Democracy, the Internet
and freedom of speech*
TAKIS FOTOPOULOS
(14.11.2014)
Abstract:
This article examines the claims of
Anonymous and others about the equality and
freedom of speech secured by the internet for
its users, as well as about its supposed
relation to direct democracy. The conclusion
drawn is that, despite some unquestionable
benefits offered by social media, these claims
have very little to do with reality.
Furthermore, given the side effects of
anonymity, widely used in the internet for smear
campaigns
either against other users, or specifically
against writers who do not hide behind anonymity
in expressing their views, the article argues
for the introduction of social controls for the
self-protection of society, so that ‘free
internet’ does not end up like ‘free markets’,
i.e. as an effective means to enhance the power
of the elites in controlling populations.
The issue of the relationship between freedom of
speech and the Internet has become front-page news
again because of two very recent events.
The first was the
minor
demonstrations
around the world ―except for some bigger
demonstrations in Anglo-Saxon countries―
organized by the "Anonymous" with the well-known Guy
Fawkes mask. However, the new element in the
Anonymous movement was not their clearly reformist
demands, which have nothing to do with a
revolutionary project and strategy. Despite the
revolutionary rhetoric and slogans, their demands
are merely demands for improvements to the system,
i.e. less corruption in the public and private
sector, more transparency, etc. - positions which
one may easily find in reports of the World Bank and
the IMF! The new element, therefore, brought about
by the Anonymous refers to the means they use to get
their message across, i.e. the Internet. Yet, in
London, where perhaps their biggest protest among
world cities took place, their members were boasting
that
“the internet has the power to bring down regimes…It
belongs to everyone… we all have a voice now – 7
billion of us... We're all equal.”[1]
In fact, there
are even "anarchists" who declare that "the Internet
is a form of virtual direct democracy that empowers
the subordinate groups to react against the dominant
ones";[2]
and this, when authoritative anarchist studies have
clearly shown in the past the highly dangerous role
of the Internet in relation to real democracy![3]
The second was
the recent hot debate over the issue of anonymous
smearing
in countries that still want
to keep at least the image of a well functioning
representative 'democracy’. In Britain, in
particular, where the public’s anger over the hordes
of anonymous internet mud-slingers, (who slander,
insult and use personal data and distorted photos
against their victims) has reached its peak, the
smear is either directed generally against other
users, or specifically against writers who do not
hide behind anonymity in expressing their views.[4]
The result of this general condemnation was that the
elites (which are far from hostile towards the web
when it suits them!) were forced to take measures
for the protection of the victims of smear, and
quadruple the
current six-month
sentence.
As it was stressed by the proponents of the new
legislation,
"no-one would permit such
venom in person, so there should be no place for it
on social media”.[5]
This forced even the clearly sympathetic to social
media BBC journalist to comment, "For
anyone who believed the Internet and social media
would foster a new era of free expression and open
debate, this is a depressing time."
[6]
As far as the "Anonymous" allegations about the
power of the internet is concerned, it can be easily
shown that they have very little to do with reality.
I am not aware of any regime supported by the
Transnational Elite (TE) that administers the NWO,
which was overthrown thanks to the internet, even
when hundreds of thousands of "Indignados" and
"Occupiers"
―who
had been mobilized mainly through the internet (e.g.
Spain, Greece, USA, Britain, etc.)―
took part in relevant demonstrations and other acts
of civil disobedience. In reality, the only regimes
that were brought down under conditions in which the
Internet had really played a major role in it, were
the ones prescribed by the same TE to be brought
down through velvet "revolutions" (Arab 'Spring',[7]
Eastern Europe,[8]
etc.)!
Also, the allegations about the relation of the
Internet to
real democracy and equality are even more
far-fetched, if not disorienting. In fact, real
democracy, in the classical sense of direct
democracy, has nothing to do with civil liberties or
the Internet that refer to the liberal, or
representative “democracy”. It is this kind of
‘democracy’ and the related ideology of human rights
that constitute the basis of the ideology of
globalization. Furthermore, it is well known that it
was exactly for the protection of such rights that
the TE has supposedly carried out a series of wars
(Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya) and encouraged several
real massacres elsewhere, from Syria up to Ukraine.
