What a coincidence: just a few days after I predicted that Clinton's admonishment of those involved in cyber-attacks would backfire on the US, triggering accusations of duplicity with regards to Washington's own cyber-activities in Iran, The People's Daily published an editorial, which does just that. Reuters has many juicy quotes from it:
"Behind what America calls free speech is naked political scheming. How did the unrest after the Iranian elections come about?" said the editorial, signed by Wang Xiaoyang.
"It was because online warfare launched by America, via Youtube video and Twitter microblogging, spread rumors, created splits, stirred up, and sowed discord between the followers of conservative reformist factions."
"We're afraid that in the eyes of American politicians, only information controlled by America is free information, only news acknowledged by America is free news, only speech approved by America is free speech, and only information flow that suits American interests is free information flow," it said.
The People's Daily also denounced a May ban on Microsoft's instant messaging services to nations covered by U.S. sanctions, including Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea, as violating the U.S. stated desire for free information flow.
It's not often that I agree with an editorial in The People's Daily but they've got a point on all of these issues. The last one - the US ban on instant messaging services - simply stinks and Clinton did herself a disservice by not even mentioning it in her speech. Isn't it ironic that now it takes a Chinese propaganda outlet to pressure Washington to lift a ban on the use of American technology in Cuba and Iran?
Yes, you heard it right: the Chinese government is campaigning to let Iranians and Cubans use MSN, Skype, and other fancy Web2.0 tools. If this what it takes to finally get American diplomats to address the issue, I'd like to see more such editorials. Should we leave it to the Chinese to promote Internet freedom?
Oh, come now, Evgeny. Surely you know to avoid this sort of moral equivalency.
Do you honestly think there is something wrong with helping the Iranian elections and condemning the Chinese government's suppression?!
You'd find it beneficial to read a refreshingly non-PC voice on this, Andrew Keen:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/77579-internet-freedoms-and-internet-radicals
"And yet, somehow, Secretary Clinton’s warnings about bloodthirsty, oppressive regimes who hijack the Internet “to crush dissent and deny human rights” were themselves hijacked by a radical “media reform” group, Free Press, that ironically seeks to dramatically increase state intervention in both the Internet and media."
Since when has increased state intervention in media brought about freedom?
Vandalism and violence should not be used in social struggles, that's correct. But you can make that point without having to take the side of the Chinese People's Daily (!).
You really need to make the distinction between *consumption of bandwidth* (the issue for Net Neutrality) and censorship of instant messages versus *a ban on a business service in compliance with sanctions*. These distincts really do matter. The intentions and motivations of the actors should be analyzed to avoid the moral equivalence canard, and the meme that "corporations are evil and citizens' movements are good" isn't a useful analytical tool.
You might then arrive at a moral position that Microsoft shouldn't ban IMs to oppressive countries as a kind of exceptionalism to the compliance with trade sanctions, because it would then harm dissidents, too, and shouldn't impede the free flow of information. On the other hand, if it has cut off IM support to countries that *themselves* cut off access to mobile by their dissidents, perhaps it is following not only the prudent but the moral course because it shouldn't support the regime's business.
The Net Neutrality gang wants to accuse telecoms of analyzing *content* but refuse to admit that its really about *type* of content (movies, games, heavy downloads) and not substance.
And surely you realize that China suddenly getting into the business of campaigning for Iran and Cuba to use web 2.0 tools isn't out of any suddenly love for Article 19 or opposition to oppressive regimes, but just a shrewd and cynical ploy to try to discredit the U.S., to cover its own tracks in suppressing the Internet, and to harness web 2.0 to strengthen authoritarian regimes, which it can do handily, especially given the propensity of web 2.0 coders to weld those oppressive facilities into it even in more benign settings.
To redefine the terms we understand, as someone said. The term politics, according to the dictionary definition is "the action and effect of politicking", meaning this verb in its meaning of "politics of intrigue and baseness."
Politics is precisely what is done in our city. It is a pity, in a small city where many young people must leave to seek a better future, because Gualeguay does not offer best web hosting opportunities for growth, but not wanting to stop and wonder to his people. A city where poverty is increasingly note, where it is difficult to find work, where many seek to "accommodate" through politics.
Politicking is what we show our representatives. Why? By winning a share of power, to try to get an advantage by found a small place in a step up, not to understand that politics must be a service to people and not a means to better position themselves and take personal advantage in the game of democracy.
Evgeny Morozov, originally from Belarus, is a visiting scholar at Stanford and a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Read More
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE