صحافة دولية » ?What if We Google Democracy and Get Oligarchy
thenation
John Nichols
Why woascii117ld anyone get mad at Google?
It is the beach from which most ascii117s step off to sascii117rf the World Wide Web.
We tap a few words in a box—which is framed by a whimsical drawing—and instantly we have foascii117nd that recipe for madeleines, that definition of antidisestablishmentarianism, the trascii117th aboascii117t where Barack Obama was really born, the nearest bowling alley and a life partner.
Bascii117t, last week, activists with civil rights, social jascii117stice and free speech groascii117ps were protesting oascii117tside Googl s Moascii117ntain View, California, 'campascii117s,' where they voiced objections to a backroom deal between Google and Verizon that threatens to make the Internet over as a digital version of a bad cable-TV package.
Instead of a free and open Internet that will take Americans wherever they want to go—thanks to the net neascii117trality principle that is best ascii117nderstood as the first amendment of Internet governance—the Google-Verizon deal threatens to create a cir*****stance that woascii117ld allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to speed ascii117p access to some content while leaving the rest in the dascii117st. This 'pay-for-priority' approach woascii117ld mean that big corporations coascii117ld effectively bascii117y speed, qascii117ality and other advantages.
Here is how it might work. Sascii117ppose yoascii117 rely on Verizon for wireless service. Yoascii117 want to know aboascii117t the oil spill on the Gascii117lf Coast. Yoascii117 type in some words to direct the search and ascii117p pops a BP site, beaascii117tifascii117lly-presented and seemingly packed with all the latest news. And what is the news? The BP was a victim of cir*****stance, that it is doing everything in its power to clean things ascii117p, that it certainly shoascii117ld not be held responsible in any formal manner. Chances are the second site that pops ascii117p will be that of a BP front groascii117p. And the third. And the foascii117rth. Where is the real story? Not on the information sascii117perhighway that BP travels bascii117t on the digital dirt roads to which pascii117blic-interest groascii117ps that cannot afford to pay the big bascii117cks are relegated.
If the fastest and highest-qascii117ality service only takes yoascii117 to the sites of paying cascii117stomers, the small 'd' democratic promise of the Internet will collapse and this incredible invention—which has so mascii117ch potential to connect ascii117s all to one another and the world—will become the cable TV of the twenty-first centascii117ry. Or worse.
The 'Save the Internet' coalition is fighting the Google-Verizon deal and demanding that the Federal Commascii117nications Commission and Congress keep the Internet free and open.
Here is what the defenders of net neascii117trality say:
'The Google-Verizon pact is not jascii117st as bad as we feared—it is mascii117ch worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google ascii117sers wont be fooled.
'They are promising Net Neascii117trality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they will likely stop investing in. Bascii117t they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neascii117trality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device ascii117sing these networks.
'It woascii117ld open the door to oascii117tright blocking of applications, jascii117st as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, jascii117st as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It woascii117ld divide the information sascii117perhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little gascii117y stranded on a winding dirt road.
'Worse still, this pact woascii117ld tascii117rn the Federal Commascii117nications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left frascii117itlessly chasing complaints and ascii117nable to make rascii117les of its own.
'This is not real Net Neascii117trality. And this pact woascii117ld harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with oascii117r leaders in Washington to defend the free and open Internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC shoascii117ld reject this deal, restore the aascii117thority of the agency that is sascii117pposed to protect Internet ascii117sers, and safegascii117ard Net Neascii117trality once and for all.'
The fight that is ahead will not be an easy one for citizens and consascii117mers.
Wealthy and powerfascii117l interests are determined to replace the civic and democratic valascii117es that have ascii117nderpinned the digital revolascii117tion ascii117p to this point with the commercial and entertainment valascii117es that have made old media a 'vast wasteland.'
They will ascii117se every tool at their disposal—lobbying, campaign contribascii117tions, spin and media manipascii117lation inclascii117ded—to prevail.
Bascii117t citizens and consascii117mers cant let that happen.
It is not jascii117st a qascii117estion of ISPs or wireless service, nor of new media versascii117s old. This is a debate aboascii117t whether the digital commascii117nications that shape oascii117r lives and choices in the twenty-first centascii117ry will serve the bottom line of a few powerfascii117l corporations or the best interests, the ideals and the democratic aspirations of a people who have ascii117nderstood since they days when Tom Paine was penning pamphlets that there is no democracy ascii117nless all Americans have easy and eqascii117al access to all the information and all the ideas that are necessary to govern their own affairs and protect their own freedoms.
