Internet as freedom, Internet as farce

The Internet is a powerful platform for freedom and social change. It has the ability to connect a large number of people in a short period of time, giving them the freedom to shape who they are online, share information of any kind (almost, but more on that later) quickly, and design and deploy enterprises - social, political or commercial in a relatively cost-effective manner. As Christakis and Fowler put it in their book Connected, online relationships “can be unfettered by geography…and (allow for) the kind of anonymous and large-scale interactions that are much harder to arrange in the real world” (Page 257). The implications of this freedom for social movements are obvious as seen in the role of, for example, Facebook in the Arab Spring. Social media allowed for hitherto disconnected communities to connect with one another, realize the force and meaning of their common agenda, and collaborate and coordinate at an unprecedented level to effect social change. The anonymity that many in the uprising enjoyed gave them the freedom to organize and share their views without fear of retribution by the state.

The implications of such freedom in other spheres of political and commercial life are unprecedented. The ability of social media to mobilize support for political campaigns is now well known not only in the United States as with Obama’s first campaign, but also in countries like India. There, the recent elections saw the now elected Prime Minster use social media in a big way. A landmark study in 2012 involving (controversially) Facebook manipulating the news feeds of members shows the potential for social media to go further and actually impact voter turnout. It begs us to imagine the possibilities that social media holds for enriching policymaking. It can empower both policy makers and constituents to engage each other better, contributing to policies that are better suited to the needs of constituents, optimized to use resources efficiently, and developed in shorter periods of time.

The same connectivity and energy of social media can also be effective in the development and deployment of new technologies and business models, for example, of alternate energy. From my own experience of working in solar energy in India with Bridge to India, social media is playing a key role in bringing forward innovative ideas around distributive solar generation models that are widely known to be better for the country than the model of large-scale solar generation currently supported by the government. Social media then is not only helping develop ideas, but is also supporting deployment by building a critical mass of experts and enthusiasts, connecting buyers and sellers, communicating effective messages about the benefits of the model, and turning the movement into a force of policy change.

The threats to this very freedom systemically prevalent within this very same Internet then are shocking. The battle over net neutrality, for example, is a grim reminder that powerful corporations continue to threaten the use of the internet in a manner that drives connectivity, information dissemination, and mass mobilization through innovations like YouTube and Skype, amongst others. Worse, the near-absolute power over the Internet enjoyed by the very harbingers of Internet freedom like Google and Facebook means that they have the means to regulate, modulate and manipulate the so-called freedom that internet users have embraced. And, the concern is that they are already doing so. They often regulate this freedom intentionally, either out of their own sense of what is right or wrong or coerced by governments who’s demands they often have to meet in order to continue their businesses and maintain their bottom lines. The greater fear is the largely unintentional but pre-programmed restriction and manipulation of Internet activity that such companies are practicing in the form of algorithms giving rise to the so called Filter Bubble.

With the kind of control that the Internet giants have and often use over the Internet, it begs us to ask the question if the freedom offered by the Internet is in fact a farce. In the real world, interactions are directly in the hands of people – they are immediately and near-entirely cognizant of the risks they engage in and are well aware of the consequences. In the Internet world, with its promise of freedom, the dangers of manipulation are little understood, very real, and have little legal or regulatory recourse, at least for the moment.

The perils of the Internet age

Network effects, Web 2.0, big data, social media, collaborative production, and the democratization and widespread dissemination of content are all hallmarks of the digital age that make us stand up and applaud in absolute admiration and near-awe of this phenomena called the Internet.

Shirky in his book Here Comes Everybody lays out in great detail what the advantages of the Internet are for collaboration and communication. As he explains, the Internet has unleashed the power of group action for effecting social change. By eliminating the transaction costs associated with information dissemination, influencing, motivating, and organizing, the Internet has injected a historically unprecedented amount of energy into the power of people to effect change. By allowing people to organize, form communities and exchange information freely and rapidly, the Internet has become the ultimate platform for collective action, collaboration, and creativity, all at once. Shirky suggests that the degree of collaboration and sharing facilitated by the Internet positions it as a medium strong enough to anchor community and public life. The degree of transparency and peer-scrutiny-led accountability that the Internet offers only strengthens its usefulness as an agent of social change.

The power of the Internet is only being enhanced as it reaches the generation of Web 2.0, and beyond. As we learn from a blog post by O’Brien (What Is Web 2.0), using the Internet as a platform rather than a network that hosts platforms can revolutionize the way the web, and more importantly the users of the web, are used in expanding its potential. He talks about the ability of Web 2.0 to leverage customer self-service, algorithmic data management, and the network effects associated with user contribution to significantly expand the reach and dominance of applications and services on the web. By leveraging users, the web has the potential to culminate its different offerings into a few, or someday, one mega platform that offers everything at once.

While the advantages of the all-dominant and all-possible Internet are apparent, both Shirky and O’Brien fail to recognize some serious threats the Internet in its current form is posing to individuals, communities, and even countries. Little attention is paid not only by the authors, but few others, to the near absolute control that the Internet, especially stalwarts of the Web 2.0 generation like Google and Facebook are gaining over public content, private information and, to some extent, people’s entire identities (given that a large part of who we are today is determined by our presence online). As a New York Times article highlights, so severe is the threat of exploitation of this dominant position of the web that countries like Germany are taking drastic steps to stem the onslaught of giants like Google that is in near-complete control of our online lives (refer Google Is Target of European Backlash on U.S. Tech Dominance). As the article suggests, given the possibility that such positions of dominance can fall into the hands of governments either friendly or otherwise, the risks to national security and privacy are real and significant.

Shirky does bring to light another key risk of the power of the Internet – its ability to foster disproportionate, uninhibited, and often-harmful action. He explains that the many advantages of the Internet can also have the often-unintended effect of over doing action due to the ability of content to go “viral”. This is best illustrated with the example of the recent Internet viral sensation known as the Ice Bucket Challenge (refer The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge Has Raised $100 Million -- And Counting). While little harm (except in maybe this case - 4 firefighters injured when Ice Bucket Challenge goes wrong) can be seen coming from a campaign that has raised close to $100 million for an important medical cause, it does beg us to ask if one cause deserves so much support so quickly while many others have struggled for so long?

In any case, the Internet is unstoppable and is only getting stronger (refer How Apple Is Invading Our Bodies). It’s about time we woke up and recognized the perils of this internet age!