97 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
97 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
Is It Anarchy on the Internet?
|
|
|
|
In a word, no. Considering that it was founded by branches of the
|
|
U.S. government, and today is funded mostly by commercial
|
|
companies, public and private schools, and the government, it seems
|
|
like kind of a stupid question. But since countless pundits, some of
|
|
whom even claim to be anarchists, have maintained that it is, I'd like
|
|
to state why I think that the Internet does not fit any definition of
|
|
`anarchism' that I am comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
The media seem to have adopted the practice of using the word
|
|
`anarchy' to describe what happens when a government fucks up
|
|
more than usual--the civil war in Somalia being one of the more
|
|
recent examples. Anarchists, on the other hand, use it to describe a
|
|
system of social organization where people and communities take
|
|
responsibility for their own lives and actions instead of depending on
|
|
a government to do so for them. Anarchists, in other words, are
|
|
describing a positive, proactive alternative to the current political
|
|
system, whereas the popular press are describing the lack or failure
|
|
of certain acts of the current system. So it's not surprising to see
|
|
some of the various services of the Internet, which have pretty much
|
|
had ``anything goes'' usage policies and have remained quite free
|
|
from government control since their inception, described by the
|
|
press as ``anarchic.'' What is surprising is that I occasionally see self-
|
|
proclaimed ``anarchists'' who seem to agree with this!
|
|
|
|
The thinking seems to go like this:
|
|
* From a user's point of view, most Internet services are truly
|
|
decentralized. Outside of any given site, there is no central
|
|
administration, and what hierarchies there are tend not to be rigidly
|
|
``enforced.''
|
|
* Whereas, for instance, it is a crime to send certain items through
|
|
the U.S. Mail, the internation and open nature of, and the enormous
|
|
volume of information carried on, the Internet makes such
|
|
restrictions on content difficult (though not impossible) to enforce.
|
|
* In many areas, if you look hard enough, you can find a way to
|
|
access the Internet for free, although you often need to own a
|
|
computer to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, this philosophy seems to define the Internet in terms
|
|
of what it isn't [not (usually) centralized, not (usually) censored, not
|
|
(usually) expensive]. You'll notice that this fits very neatly into the
|
|
``media'' definition of `anarchism,' but says nothing about the need
|
|
for a positive alternative to government-dependent lifestyles, as
|
|
required by the ``anarchist's definition'' of the word.
|
|
|
|
The Internet is a very useful tool. It's both faster and, for most
|
|
people, cheaper than the U.S. Postal Service. It's far cheaper than the
|
|
telephone, and usually just as fast. It's also the easiest way I know of
|
|
to get a message out to a large group of people at once. I also find
|
|
that I get much more personal feedback from email messages than I
|
|
get from zines, and sometimes even personal letters, probably
|
|
because it's so much easier to do. But there are several downsides
|
|
that we must keep in mind:
|
|
* Any computer network or bulletin board is fundamentally classist,
|
|
because most people simply don't have access to it. Whereas nearly
|
|
anyone can receive paper mail or a telephone call, whether or not
|
|
they have a permanent address, you must have access to both a
|
|
computer and an appropriate account to use the Internet.
|
|
Recognising this, groups in many cities are forming ``Freenets,'' which
|
|
offer (usually) free accounts with Internet email access, and often
|
|
provide public-access terminals. But today, at least, the majority of
|
|
people do not have access to these services.
|
|
* While personal email can be quite useful, few if any of the services
|
|
meant for large groups of peole to use simultaneously, such as
|
|
mailing lists (like the aaa-web) and Usenet (an enormous ``bulletin
|
|
board'' system) end up being consistently constructive (if, indeed,
|
|
they are ever constructive at all!). Most are like a meeting where the
|
|
person who shouts the loudest gets to be heard, and where those
|
|
who aren't into screaming tend to eventually leave. Spy writer Chip
|
|
Rowe asked, ``How much would you pay to spend your evenings and
|
|
weekends with a room full of con artists, misogynists, computer
|
|
geeks, snooty academics, rude teenagers, pushy salesmen, Iowa
|
|
housewives, bad poets, Nazi sympathizers, certified morons,
|
|
corporate suits, Elvis fans, recovering alcoholics, aging hippies,
|
|
pockmarked pornographers, and overzealous FBI agents?''
|
|
* There's nothing available on the Internet that isn't also served by
|
|
other means, like letters and zines, albeit not quite as well, in some
|
|
instances. None of the services that it offers add to our efforts; they
|
|
simply make them a little more convenient. In other words, truly
|
|
autonomous communities are no more likely to arise given the use of
|
|
the Internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So while Internet services can be a great way to get the word out
|
|
about the real, constructive projects that you and your community
|
|
are doing, please don't fall into the trap of mistaking use of the net
|
|
itself as something of any real value to the creation of an
|
|
autonomous society.
|
|
|
|
-Craig
|
|
|
|
Any comments on this article? Send email to the address below! ??
|
|
Return to home page
|
|
Craig (stuntz@rhic.physics.wayne.edu)
|