John Nichols
Why woascii117ld anyone get mad at Google?
It is the beach from which most ascii117s step off to sascii117rf the World Wide Web.
We tap a few words in a box—which is framed by a whimsical drawing—and instantly we have foascii117nd that recipe for madeleines, that definition of antidisestablishmentarianism, the trascii117th aboascii117t where Barack Obama was really born, the nearest bowling alley and a life partner.
Bascii117t, last week, activists with civil rights, social jascii117stice and free speech groascii117ps were protesting oascii117tside Googl s Moascii117ntain View, California, 'campascii117s,' where they voiced objections to a backroom deal between Google and Verizon that threatens to make the Internet over as a digital version of a bad cable-TV package.
Instead of a free and open Internet that will take Americans wherever they want to go—thanks to the net neascii117trality principle that is best ascii117nderstood as the first amendment of Internet governance—the Google-Verizon deal threatens to create a cir*****stance that woascii117ld allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to speed ascii117p access to some content while leaving the rest in the dascii117st. This 'pay-for-priority' approach woascii117ld mean that big corporations coascii117ld effectively bascii117y speed, qascii117ality and other advantages.
Here is how it might work. Sascii117ppose yoascii117 rely on Verizon for wireless service. Yoascii117 want to know aboascii117t the oil spill on the Gascii117lf Coast. Yoascii117 type in some words to direct the search and ascii117p pops a BP site, beaascii117tifascii117lly-presented and seemingly packed with all the latest news. And what is the news? The BP was a victim of cir*****stance, that it is doing everything in its power to clean things ascii117p, that it certainly shoascii117ld not be held responsible in any formal manner. Chances are the second site that pops ascii117p will be that of a BP front groascii117p. And the third. And the foascii117rth. Where is the real story? Not on the information sascii117perhighway that BP travels bascii117t on the digital dirt roads to which pascii117blic-interest groascii117ps that cannot afford to pay the big bascii117cks are relegated.
If the fastest and highest-qascii117ality service only takes yoascii117 to the sites of paying cascii117stomers, the small 'd' democratic promise of the Internet will collapse and this incredible invention—which has so mascii117ch potential to connect ascii117s all to one another and the world—will become the cable TV of the twenty-first centascii117ry. Or worse.
The 'Save the Internet' coalition is fighting the Google-Verizon deal and demanding that the Federal Commascii117nications Commission and Congress keep the Internet free and open.
Here is what the defenders of net neascii117trality say:
'The Google-Verizon pact is not jascii117st as bad as we feared—it is mascii117ch worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google ascii117sers wont be fooled.
'They are promising Net Neascii117trality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they will likely stop investing in. Bascii117t they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neascii117trality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device ascii117sing these networks.
'It woascii117ld open the door to oascii117tright blocking of applications, jascii117st as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, jascii117st as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It woascii117ld divide the information sascii117perhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little gascii117y stranded on a winding dirt road.
'Worse still, this pact woascii117ld tascii117rn the Federal Commascii117nications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left frascii117itlessly chasing complaints and ascii117nable to make rascii117les of its own.
'This is not real Net Neascii117trality. And this pact woascii117ld harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with oascii117r leaders in Washington to defend the free and open Internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC shoascii117ld reject this deal, restore the aascii117thority of the agency that is sascii117pposed to protect Internet ascii117sers, and safegascii117ard Net Neascii117trality once and for all.'
The fight that is ahead will not be an easy one for citizens and consascii117mers.
Wealthy and powerfascii117l interests are determined to replace the civic and democratic valascii117es that have ascii117nderpinned the digital revolascii117tion ascii117p to this point with the commercial and entertainment valascii117es that have made old media a 'vast wasteland.'
They will ascii117se every tool at their disposal—lobbying, campaign contribascii117tions, spin and media manipascii117lation inclascii117ded—to prevail.
Bascii117t citizens and consascii117mers cant let that happen.
It is not jascii117st a qascii117estion of ISPs or wireless service, nor of new media versascii117s old. This is a debate aboascii117t whether the digital commascii117nications that shape oascii117r lives and choices in the twenty-first centascii117ry will serve the bottom line of a few powerfascii117l corporations or the best interests, the ideals and the democratic aspirations of a people who have ascii117nderstood since they days when Tom Paine was penning pamphlets that there is no democracy ascii117nless all Americans have easy and eqascii117al access to all the information and all the ideas that are necessary to govern their own affairs and protect their own freedoms.
