Thursday I’m guesting in Paula and Chris’s Summer Scholars class (Talking About a Revolution: Dissent and Freedom of Expression in Today’s World). I’m being brought in as a “tech head” to talk about how technology plays into these questions, so I’m going to jot down a few thoughts.
First, dissent (or at least effective dissent) fundamentally requires communication. If people wish to change things, they presumably have to convey their dissent in order to make a difference, raising awareness, explaining the issues, and recruiting support. Second, the mechanics of and opportunities for communication have and continue to be defined by technology, and the rapid changes in technologies certainly affect communication, and consequently dissent.
Consider, for example, McCarthy and Murrow a la Good night and good luck. McCarthy used the technology of Congress (and I use technology extremely broadly here) to create his bully pulpit and communicate his ideas. Murrow, in turn, used his access to the still young technology of television to communicate his alternative view. Similarly, the Dixie Chicks can use the technology of music recording, radio, and public performance to object to Bush’s policies, but at the same time large media conglomerates like Cumulus Media can ban the Dixie Chicks’ music from their 300+ radio stations, potentially limiting the impact of that dissent.
So to understand the impact of technology on dissent, we have to think about how they affect our communications. Key, though, is to think about who a technology allows to be a speaker, and who is forced to be a listener. Who does the technology empower, and who loses opportunities? Jerry Mander, for example, encourages us to
Make distinctions between technologies that primarily serve the individual or the small community (for example, solar energy) and those that operate on a scale of community control (for example, nuclear energy).
So, are the internet and the web the great savior of free speech (and dissent), or shall just another controlling arm of corporate and government interests?
Discuss.
Holy crap! I’m not feeling well enough today to launch into this topic, but you have put down an excellent foundation here! This ties directly into the trouble that flickr has been having lately. The question SAH and I have raised is does a free service owe you (the end user) the same courtsey/rules as a pay site? Once you pay for a service, don’t you agree to their rules? Do internet sites owe the user anything at all?
Wow. Seriously. Great topic.
Oh, yeah, I definitely had the Flickr problems (and GMail’s issues in Germany) in the back of my mind as I wrote this. There’s also the whole business of Google aiding the Chinese government in limiting what their citizens can find (through Google) on-line.
You raise several excellent questions. One thing that the Flickr situation raises, though, is the problem when the rules (or their interpretation) change after you’ve signed up and paid your money. I doubt that many German users of Flickr ever expected these problems when they plopped down their Euros; my guess is that most of them expected Flickr to defend their ability to participate fully in the community (which is arguably not what happened).
I’m really torn on this, which is why I haven’t posted about it yet. I’m frankly very frustrated by what Flickr has done, but I also realize that they’re caught in a difficult position. The fact that Google is running up against similar problems in Germany from a different angle helps point out how complex the issues are (at least at a corporate level).