Dear DIGC202 classmates,
Quite simply my point is- rules exist for a reason- but they are not the be all and end all. If a rule didn’t exist about driving on the left, either an informal one would emerge as most people chose to travel on one particular side, or driving would become an extreme sport reserved for adrenaline junkies. On the hand, if I exceeded the speed limit slightly to take my bleeding friend to the hospital, I doubt many people would condemn me as most would agree that my friend’s life took precedence over the law.
This is where my problem with Barlow’s reading emerged. Although I like the idea of the internet as a forum that challenges traditional authority, I found the absolute scorn of authority and idealised view of the internet seriously annoying. If the internet were ‘without privilege or prejudice’, there would never be a racist joke, celebrities would not top twitter, and it would be impossible to wade through all the information available as we would not rely on gatekeepers such as Google to tell us what is most relevant to us.
I do agree that if everyone followed the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do to you), the world could be an incredible, peaceful place… but I’m too realistic to believe they will. You see, the reason I distrust authority is that it is made up of humans- who can be self-serving and corrupt. Removing authority does not remove the problem- people.
Interesting read, I can see much different from my opinions of the reading. But I think even this interaction we are having now, with two opposing opinions and interpretations can be voiced, commented and interacted with, just proves the potential of the internet, as Barlow outlines.
ReplyDeleteWe all know the internet gets flooded with abuse and unwanted information, but I try not to forget the freedom and autonomy that comes with this technology. I think the fact of the racist jokes, although a horrible thing I know, but the ability to post various niche opinions is at the very core of democracy, one freedom we don't seem to have in the 'real world'
I don't believe it is so much as a scorn to authority, but to outline that real-life authoritative measures are just not applicable to the internet, allowing such freedom as a user.
Thanks!
I think, for me, it was a matter of the tone of the article that set me off. I do agree with you that the internet is as democratic a sphere as we can find, and that we should celebrate that.
ReplyDeleteIt was the sentence 'You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions' that annoyed me most. This was because it seemed to suggest that the cyberworld was somehow superior to the 'real world' and that it was a more peaceful society. But my experience of the internet tells me that it is an extension of the world we already live in, and that while it is an incredible forum for free speech, human right campaigns and the like; it can also get out of hand ridiculously quickly as a tool for cyber bullying, the spread of child pornography and so on. So I think it evens out.
I suppose I found it annoying that anyone could believe that we could have a society free of all the human problems our world is riddled with. My pessimistic side made me reject Barlow's views and the way they were expressed.