The end of romanticism about the Internet and Free Expression?

There was a good article on modern censorship in last weekend's Observer by Denis MacShane MP. He reviews the new book on censorship by Nick Cohen, who explains that - contrary to popular belief - everything is not rosy in the Internet Garden of free expression.

Too often - instead of providing a forum for democracy - modern corporations, Governments, and advanced technology companies are seeking new ways in which to control the Internet. In China, for example, whilst there are millions using micro-blogging sites (Twitter is banned), there is a new requirement for all micro-bloggers to be "publicly registered". Anonymity is curtailed.

Even Twitter has succumbed. Often cited as the bastion of freedom of thought, the company now appears to have agreed to ensure that twitterers are subject to individual government laws. Although Twitter denies that this will have any impact, the effects of this 'ruling' have only just begun. Only yesterday it was reported that Brazil and Twitter have apparently agreed to prohibit twitterers from reporting police activities, such as police road blocks, speed checks and the like.

The logical extension of this is enormous: after Twitter censorship, then what about mobile phones? There is little difference between banning phone conversations that report 'police road blocks', as there is to banning twitter for doing the same.

The message here is clear: whilst the Internet is a great source of liberation, at the end of the day, we are subject to the whims and decisions of Governments and the huge corporations that control it - whether it be Google, Microsoft, Twitter or Facebook.

It is a bit like being a regular at a wonderful pub to have a drink, until the Landlord decides he doesn't like the cut of your jib, restricts what you drink and then throws you out. What all this means is that the alluring romanticism of the Internet is coming to an end. Yes it brings enormous benefits, but we are naïve if we think we are living in an Internet libertarian's utopia.

This blog was also published on Conservative Home HERE.

Opening the Freedom Zone: Social Media and the Riots

This morning, I opened the official fringe of Conservative Party conference: The Freedom Zone, hosted by the excellent Freedom Association.

On a panel with Mark Wallace, Sam Bowman, and Christian May, I spoke about the importance of a free social media - however bad the riots this summer may have been.

However bad the riots were, I am deeply uneasy about the Police restricting Blackberry messenger and other social media.

In August, the Government hinted that they would “look to ban people from major social networks” if they were suspected of inciting violence online. They were under immense pressure to do this. But it is a slippery slope. In fact, Chinese state media welcomed the news, and agreed that censoring the Internet was a “positive new attitude” that would “help appease quarrels between East and West”. Interestingly, Mubarak’s last tactic in the Arab Spring was to shut down the Egyptian Internet; the Syrian Government is currently doing the same, as it tries to choke off any news that is hostile to Bashar al-Assad; and Robert Mugabe is trying to ban Blackberries from Zimbabwe.

Fundamentally, I believe in a free Social Media, because...
- Social media is a measure of our freedom. Just as The Economist uses the price of a MacDonald Big Mac to measure a country's prosperity, so too, the level of a country's democracy could be determined by the level of its Blackberry usage. During the Arab Spring, one of the first actions by Middle Eastern autocracies was to ban Blackberries, because the regimes could not access user's details such as messaging and other data.

- We can be tough on crime, without being totalitarian. Now before I go on, I just want to say that I am no namby pamby on recent events.  I favour the toughest measures possible (whether it be plastic bullets, water cannon or whatever) and the harshest punishments possible, in order to ensure that we never see a repeat of the riots. But, I feel deeply uneasy about 'the Government' or 'the authorities' regulating, restricting - in effect  controlling - the use of social media or the use of Blackberries - both on grounds of political precedent and on practicality.

- We should be worried about the ratchet effect. Let's look at political precedent first: the problem with every curtailment of liberty - however noble the intention - it always has a ratchet effect.  Once you start restricting the Internet in this way, it becomes so much easier to restrict it for other reasons.  We may have a benign government now, but a future government might seek to use these powers to restrict social media on simple grounds of legitimate criticism.  You might think that such a course of action is far-fetched - and you may be right - but the problem is that any curtailment opens the door to further infringement.  As the saying goes, liberty is hard won but easily lost.

- Banning social media just wouldn’t work. Second, let's look at practicality.   How on earth do you ban the use of Blackberries et al in this way?  Can you really curtail specific people from using Blackberry Messenger (BBM), given that they will just obtain another Blackberry with a different identity, or use other mobile networks, or other Internet services? True, you can block off mobile phone signals in a particular area, but that hits not only the innocent, but also can be dangerous for those caught up in riots trying to contact the emergency services.

- Banning social media is censorship, by another name. Is the state really going to expand its power to such a degree to monitor every Facebook account, or force Research In Motion (the maker of Blackberries) to hand over trillions of gigabytes of data)?  It is just not feasible. Bad people will always take advantage of technology for evil purposes. Ban BBM and they will soon find another method to try and destroy our society.  Technology - especially mobile technology - is Hydra's head writ large.  We have to face the fact that it is pretty difficult to contain:  instead let us do all we can to make sure that more people are using it as a for good rather than a force for bad.

- Social media isn’t the root cause of the riots. Blaming social media for the riots is a bit like banning beer, because some people get drunk in Town Centres on a Saturday night. Another example is the Molotov Cocktail principle. We don’t want Molotov Cocktails, but does that mean we should ban glass bottles? It would be much better to deal with the root causes of the riots, and prevent these individuals from abusing social media in the first place.

- The UK needs social media: to boost our democracy, and our economy. It was a big loss last week, when Twitter announced that it would establish an international headquarters: not in London, but in Dublin. We need to prove that Britain wants to be a hub for social media, with competitive tax rates, and to prove that the Government can see social media as a force for good. Let's remind ourselves of the good that social media and mobile phones can bring in terms of empowerment, communication and the portabilty of the Internet.

- Social media was used by our Emergency Services and communities, to organise the clean-up. This was one of the main points made in evidence heard by the Home Affairs Select Committee, after the riots – particularly that Blackberry has revolutionised email across the world - to make it accessible without the need for any computer, and affordable for the many. Why not strengthen our democracy, by encouraging mobile communication rather than stifling it?  It is a challenge, yes, but one well worth taking.

by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com

The Internet Founding Fathers

I have been watching a fascinating series on the BBC: 'The Virtual Revolution', about the story of the World Wide Web and the Internet (it came out last year, but I have only just caught up via Sky+).  One thing is really clear:  apart from Sir Tim Berners Lee (British), all those who have revolutionised the Internet, have been from North America:  Microsoft with Internet Explorer, and the PC, Google with search, Napster with MP3s, YouTube with videos, Amazon with on-line purchases, Ebay with second-hand auctions, Facebook with social networking, Apple with smartphone apps and Blackberry (albeit Canadian), with mass-email.  It is no accident that most internet users, use these products in some way or another.

Given the centrality of these businesses to the Internet hierarchy, and given the centrality of the Internet to our daily lives, it doesn't really seem improbable that some of these advanced technology companies have more financial reserves - (available for spending) - than the United States Government.  According to Business Insider, estimates suggest that the Federal Government have $54 billion to spend: Bill Gates has $56 billion. Apple meanwhile has $76.2 billion in cash and marketable securities.

Some may regard these figures as the world going 'to hell in a handcart 'and rail against these big corporates.  But, these businesses started off with nothing - in some cases literally in college dorms.  Their huge cash base, reflects a shift in power from the state to the citizen.  The internet flourishes because the individual is empowered and freer from state control: much harder to tax and regulate.  By contrast the big state is suffocating from its own contradictions.  High spending, high taxing governments have become bankrupt across the Globe.  It is not surprising they have run out of money.  Have these North American hi-tech companies - warts and all (think privacy issues) - become the hi-tech version of the Founding Fathers?

P.S.  This article also appeared on Conservative Home.   

Does the original inventor of the Chair have copyright on all chairs?

So asks Mark Zuckerberg (MZ) in the film 'The Social Network'. Just because someone else suggested building a social-network via the Internet, it does not mean that Facebook was not an original concept. The argument was that Facebook was a different - and better - kind of social-network, not that it had stolen the original idea of 'social-networks' per se.

As an unashamed fan of Facebook, I think MZ had a point. As the film shows, even when MZ is being asked to prepare a Harvard social-networking site, he asks how this would differ from My Space and other similar concepts.

The Social Network does however pose interesting questions about the alleged treatment by Mr Zuckerberg's of co-partner and founder Eduardo Saverin. Having said that, how many businesses have there been where the initial partners fall out over one dispute or another?

However, what the film does demonstrate, is not just that inventions are usually surrounded by controversy, but also, the absolute genius of the Facebook concept. It is astounding how quickly the site became a success, spreading from campuses to continents and used by hundreds of millions.

To use another analogy - it seems that Mark Zuckerburg succeeded in inventing the web social-network equivalent of the car, after others had invented the wheel.

The Internet and David & Goliath

I am a passionate believer in the power of the Internet - and its role in diffusing power. To coin a phrase, the Internet makes the impossible possible.

Who would have believed that the financial muscle and celebrity status of Simon Cowell, could be defeated by a couple from Essex using Facebook - without any financial resources whatsoever.

Rage v Joe from X Factor is a true David v Goliath story of the Internet Age. And in many ways - that is what the Internet does. It enables the ordinary citizen to fire a stone from a catapult to the forehead - between the eyes - at the existing establishment, whether it be financial, media or political. It allows anyone to be an instant publisher, commentator and persuader, without needing to belong to traditionally organised groups or associations.

The Internet is changing the face of our society and democracy as we know it. The only question that no one yet knows the answer to is How.

P.S. There is a very interesting article on this subject from Conservative Media Spokesman, Jeremy Hunt MP. You can read it HERE.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device