In this class, we looked at the reality of Chinese and Russian internet usage, where authoritarian governments have so far succeeded in boxing in the disruptive effects of networked mass communication.

1. DPI-665
Politics of the Internet
April 18, 2012
Digital Sovereigns or
Consent of the Networked
Micah L. Sifry
Audio: http://bit.ly/I5SBZs
CC-BY-NC-SA

2. Rebecca MacKinnon
• Former CNN Beijing
and Tokyo bureau
chief
• Co-founder, Global
Voices Online
• Berkman Center,
Harvard
• New America
Foundation

3. Topics for discussion
• Who governs cyberspace? (And who
wants to govern it?)
• From disruptive technology to new
forms of control?
• Is the closing of the digital frontier
inevitable? Desirable?

4. “It is time to stop debating whether the Internet
is an effective tool for political expression,
and to move on to the much more urgent
question of how digital technology can be
structured, governed, and used to maximize
the good it can do in the world, and minimize
the evil….”
“The reality is that the corporations and
governments that build, operate, and govern
cyberspace are not being held sufficiently
accountable for their exercise of power over
the lives and identities of people who use
digital networks. They are sovereigns
operating without the consent of the
networked.”

5. China: “Networked authoritarianism”
-No transparency or
accountability
-Co-optation of the
private sector in
censorship and
surveillance
-Enough, but not total,
control of political
information online

6. Russia: “Digital Bonapartism”
“In Russia, the Internet
enables the government
to embrace a more
populist style —
engaging people with a
more personal
relationship with the
government—without
actually committing to
protect the rights of
unpopular dissenters,
minorities, and people
the regime believes
threaten its stability.”

7. U.S.: Life under “digital sovereigns”
• No “digital due process”
under current US law:
no need for a warrant
for data older than 180
days
• Extensive warrantless
wiretapping given
retroactive immunity
• Data mining of all US
email, phone calls, etc

8. Private “digital sovereigns”
• Apple censors apps
• Telcos censor
political messages
• Facebook and
Google expose
users privacy
without consent
• Yahoo gives China
user info

9. “No commercially operated service is
required to uphold the First Amendment
for American users or Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which guarantees the right to free
expression, for its global users.”

10. “Nobody is forcing anybody to use Facebook.
Yet for political activists--or anyone trying to
convince a large and diverse audience of
anything--abandoning Facebook is easier
said than done. In 2010, Americans spent
more time on Facebook than on Google. If
the largest pool of people your political or
social movement most needs to reach is most
easily and effectively reachable through
Facebook’s vast social network, leaving
Facebook is a blow to the movement’s overall
impact.”

11. Are we at a “Magna Carta”
moment?