Speak Up Project

It is said that “The Internet is Good”

I was caught today reading a paper by Joseph Reagle at Harvard Law School about “Why the Internet is Good” in effort to gain a better perspective on the different points of view about governance. Seemingly, his thesis has a great deal of credibility that deserves some scholastic examination. As one who respects higher education, I wouldn’t dare refute his theories in their entirety. Rather I’d like to present some of the ideas as well as some of my own and put it in blog format. I’m not in Harvard law, but this is a blog and not a thesis paper. I won’t go into depth, I will simply extract a point I want to comment on and go from there.

As pointed out by Lessig [Less98a], there are in total four things that regulate cyberspace: laws (by government sanction and force), social norms (by expectation, encouragement, or embarrassment), markets (by price and availability), and architecture (what the technology permits, favors, dissuades, or prohibits). Interestingly, the social norm captured in the quotations above seems to side with its symbiotic partner, the dencentralized Internet architecture, and with the the laissez-faire market in order to challenge the power of law. Social norms, markets, and architectures do not always oppose law; however, in this instance, these memes challenge the authority of the government to control speech.

How compelling is this description. These four governing points of the Internet are deemed as self-regulating. Apparently the interchange that exists between these makes for the currently well regulated Internet we enjoy today. Idealistically this would all work perfectly. Reagle goes on to argue that government regulation of the Internet is inconsistent with social norms and that they don’t even go hand in hand, which is why there is a backlash against such issues.

Naturally so, people do not respond well when they are being controlled. So do arguments of Internet governance stop there? Is this solution going to solve any problems?

Well, there are some things that aren’t addressed by this theory.

First, not everyone agrees with this purported “social norm”. There is a large body of Internet users that are scared to get into the Internet for for various reasons. Many are afraid of identity theft, others porn, still others purely afraid of it’s intimidating and complicated nature. This Internet that is seen as the “people’s” Internet has so much power and credibility. However, not everyone is on board with the way it’s moving today. So, to call this style a social norm would be simply short sighted and biased.

Second, “social norms” don’t take into account moral norms. In our open, global communication world it seems that we try to take the lowest common denominator to accomodate everyone so that nobody is oppressed. However still today there are many who uphold their own moral standards against much of the content on the Internet. In multiple communities, the unbridled access to porn is not socially normal. If accessing porn on the Internet was a “social norm” why doesn’t the workplace allow you to browse porn on your free time like you browse sports scores?

Third, moral conservativism is no more oppresive than idealism bloated with good intentions. The idea of an Internet with total free flow of information is bound to get corrupt by the few who will ruin it for the masses. Where it’s just as “incorrect” to push moral viewpoints in order to constrain potentially negative material on the Internet, it’s equally as oppressive to flippantly dismiss the standards that people are trying to uphold for themselves and their families.

Frankly put, Internet pornography wouldn’t be this much of a hot button topic if it wasn’t widely seen as potentially harmful.

As scholars put their minds together to find out just how we can freely enjoy the power of the Internet, they are still confused at how to appease all parties. Solutions are out there, but no one seems to be willing to make the call on what’s “right” and what should be regulated.

In the meantime, as it stands there are some social norms that govern the Internet. The requirements of the people are catered to as long as markets prove needy, technology proves able, and laws prove to be generally kept. Unfortunately, “social norms” covers all manner of issues as a blanket and doesn’t address the facts as they may actually be. Until we can come up with an agreement on how to resolve this issue of Internet governance, some norms will be thrown under this blanket of “information thirst”. The demand of the people to gain more knowledge will always supersede the moral needs of the people.

This is why ” the Internet is good, but not complete.”