Andres Guadamuz: Thank you very much. Whatever Happened to Our Dream of an Empowering Internet (and How to Get It Back).” I am, as you have heard, a senior lec­tur­er intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty. Last year I gave a talk on copy­right and arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence. The video is some­where. I’m using too much my hands, I real­ized at that some point. 

So I always start with an apol­o­gy. And the apol­o­gy that I’m going to have today is that the sec­ond part of the title is a bit of a click­bait lie. I have no idea how to fix the Internet, obvi­ous­ly. But, I was inspired a lot by the theme of re:publica this year. So much so that I decid­ed to jump into a top­ic that I absolute­ly… It’s out­side of my com­fort zone. It’s out­side of copy­right. It’s out­side of Internet reg­u­la­tion. And I felt very strong­ly that there is some­thing that has been lost with the Internet. That I want­ed to explore this. So I’m going to go into top­ics that are… I’m going to be informed a lot in my exper­tise in Internet reg­u­la­tion in some ways. But I’m going to talk to you most­ly as an Internet user, as an avid Internet user, as a blog­ger of many years, as one of you.

So it’s going to be divid­ed in three parts. First the expla­na­tion of what is this dream, the dream of the empow­er­ing Internet. The first thing that I felt was that when I entered the Internet for the first time—and I won’t tell you exact­ly how long ago that was. But there is this dream that I used to have, and I can tell you very clear­ly that this was a very very pow­er­ful dream. The dream that the Internet can edu­cate peo­ple, that can com­mu­ni­cate peo­ple, that can empow­er peo­ple, can bring peo­ple togeth­er, can reduce inequal­i­ty, reduce dis­crim­i­na­tion, decen­tral­ize, and of course be the source of an unlim­it­ed amount of cat pictures.

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not wel­come among us. You have no sov­er­eign­ty where we gather.

We have no elect­ed gov­ern­ment, nor are we like­ly to have one, so I address you with no greater author­i­ty than that with which lib­er­ty itself always speaks. I declare the glob­al social space we are build­ing to be nat­u­ral­ly inde­pen­dent of the tyran­nies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you pos­sess any meth­ods of enforce­ment we have true rea­son to fear.
John Perry Barlow, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace [pre­sen­ta­tion slide]

Now this dream is a dream that I think is shared by many peo­ple online. Many of you will be famil­iar with this, which is per­haps one of the found­ing texts of what lat­er became known as cyberutopi­anism, John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,” which tells us that the Internet is a spe­cial place. It’s a space that is going to be free of gov­ern­ment action. Actually John Perry Barlow tells us very very strong­ly that gov­ern­ments should actu­al­ly get out of the Internet. That they don’t have any pow­er on the Internet. That they don’t have any con­trol over what hap­pens on the Internet. That they don’t under­stand the Internet. And it was a very pow­er­ful mes­sage that I think con­vinced quite a lot of peo­ple at the time.

Now, in Internet reg­u­la­tion cir­cles this found­ing text has now most­ly been used as a joke. Some peo­ple cite it as, Oh, look how naïve peo­ple were back in 1996. They thought that the Internet was actu­al­ly going to a new place, a pow­er­ful tool, a new space that was going to be free of gov­ern­men­tal action.” Of course, I still have met lots of peo­ple that find this text as an inspi­ra­tion. But I think that the idea that the Internet is itself an unreg­u­lat­ed space has not aged quite well.

[2006 is] a sto­ry about com­mu­ni­ty and col­lab­o­ra­tion on a scale nev­er seen before. It’s about the cos­mic com­pendi­um of knowl­edge Wikipedia and the million-channel peo­ple’s net­work YouTube and the online metrop­o­lis MySpace. It’s about the many wrest­ing pow­er from the few and help­ing one anoth­er for noth­ing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.
Lev Grossman, You — Yes, You — Are TIME’s Person of the Year

Another text that I found quite inter­est­ing was that in 2006, Time mag­a­zine actu­al­ly declared us the Person of the Year. Because of the rise of social media, because of the rise of inter­ac­tion to a lev­el that was nev­er seen before, Lev Grossman, who some of you may know as the author of The Magicians, a series of books now is a series, high­ly rec­om­mend­ed. He wrote this, actu­al­ly. A quite inter­est­ing text on declar­ing us, the peo­ple of the Internet, the Person of the Year, say­ing pret­ty much that all of this, inter­ac­tion was going to change the world as we know it.

