Magazine article New Internationalist

Dreams of Freedom, Dreams of Domination

Magazine article New Internationalist

Dreams of Freedom, Dreams of Domination

Article excerpt

When, a decade ago, the term Web 2.0 entered our lexicon, we were still collectively dreaming of a vision of cyberspace where no government dared enter, a cyberspace 'naturally independent of the tyrannies' of regulation and law enforcement.1 This space, as we imagined it, would be the great equalizer, opening up closed societies and connecting us with kindred spirits the world over.

These dreams combined with the dreams of Silicon Valley magnates to create large-scale centralized platforms where all could gather. Within two years of the popularization of Web 2.0, we could look up our friends on Facebook, post our creative endeavours to YouTube, and Tweet whatever we were thinking. These slick corporate platforms rapidly replaced the spaces where we'd previously gathered, promising in bright colours a 'free' product with features beyond our wildest imaginations.

Today, these are truly global platforms. They are centralized, free and easy to use, and as such, attracting masses from around the globe who utilize them both as they were intended and marketed - to connect with friends and share information. And in ways less planned - to engage in political discourse, organize protests and, more nefariously, to harass, intimidate and recruit people into various causes.

These global platforms have in many ways taken on the role of the public sphere (as described by Habermas: 'Society engaged in critical public debate').Yet they remain private spaces, with users bound to the whims of their billionaire owners and shareholders. The rules and regulations that govern these spaces respect no laws, apart from those by which they are legally bound.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promises the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to receive and impart information and ideas 'through any media and regardless of frontiers'. Surveillance and censorship imposed on the greater internet by governments have compromised this promise, but challenges to these infringements on civil liberties remain possible through the law.

'Civilizing' cyberspace?

Not so for privately governed spaces, which operate without the consent of the networked, as scholar Rebecca MacKinnon has described it.2 Instead, users are made to be arbiters of speech, handed tools for flagging problematic content under rules created by oligarchic leaders. These leaders are, by and large, wealthy, white, American and male.3 The impact of their demographic make-up on the systems that they build and the rules by which they expect users to abide should not be underestimated. Where nudity is banned, violence is okay. Hate speech against women abounds, but political speech is at times censored. Celebrities are given special dispensation with verified accounts and dedicated phone lines, while average users are sometimes unable to appeal when their accounts or content are taken away.

Flagging - or community report - can be in and of itself a way of silencing speech. Scholars Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie argued in a recent paper that flagging 'act[s] as a mechanism to elicit and distribute user labor - users as a volunteer corps of regulators'.4 While in theory this allows for users of social platforms to report harassment, impersonation, or other potential harms, in practice it also allows for misuse. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.