Personal Democracy Plus Our premium content network. LEARN MORE You are not logged in. LOG IN NOW >

The Three Different Meanings of "Internet Activism"

BY Nick Judd | Friday, January 4 2013

In an article for its upcoming print edition, the Economist discovers the politics of the Internet. In an extended primer appearing in its Jan. 5 print edition, the venerable magazine explores the world of Internet freedom activists — people who love the Internet as it is and view the fight to preserve freedom of information as political trench warfare across multiple theaters: before state regulators, in corporate boardrooms, in Congress, in the court of public opinion, and in the design of the hardware and programming of the software that keeps the Internet running.

The piece is worth a read, but the Economist has trouble sussing out two or three different forces at play when it comes to "Internet activism." The main focus of the article, and a new and interesting thing that's really worth noticing, is the way that people who are very much "of the Internet" have demonstrated a new political consciousness. We've covered this internationally in our exploration of the German Pirate Party's "Liquid Democracy" collaboration platform and domestically by exploring the open-source fundamentalism of certain Occupy Wall Street activists. These people are political, and the way the Internet has worked up until now is baked into their politics in a fascinating way.

A separate but related issue is the ongoing political fight for control of the Internet, or control over certain aspects of how the Internet works. The Economist might frame this as something new, and certainly it has gained importance as the Internet has become more central to business and global communication, but it is as old as the Internet itself. Even the primacy of TCP/IP — the communications protocol that underlies the Internet — had to be decided in the marketplace of ideas. It had competition at one point in its history. Similarly, the politics of the Internet are more complicated than closed versus open. There are constituencies against copyright and for it; broadly for freedom of political speech and against it; for centralized control of some parts of the Internet and against it. But there are also regional constituencies. Your First POST editor noted last month that ongoing dust-ups over whether the United Nations should have a greater say in determining standards and regulations for the Internet also reveals that the people who figure out how to upgrade the network's technical underpinnings have not done very well in serving users in the developing world. The "multi-stakeholder" model — an alphabet soup of organizations that are mostly independent of any state control, and promote voluntary standards for how the Internet should work — is not representative of the Internet's newly intercontinental user base. African and South Asian countries are underrepresented at meetings and in discussions. So there is also a global South/global North divide, at least for now, and people inside that multi-stakeholder model are working to make it something people in the global South will campaign to protect as much as the American and European users already on board.

The third force is activism enabled by the Internet, which is not necessarily related to the previous two. To a certain extent, the work of the Pirate Party counts here, as does the work of Internet freedom advocates around the Stop Online Piracy Act at the start of this year. But having a global, instantaneous communications network that can also use software to help hundreds or thousands of people cooperate efficiently on a single task has absolutely changed the dynamics of politics. A thousand or a million people with no more political clout than Internet access and an hour to spare are more politically potent now than they were ten years ago in any context. True, and worthy of note, but certainly not a surprise: It was true in 2004, it was true in 2012, and it will continue to be true from here on out.

A slightly shorter version of this piece first appeared in Friday morning's First POST.

Transparency and Public Shaming: Pakistan Tackles Tax Evasion

In Pakistan, where only one in 200 citizens files their income tax return, authorities published a directory of taxpayers' details for the first time. Officials explained the decision as an attempt to shame defaulters into paying up.

GO

wednesday >

Facebook Seeks Approval as Financial Service in Ireland. Is the Developing World Next?

On April 13 the Financial Times reported that Facebook is only weeks away from being approved as a financial service in Ireland. Is this foray into e-money motivated by Facebook's desire to conquer the developing world before other corporate Internet giants do? Maybe.

GO

The Rise and Fall of Iran's “Blogestan”

The robust community of Iranian bloggers—sometimes nicknamed “Blogestan”—has shrunk since its heyday between 2002 – 2010. “Whither Blogestan,” a recent report from the University of Pennsylvania's Iran Media Program sought to find out how and why. The researchers performed a web crawling analysis of Blogestan, survey 165 Persian blog users, and conducted 20 interviews with influential bloggers in the Persian community. They found multiple causes of the decline in blogging, including increased social media use and interference from authorities.

GO

tuesday >

Weekly Readings: What the Govt Wants to Know

A roundup of interesting reads and stories from around the web. GO

Russia to Treat Bloggers Like Mass Media Because "the F*cking Journalists Won't Stop Writing"

The worldwide debate over who is and who isn't a journalist has raged since digital media made it much easier for citizen journalists and other “amateurs” to compete with the big guys. In the United States, journalists are entitled to certain protections under the law, such as the right to confidential sources. As such, many argue that blogging should qualify as journalism because independent writers deserve the same legal protections as corporate employees. In Russia, however, earning a place equal to mass media means additional regulations and obligations, which some say will lead to the repression of free speech.

GO

Politics for People: Demanding Transparent and Ethical Lobbying in the EU

Today the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) launched a campaign called Politics for People that asks candidates for the European Parliament to pledge to stand up to secretive industry lobbyists and to advocate for transparency. The Politics for People website connects voters with information about their MEP candidates and encourages them to reach out on Facebook, Twitter or by email to ask them to sign the pledge.

GO

monday >

Security Agencies Given Full Access to Telecom Data Even Though "All Lebanese Can Not Be Suspects"

In late March, Lebanese government ministers granted security agencies unrestricted access to telecommunications data in spite of some ministers objections that it violates privacy rights. Global Voices reports that the policy violates Lebanon's existing surveillance and privacy law, Law 140, but has gotten little coverage from the country's mainstream media.

GO

More