The internet is a battlefield. The uniformed battalions of governments line up in the valley; but all around on the hillsides, cyber guerrillas dart among the trees. The governments’ troops seem overwhelmed, ambushed from every side by guerrillas who can cross all international borders and are impossible to track down. The governments have so far been unable to pass laws to govern these online guerrillas.
Inadvertently, we are all guerrillas in this internet revolution, because we all use it, and it subverts the traditional state and media powers. It is a revolution, in the true sense, “because the goals of the revolutionaries cannot be contained by the institutional structure of the existing society” (Clay Shirky). As Shirky points out, it not the invention of a new tool which creates societal change, but its widespread adoption; and the internet is obviously ubiquitous.
We all know the internet has revolutionized everything, but what is it that fundamentally changed? The internet changed the nature of communication. Before, large-scale media was “one-way”, in the sense that the audience was addressed but could not respond. Now, we have what Shirky calls “symmetrical participation” where “the former audience” (Dan Gillmor) become creators as well as consumers of content.
The desire of users to create such content is understandable when it relates to individual blogging or posting on social networks: we all have a desire to share aspects of our experiences or thoughts with friends (my blog is a point in case). Much more surprising is people’s willingness to do real work for free, the kind of work that would normally be compensated, and do it without even receiving credit.
Wikipedia serves as a powerful example, because very few articles remain the work of one contributor. Wikipedia’s inherent self-correction process functions well, as users complement or correct previous versions of an article. What is amazing is that Wikipedia can function with an unmanaged division of labor. Notably, the initial quality of the article does not really matter: poorly-informed or badly-written articles in fact produce a greater incentive for other users to improve them. This is what Richard Gabriel refers to as the “worse is better” phenomenon. In many other models of user-generated content, such as the question and answer site Quora (https://www.quora.com/), users do not edit content posted by others, but vote on it, helping filter for quality.
Intuitively, it makes sense to trust users to co-develop or filter content for discreet or simple tasks, such as writing Wikipedia articles or raring Quora responses. Yet surprisingly, co-creation works astonishingly well for very complex tasks which have traditionally required centralized planning. Take the development, by hundreds of different software engineers around the world, of the open-source Hadoop MapReduce software (http://hadoop.apache.org/), which enables very rapid processing of vast sets of unstructured data, and is used by companies like Facebook (i.e., data that is not storable in tabular form on SQL databases).
The constant iteration of Wikipedia or Hadoop is significant, because it hails what Tim O’Reilly calls the “end of the software development and release cycle”. Software updates can now be developed anywhere by multiple users and then be pushed to our devices. This transforms our entire relationship with the software we use: software becomes an iterative process, not a product, because the barriers to development and deployment are radically reduced.
The internet also reduces the barriers to coordination among other groups of people. For example, companies like Researchgate (http://www.researchgate.net/) and Mendeley (http://www.mendeley.com/) enable scientists to better collaborate on research. The internet also enables individuals to organize protests against denials of free speech, like those planned invisibly online by activists, to bring crowds to Cairo’s Tahrir Square or Minsk’s Oktyabrskaya Square.
The ease of coordination distributes power more evenly in society, but it also creates hazards, because members of groups can implement their own agendas. The hacker group Anonymous has been praised by many for its members’ efforts to fight child pornography on the internet, dismantling several child pornography networks that use Tor (https://www.torproject.org/), software which enables online anonymity. Yet Anonymous has also been harshly criticized, as Michael Gross points out in Vanity Fair, for simply “breaking stuff” without any ideological motivation (http://vnty.fr/15uYlbB). Joshua Corman, in his excellent security blog, identifies that this dichotomy of Anonymous’s behavior arises because of its structure as a “loose collective”, rather than a well-organized group. Parmy Olson, who gained remarkable insider access to members of Anonymous (http://bit.ly/1gVPJui), reiterates the disparate nature of the network.
Like many things in life, Anonymous’s lack of a central command and control center is both its greatest weakness and its greatest strength. The FBI famously announced it had “chopped the head off” LulzSec, an offshoot of Anonymous responsible for hacking various Government Agencies. But Anonymous has survived easily, because of the dispersed nature of its members. The FBI didn’t realize it was dealing with a many-headed medusa.
The internet also poses dangers relating to privacy. Ironically, it was the Clinton administration’s decision to export encryption techniques in the 90s which compromised much of the internet’s safety. Clinton authorized this export to enable secure international payments and thereby help commercialize the internet, but it had the unforeseen consequence of providing criminals with a tool to export stolen data in an encrypted form.
The internet’s anonymity also contributes to making it easier to commit crimes or other abuse. For example, Reuters recently exposed an uncontrolled online exchange of adopted children (http://reut.rs/1b97GII). Parents give up problematic adopted children without any paperwork, a process which is clearly massively open to abuse by pedophiles.
In conclusion, the internet has empowered all of us by giving us a voice, the ability to co-create content and the tools to manage groups effortlessly. Yet there is also a need for improved regulation of the internet. The US, China, Russia, Brazil and European Union are all pulling in different directions, based on varying preferences regarding privacy principles. If the negotiations about the future of the internet prove as arduous and inconclusive as the ones on Syria, perhaps we should turn the process over to the people, and create the laws through open-source? Wikipedia to the rescue?