!"#$%&'(% *%&+", -.

" /"-0% 1'-"(-&2# 3% 4"2# 5 6"7("8

9$:";<& 5 9"<.('#'=7
Ivgeny Morozov's nev book, !"# %#& '#()*+,-, is an imorlanl
conlribulion, ils ubIicalion has been videIy veIcomed as an
imorlanl correclion lo cyber-uloianism, and greeled vilh
Iaudalory revievs. I found myseIf agreeing vilh lhe ma|orily of ils
argumenls.
ul I vrile here neilher lo raise nor bury lhe book, bul lo engage il
crilicaIIy. Morozov chaIIenges lhe inleIIecluaI Iaziness lhal
characlerizes so many anaIyses of lhe Inlernel's imacl, vhich do
lend lo be on lhe uloian side. Thal is veII, bul |usl as cyber-
uloianism is fashionabIe in some circIes, il's equaIIy fashionabIe in
olhers lo ooh-ooh lhe fundamenlaIIy lransformalive imacl of lhe
Inlernel, denying il any greal vorId-hisloricaI imorlance. To some
inleIIecluaIs, lhe mundanily of human sociaIily exosed lhrough lhe
Inlernel deserves lo be mocked, and eoIe's sincere auemls lo
exress lheir idenlily and conviclions lhrough onIine melhods are
derided as meaningIess "sIaclivism."
To me, aII lhis is nol onIy inleIIecluaIIy Iazy, bul il is lhe mark of lhe
cuIluraI oId guard--cynicaI, dismissive and surrendered lo lhe
slalus-quo. I am afraid lhal lhis book viII be received by lhal crovd
vilh gIeefuI accelance. "Oh, yes, oId cha, lhe Inlernel isn'l going lo
change anylhing, il's vhere lhe ri-ra go lo laIk aboul lheir
breakfasl and Iaugh al siIIy cals."
Through a conuence of design, hislory, lechnoIogy
and economics, lhe Inlernel is amongsl lhe olenliaIIy
mosl emovering lechnoIogies ve've gol.
I am nol saying lhal Morozov does lhis. He is lhoughlfuI and cIearIy
racking his brain lo hnd vays lo beuer lhe vorId. ul his
dismissiveness of lhe vays in vhich lhe Inlernel can be arl of a
chaIIenge lo aulhorilarianism and romole cilizen emovermenl
Ieaves lhe argumenl unbaIanced and misIeading. In lhe currenl
oIilico-cuIluraI conlexl, lhis Iosidedness hls loo smoolhIy vilh
eIile cynicism and disdain for change.
AII lhis is nol lo say lhal Morozov does nol make many exceIIenl
oinls. Ior examIe, his crilicism of lhe U.S. Slale Dearlmenl's ush
for "Inlernel Ireedom" as a looI for romoling U.S. inleresls, err,
democracy, is cIearIy on-largel, I lhink lhe WikiIeaks saga has seuIed
lhal debale.
A Iarge chunk of lhe book is devoled lo oinling oul lhal lhe Inlernel
can be used lo slrenglhen lhe lrifecla of aulhorilarianism:
surveiIIance, censorshi, and roaganda. Your sociaI media imrinl
can imIicale you much more easiIy lhan an army of secrel oIice. Il
is ossibIe lo seIecliveIy censor lhe Inlernel (lhough I lhink lhis onIy
goes so far). And mosl imorlanlIy, lhe Inlernel oens nev channeIs
for slale roaganda as veII as slale-sonsored and cororale aslro-
lurhng. WhiIe aII lhese oinls are lrue, I do lhink Morozov
undereslimales lhe ecoIogicaI eecl of lhe Inlernel in olenliaIIy
undermining lhe Iegilimacy of aulhorilarian regimes. Crushing of
dissidenls individuaIIy may cerlainIy heI an aulhorilarian regime
remain in over in lhe shorl lerm, bul loo much reression, couIed
vilh an unhay cilizenry lhal is abIe lo share lheir disIeasure vilh
one anolher, can hoIIov oul a regime's Iegilimacy, uIlimaleIy
criIing ils caacily for reression, as lhere is aImosl no ureIy
coercive regime. In olher vords, vhiIe increased caacily for
surveiIIance may be a very reaI lhreal lo individuaI dissidenls,
broadening lhe reressive aaralus oflen uIlimaleIy backhres,
eseciaIIy under condilions vilh Iover barriers lo coIIeclive aclion
and informalion diusion, bolh of vhich are romoled by lhe
Inlernel.
