Declaration Of Freedom Of The Internet Analysis

One thing that supporters of spreading internet freedom are also pushing is that governments completely rid themselves of trying to control the internet. Jeff Jarvis is arguably the strongest voice on this matter. Jarvis says that “governments are the single point of failure for the internet and thus for the public’s tool of empowerment.” (Jarvis) He further details that the internet does “not belong to government” and that it “belong(s) to the public, who are using them to claim their rights as the public.” (Jarvis) John Perry Barlow said in 1996 in his piece “Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace” that governments do not have any right to control what goes on on the internet and that “(government) has no moral right to rule us nor do

you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.” (Jarvis) While some push for this ideal it becomes more evident everyday that government is needed with the internet. If it was not for government, then the internet would have to self-govern itself when somebody hacks somebody else or steals another individual’s identity through various ways.

Carrying out punishment would be nearly impossible without a governing body enforcing it. While there is some sort of structure currently for the internet, it is not at this scale to handle an internet thief like this. For example, message boards possess a hierarchical organization that helps to regulate things with their being an owner(s) of the website, moderators to watch over the message board on a daily basis and are generally assigned to specific areas of the message board to focus on, and then the members of the message board. In ways it compares to having the federal government (owner(s) of the website), state government (moderators), and citizens (board members). When a member of the message board posts insensitive material to the message board, for example, he can be banned by the moderators. The message board is self-regulating in this instant. There are crimes committed via the internet though that is too big in scale for the everyday citizen to

manage. While some cry for the government to rid itself of watching over the internet, those same individuals are going to turn to that same government if somebody steals their identity over the internet. No rational individual is going to have their identity stolen and just go along with it with an attitude of “that is the internet; take the good with the bad.” They are going to want justice and the only place where that can be provided is the government.
Speaking of identity theft, privacy is another largely debated topic in regards to the control of the internet.

Jarvis authored Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live and believes that individuals should be open books on the internet and that privacy is overvalued. He points out that “if we become too obsessed with privacy, we could lose opportunities to make connections in this age of links.” (Morozov 2011b) Jarvis mainly highlights that being open can foster relationships and produce further collective action. However, it is important to maintain a certain level of privacy. While being open is helpful for democracy, being too open can be harmful. Evegny Morozov summarizes this when he says “the personal information recorded by these new technologies was allowing social institutions to enforce standards of behavior, triggering ‘long-term strategies of manipulation intended to mold and adjust individual conduct.’” (Morozov 2013) Long before Morozov addressed this issue, Spiros Simitis did so. In 1985 the data protection commissioner of the German state of Hesse and eventual Hessian Merit winner said “where privacy is dismantled, both the chance for personal assessment of the political … process and the opportunity to develop and maintain a particular style of life fade.” (Morozov 2013) The more information citizens are willing to share then the more companies and the governments are able to learn about the citizens. They can use to

attempt to better control society and dictate our actions and thoughts. Morozov elaborates further:
“Instead of getting more context for decisions, we would get less; instead of seeing the logic driving our bureaucratic systems and making that logic more accurate and less Kafkaesque, we would get more confusion because decision making was becoming automated and no one knew how exactly the algorithms worked… despite the promise of greater personalization and empowerment, the interactive systems would provide only an illusion of more participation.” (Morozov 2013)
While we are continuously sharing information openly others are collecting this information in sophisticated ways that we do not even understand. They have intricate algorithms that the common individual does not understand but takes everything we are sharing and using it to direct the society and do it best to create an image that is fitting to the public.