Guest User

Babelmachine

Because the revolution will not be televised, but blogged

by Joey Alarilla, Philippines

Subscribe to this blog

Internet governance: Who speaks for the Web?

Jul 9, 2006 19:58

The Internet is supposed to be borderless, and cyberspace in principle doesn't belong to any nation.

Yet because of its origins as ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network--the agency was attached to the US Department of Defense and later renamed DARPA) and the current setup, the US has had a unique influence over the operation of the Internet.

Maybe things will change now that the US and the United Nations (UN) have agreed to convene the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which will have its inaugural meeting in Athens from October 30 to November 2.

The IGF's goal is to give voice to multiple stakeholders in the formation of policies for different Internet governance issues, with the main themes being openness, security, diversity and access. Frankly, I'm not that hopeful, given the Bush administration's track record when it comes to paying heed to UN resolutions, but let's give the US the benefit of the doubt and the IGF a chance.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Internet aids the spread of democracy and promotes equality, regardless of race, religion, gender, income, language or whatever other categories we human beings use to differentiate ourselves from each other. After all, as that old saw popularized by the classic New Yorker cartoon way back in 1993 goes: "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

Reality, however, is a lot messier than our ideals would have it, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the virtual world also reflects and replicates the inequality and ugliness we find in the real one. The danger is that the Internet might go the way of other forms of global media, seeking to homogenize the world through consumerism and reinforcing the assumption that the Western point of view is the only legitimate one.

I'm talking as someone who comes from a country that was colonized by the US in the name of Manifest Destiny, the White Man's Burden and Benevolent Assimilation, whose history books for a long time demonized our own patriots and freedom fighters as brigands or misguided rebels refusing the gift of enlightenment that the Americans were bringing.

Without implying that the Internet is a monolithic structure, a similar thing is happening now in the name of globalization and information technology. We've heard critics say the Internet is another instrument for cultural imperialism, with the US as the main culprit. The rise of the Information Age has allowed American culture, American values, American media, American products and American software to be spread anywhere in the world on a scale and speed literally unimaginable just a few generations ago.

This isn't meant to be an exercise in American bashing--I know many Americans themselves are critical of globalization, imperialism and aspects of their own culture. But the reality is that the world's only remaining superpower is also the world's information superpower, dominating global media and the Internet, and largely determining how the Internet will be run and who will benefit from technology.

When countries like Zimbabwe, Cuba and Iran criticize Internet freedom and say too much free speech promotes anarchy and the erosion of their own culture's values, it's easy to dismiss them. After all, haven't they been demonized by Western media for years? Why should we even bother to listen to poor countries and repressive governments?

Or take China. Isn't it now the new Evil Empire, trying to build a virtual Iron Curtain (perhaps we should call it the Silicon Curtain) that will filter unwanted Internet content and regulate access to technology? The assumption is that freedom is an absolute good, and that countries like China must follow the same concept of freedom as that of the West.

The problem is that globalization has become a religion. The promise is that we will all prosper if we interconnect the whole world and basically replicate the US model for all countries. It is a world united by MTV, McDonald's and Microsoft. It is a world where US foreign policy actively ensures it will remain the information superpower through TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), which basically uses trade as a weapon to enforce compliance with the World Trade Organization's IP policy.

We will see more battles ahead over Internet governance and IT policies as countries and political entities seek to protect their own interests. We've seen recent examples such as France's stance on iTunes and the European Union and South Korea's antitrust sanctions against Microsoft.

We will see clashes over IPR and digital rights management (DRM), as developing countries challenge the very definition of IPR and piracy. We will see more politicians scrambling to tap different online communities and cater to the elite of the information society as the Internet becomes more influential. (Ironically, we keep talking about e-democracy when the Internet, whether Web 1.0 or Web 2.0, is actually the voice of a very small yet noisy minority out of the six billion people on Earth--but more on that another day.)

There will be no easy answers. Each country will have its own prejudices and will always want to advance its own self-interest. Only in the case of the US, its prejudices have a global impact. The subversive nature and disruptive power of the Internet have to a large extent been tamed by regulation of policy and control over infrastructure. From a business perspective, that's understandable since companies won't profit from a Wild Web. But what about those on the other side of the digital divide? What about those whose cultures and values are under assault because they are deemed incompatible with a globalized ICT-driven economy? What happens to national sovereignty?

Who speaks for the Web? My only hope is that more voices will be heard. At the end of the day, why should the Internet give more power to those who already wield it?

« Prev

Report offensive

Talkback

jrweiss

View profile

Send mail

jrweiss says...
Your title "Who speaks for the Web?" and opening abut "ARPANET --the agency was attached to the US Department of Defense and later renamed DARPA", point out the hope for us all. namely "that easy of use is not expensive, it's priceless".

Since the Internet's inception in the forties, and when the "world wide web", came into being in 1992, the Internet had very little impact. It was used mostly by university researchers' for email to "push" information. The web brought a "pull" technology to easy reach. That combine with "search", is what scares governments (including, the US government). This is not as much of a "cultural" issue, as and Individual vs. Group one. What happens when you give anyone the ability to search for whatever they want instead of taking what's given to them? Despite, the apparent success of the Chinese in restricting what is available in that country, how many workers are reading the information the government wants to restrict, just to maintain the filters? What is ultimately being spread, is not US culture, but raw information. What will happen when you give anyone..., I guess we'll find out. The "Laurie Anderson" song, "The Dream Before" tells us that "History" is an angel struggling to get back and fix the things that have been broken, but a storm is blowing the angel backwards into the future, the storm has a name, Progress.

Jul 09, 2006 21:51

Comment

Report offensive

About Joey Alarilla

Joey Alarilla is the Multimedia Head a.k.a. The Catalyst of Manila-based Level Up! Inc., the PLDT Group's online gaming company. He is a doting dad, avid gamer, and pro wrestling fan. Visit his personal blog and follow him on Twitter. You may also add him to your Facebook, or follow him on Plurk and Yahoo! Meme.