This came to what is known as cyberutopi­anism. The Internet is unique. Technology can save the world. The Internet empow­ers peo­ple. And edu­cat­ed, informed, demo­c­ra­t­ic, egal­i­tar­i­an, glob­al­ist soci­eties will rise out of the Internet. So all of these ideas, what is con­sid­ered to be cyberutopi­anism, were preva­lent in many texts around that time. 

Up to the point that about 2010, 2011 is what I would call peak cyberutopi­anism. I’m not going to tell you who wrote this, but it’s a text of some­one propos­ing that Twitter should have been nom­i­nat­ed to the Nobel Peace Prize. Without Twitter, the peo­ple of Iran would not have felt empow­ered and con­fi­dent to stand up for free­dom and democ­ra­cy.” Things like the Arab Spring in 2010. WikiLeaks, the Collateral Murder video was released around that same time. Bitcoin was cre­at­ed slight­ly ear­li­er but it start­ed becom­ing preva­lent around 2011

All of these gave peo­ple the idea that gov­ern­ments were on the retreat from the Internet. That trans­paren­cy was on the rise. That whistle­blow­ers were going to win the trans­paren­cy wars. That gov­ern­ments had to be afraid of the Internet. And that the Internet was going to empow­er and make this dream that I was describ­ing a pos­si­bil­i­ty. A decen­tral­ized almost…where gov­ern­ments would be most­ly administrators.

It is some time in the future. Technology has great­ly increased peo­ple’s abil­i­ty to fil­ter” what they want to read, see, and hear. General inter­est news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines are large­ly a thing of the past. The same is true of broad­cast­ers. The idea of choos­ing chan­nel 4” or instead chan­nel 7” seems pos­i­tive­ly quaint. With the aid of a tele­vi­sion or com­put­er screen, and the Internet, you are able to design your own news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines. Having dis­pensed with broad­cast­ers, you can choose your own video pro­gram­ming, with movies, game shows, sports, shop­ping, and news of your choice. You mix and match. You need not come across top­ics and views that you have not sought out.
Cass Sunstein, Republic​.com [sam­ple chapter]

Now, this of course was shat­tered at some point. I think that right after 2011 we start see­ing sev­er­al things that affect our dream. Now, back in 2007 before all of this, Cass Sunstein in a very inter­est­ing pre­scient book called Republic​.com— Now there is a Republic​.com 2.0 which has been updat­ed. But even back then he was describ­ing some­thing that he called the Daily Me” that is almost to a let­ter describ­ing the fil­ter bub­bles that have become so preva­lent in recent years. And he was describ­ing this Internet where we could do what­ev­er we want­ed, but we also could fil­ter out every type of infor­ma­tion that we did­n’t like. So we would only read and watch things that we liked and nev­er have to come in con­tact with an opin­ion that we did­n’t share.

Smart tech­nolo­gies are not just dis­rup­tive; they can also pre­serve the sta­tus quo. Revolutionary in the­o­ry, they are often reac­tionary in practice.
Evgeny Morozov, The Net Delusion (2011) [pre­sen­ta­tion slide]

In 2011, Evgeny Morozov wrote a very very inter­est­ing book called The Net Delusion. It’s prob­a­bly the text that sin­gle­hand­ed­ly burst the cyberutopi­anism bub­ble. He com­ments in very very scathing crit­i­cism of the dark side of the Internet. The Internet can be a force for good, but also it can be mis­used by gov­ern­ments specif­i­cal­ly to tar­get peo­ple, to tar­get activists. And this sparked off some of the things that we don’t like about the Internet. 

Then there are what I call the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse. The sur­veil­lance state that has been unearthed by the whistle­blow­ers. Snowden, we owe him quite a lot. Of show­ing us the dark side, that the Internet is actu­al­ly being used and mis­use by gov­ern­ments to spy on all of us. 

Privacy threats from pri­vate enter­pris­es. That we’re being har­vest­ed. Our data is being harvested. 

All the waves of abuse and hate. Abuse and hate have always exist­ed but some­how the Internet tends to make it some­times even worse.

And of course secu­ri­ty breach­es and all of the secu­ri­ty attacks that we have a wit­nessed in recent years.

