The Internet of Elsewhere

As we leap into the start of the 2020 election, as we reap the consequences of Fake News in the 2016 election, and as we see misinformation constantly soaking our social media, it is important to critically examine the Internet, how it is currently structured, and how it is utilized.

As introduced in The Internet of Elsewhere, there is strength in the ability to spread and access information–but it can also, unfortunately, be misused to cause harm. In 2010, Secretary Hillary Clinton advocated for “a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas”. Misinformation and oppression of thought are two of the most-utilized tools in authoritarian governments, and the Internet readily fights against both of those. This has been highlighted in the use of memes to discuss Chinese politics and fight censorship, and in the context of the 2006 Iranian rebellion.

However, it has also created fringe groups where people can more-easily than ever promote their own toxic ideas and be supported. Social media is increasingly becoming a tool to highlight injustices in our current social systems, and its misuse is discussed more often.

These tools are being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can energize a city or destroy it, modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. . .technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. 

Farivar, Cyrus. The Internet of Elsewhere: The Emergent Effects of a Wired World. 2011. Rutgers University Press.

Particularly in various social media networks, the spread of misinformation via Fake News and memes has been widely discussed. Increasingly, people are trying to hold the social media sites themselves accountable for their platforms. Most recently, Pinterest has been highlighted for their ban of the sharing of anti-vaccine materials on their platform, showcasing the argument of “freedom of speech versus freedom of reach”. Essentially, people have a right to say whatever they want, but it does not have to be heard–particularly when it goes against the greater good. While this prevents the dangerous and often-hateful spread of misinformation, what does this mean for the Internet’s future, especially as access to a free Internet is questioned?