|
Issue No. 141 | 21 June 2002 |
Bitter Pills
Interview: The Fels Guy Solidarity: Life or Death? Unions: Back to Basics International: Global Terror History: Sorry Business Technology: Future Active Satire: Executive Presents PowerPoint Eulogy at Mother�s Funeral Poetry: Santa Claus Was Coming to Oz Review: Dial 'M' For Minority Report
Fair Share: Link Executive Pay to Wages Abbott�s 'Rule of Law' Faces Court Challenge Royal Gaze Averted as Bosses Shut Down and Fined Molten Metal Sparks Safety Probe Consumer Boycotts Don't Break Law: Fels Korean Own Goal in World Focus STOP PRESS: Court Ticks Off on Service Fees Zero Tolerance on Casino Violence GIO Workers Challenge Bosses' Union Wages Nurses Reject Band-Aid Solution Saving Lives In Killer Productions McDonalds Vandal Becomes Global Hero Debate Rages Over Chinese Unions
The Soapbox The Locker Room Week in Review Bosswatch
Tom Bites Back Root Canal Therapy
Labor Council of NSW |
Technology Future Active
*********** When the Titanic hit its iceberg, Version 1.0 of radio went down with the ship. As sociologist Eszter Hargittai argues, radio turned out to be implicated in the disaster in ways that poisoned popular opinion against an unregulated, open system. A nearby ship could have saved passengers, for example, but its radio wasn't switched on. Worse, the babel of messages from amateurs produced conflicting news about whether the ship was safe. The resulting mood in the public and the press made it easy for the US government to regulate the airwaves. Once in place, this regulation enabled the development of commercial broadcast networks, which changed radio from point-to-point to broadcast technology. When American Airlines Flight 11 and United Flight 175 hit the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001, they may have been, among other things, the tip of the iceberg, of the Internet. As I write this six months later, it's still too early to see the long-term consequences for the Internet and the "War on Terrorism". But it doesn't look good. Here it all comes - real-time government interception of email. Police access to web surfing records without warrants. An end to privacy in favour of 'security". With liberty and wiretaps for all. Version 1.0 may be out of step with the times. But Hang on; didn't we hear that the Net was indestructible? Didn't we hear it was beyond censorship, that it treated such interference as damage, and would 'route around' attempts to control or constrain it? Didn't we hear that the Net was somehow stronger and smarter than us? We sure did. But it's not true anymore, if it ever was. Perhaps it was all just technical determinism. Because as legal academic Lawrence Lessig shows in his book code, the Net can be censored, constrained and controlled only too easily. Not through the gesture politics of 'adult content' restrictions, but through remaking its infrastructure. Through changing the inbuilt politics of the Net. MP3 files can be encoded to prevent their distribution. Software can be programmed to stop working if it's not registered to you. Websites can be configured to deny access to those who are not paying subscribers, or who don't have their browser cookies enabled, or whose machine otherwise identifies them as undesirable. None of these is sci-fi; all are with us already. And they could be just the start. Lessig describes' a future control in large part exercised by technologies of commerce, backed by the rule of law'. Business will continue to push for more Version 2.0 innovations, to make e-commerce easier to do and harder to avoid. Governments will back this, and will make use of the increased certification and credentialing necessary. To function online. On the Internet, said one dog to another in the legendary cartoon, nobody knows you're a dog. Not any more- on this Version 2.0 Net, not only will everybody know it's a dog, they'll have survey data on it favourite kind of dog food (and it won't get it without a credit card). So-it was fun while it lasted, but perhaps it's time to log off and see what's on TV? Not so fast. Lessig concludes that all of us need to become active citizens of cyberspace- not just customers. If we decide we want a Version 2.0 closed system, with extra TV shows all round, then fine. So long as we decide this and don't have it decided for us. Attempting prophecy about technology is a loser's game - there's no future in it - but chances are that activism about the Internet is going to increase. Campaigns in support of the Net as an open system; against commercialisation, against censorship. If the people interviewed in these pages have anything in common, it's that they're all very much active citizens of cyberspace. I said in the introduction that I never intended this book ti be the last word on any of this; it's only a contribution to an ongoing public conversation. To that end, I've tried to let the people involved in these campaigns speak for themselves as much as possible; to explain their own motivations and ideas. And I also want to give them the last word. While researching this book, I've asked those involved what advice they would give others who want to use the Net in trying to effect some kind of social, cultural or political change. I'll end the book with some of these responses. It is, I hope, a Version 1.0 ending. Some like Esther Dyson, counsel optimism. 'Individuals and small business get access to a lot of information which empowers them,' she says. "The examples are in the lives of the millions of individuals using the Net, right now, to get what they want, to express themselves, to communicate with one another without a central intermediary. But because this power goes to millions of people individually (and is over their own lives and not over others' lives), each instance doesn't seem dramatic. It seems like lots of anecdotes - but they add up to a significant shift in power.' "The web has created a space for people to experiment with new styles not motivated be sales,' says Matthew Arnison. 