ‘Taiwanese independence’. Is the internet subject to the control of oppressive governments? Issues regarding digital democracy have been present since the internet’s creation, and it would appear that just as most technologies before governments will find a way to exploit technology to control the population.
As mentioned earlier humans live through communication and to take this away or censor it in any way must be seen as a violation of human rights, the people of china experience a cultural media landscape filtered and written by those who demand power and control. The agenda setting practices within communist nations and some western nations (albeit to a lesser degree), are driven by a desire for control, and to some extent fear of the people. We see in America the NSA has been reading the populations emails and the CIA have been monitoring foreign communications, we carry GPS around everywhere through our phones signalling our positions to those who might want to control us; are these actions the violations of human rights or are they necessary for protection of the people as the US government claims. It is no surprise that through the open nature of the internet we have seen rebellion against the secretive nature of governments, the actions of wikileaks and anonymous for example show a fight back for control of the internet, and an attempt to maintain the freedom of information and the facilitation of the global public sphere (McNair 2006). A group of not for profit organizations such as ICANN, ISOC and IETF are in charge of the governance of the internet, but with such prevalent evidence of censorship and control by governments, the effectiveness of these companies to maintain digital democracy must be questioned
This essay has largely focused on government control of the internet but it is important to address commercial and capitalist control as well, as these areas drive such a large portion of our lives. At the time of writing this, November 2013, there is debate in America about net neutrality laws; essentially the major internet service providers (AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon) are fighting to overturn laws enacted by the US House of Representatives that demand that ISPs treat all services equally. If the net neutrality laws are overturned these companies could slow down access to sites like YouTube and demand people pay for ‘premium access’ to speed up streaming rates, the companies can block certain results from appearing in search engines (Viacom and Comcast especially want to block access to BitTorrent, as it conflicts with their sales of digital media.) Essentially if net neutrality laws are overturned commercial internet companies will discriminate about which content becomes easily accessible, which conflicts with the open and free purpose of the internet.
Reference List
Deibert, R and Rohozinski, R 2010, Access Controlled: the shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace, MIT Press, USA.
Dutton, W 2009, ‘The fifth estate emerging through the network of networks’, Prometheus: critical studies in innovation, vol. 27, issue 1.
Gilder, G 2000, Telecosm, Free Press.
Goldmsith, J and Wu, T 2006, Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a borderless World, Oxford University Press, INTRDOCUTION: ‘Yahoo’, pp. 1-10.
McNair, B 2006, Cultural Chaos: journalism, news and power in a globalized world, Routledge, London.
Wu, T 2010, The Master Switch, Knopf, New York.
Before we can analyse the control of the internet, it is important to address the globalisation of the internet and new media, specifically the boundaries and borders surrounding them. Many saw the internet as a global network that would result in the breakdown of the nation state and the rise of global borderless community (Gilder 2000). This idea is understandable we live through communicating; it is human nature to connect and create communities, and share information like a collective intelligence, it is reasonable to understand why people hoped for the end of national barriers. But the world doesn’t operate this way; instead there is government and capitalism and therefore borders. Geographical borders within the internet allows for categorisation and control. From a commercial perspective borders allow online companies to create targeted advertising and appeal to the user’s cultural conditions (ie writing in their native language, showing prices in local currencies and providing location specific details such as weather). But borders are also essential for control, especially control from governments trying to implement laws; this brings us to territorial laws and internet governance.
The internet must seem a scary thing to those in power; an open global network of communication that empowers the user; Dutton (2009) terms the internet a ‘fifth estate’ where individuals can freely source and distribute information. Such freedom opens the way for abuse, evidently demonstrated through the distribution of child pornography, illegal merchandise and terrorist plans. It is clear that the internet must be regulated in some way, but due to its globalised nature whose laws apply. The Yahoo vs. France case of 1999 examines this issue; an American company was put on trial under French law, with the judge deciding Yahoo was liable under French discrimination laws, for selling Nazi memorabilia to French citizens (Goldmsith and Wu 2006). This raises the question of whether internet users and companies will have to curb their activities to conform to the strictest foreign laws; if China enacts a law saying no one can look at pictures of horses or you’ll get ten years in prison, will everyone avoid horse pictures to not risk breaking foreign law? This will essentially make the most restrictive laws global and place the internet under the control of tyrannical governments due to user fear.
This raises the issue of propaganda, censorship, human rights and digital democracy. If governments seek to control the population through the distribution of information, as is a common thing, then the internet with its ubiquitous, easily accessible nature is a communications goldmine. Thanks to media convergence the majority of media communications and content is distributed in some way using the internet (Wu 2010). The internet can therefore become the speakerphone or silencer of the government. Although domestic governments may not always be able to take down content on foreign servers they can certainly pressure local intermediaries, such as search engines and ISPs to censor incoming content. Local censorship is becoming an increasingly common norm, especially in conservative and communist areas (Deibert and Rohozinski 2010). The great firewall of China for example blocks a list of keywords such as ‘multi-part elections’ and ‘Taiwanese independence’. Is the internet subject to the control of oppressive governments? Issues regarding digital democracy have been present since the internet’s creation, and it would appear that just as most technologies before governments will find a way to exploit technology to control the population.
As mentioned earlier humans live through communication and to take this away or censor it in any way must be seen as a violation of human rights, the people of china experience a cultural media landscape filtered and written by those who demand power and control. The agenda setting practices within communist nations and some western nations (albeit to a lesser degree), are driven by a desire for control, and to some extent fear of the people. We see in America the NSA has been reading the populations emails and the CIA have been monitoring foreign communications, we carry GPS around everywhere through our phones signalling our positions to those who might want to control us; are these actions the violations of human rights or are they necessary for protection of the people as the US government claims. It is no surprise that through the open nature of the internet we have seen rebellion against the secretive nature of governments, the actions of wikileaks and anonymous for example show a fight back for control of the internet, and an attempt to maintain the freedom of information and the facilitation of the global public sphere (McNair 2006). A group of not for profit organizations such as ICANN, ISOC and IETF are in charge of the governance of the internet, but with such prevalent evidence of censorship and control by governments, the effectiveness of these companies to maintain digital democracy must be questioned
This essay has largely focused on government control of the internet but it is important to address commercial and capitalist control as well, as these areas drive such a large portion of our lives. At the time of writing this, November 2013, there is debate in America about net neutrality laws; essentially the major internet service providers (AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon) are fighting to overturn laws enacted by the US House of Representatives that demand that ISPs treat all services equally. If the net neutrality laws are overturned these companies could slow down access to sites like YouTube and demand people pay for ‘premium access’ to speed up streaming rates, the companies can block certain results from appearing in search engines (Viacom and Comcast especially want to block access to BitTorrent, as it conflicts with their sales of digital media.) Essentially if net neutrality laws are overturned commercial internet companies will discriminate about which content becomes easily accessible, which conflicts with the open and free purpose of the internet.
Reference List
Deibert, R and Rohozinski, R 2010, Access Controlled: the shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace, MIT Press, USA.
Dutton, W 2009, ‘The fifth estate emerging through the network of networks’, Prometheus: critical studies in innovation, vol. 27, issue 1.
Gilder, G 2000, Telecosm, Free Press.
Goldmsith, J and Wu, T 2006, Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a borderless World, Oxford University Press, INTRDOCUTION: ‘Yahoo’, pp. 1-10.
McNair, B 2006, Cultural Chaos: journalism, news and power in a globalized world, Routledge, London.
Wu, T 2010, The Master Switch, Knopf, New York.