The War On Negative Liberty Analysis

The liberty we thought we had is slowly being taken away from us. From the size of soft drinks served at fast-food restaurants to the gender of marriage partners, our lives are being regulated by the government. “The War On Negative Liberty” by Katherine Mangu-Ward promotes negative liberty, freedom from someone or a group giving or taking away our rights, versus positive liberty, freedom from an individual’s resources or power such as poverty or race. Besides governmental control in real life, we are also being watched and regulated through cyber space. The article, “George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg” by Lori Andrews examines this exact issue. The article by Andrews really brings up the fact that we are being watched over every single click we make online. Although,

these two articles focus on different subjects, they are both concerned about the freedom being taken away from us. Both authors, throughout their articles, use rhetorical strategies well to convey their ideas.
The purpose of George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg is to inform but also to persuade. The prediction of the future society by George Orwell in 1984 is becoming real. We are limited in what we can do, eat, or buy. We are being tracked every single minute online by phones and computers, and in George Orwell’s case, telescreens, of what we watch, click, or search up. We are being tracked in whatever we do in the virtual world, and this can also lead to negative effects on our real lives. Andrews explains weblining, the act of denying individuals of certain opportunities due to certain activities made online, is undemocratic and may limit opportunities and reinforce stereotypes. The purpose of The War on Negative Liberty is to inform as well as persuade. This article apprises us about how the government is infringing on our rights instead of protecting them, and persuades us to think that government must be stopped when they do not give us the rights that we fully deserve. “Sometimes the smallest, seemingly silliest infringements on personal liberty can be the most effective recruitment tools for the cause of liberty” (666). This sentence from the article hints readers to take action in order to protect our liberty. Both articles are evidently against the government infringing on our rights of privacy. They mainly inform, but “The War on Negative Liberty” has a slight emphasis on persuasion.
The article by Andrews relates to the general audience by telling a story of Kevin Johnson, a real person who experiences the negative effects of data aggregation.

Andrews also relates to the general audience and draws them in by discussing about well known, and frequently visited websites that collect our data such as Facebook, Dictionary.com, AOL, Google and many more. It is quite impossible for anyone to be unable to relate to this article; anyone with a cellphone, computer, or any internet access must have used at least one of these websites. On the other hand, Mangu-Ward speaks to the general audience in a different way. By comparing an unfamiliar issue of the Taliban’s ban of eating ice cream to a more familiar situation of Boston mothers who wish to ban ice cream trucks, she allows the general readers to connect with her writing. More specifically, Mangu-Ward tries to connect with the general American readers. With strong Libertarian views, she shows her patriotism by writing about the Boston Tea Party to explain her point of view. Although the audience for both articles is general, The War on Negative Liberty seems to be specifically for American readers due to Mangu-Ward’s strong

patriotism.
To appeal to her audience, Andrews creates a very concerned and angry tone. Starting out with her own story of the many different online activities she made on a Sunday morning, what information she thought was secure, turned out to be not as secure as she thought: “But every action I’ve taken has been surreptitiously chronicled and analyzed by data aggregators, who then sell the information to companies, including perhaps the one I am contemplating suing.” (708). Similarly, Mangu-Ward’s stance is concerned, but she is also sarcastic. “Never mind that the flickery blue of fluorescents in America’s office buildings have become synecdoche for the soul-crushing aspects of life…Plus, they reduce electricity bills for most people. We should be happy!” (Mangu-Ward 664). With this quote, Mangu-Ward shows her distaste of the government who bans incandescent bulbs, and therefore taking away the people’s freedom to choose whichever bulb they want, to promote fluorescent ones. Besides her tone of sarcasm, she also shows patriotism. By describing a famous event in American history, The Boston Tea Party, she describes a moment where the people have leapt to protect their liberty: “The greatest example in history of a people fighting tooth-and-claw for negative liberties, of course, started with a tax on tea.” (Mangu-Ward 666). The stance of Mangu-Ward and Andrews seem to be different but with a closer inspection, they are very similar. They are both concerned, but they show it in different ways: Andrews lets her concern show through anger, and Mangu-Ward by sarcasm and patriotism.
The genre of “George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg” is an informative and persuasive article that includes a personal anecdote. Andrews’s article includes so much information that many readers may miss her persuasiveness. Although she does not plainly state that we must rise up to protect ourselves from privacy invasion, her tone and choice of words throughout the entire article hints us so. Especially when she includes a list of searches made by different users released by AOL, the readers can feel her anger through her writing: “An AOL researcher… explained the release of the queries as an effort to facilitate ‘closer collaboration between AOL and anyone with a desire to work on interesting problems.’ But the project ended up breaching people’s privacy.” (716). Just like Andrews’s article, Mangu-Ward’s “The War on Negative Liberty” is also an informative and a persuasive article. Because Mangu-Ward’s writing uses more analysis and reasoning than facts, it reflects more persuasiveness than Andrews’s.
To inform and persuade, Andrews uses a lot of ethos, logos and pathos in her article. Examples of ethos are the author’s own story, and credible research. “‘Online behavioral advertising,’ notes the federal trade commission, ‘involves tracking of consumers’ online activities in order to deliver tailored advertising.’” (708). Data and facts are used throughout the article. “Facebook will use its new information about me… Facebook earned an estimated $1.86 billion in 2010 from the display of ads…” (709). Andrews’s emotions are felt thought the entire article. Specifically, when she opens up her article with a personal anecdote, which is also her ethos, she clearly wants her readers to feel anger. To get her message across, Mangu-Ward also uses pathos and logos. Mangu-Ward’s ideas are explained thoroughly and clearly show her logos, especially when she talks about the Boston Tea Party to portray her message. “The British didn’t want to lift the tax on Americans largely because it wanted to symbolically assert that it could tax Americans. The colonists responded to this symbolism with some of their own, and hoisted the tea into the harbor.” (666). By using this quote, Mangu-Ward connects the idea to modern society’s government, the people, and what the people should do to protect their rights. The pathos is used in the beginning to describe the life of Taliban women who are strictly forbidden to eat ice cream, something we enjoy freely. Besides arousing emotion out of anecdotes, Mangu- Ward’s overall attitude of sarcasm creates pathos, too. By using sarcasm, the readers can definitely feel that the author thinks something is ridiculous. By reading the passage with the tone of sarcasm the author had intended, the readers will most likely feel whatever emotion, most likely negative, the author is feeling, such as hatred, sadness, or disgust.
By using rhetorical strategies, Mangu-Ward and Andrews strengthen their argument in their articles. Although both articles are written in different styles, they are similar in their purpose, stance, and audience, if not the same. Andrews uses well the rhetorical strategies of ethos and pathos. Her data is always backed up by another source or her own experience. Also, Andrews’s tone of concern and anger, but not hostility, helps the audience focus better on the article itself and not the author’s feelings alone. As for Mangu-Ward, she uses the strategy of logos efficiently. She constantly compared and analyzed, which improved the audience’s understanding. A strategy Mangu-Ward used that seems to be not as effective as intended is her sarcasm. Although her sarcastic voice was meant to have brought out emotion from the readers, it was a bit unclear and easy to miss; sarcasm is generally better understood through tone of voice, and change of facial expression. The two articles George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg and The War on Negative Liberty discuss about completely different subjects, and yet have the same goal: To protect the individual’s rights and privacy by informing and persuading.