Other things that have shat­tered our dream of the Internet. Things like fil­ter bub­bles that were already as I was say­ing described before. The post-factual soci­ety that has been enforced almost by the Internet. Because of the same fil­ter bub­bles some­times, peo­ple that share a wrong idea some­times get togeth­er and they rein­force each oth­er. The rise of the anti-vaccination… I don’t want to get into con­tro­ver­sies like that, but the rise of the Flat Earth-ism actu­al­ly is… More peo­ple believe that the Earth is flat now because they get into groups and they start rein­forc­ing those ideas.

Growing cen­tral­iza­tion. Actually the Internet is sup­posed to be decen­tral­ized, and we should nev­er have seen things like the black­outs that we have seen the last few years because of our over­re­liance on cloud com­put­ing that is actu­al­ly putting all of our eggs in one bas­ket. And this is not sup­posed to hap­pen. It was nev­er sup­posed to hap­pen. It’s rein­forc­ing inequal­i­ty in many instances. And just to men­tion one of my top­ics, copy­right enforcement.

So this is the sec­ond part, the neg­a­tive part. I’m going to try to revive the dream, okay. Some sug­ges­tions have been made, for exam­ple an attempt to use leg­is­la­tion and case law to fix some of the prob­lems. All of the prob­lems are extreme­ly com­plex that I have told you there is no solu­tion. So for exam­ple things like anti-abuse leg­is­la­tion. Creating con­tent fil­ter­ing oblig­a­tions. Web site block­ing has been used con­sid­er­ably in copy­right infringe­ment, for exam­ple. Reinforce defama­tion law; make peo­ple who defame online more liable. Criminalize things like revenge porn. And the right to be for­got­ten, which is a right that we have in Europe.

However, leg­isla­tive solu­tions— And I am a lawyer. I should have includ­ed that in my apol­o­gy, actu­al­ly. These leg­isla­tive solu­tions often miss the mark. For exam­ple in January 2010, some­one called Paul Chambers wrote to tweet say­ing, Crap! Robin Hood air­port is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit togeth­er, oth­er­wise I’m blow­ing the air­port sky high!!”

He was pros­e­cut­ed by the UK gov­ern­ment for this because it was a threat­en­ing joke. It was con­sid­ered a threat under the Communications Act 2003. He was con­vict­ed, and it took three appeals for this con­vic­tion to be quashed even­tu­al­ly. So often gov­ern­ments and leg­is­la­tion and courts miss the joke. This was obvi­ous­ly a joke. Everyone who read it thought it was a joke. But it took three appeals and mil­lions of pounds to have this injus­tice reversed. 

Things like reg­u­la­to­ry efforts often miss the mark. Sometimes they want to pass leg­is­la­tion or a reg­u­la­tion that com­plete­ly miss­es the point of what the Internet is actu­al­ly doing or how the Internet works. They try to fix some­thing and actu­al­ly cre­ate some­thing that is actu­al­ly worse.

Also we have very com­plex inter­ac­tion between rights. For exam­ple if we like some­thing like the right to be for­got­ten (I per­son­al­ly think it’s a good thing), we have a very strong con­flict between pri­va­cy, a per­son­’s right to pri­va­cy, and free­dom of speech. And we always have all of this very com­plex inter­ac­tion of rights. So the law can­not solve everything. 

Social cor­po­rate respon­si­bil­i­ty. Can we rely on the com­pa­nies to save us? Can we rely on peo­ple like Facebook and Google and Twitter to actu­al­ly try to fix all of the solu­tions? They can do it through mod­er­a­tion, con­tent block­ing, clear removal poli­cies, and most impor­tant­ly transparency. 

However, often we have lack of trans­paren­cy from the com­pa­nies. There are con­flict­ing com­mer­cial inter­ests. Sometimes it’s in the best com­mer­cial inter­ests of a com­pa­ny not to remove some­thing or not to tack­le a prob­lem because it’s actu­al­ly not in the best inter­ests of their adver­tis­ers or whatever. 

There’s also often a lack of con­sis­ten­cy between plat­forms. One plat­form han­dles abuse in one way and anoth­er plat­form han­dles it in a dif­fer­ent way. And there’s always the under­ly­ing Western bias. A lot of these com­pa­nies oper­ate in a very American-centric envi­ron­ment and—I’m from Costa Rica—often miss many of us.

Another solu­tion that has been pro­vid­ed by some peo­ple is to try to deanonymize the Internet. Because a lot of times anonymi­ty is blamed as the cause of a lot of abuse, par­tic­u­lar­ly. The idea is that nor­mal peo­ple behave in one way, and if they are anony­mous or you can­not know their iden­ti­ty they’re going to behave com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent. This is John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Bleep-wad Theory. Normal per­son plus anonymi­ty plus audi­ence is a total…bleep-wad. Whatever. 

