This post is a summary of two articles. The first with the title above was published in January of 2013 at http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569041-can-internet-activism-turn-real-political-movement-everything-connected. The second was published in November of 2013 at http://reframe.sussex.ac.uk/activistmedia/2013/11/from-optimism-to-delusion-cyber-technologies-democracy-and-surveillance/
When dozens of countries refused to sign a new global treaty on internet governance in late 2012, a wide range of activists rejoiced. They saw the treaty, crafted under the auspices of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), as giving governments pernicious powers to censor the internet. For months groups with names like 'Fight for the Future' had campaigned against the treaty. The success at the ITU conference capped a big year for online activists. In January they helped defeat Hollywood-sponsored anti-piracy legislation. A month later, in Europe, they took on ACTA, an obscure treaty which, in seeking to enforce intellectual-property rights, paid little heed to free speech and privacy. In Brazil they got closer than many would have believed possible to securing a ground-breaking internet bill of rights, the "Marco Civil da Internet". In Pakistan they helped to delay, perhaps permanently, plans for a national firewall, and in the Philippines they campaigned against a cybercrime law that later the Supreme Court put on hold. The publication of Rachel Carson's jeremiad on the effects of pesticides in 1962 is widely seen as marking the appearance of modern environment awareness, and the politics that goes with it. 50 years on, might the world really be witnessing another such moment, and the creation of another such movement, this one built around the potential for ICT to foster free speech and innovation, and the threats that governments and companies pose it. Today every corner of the digital universe has its own interest group: social media users defend privacy, hackers reject far-reaching software patents, researchers push for open access to scientific online journals, defenders of transparency call on governments to open their data vaults. The internet is nothing if not an exercise in interconnection. Its politics thus seems to call out for a similar convergence, and connections between the disparate interest groups that make up the net movement are indeed getting stronger. Beyond specific links, they also share what Manuel Castells, a Spanish sociologist, calls the "culture of the internet", a contemporary equovalent of the 1960s counter-culture (in which much of the environmental movement grew up). Its members believe in tech progress, the free flow of information, virtual communities and intrepreneurialism. And as the environmental movement had radical organisations such as Earth First and Earth Liberation Army, its digital successor has also developed a direct-action arm. In early October Anonymous, a cyberactivist collective, took down a bunch websites in Sweden as a protest against efforts to extradite Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, from Britain. It is plausible that people who spend much of their lives online may come to feel strongly about the tech and ideological infrastructure that they depend on. According to a survey in 13 countries, on average 75% would give up alcohol, 27% sex and 22% daily showers to secure internet access for a year if forced to choose. In most of the world the green movements's victories came from applying pressure to established parties, and spurring the creation of new institutions, such as ministries of the environment. It is early days, but such institution building is hard to imagine for the net movement. Net politics is about freeing people to experiment rather than controlling their afluents. Although the state can guarantee freedoms, policy by policy it tends to do better, these days, on the shackling front. It is possible that the lasting influence of the net movement will be in providing new tools and tactics for people with political aims. All political protest and novelty now has a social media face, whether it be that of the tea party, the Occupy movement or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. All seek the fast-multiplying effect that the internet can add to activism and uprisings. Experiments in delegative democracy like Liquid Feedback created by German Pirate Party may rewire the way politics works from the inside, as well as speed things up. In German other parties are experimenting with such systems, something similar powers Italy's Five Star Movement. The true potential of internet politics is to reshape what people can do. It is not obvious that the sort of people who think of the world in terms of operating systems will prove to be the best at using that new potential, or find in it the power to protect the freedom or openness of all the infrastructure that they care about. But many of them are increasingly serious about trying.
Thanks to the tremendous development of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the growing accessibility of the digital network, activists and citizens have found a new space for political expression: the internet. We should embrace ICTs where it helps us build a better future. But we should also be wary of its downsides, and not be fooled into false digital promises. From the Arab revolutions to Indigenous-led campaigns and, more recently the spontaneous social movements that burst in Turkey and Brazil, over the last three years, the internet seems to have turned into a megaphone for political dissidents and human rights activists. The networked nature of web, in particular social media, and the explosion of users worldwide provide activists with unprecedented tools to communicate their ideas, mobilise supporters and take action outside established hierarchical power structures. Social media have revolutionised the way information is produced and shared: everyone share opinions, pictures and videos on issues that they care about or witness and upload them from their computers and smartphone on the internet. Institutions and individuals that represent public authority are now under constant citizen scrutiny. They know that any mistake can spark online retaliation and take proportions that are hard to control. Many cyberactivists see in internet a new source of power that will eventually force the ruling elite around the world to become more transparent, accountable and favour human rights and democracy. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a tech fix to a complex problem and, the solution itself carries its own load of downsides. Indeed, while digital tech have participated to the success of social and revolutionary movements, they also enhance the effectiveness of state surveillance. Governments are tempted to use digital networks to control populations by monitoring communications, blocking access of certain users or even tracking and imprisoning digital dissidents, e.g. in China and Iran. Recent revelations on the surveillance system set up by the NSA and its British counterpart: GCHQ have shown that this is not an exclusive feature of authoritarian regimes. Let is be clear on one thing: it is still preferable to be a political dissident in the US than it is to be in a country like China. But the surveillance of democratic governments is a clear violation of their own privacy rules and without public debate, as well as the pressure exerted against whistleblowers, activists and journalists who stand against it, is unsettling. We would be wrong to assume that digital tech have some kind of built-in determinism that will necessary result in a more transparent and democratic society. Such assumptions is inaccurate and will only lead to greater pitfalls once the bulk reality catches upon us. So, are we condemned to see our hopes in the ability of digital tech to make the world a better place vanish, only to realise that they are in fact weakening the rule of law and human rights at home? Not necessarily. For one, a series of people and organisations, from Mozilla to the Eletronic Frontier Foundation, are working to keep the internet free, open and secure for activists and ordinary citizens. We need to involve our representative into a public debate about state eavesdropping practice and support the regulatory framework that is flexible enough to keep us secure from the abuses of state surveillance.
