Utopias and Distopias- The war on controlling our "mindspace".
.."The world kind of works better when individuals have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, when society isn't based on forced dependency, and when we are not killing each other in large numbers."
Most of us are aware of the control the government has on our own lives, and society as a whole. I believe Adam's views reflect my own perspective on how we analyse the internet and how it plays a "utopian" role in our lives and society as a whole. As all facets of our lives are governed or controlled in various ways, the freedom and limitless opportunities the internet once stood for are slowly beginning to fade as this "utopian" global society is being moulded to suit Government bodies.
I enjoyed reading Barlow's passionate manifesto, as it forwards this notion of the freedom each user has the right to possess through using this cyberspace, becoming a global "mind space" which unable to be controlled or governed through coercion. Although this manifesto made me question how I personally used the internet, signing away my ownership and privacy rights, and conceding to the "rules and regulations" every time I signed into my Facebook account. Are such violations of ownership the new means of governing and regulating our "mind space"?
After reading reports of hackers uniting together, to "kill" Facebook, at first I didn't know how to react. The term "hackers” has a negative connotation, as many media outlets explain the threat and dangers that hackers bring. But after reading Barlow's manifesto, I have formed a new perspective on hackers, by thinking of them as "freedom fighters" for this utopian mind space eliminating any controlling forces who seek to govern this "utopian" society.
Maybe Barlow was right after all.. "I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear."
Barlow, J.P. (1996) A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace [URL: https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I didn't read the Barlow reading this week so found it interesting that he managed to challenge people's perceived notions of hackers and turn it into a positive thing.
I heard about the plans to kill facebook and even though it is an obvious and relentless site which uses our personal details for market gain, I would still be really upset by its closure. I think that handing over a few personal and private details to fb is a small price to pay to stay in constant contact with my family and friends
The people who plan to "kill" Facebook on November 5th think the same way. Anonymous posted that video on YouTube to grab people's attention that their information on the Internet will never be safe. But maybe "hackers" in this instance isn't such a bad thing...
Hey Matt,
I actually had a fairly opposite reaction to the Barlow reading, which, to be honest, surprised me. Its distrust of current authorities and hope for more would normally attract me, but I found myself annoyed by what I perceived as an air of superiority and a bunch of simply impractical claims.
I found the society he claimed was emerging on the internet- in which people can express their beliefs without the fear of being silenced- simply didn't exist. Thinking about the kind of world I've encountered on the internet; I think it is often more narrow and segregated than the 'real world'. Consider, for example, the seriously venomous (but generally shallow) arguments that happen on virtually every comment page on Youtube... or even the way our internet browsing is generally dictated by Google or some other search engine- if your website appears on the 10th search page or further, you have basically no hope of being heard.
I think that although the internet is a different kind of network that does give ear to some new kinds of voices; ultimately people are involved, and where people are involved a society (as nice as it sounds) described in Barlow and the video you included simply can't exist. The video relies on a world in which individuals each respect one another's 'freedoms' all the time, while Barlow expects everyone to follow the Golden Rule (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you). While most of the time most people will follow these rules, no one will do so all the time and many will break them a lot. In fact, in far too many instances, the seeming anonomity of the internet has given way to people behaving in much crueler and more vicious ways towards others than they would in 'real life', where they feel they're held accountable for such actions. For me, a world without the need for an authority or regulators is a nice ideal but sincerely impractical.
However, what I found most annoying about the video and reading was not the ideology, but the superior way in which it was presented. Barlow's sounded like a victorious political speech which scorned at the way our world works, suggesting that the internet was superior in every way. The video did a similar thing, blaming the government for 'war, taxes, jailing peaceful people' while there remained no talk of positive government involvement, such as those taxes being used to create infrastructure (roads, railways etc), welfare or jailing violent people. There seemed to be a hint that only people lacking in 'commonsense' would disagree with the views in the video.
Post a Comment