However, there is no evi­dence what­so­ev­er that these work. That the real name poli­cies that are being pushed by some peo­ple actu­al­ly work. Anonymity can be a good thing. In some cir­cum­stances, we may need some anonymi­ty. Anonymity can be a right, can be an impor­tant tool if you’re a whistle­blow­er or if you’re in a regime that actu­al­ly crim­i­nal­izes your very exis­tence, for example.

Most impor­tant­ly, there is now evi­dence (and I’m cit­ing a paper here, very inter­est­ing) that tells us that some­times real name poli­cies and deanonymiza­tion can actu­al­ly lead to an increase in dis­crim­i­na­tion and harassment.

So, should we bring in the robots? Use arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and machine learn­ing to try to solve the prob­lems. This is actu­al­ly increas­ing­ly quite a grow­ing field. Twitch for exam­ple has now start­ed using machine learn­ing in their mod­er­a­tion of chat ser­vices. Google has just opened up their machine learn­ing and arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence tools, just I think in February of this year for troll fight­ing and abuse fight­ing. The idea is that machines can help us. 

However, of course, try­ing to use a machine to solve a com­plex issue, it won’t solve the prob­lem. This is one my favorite XKCDs. It is very recent. That some­times just adding arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and a machine learn­ing algo­rithm is not going to solve the prob­lem. Often, actu­al­ly, the algo­rithms are going to reflect the bias­es of the peo­ple that cre­at­ed them, of the peo­ple that oper­ate them, and the peo­ple from whom they are learn­ing. So that may not be a solution.

Now, maybe a com­bi­na­tion of all the four solu­tions can help. And I think that in their own way per­haps we can start chip­ping away and recre­at­ing the dream. Now, I want to keep the dream alive. The First way in which we’ll have to rec­og­nize this is to say that the Internet is a force for good. To rec­og­nize that for all of the prob­lems and all of that flaws that we have iden­ti­fied, that the Internet can bring us togeth­er, can help us com­mu­ni­cate, and all of the things that I described as a dream that we used to have.

We have to rec­og­nize first that the Internet reflects soci­ety and the indi­vid­u­als in that soci­ety. So if we are abu­sive, if we are as a col­lec­tive, as a soci­ety, show­ing dis­crim­i­na­tion and doing all sorts of things, the Internet is not going to solve this. The Internet is actu­al­ly just going to reflect this. So we have to rec­og­nize this first.

Do not feed the trolls. Do man­age expec­ta­tions. The Internet is not going to help all of the prob­lems that we have. The Internet is not going to end pover­ty. Blockchains are not going to end pover­ty. Technology is not going to help us. Technology might help us alle­vi­ate some prob­lems, but the prob­lems are there. So please, one of the things that we have to do is rec­og­nize the lim­its of tech­nol­o­gy, rec­og­nize the lim­its of the Internet, and not expect that they’re going to help us.

And most impor­tant­ly please, the Internet is not Silicon Valley. We have to stop think­ing that all of the solu­tions that work in San Francisco are going to work every­where else.

So I want­ed to fin­ish with two things. First, to keep the dream alive I love the top­ic of this re:publica. I think this is a step in the right direc­tion. Make things like love against hate. Yesterday Jérémie Zimmerman said use love against hate, against the machine. Make civil­i­ty great again. Things like I love—there is a Wholesome Memes Twitter account that I high­ly rec­om­mend for peo­ple to look at. Make things nice, you know. Sometimes you have to fight but some­thing just keep con­sum­ing whole­some memes and be cour­te­ous to each oth­er online. Sometimes say nice things to some­one on Twitter. It does­n’t hurt.

And also the sec­ond thing. I want to make snowflakes great again. For too long have we been falling for the insult that call­ing some­one a snowflake is an insult. Particularly the alt-right and some right wing groups have been using this to tar­nish peo­ple. I actu­al­ly think that snowflakes have a lot going for them. Lots of snow flakes togeth­er accoun­tant can bring things to a stand­still. Remember when we brought down some­thing called SOPA and PIPA togeth­er with the Internet. We can have a lot of pow­er. And most impor­tant­ly remem­ber this: lots of snowflakes can cre­ate an avalanche. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Session descrip­tion

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.