Dislraclion can aIso be an aIIy of aulhorilarian regimes. As Morozov
oinls oul, lhe vasl amounl of enlerlainmenl avaiIabIe on lhe Web
can be deoIilicizing and demobiIizing. This is aIso lrue, bul aIso
onIy u lo a oinl. Inlerlainmenl can onIy go so far if a regime is
unabIe lo rovide lhe basic foundalions of Iegilimacy, vhich aImosl
aIvays incIudes lhe necessilies for Iife and oflen exlends lo freedom
and ersonaI aulonomy. SliII, cailaIism's immense caacily lo
lriviaIize and commerciaIize everylhing, incIuding dissenl, is indeed
vorrisome and highIighls lhe imorlance of slrenglhening lhe
non-rohl, non-commerciaI infraslruclure of lhe Inlernel.
Mosl of my divergence vilh Morozov aboul vhal is acluaIIy in lhe
book come in his discussion of sIaclivism and sociaI media. Yes,
onIine elilions and "Iike" buuons do nol vork lo bring aboul sociaI
change. Iveryone has hgured lhal oul and I reaIIy do nol see anyone
subslanlive on lhe cyber-uloian side arguing lhal lhey are lhal
imorlanl. I beIieve lhis has become is a convenienl slravman
aIIoving lhe Iilerali (Iike, say, MaIcoIm GIadveII) lo rocIaim, "I'm
loo sohislicaled for IoIcals."
ul I disagree lhal lhe reason onIine rolesls do nol vork is lhal lhey
are onIine, or lhey are easy. The reaIily, al lhis |unclure in hislory, is
lhal nolhing reaIIy vorks. The Inlernel is nol lhe robIem, gIobaI
cilizen disemoveremenl is. Il's nol lhe lechnoIogy lhal is faiIing
oIilics bul il is our oIilics lhal has faiIed.
If lhis is an exaggeralion, il is onIy a sIighl one. A massive grassrools
camaign lo eIecl a residenl vho vouId have been unlhinkabIe as a
viabIe candidale |usl an eIeclion cycIe before seems lo have roduced
fairIy IiuIe change in day-lo-day deaIings inside lhe eIlvay:
Lobbyisls and cororale inleresls sliII dominale. Slreel rolesls don'l
vork, as shovn by lhe Iead-u lo lhe Iraq var, and demonslraled
again by lhe currenl silualion in Iuroe vherein nalionaI
governmenls are deslroying ubIic infraslruclure lo Iease gIobaI
hnance cailaI. Leuer-vriling doesn'l vork. OnIine elilions don'l
vork. ImaiI camaigns don'l vork. Consumer boycous don'l vork.
Naming and shaming cororalions vho commil egregious abuses or
fraud or massive environmenlaI damage doesn'l vork. Anyone lhink
I is going oul of business`
IoIilicaI aclivism is nol faiIing because eoIe are loo busy valching
cal videos onIine, bul because of a fundamenlaI coIIase of cilizen
Ieverage on inslilulions of over Iike governmenls and cororalions.
I hnd il ironic lhal, afler correclIy varning aboul lhe dangers of an
Inlernel-cenlric vorIdviev in vhich everylhing is erceived lhrough
lhe rism of lhe Nel, Morozov himseIf is caughl in a nel-cenlric
anaIysis of oIilicaI aclivism's decIine.
If surveiIIance, censorshi and roaganda are lhe lhree iIIars of
aulhorilarianism, informalion, organizalion and Ieverage are lhe
counler-iIIars of cilizen over. And lhe Inlernel rovides lhe besl
and mosl aroriale infraslruclure for slrenglhening aII lhree.
Morozov correclIy cIaims lhal il does nol do so in an unmiligaled
manner bul unmiligaled is nol lhe same as ineeclive or irreIevanl.
Iirsl, lhe reonderance of IoIcals and olher lriviaIilies on lhe
Inlernel does nol reveaI lhal somelhing has changed aboul eoIe, il
|usl reveaIs lhe reaIily of human nalure. SeriousIy, does anyone lhink
mosl eoIe used lo discuss RavIs over breakfasl before lhe
Inlernel` SociaI grooming, |okes, noling birlhdays and olher riluaIs,
smaII laIk, veII-vishes, ersonaI lidbils, vealher, food, chiIdren and
a IiuIe bil of informalion... Sorry, foIks, lhal's humanily for you. I hnd
Morozov's discussion of sociaI media and narcissism lo be among
lhe veakesl arls of his book--such fears, so commonIy exressed,
are arl moraI anic, arl exaggeralion and arl cohorl-eecl (i.e.
eoIe vho don'l use lhe nev medium in a manner indigenous lo il,
don'l gel il and rocIaim, "kids lhese days...")
