gemini - kennedy.gemi.dev

💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001259.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:48:57.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Is It Anarchy on the Internet?

In a word, no. Considering that it was founded by branches of the 
U.S. government, and today is funded mostly by commercial 
companies, public and private schools, and the government, it seems 
like kind of a stupid question. But since countless pundits, some of 
whom even claim to be anarchists, have maintained that it is, I'd like 
to state why I think that the Internet does not fit any definition of 
`anarchism' that I am comfortable with. 

The media seem to have adopted the practice of using the word 
`anarchy' to describe what happens when a government fucks up 
more than usual--the civil war in Somalia being one of the more 
recent examples. Anarchists, on the other hand, use it to describe a 
system of social organization where people and communities take 
responsibility for their own lives and actions instead of depending on 
a government to do so for them. Anarchists, in other words, are 
describing a positive, proactive alternative to the current political 
system, whereas the popular press are describing the lack or failure 
of certain acts of the current system. So it's not surprising to see 
some of the various services of the Internet, which have pretty much 
had ``anything goes'' usage policies and have remained quite free 
from government control since their inception, described by the 
press as ``anarchic.'' What is surprising is that I occasionally see self-
proclaimed ``anarchists'' who seem to agree with this! 

The thinking seems to go like this: 

	From a user's point of view, most Internet services are truly 

decentralized. Outside of any given site, there is no central 
administration, and what hierarchies there are tend not to be rigidly 
``enforced.'' 

	Whereas, for instance, it is a crime to send certain items through 

the U.S. Mail, the internation and open nature of, and the enormous 
volume of information carried on, the Internet makes such 
restrictions on content difficult (though not impossible) to enforce. 

	In many areas, if you look hard enough, you can find a way to 

access the Internet for free, although you often need to own a 
computer to do so. 


In other words, this philosophy seems to define the Internet in terms 
of what it isn't [not (usually) centralized, not (usually) censored, not 
(usually) expensive]. You'll notice that this fits very neatly into the 
``media'' definition of `anarchism,' but says nothing about the need 
for a positive alternative to government-dependent lifestyles, as 
required by the ``anarchist's definition'' of the word. 

The Internet is a very useful tool. It's both faster and, for most 
people, cheaper than the U.S. Postal Service. It's far cheaper than the 
telephone, and usually just as fast. It's also the easiest way I know of 
to get a message out to a large group of people at once. I also find 
that I get much more personal feedback from email messages than I 
get from zines, and sometimes even personal letters, probably 
because it's so much easier to do. But there are several downsides 
that we must keep in mind: 

	Any computer network or bulletin board is fundamentally classist, 

because most people simply don't have access to it. Whereas nearly 
anyone can receive paper mail or a telephone call, whether or not 
they have a permanent address, you must have access to both a 
computer and an appropriate account to use the Internet. 
Recognising this, groups in many cities are forming ``Freenets,'' which 
offer (usually) free accounts with Internet email access, and often 
provide public-access terminals. But today, at least, the majority of 
people do not have access to these services. 

	While personal email can be quite useful, few if any of the services 

meant for large groups of peole to use simultaneously, such as 
mailing lists (like the aaa-web) and Usenet (an enormous ``bulletin 
board'' system) end up being consistently constructive (if, indeed, 
they are ever constructive at all!). Most are like a meeting where the 
person who shouts the loudest gets to be heard, and where those 
who aren't into screaming tend to eventually leave. Spy writer Chip 
Rowe asked, ``How much would you pay to spend your evenings and 
weekends with a room full of con artists, misogynists, computer 
geeks, snooty academics, rude teenagers, pushy salesmen, Iowa 
housewives, bad poets, Nazi sympathizers, certified morons, 
corporate suits, Elvis fans, recovering alcoholics, aging hippies, 
pockmarked pornographers, and overzealous FBI agents?'' 

	There's nothing available on the Internet that isn't also served by 

other means, like letters and zines, albeit not quite as well, in some 
instances. None of the services that it offers add to our efforts; they 
simply make them a little more convenient. In other words, truly 
autonomous communities are no more likely to arise given the use of 
the Internet. 


So while Internet services can be a great way to get the word out 
about the real, constructive projects that you and your community 
are doing, please don't fall into the trap of mistaking use of the net 
itself as something of any real value to the creation of an 
autonomous society. 

-Craig 

Any comments on this article? Send email to the address below! ??
Return to home page 
Craig (stuntz@rhic.physics.wayne.edu)