On the other hand, real democracy presupposes
"face-to-face" assemblies, where it is only through
discussions between active citizens
―and
certainly not just between the "experts"―
that the collective political
will can be really expressed.
[9]
In this sense, the Internet
democracy, as I tried to show elsewhere, is a clear
distortion of direct democracy:
“In this
era of virtual reality which we live, it was
inevitable that the dominant social-liberal
ideology would demean even the fundamental
concept of democracy. Thus, on top of the other
kinds of illusory democracy (representative
“democracy”, radical “democracy” etc.) we now
have discovered the virtual “democracy” of the
Internet, celebrated by well-known liberal
writers and bloggers, in perfect harmony with
supporters of the reformist Left. Such people
extol blogs and the Internet in general as the
“greatest democratic conquest in History”, which
brings about a real democratization of the media
“from below”, given that every person can now
become a publisher of him/her self. It is worth
noting that this mythology is fully compatible
with the present social-liberal ideology of
“rights” which, of course, has nothing to
do with social self-determination, individual
and collective autonomy, and true democracy.[10]
It was
therefore hardly surprising that
Time
magazine, a well known mouthpiece of the American
establishment, pronounced a few years ago the
anonymous user of the Internet as “person of the
year”, while, in 2007, the TE, which had gathered
for its annual informal meeting in Davos, praised
enthusiastically internet “democracy”![11]
On top of all this, one cannot
really assess the real significance of the Internet
without taking into account its built-in
deficiencies. First, it is well known that, even
today, only a minority of the world population (less
than 40%) are considered internet users, most of
them (77%) concentrated in the “developed world”,
where the minority of the world population lives,
and that even fewer of them (less than 10%) have a
fixed broadband connection.[12]
Furthermore, this is not a problem that would just
disappear over time, despite the growth momentum in
the number of users recently. It is a “systemic”
problem directly related to poverty and economic and
social inequality, which are phenomena inherent in a
system of market economy and representative
“democracy”. Thus, economic inequality and poverty
imply that billions of people on the planet cannot
afford the hardware and software, as well as the
connection expenses to the Internet. Moreover, there
is the equally important social inequality, namely,
the various social factors that deter large segments
of the population from the Internet (cultural
factors, education, etc.). The consequence is that
one more social exclusion has been added to the
present exclusions: “the digital divide”!
One frequently quoted myth
about the supposed democratization of the media
brought about by the Internet, is that the blogs
have abolished the distinction between producers and
consumers of information, so that today we can all
be producers. However, this is another theoretical
right and not a reality in the present system.
Nowadays, there are tens of millions of blogs in the
world, but in fact most of them are inactive, or not
regularly renewed. Similarly, there are millions of
websites, but in reality, few muster daily a
considerable number of visitors
―as
it happens also with the blogs. The reason of course
has less to do with the allegation that these are
the only really interesting blogs and Web pages, as
the misleading social-liberal competitive ideology
asserts, and more to do with the designing and
especially the constant renewing of a blog or a
website, which is an indispensable element of
attracting many visitors. However, this calls for
not just some significant expenditure but, above
all, plenty of time, which of course in today's
society is translated also into cash. A
sophisticated and constantly renewable blog or
website requires either teams of full-time
administrators to run them, or bloggers who can
spare the extra time (and/or the necessary hard
cash) to do so. In other words, the producers of
information are actually a very small minority, who,
generally, as Glenn Reynolds, (author of
An Army of
Davids,
which explored the explosion in web punditry),
pointed out, “tend on average to be better off,
better educated and, more importantly, employed”.
Hence, as found in the same study, more than half of
the Internet users on the continent are passive and
do not contribute to the web at all, while a further
23% only respond when prompted.[13]
Another myth is that the free
access to the Internet secures the freedom of access
to knowledge, while others see the medium as an
anti-systemic means that could put pressure on
power. However, both these functions are, also,
illusory. The first is decisively undermined by the
anonymity of the medium. The information provided
anonymously is frequently unreliable, or even
suspicious, as it has frequently been demonstrated
in the case of the free online encyclopaedia
Wikipedia, which, despite the fact that it provides
easy access to generally useful information, yet,
interventions by state and secret services have,
repeatedly, been made on entries of political and
socio-economic content, with the obvious aim of
misrepresenting the facts.[14]
Also, concerning the operation of the Internet, as
an anti-systemic means, (in the sense that it allows
criticism of the rulers ―something supposedly
justifying anonymity) in reality, as it has
repeatedly been shown, anonymity was frequently used
by various mudslingers and slanderers (and probably
by members of the state or secret services) to
defame “eponymous” analysts, (i.e. writers using
their real names), even if they belonged to the
anti-systemic Left themselves!