Second, mundane sociaI inleraclions form lhe basis of communily-
formalion, vhich is lhe key lo subsequenl sociaI and oIilicaI aclion.
Communilies have been eroded, nol by lhe Inlernel, bul by
leIevision vhich Iocks us inlo assive, isoIaled cubicIes and
bombards us vilh conlenl, mosl of vhich is exIicilIy designed lo
encourage consumerism, assivily and suerhciaIily, by
suburbanizalion lhal isoIales famiIies from each olher, from vork,
and from lhe vorId, and by lhe increasingIy slressfuI and Iong vork
hours vhich Ieave very IiuIe lime for anylhing eIse.
In lhis regard, lhe Inlernel is lhe grealesl anlidole lo
anli-communilarian forces. IrankIy, I hnd even lhe mosl mindIess
IoIcal siles on lhe Inlernel lo be an imrovemenl over canned-
Iaughler-hIIed silcoms. The oinl of IoIcals is nol lhe IoIcals
lhemseIves, bul lo share lhem vilh friends, commenl on lhem, make
more of lhem, and enler lhe communily via lhe |oke. Il's lhe
communily, nol lhe cal, lhal mauers. (If you doubl lhis, lry seIIing a
book of IoIcals and see hov veII il does.) I vrile lhis reviev in lhe
aflermalh of an alrocily, lhe assassinalion aueml in Arizona on a
Congressvoman lhal cIaimed lhe Iives of six olhers incIuding a
chiId. Ivery Inlernel communily I am arl of is roiIed and lhere is
videsread discussion on mosl of lhem aboul lhe evenl. Iifleen
years ago, ve'd aII be valching TV, nol communicaling vilh each
olher.
In November of 2009, a high-schooI cIassmale of mine osled a
singIe crylic Iacebook slalus udale indicaling lhal he vas
sending loo much lime in lhe haIIs of a hosilaI, ealing loo much
bad food. Many of us immedialeIy inquired vhal vas going on. My
friend reIuclanlIy admiued lhal his vife had deveIoed a rare bul
olenliaIIy falaI disorder of lhe brain and had been in lhe hosilaI
for veeks. He vas lrying lo coe, vilh minimaI heI. (Thal's |usl his
ersonaIily, kind and underslaled, he hales being a burden.) HeI
vas organized vilh Iighling seed, ranging from laking care of lheir
lvo smaII kids lo arranging for meaI deIiveries, from hnding lo
seciaIisls vho couId heI lhe famiIy navigale lhe medicaI maze
(vhich mauers grealIy anyvhere in lhe vorId bul eseciaIIy in
Turkey, vhere my friend is) lo an enormous oulouring of suorl
and kind vords. I sav a far-ung communily coaIesce and rise lo lhe
occasion. To our coIIeclive reIief, she uIIed lhrough, a facl ve aII
Iearned lhrough a 23 second video on Iacebook, recorded and
osled on lhe day she came oul of lhe coma by her eIaled husband.
I am fairIy sure lhal lhis is a very common kind of examIe (see lhis
./*"+-0&,- 1,*& slory for a simiIar one, unforlunaleIy vilh a very sad
ending). I am aIso cerlain lhal, vilhoul sociaI media, il vouId have
been nexl lo imossibIe for such a Iarge nelvork lo be aclivaled.
And, yes, before and afler lhis crisis, mosl of my friend's oslings
vere mundane, incIuded a Iol of IarmviIIe, comIainls and
commenls aboul lhe vealher, and, yes, a Iol of Youlube sIaslick. (I
had, of course, bIocked aII his IarmviIIe udales.) And yes, lhis is
nol an examIe of oIilicaI aclion bul of slrenglhening of
communily.ul lo dismiss ordinary inleraclions of Iife as narcissism
or meaningIess is unvarranled, and misunderslands lhe
fundamenlaI funclioning of communily and lhe reIalionshi
belveen sociaI communilies and civic aclion.