'When Indymedia has an audience of people energised by information, they don't wait for the experts to tell them what to do. They get in there and suggest things and then go out and do it themselves.' Others, like McLibel defendant Dave Morris, are more cautious. "The Internet,' Morris says, 'like most supposedly "labour-saving" devices, takes up a lot of people's time and energy. It is a mixed blessing, like all technology. How much resources - materials, labour (often cheap in poor countries) and mental effort - are being sucked into the production of such technology? With half the world having never used a telephone, modern technological communications, especially the Internet, can easily be elitist, and at the same time provide an illusion of interaction between ordinary people in the same way cars seem to promote movement but actually inhibit it, technological communications are tendering to inhibit, sideline and replace face-to-face contacts and association, whether one-to-one or in communal spaces.' But most offer a combination of optimistic encouragement and sober caveats. "I have the feeling that we are running out of time,' says Geert Lovink. "Soon the Net will be a closed mass medium with little or no room for new players. But we can then begin to build parallel networks, underground systems, somewhere in the margins. Wonderful subcultures will blossom, so please do not become depressed. There is still enough time to create parallel, independent infrastructure in which cyber culture can reinvent itself." I've grouped the following selection of responses under headings which reflect recurring themes, Several say activists should think tactically; others advise a strategic take, particularly with regard to networking. Some point out that it's crucial to be clear about what you want to achieve. Most urge activist not to put too much faith in the Net; others encourage activists to have faith in themselves. Act Tactically Some advise a tactical approach - seizing unguarded moments. "The internet,' says Veran Matic of B92, ' is not a kind of Forbidden City, a ghetto for the sacred, but should be regarded as a kiosk full of various offers. It could be said that the Internet is the perfect guerrilla weapon. "Hit and Run" constitutes its main role'. 'Look for niches,' says Stefan Wray of the Electronic Disturbance Theatre,' opportunities to exploit in ways not thought of before.' Others offer advice from their own very specific expertise. Frank Guerrro of �ark, for instance, makes some points about cultural sabotage, "Don't let the legal thugs hired by corporations bully you around,' he says. 'Usually their letters are empty threats designed for intimidation. And if you are concerned about top tip #1 then register your domain under an assumed name - give a PO box address rather than your own, and set up a voicemail for phone. And learn to dance.' Think Strategically Complementing the tactical take on things, some stress the importance of long-term strategic goals, though obviously these vary. Here are three. "I am on a crusade,' says Geert Lovnik, 'to increase what I call 'economic competence'. Any kind of business is a good one, because it will give you a good inside view on how big websites are being operated and what it means to get millions of clicks on your site each day. Economics is boring. I know. And I should reject it, being an anarchy-pragmatist. But I don't. If we still have the na�ve idea that an open and diverse cyberculture can somewhat influence the course technology is taking, we now have to start up businesses and pollute the concepts used under the umbrella of the term "New Economy".' 'In the transitional societies,' says Veran Matic, 'the internet can really help to overcome the gap between developing and developed countries; to articulate and accept basic information of world progress more quickly. The Internet entirely changes one's life philosophy and culture. In a society full of illiterate people, where the cultural model is pretty closed, this is very important.' "I think we have to learn from the ground,' says Ricardo Dominguez, of the Electronic Disturbance Theatre. "We have to go back to more traditional spaces. Especially off-grid spaces, people who are not connected, like the Zapatistas. They have no electricity, they have no computers. Because those populations, which are invisible, which are silent, are very easily left out from the connectivity of power, the grid. If we as activist and hackers only consider that which is on the grid as the valuable source, then I think we really lose that the Zapatistas have taught us about developing long-term political strategies. What we did is only a tactic - a simple tactic, a tactic that is effective on some occasions. But it has to be within, a larger strategy. And that can only come from depth of knowledge, depth of understanding, and, most importantly, out of what the Zapatistas call the encounter and the Dialogue. And you have to remember that from that encounter and that dialogue, what you want to accomplish may not come out. But something else might come out.' Be clear about what you want 'Be strategic and pragmatic,' advises Zack Exley, of gwbush.com. 'In other words, work to get something done, not just to "do something".' 'Ground it in a real problem or issue you have in the community you have a stake in offline,' says Howard Rheingold. 