However, if online anonymity
is indeed necessary to protect those criticizing
power
—and
in this sense it is a form of practicing freedom—
then, like any real freedom, either it will be
self-disciplined,
or it will be
no
freedom. It is well known that the greatest danger
that, historically, direct democracy faced was
precisely the lack of self-discipline, which demands
a high level of civil consciousness. The
non-publication, for instance, of defamatory or
abusive comments as well as of unsubstantiated
allegations and characterizations should be an
obvious prerequisite for the use of anonymity. Even
more so if similar mudslinging comments and
characterizations are directed, not against the
institutions of power, but against people who have
shown absolute consistency in their struggle against
power. It is obvious that in the latter case
anonymity is no longer used as a means of protection
against power, but as a means to protect power
itself and its institutions against their enemies!
But in this case, we are talking about character
assassination, which has nothing to do with freedom
of speech, but rather with the freedom required by
the professional slanderers to do their “job”
effortlessly. It was not therefore surprising to
hear that even the EU authorities decided to
spend almost 3m Euros out of
taxpayers’ money on trolling Eurosceptic critics in
the internet, in a vain attempt to control the
anti-EU popular tsunami, during the run-up to last
May’s Euro elections![15]
All this
does not of course mean that the Internet has no
significant positive aspects. It is true, for
instance, that usually it is only in the internet
that antisystemic opinions may be published, which
would normally be excluded from the traditional
media. But here there is still another trap, to the
extent that the internet itself is being ultimately
controlled by the elites of the TE, through
multinationals (Google, Facebook, etc.), which have
the final say on what goes in and how online. And
there are several known examples of banning users,
even websites, when their appeal starts becoming
dangerous to the elites.
Moreover, the Internet plays an important role in
mobilization for protests, occupations etc. On such
occasions anonymity is of course a necessary
precaution against power.
In conclusion, the Internet
itself (as any technology in general) is neither
'neutral', by its nature, nor autonomous, and,
therefore, not democratic either. It is not neutral,
as it has been created within the context of a
specific system (market economy and representative
“democracy), expressing its logic and dynamic. And
it is not autonomous, as it expresses specific power
relations and the dominant social paradigm. In other
words, it is not just a means to an unspecified end
that everyone may use the way s/he wants, since
there are limitations inherent in it, expressing
specific systemic values. The process that
determines each time the actual technology-in-use
(as opposed to available technology) is decisively
determined by the power structures involved in the
existing institutional framework and the
corresponding dominant social paradigm. Similarly,
the free flow of information that the Internet
supposedly provides is another myth. These are
issues that have been discussed for some time in the
literature[16]
and only uninformed users (and the mud-slingers
themselves!) might ignore their conclusions.
Therefore, it is critical to define some generally
accepted rules regarding the operation of the
Internet (to the degree of course that this is
possible within the existing institutional
framework) in order to restrict similar phenomena
that may have significant adverse social
implications. But, in case this is not possible, the
introduction of social controls for the
self-protection of society from the Internet is
imperative, as was also historically necessary the
introduction of social controls for the
self-protection of society from the market. This is
because the Internet, as well as a perfectly
competitive market (I'm not talking of course about
monopolies etc.) cannot secure by themselves
equality among all participants. As everyone knows,
even under conditions of perfect competition, some
are ‘more equal’ than others, as a result of the
unequal distribution of income and wealth. But, in
the Internet as well, neither money nor time
availability are equally distributed among users.
