RODERICKGRAHAM.COM

I think one way in which new media promotes piece is by (1) decreasing the social distance and (2) decreasing the the information differential between people. Throughout history, wars have been started at the behest of a few on the top. The reasons to fight are usually particular to the upper classes or maybe even a handful of people – delusions of grandeur, oil, simple status, etc, and quite insufficient. But due to social distance people in power have appeared otherwordly (see Triumph of the Will and watch Germans fawning over Adolf Hitler) and due to differences in what they know and what we know they can push the masses in the direction they so choose (see George Bush and the WMD’s he knew they had but we didn’t).

New media, with its decentralized nature, makes it easier for people to gather and disseminate information. This allows more information to be known about our leaders, and it makes them appear less Godly, more human, and more like us. We are less likely to take their word as gospel. This gathering and disseminating of information also means that it is harder for governments to lie, conceal the truth, or otherwise produce a narrative that best serves their ends. In a society where new media is prevelant, the people get a say in what the nation’s narrative is.

I have begun to hang out a coffee shop near my home called Small Point Cafe.  Its a great coffeehouse.  Small Point is in a good location in downtown Providence with a lot of foot traffic.  I can sit at the window and people watch (one of my favorite pastimes).  The bathroom is clean, the service is nice, the ambiance is relaxing (in a granola-artsy type of way…see pics from another blogger here).  And, in what is now a requirement for coffee shops, they have free wi-fi.

Small Point Cafe finally broke my allegiance to Starbucks.  When my home or office surroundings get stale I go to Small Point for a fresh environment to stimulate my mind.  On this particular day I decided to do some more research on my white nationalism project.  I tried to log into the American Renaissance website, an avowedly white nationalist website.  Well…as it turns out, I cannot access many of those websites because…as the webfilter at Small Point says, they are websites of “hate and aggression”.

As a good liberal, I initially applauded this idea.  Let’s stop hate speech, I thought.  But then, I remembered recent arguments I had made about free speech and political correctness (here).  And then, I thought about even more recent arguments (my last post, actually) about how governments try and block websites they don’t like (here).

Is there much of a difference, in principal, between this sign and a "whites only" sign?

And suddenly I didn’t like the idea of Small Point blocking American Renaissance, or any website for that matter.  This raises so many questions.

• If I can draw a generalization from the ambiance of Small Point (organic, green, artsy) I can make an assumption that the owners and even more so the patrons of the cafe are left or center left in their political orientations.  Wouldn’t that imply some level of tolerance…even tolerance for groups that are intolerant?
• At the same time, this is a private enterprise.  Shouldn’t they have the right to ban whatever websites they see fit?
• But then, we don’t let private enterprises segregate their customers by race anymore (thank God…I couldn’t people watch if I had to sit in the back near the bathroom).  So should we let private enterprises segregate websites by political orientation – in effect putting websites showing that are deemed “hate websites” a “whites only” sign?

This amounts to the digital segregation of opinion.  Just food for thought.

We think of the Internet as a medium for free speech.  And, in a familiar progression, free speech equals dissent which can equal democracy.  And we all like democracy.  Its a good thing.  Late 2010 and early 2011 has witnessed this progression in North Africa and the Middle East.  We have all witnessed the “Arab Spring“, as it is now being called.  Information spread via the Internet was one of the catalysts for political change in that region.

But governments are getting adept at finding out who’s who on the web (see Mozorov’s The Net Delusion):

First, every device connected to the Internet is given a unique number known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address.  This is not unlike a mailbox.  While governments cannot exactly say that you personally sent information from that address, chances are highly likely that you or someone you know used that computer (this is not unlike a mailbox, where outgoing mail sent from that box is most likely sent by the owner…although technically someone could place mail in someone else’s box to be sent).  They can simply block information from traveling to and from your ISP, or they can trace information sent online back to its IP address.   By the way, if you would like to know your IP address, go here.

Second, passwords used for social networking and e-mail accounts can be stolen using malware like Firesheep.  From our IP addresses, we send out information packets.  Firesheep and other types of malware are “packet sniffers”.  Once the passwords are stolen of course, all hell breaks loose, and people’s personal information is compromised.  Repressive governments, especially those with more resources such as China and Iran, hire hackers to build this malware and hack into the emails and social network accounts of suspected dissidents.

I would like to believe that one of the great things about the Internet is that it can foster free speech.  But, when anonymity is lost, speech is no longer free in some countries.  Speaking out can cost you your livelihood, some jail time, and maybe your life.

Peyman Bagheri is a blogger who has fled Iran for fear of being imprisoned (picture from CNN.com). Other potential bloggers fear the same repercussions, and thus remain silent.

Just as hard as governments are working to erase anonymity and increase the costs of speech, there are others working just as hard to keep the Internet anonymous and keep speech free.

Let me explain…

Read more…

WikiLeaks is in the headlines again.

WikiLeaks has released more sensitive documents pertaiing to the US Government.

It has more confidential communications from the US government that it is now leaking to the press.  Or, as Wikileaks webpage says:

“On Sunday 28th Novembre 2010, Wikileaks began publishing 251,287 leaked United States embassy cables, the largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into the US Government’s foreign activities.”

Juilan Assange, Founder of WikiLeaks

Now, the US is going after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.  He has been called the “chief wikileaker“, and US Attorney Eric Holder has vowed to prosecute him.  But why?  Apparently this is evidence that I do not know the law.  But lack of knowledge has never stopped me before.  In my opinion, the US is focusing on the wrong person in this whole mess. Let me explain…

Read more…