Out of Our bubble, Into the Web.
The “Internet Freedoms and Their Consequences” article discusses the double edge sword that is the freedom of the Internet. Too much of anything has negative implications. Morozov uses global and localized examples to show the “dark side” of the Internet’s democratic system.
First, the brilliant side—the Internet attempts to give us a borderless world. Recently, when the Libyan and Egyptian revolution occurred, the world became its biggest audience. America’s stereotype to many people out of the country is that we lack heavily in knowing what is happening outside of our borders. Of course, we were always able to get updates on things as such since the past decade, but now as social networking becomes more and more a primary news source for people, the way our world interacts has changed. “The Internet has been reviving many old religious and cultural practices that globalization was supposed to erode. ” Our globalization has helped dissonant groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood gain popularity, which in turn helped during the revolutions.
The Internet is capable of launching us into any virtual world imaginable. Some places need not be imagined. In India, there are online services that allow you to join online communities and enjoy religious practices without actually having to be there. In China, and on a more bittersweet note, there exist online mourning services. You can view “e-incenses, send e-flowers, and look at e-tombstones” at memorial sites dedicated to your loved ones. These are actually quite popular.
Arguably, our global village has not churned out “uber-tolerant citizens” of the world. As a whole, I feel as thought this is not true. Instead the article argues that “under the pressure of religious, nationalist, and cultural forces reignited by the internet, global politics is poised to become even more complex, contentious, and fragmented.” This sort of analysis cannot be applied to countries all over. America is able to be public with any hate spewing-discriminatory-bashing group.
One line from the article continues to stick with me; “the good news is that we are not rushing toward a globalized nirvana where everyone eats MacDonald’s and watches the same Hollywood films.” I never stopped to think about the negative impact of everyone being virtual neighbors. Some questions that the article raises are not answered towards the end. It it would be interesting to read the research shown on cultures that have or have not been affected by the western cannon, and if those effects mean anything for diminished traditions.
The shadiest part of the Internet is its lack of regulation. I see it as a one of its strength, but the article seems to disagree--and on convincing grounds. The networked "anarchy" has created a vast social pressure to tame the web. PIPA, CISPA, SOPA, were regulations recently thought up of to tame the web. But in what way? Would these same pieces of legislation simply limit copy written content that can be acquired? Or would it actually shut down the copious hate sites that stains America's progress in civil rights. If hollywood is not getting paid, they will damn sure lobby to get these sorts of laws passed.
