I'm posting about a reading my class was given in DIGC202. The reading is called, 'A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,'. This particular reading was authored by J.P. Barlow. It basically felt like a great big 'f**k you' letter to traditional authority holders who have sway over physical creativity and non-virtual 'life'. It seemed as if the authors were coming from a standpoint of having been restricted in some capacity by authority figures such as government, police or people with a stake in controlling information exchange, such as government intelligence agencies or record companies.
I found it to be an interesting read. I could definitely understand someone possessing a sense of disillusionment with current legal and social structures and wanting to implement positive change regarding these. I wonder, though, if creating the internet was a part of this person's effort to counteract this or create an alternative to traditional structures which improved upon current ones. If this is the case, i couldn't help but wonder if the person who conceptualised the internet had thought through the ramifications and potentially broad uses of the internet beyond the scope of what this manifesto is declaring to be appropriate. I don't doubt that the internet has allowed for aspects of information sharing in line with the manifesto and it's focus upon removing the restrictions of government. I think Wikileaks is a good example of the people acting in a manner which declares themselves " immune to [legal] sovereignty, even as [they] continue to consent to [their] rule over our bodies." Wikileaks continues to publish sensitive documents on the internet, even though physically this is not legal and the organisation seems only able to operate from countries with minimal laws against these actions. I also note that the internet seems to be used for distributing information which could be harmful to others such as child pornography.
I wonder if the internet nowadays is what Barlow envisioned when he wrote the manifesto.
Obviously the idea of easy-access pornography was not on their list of benefits when the Internet was created but now a days it is definitely a downfall. Making things so accessable is good and bad but we should be able to sift through the information we deem appropriate. The only way we can create opinions and morals is with engulfing ourselves with information and then forming our own opinions from it. Wikileaks was good because people were able to find some truth but poor Julianne Assange is paying the price.
ReplyDeleteI think Barlow didn't know what he was getting in to...
I agree with you completely that although a really noble kind of society is envisioned in Barlow's writings, he lacked in foresight when considering the breadth of the internet and how it would be used. Although I am sympathetic with a sense of disillusionment towards authority figures- as I certainly am generally very critical of their actions and motivations; to suggest that regulators can't and won't follow us into this world seems both naieve and impractical. I, like you two have great difficulty ignoring the need for something like the proliferation of child pornography to be controlled.
ReplyDelete