Therefore, in the same way that the market, without
some effective social controls for the
self-protection of society
—as
is the case at present, following the
"liberalization" of markets in the NWO of neoliberal
globalization—
was bound to lead to today’s jungle, in a similar
way the internet, without some effective social
controls for the self-protection of society, is
bound to lead into an online jungle. This is what is
at stake today with the war pursued by the "Internet
neoliberals” (exactly like the war pursued by market
neoliberals) against social controls for the
self-protection of society from this jungle. The aim
in both cases is the same: to enhance the power of
the elites in controlling our “freedom”...
P.S. (24/11/2014)
In relation to the
above, I was just
informed by an
administrator of the
ID facebook, who is
also a member of the
Journal’s select Editorial
Committee, that
a
mudslinger under the
name Eoin
O'Connor slandered
me (with no proof
whatsoever of
course) that I am
now “writing for and
receiving money”
from “the bloody
paper of the Russian
Communist Party”,
(i.e. Pravda) and
that this does make
me “a stooge of a
section of the
Russian
elite” (sic!). As we now
understand that this
slanderer is also a
proud member of Michael
Albert’s International
Organization for a
Participatory
Society (IOPS) —
whose
Participatory
Economics (Parecon)
‘by coincidence’ I
criticized in the
past, without
ever receiving a
reply to it — I hope
that this does not
mean that this sort
of “Left” has now
resorted to mud
slinging to attack
its critics!
[2]
“Trolling”,
Eleftherotypia (12/10/2014).
[3]
Matt Hern and Stu Chaulk, “Roadgrading Community Culture:
Why the Internet is so dangerous
to real democracy,”
Democracy & Nature,
Vol.6, No.1 (March 2000), pp.111-120. See,
also,
Takis Fotopoulos’ reply in the same issue,
pp. 121-123.
[4]
see e.g.; Jonathan Brown,“Laurence
Easeman, the activist in Brand row: ‘I was
smeared’,”
The
Independent (24/10/2014); see, also,
Suzanne Moore, “Trolling is too high a price
for freedom,”
The
Guardian (07/10/2014).
[5]
“Internet
trolls face up to two years in jail under
new laws,”
BBC
News (19/10/2014).
[7]
Takis Fotopoulos,
Subjugating the Middle East, (published
shortly by Progressive Press, vol I & II
[8]
Takis Fotopoulos,
Ukraine:
The
Attack on Russia and the Eurasian Union
(December 2014, Progressive Press).
[12]
Key
ICT Indicators for developed and developing
countries and the world,
International
Telecommunications Unions (ITU), Geneva, 27
February 2013
source:
http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol10/vol10_no1-2_Democracy_the_Internet_and_freedom_of_speech.html
The International Journal of
Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2
(Winter/Summer 2014);
Special Edition: A Collection of the 2014 Articles
by Takis Fotopoulos;
The completion of Iraq’s
destruction by the Transnational Elite and the role
of ISIS (11.07.2014);
The new Transnational Elite
and Zionist massacres (20.07.2014);
Obama and the Ideology of
Globalization (27.07.2014);
The Zionist Brutalization
Within the New World Order and the Need for a United
Multi-national and Multicultural State
(06.08.2014);
The imperative need for
popular fronts of national and social liberation in
the globalization era (12.08.2014);
The Russian
embargo and the Ukrainian “coup from below”
(18.08.2014);
The new “growth” economy of
the New World Order (25.08.2014);
Russia, the Eurasian Union
and the Transnational Elite (31.08.2014);
NATO and planned "chaos" in
the NWO (11.09.2014);
Syria Next and the Islamist
bogeyman (17.09.2014);
Scotland and the myth of
independence within the EU (22.09.2014);
Transnational Terrorism
(29.09.2014);
BRICS and the myth of the
multipolar world (06.10.2014);
The real objectives of the
Transnational Elite in Syria
(13.10.2014);
Τhe
Transnational Elite and the NWO as
“conspiracies”
(20.10.2014);
Oil economic warfare and
self-reliance, (27.10.2014);
Towards a new Democratic
World Order (03.11.2014);
Democracy, the internet and
freedom of speech (14.11.2014);
Russia at the crossroads
(20.11.2014);
Globalization, Russia and
the Left (27.11.2014);
Economic warfare the main
Western weapon (06.12.2014);
The Myths about the New
World Order (15.12.2014).