Ior lhe lhird oinl, ve musl go back lo lhe rools of lhe oIilicaI
disemovermenl lhal has hoIIoved oul mosl forms of dissenl,
onIine or ohine. Iirsl, mosl of lhe exislenliaI robIems facing
humanily are occurring al a gIobaI scaIe (cIimale change, resource
deIelion, vars), vhiIe our oIilics remains conslricled al lhe
nalionaI one. To make mauers vorse, cororalions have increasingIy
escaed slruclures of accounlabiIily al lhe nalionaI IeveI,
increasingIy, ve Iive in a vorId of cororale exlralerriloriaIily vhere
cororalions oal above lhe nalion-slale, al lhe hnanciaI, reguIalory,
and even ersonaI IeveIs. (IxlralerriloriaIily is a lerm from coIoniaI
limes referring lo lhe silualion of a erson nol being sub|ecl lo lhe
|urisdiclion of lhe Iavs vhere he or she resides, i.e., lhe rilish in
India nol sub|ecl lo Indian Iav or Americans in Iraq nol sub|ecl lo
Iraqi Iav.) AIong vilh lhe emergence of erialelic gIobaI eIile, very
rich and al home in any number of Iarge cosmooIilan cilies and
disassocialed from any one nalion or communily (see lhis arlicIe in
lhe 2&(/-&+3 for a slriking descrilion of lhe mindsel), il has become
very hard for cilizens of any given nalion-slale lo confronl lhese
overfuI gIobaI inslilulions or lo slarl lo meaningfuIIy address lhe
muIliIe gIobaI crises facing humanily. And lhis is vhere lhe
Inlernel emerges as a key olenliaI counler-force. SimiIar lo enedicl
Anderson's nolion of hov "rinl-cailaIism" aIIoved for lhe
emergence of lhe modern nalion -- lhe "imagined communily," as he
referred lo il -- lhe Inlernel is faciIilaling lhe emergence of a gIobaI
ubIic shere. CaII il lhe Inlernel-GIobaIism. The rise of WikiIeaks
has been inslruclive in lhis regard: }ay Rosen has correclIy caIIed
WikiLeaks lhe hrsl slaleIess nevs organizalion, and CIay Shirky
describes il as lruIy gIobaI, nol mereIy inlernalionaI. WikiIeaks is
mereIy one earIy examIe of lhe gIobaI nalure of oIilics and is
unIikeIy lo be lhe Iasl. Our nev gIobaI communilies viII be
comIicaled, arlIy based on Iace and arlIy on anilies. They'II be
gIobaI and IocaI and everylhing in belveen, and il is onIy lhrough
such communilies lhal ve have any hoe of recIaiming Ieverage on
inslilulions of over.
Morozov, hovever, argues lhal many eoIe use lhe Inlernel lo
cIum even more lo lheir nalionaIislic or re-modern idenlilies, lhal
il rovides a IifeIine lo olhervise dying grous and cuIls. Thal is lrue
bul beside lhe oinl. Mosl nev lechnoIogies iniliaIIy emover lhe
aIready-overfuI, vho are beuer Iaced lo lake advanlage of il, and
may aIso rovide a IifeIine lo marginaI raclices lhal olhervise vere
on lheir vay lo being exlinguished. The fuII scaIe of lheir disrulive
over oflen comes onIy afler lhey have been domeslicaled, and lhe
direclion and lhe scaIe of lhe disrulion deends cruciaIIy on lhe
secihcs of lhe rocess of domeslicalion. The radio, for examIe, vas
comIeleIy slried of ils bouom-u over in lhe rocess of
becoming an everyday lechnoIogy. WhiIe lhere have been auemls
lo simiIarIy defang lhe Inlernel, ve are novhere lhere yel.
Much of lhis can be observed by reminding us of lhe imacl of lhe
rinling ress vhen il vas nev. This nev looI iniliaIIy unIeashed
some of lhe same forces lhal Morozov is using as evidence lhal lhe
Inlernel is nol Iiberalory, i.e. lhe emergence of misinformalion, lhe
slrenglhening of exisling inslilulions, lhe rise of orn and lriviaIily,
lhe boosl lo fundamenlaIism and cuIls. Indeed, lhe rinling ress
vas al hrsl a boon lo lhe church and for scribes, as lhere vere nov
many more bibIes lo decorale by hand, and il aIso caused an
exIosion of smul and Iov-brov maleriaIs causing some of lhe
lhen-eIile lo rocIaim lhal lhis lechnoIogy vas reaclionary in nalure
and olher dissidenls lo vorry lhal il vouId slrenglhen lhe church.
We knov lhe resl of lhis slory.