'Use online media to organise and discuss, and disseminate information, within the framework of a well-considered political strategy.' Rheingold's final point may be the single most important one in the book - 'Don't' forget to get together in the physical world'. It's very important,' says Ricardo Dominguez, "that one be very specific about what is the issue that you're working on. What is the singularity of the locale? Because the answers to how to use the thing have to come not from the networks outside, but from the specificity of what you are doing. The most important lesson to be learned from hacktivision is that it's a long-term thing - one hack does not an activist make, nor does it shift a government or anything\. Sometimes it takes ten years, twenty years, of very long-term depth of analysis. The action that you want to do may not fit, may not really help what it is you are trying to help. [The thing that does work] might be something that you hadn't thought of, because you were to hot to do this. All of a sudden you might have to analyse it, talk to the people that you're trying to have a dialogue with, and they might go, well, no. But out of the dialogue may come other action. So I think it's very important for young activists, hacktivists, to always make sure that they understand the specificity of what they're trying to articulate. And that they become aware not to have the media, or the medium, define the articulation. You have to have the local, the singularity, define the way the medium will play itself out. Or whether the medium will be used.' Don't have to much faith in the Net....... This is the single most common recurring theme. Almost everyone makes some version of this point, though with important variations. For some, 'don't rely on the Net' means being aware that many people aren't yet online. For others, it means remembering the importance of having an integrated media strategy. "The trouble with the Net,' says Mongrel's Matthew Fuller, "is that people have to have a greater range of bullshit detectors than they have to use to deal with the main stream media. Learning how to put these [detectors] together from the massive amount of customisable pieces available - and also having to learn to train them on themselves - takes enough time. Once the denormaliser starts running though, there's no stopping it.' 'Be aware of the Net's limitations,' says Gabrielle Kuiper, of Sydney Indymedia and Active Sydney. 'Don't use it as your primary form of communication. If you are spending your whole day starring at a computer screen and not getting out there and having face-to-face conversations, then it is unlikely you are changing much. It is a valuable communications technology, but it is no substitute for in-the-flesh human communication in all its messy three-dimensional sight, sound, touch and smell interaction.' Don't expect the Net to do more than it can,' says Eric Less, of LabourStart. 'No authoritarian regime has yet been toppled by a Java applet. It takes men and women engaged in real struggle - including strikes, boycotts, demonstrations, and so on - to change the world.' 'Be truly multimedia,' says Kalle Lasn, of Adbusters. 'I think if you want to launch successful social marketing campaigns, then you have to have radio, you have to have graphic material like print ads, or spoof ads, subvertisments or posters. You will need all that paraphernalia, right down to bumper stickers and whatnot. And then if you can afford it, you should get yourself some kind of TV spot that takes the very essence of your message and condenses it into 30 or 60 seconds. And then you have to start provoking the TV stations in your area to air it, and play that whole multimedia game as best you can. So that's my advice, not to expect the Internet by itself to pull off miracles, because it won't. We believe that activist of the future will be new media players. They will play the whole spectrum.' .......But do have faith in yourselves 'Ground yourself in hope,' says Mitch Kapor, of Electronic Frontier Foundation. 'Keep your eyes wide open as to how things actually are and stick close to your own expertise.' 'Know and respect the rights of people you're organising or communicating to,' says Zack Exley. 'Make sure you are motivated primarily by a desire to make life better for the billions who are in agony, and not by ego.' 'If you have the arguments,' says Geert Lovink, 'if you've done the research, and if you've worked with people - if you are networked in communities and groups - that's the main thing, and the technology is secondary.' 'The Internet has got humans ringing like a bell,' says Matthew Arnison. 'Just like the success of the telephone, people want to be creative and communicate and tell stories as well as listen. Just because TV is successful doesn't mean that all we want to do is watch. And the evidence is that people are turning off the TV to spend time on the Net. Of course many corporations are trying to bend the Internet into a tool for consumption rather than creativity. But you can only bend human nature and technology so far. Very often these attempts fail miserably'. 'Use your brain and your imagination,' says Jessy, from McSpotlight, 'to come up with new ways of doing things faster, doing things funnier. Wit is one of the most important things. McSpotlight is not made with money - it's made with imagination, and that's why people go there and are interested in it. So the Internet is a level playing field in that sense. It's not just the boys with the most money who make the difference - it's the boys and girls with the most imagination.' From Future Active: Media Activisim and the Internet by Graham Meikle (Pluto Press)
|
Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue |
© 1999-2002 Workers Online |
|