According to Sterling, the answer to the above question is simple; Freedom.
The introduction of the internet has provided the average citizen with an unprecedented freedom to communicate in a world where barriers of time and space are eliminated and where every node is considered as equal. In 1993 Sterling stated in awe of this liberty that “The internet is a rare example of a true functional anarchy. There is no “Internet Inc”. There are no official censors, no bosses, no board of directors, no stockholders” (Sterling, 1993, p3). After reading this statement, I couldn’t help but think that, today just over a decade since the internet was introduced; these simple freedoms and the foundations for what has made this ‘functional anarchy’ so popular, are dangerously at risk.
This risk that I am referring to is presented by the Australian Governments proposed ISP filter which even though is strongly opposed by the majority of population, is STILL being considered by the government. I believe that if this filter was implemented it would erode the free and anarchic nature that Sterling (1993) refers to as the internet would no longer 'belong to everyone and no one’. Instead the Government would be granted a degree of ownership as they would be able to control ones access to information, thus re-creating the barriers which the internet has aimed to eliminate for so long.
In saying the above I do believe that some regulation on the Internet is required, although I am just not sure if a mandatory content filter is the answer. What are your thoughts?
References:
Sterling, B. (1993) 'A Short History of the Internet', The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction
http://sixrevisions.com/resources/the-history-of-the-internet-in-a-nutshell/, accessed 14/8/2011
A mandatory ISP filter is not the way the internet should be regulated. The government's argument for the filter follows the lines of 'protecting children against pornographic/disturbing images' - an argument that is based on very little research. An ironic point of this is one researcher, who wrote the paper (about children being exposed to pornography) the government is basing their argument on, has turned around and said that a filter is not the answer to child protection.
ReplyDeleteIt scares me what will happen next if this legislation get passed.
Even though we would all love to have freedom on the Internet, in our own minds we continue to self regulate what we say. If we continue to self regulate we wont need a government on the Internet to monitor what we say.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog Corryn, I agree with your assertion that the internet "has provided the average citizen with an unprecedented freedom to communicate in a world where barriers of time and space are eliminated and where every node is considered as equal." The possible implementation of the ISP filter is very concerning, the lack of transparency from the government about what will be included in the black list restricts citizens from having any say in determining what is deemed innappropriate.
ReplyDelete