Morozov argues lhal lhere is no necessary Iogic of lhe Inlernel, or
lhal, lo lhe degree il xisls, il slrenglhens forces of reression. I agree
lhal lhere is no hxed and immulabIe Iogic and I am vorried aboul
lhe cororale lakeover of key |unclures of lhe Inlernel, vhich has
been reveaIed lo be a reaI lhreal by lhe WikiIeaks aair (vhich I
vrole aboul here), bul I disagree lhal ve can |usl decIare lhal lhe
Inlernel necessariIy slrenglhens forces of reression more lhan il
emovers eoIe.
Through a conuence of design, hislory, lechnoIogy and economics,
lhe Inlernel is amongsl lhe olenliaIIy mosl emovering
lechnoIogies ve've gol. Yes, such cIaims have been made for radio
and leIevision before, and, yes, aII of lhis is necessariIy secuIalive.
And, yes, nel neulraIily and cororale and slale conlroI of lhe
Inlernel are cruciaIIy imorlanl issues in lhis regard. SliII, I beIieve
lhere are key dierences belveen radio (vhich vas quickIy laken
over by cororale and slale forces) and leIevision vhich slarled oul
as cororale-conlroIIed). Neilher of lhem incororaled lhe Inlernel's
IeveI of broadcasling over by cilizens. Neilher of lhem vere based,
al Ieasl arlIy, on lexl and designed for asynchronous mass and
inlerersonaI communicalion by eoIe, and naliveIy organized al a
gIobaI IeveI.
I beIieve lhal Morozov's oinl lhal lhe Inlernel slrenglhens
surveiIIance, censorshi and roaganda caacilies of lhe overfuI
is veII-laken. Hovever, lhe Nel aIso slrenglhens lhe caacily of lhe
eoIe lo disseminale informalion, lo organize coIIeclive aclion, and
lo hnd oinls of Ieverage on overfuI inslilulions lhal have moslIy
escaed from lradilionaI slruclures of accounlabiIily. As Morozov
varns, oIilics does nol haen in a vacuum and lhe mosl recelive
audience for his book may veII be lhose vho are loo eager lo
rocIaim lhal change is |usl loo hard and lhal lhe Inlernel is
inevilabIy deslined lo become one more looI in lhe arsenaI of lhe
overfuI. I'd Iike roose lhal lhe focus shouId be on hov lo buiId
lhe infraslruclure of cilizen emovermenl, vhiIe keeing in mind aII
lhe varnings in lhis limeIy and imorlanl book. The Inlernel is loo
young, lhe rocess sliII in loo earIy a slage, lo give u on il aII |usl
yel.
4,55#3&+,-6 !"+* #**/7 8/* ,5+0+-/((7 9):(+*"#; )-;#5 2(#<+* =/;5+0/(>*
:7(+-#?
Afler you commenl, cIick Iosl. If you're nol aIready Iogged in you
viII be asked lo Iog in or regisler.
Hanny's Voorver (Hanny's Ob|ecl in Dulch), shol here by NASA's
HubbIe Sace TeIescoe, aears lo be a slrange green bIob oaling
in sace near a normaI-Iooking gaIaxy. Hanny's is acluaIIy lhe onIy
visibIe arl -- lhe size of our ovn MiIky Way GaIaxy -- of a slream of
gas lhal slrelches around lhe gaIaxy for 300,000-Iighl-years. "The
greenish Voorver is visibIe because a searchIighl beam of Iighl
from lhe gaIaxy's core iIIuminaled il," NASA exIained. "This beam
came from a quasar, a brighl, energelic ob|ecl lhal is overed by a
bIack hoIe. The quasar may have lurned o aboul 200,000 years ago."
The yeIIovish-orange area seen al lhe lo of lhe Voorver is a
ockel of slar cIuslers, lhe youngesl are a fev miIIion years oId.
@A/0#6 %2B2C DB2C .? E##( FG-+H#5*+&7 ,I 2(/:/A/JC /-; &"# K/(/<7 L,,
!#/A?
READABILITY An Arc90 Laboratory Experiment
!"#$ &'(# )"*+,(#- '. +/# 0123
Afler you commenl, cIick Iosl. If you're nol aIready Iogged in you
viII be asked lo Iog in or regisler.
Ixcerled from !"#$%&'(% *%&+", -." /"-0% 1'-"(-&2# 3% 4"2# 5 6"7("8 9$:";<& 5 9"<.('#'=7 5 9."
*-#2(-&<
hu://vvv.lhealIanlic.com/lechnoIogy/archive/2011/01/deIusions-aside-lhe-nels-olenliaI-
is-reaI/69370/-
http://lab.arc90.com/experiments
/readability