John Robb makes a
very important point, and has been making it for some time: The
tools of networked communication can be used for “dark side” activities
and movements as well as light. John challenges me and Ethan
Zuckerman and Joi Ito to address this issue in our writing.
First let me say that I think what the three of us are doing is trying
to strategize about how to expand the positive side of net
technology. None of us deny the negative potential of the
technology—either as used by terrorists and others on the margin to
disrupt society (one of Robb’s concerns), or as employed by
authoritarian governments and domineering corporations in the service
of social control (one of Larry Lessig’s concerns), or as utilized by
“value free” arms dealers and war-systems integrators (also, implicitly
at least, one of Robb’s concerns, it seems).
We do not assume that net technology is inherently positive or
negative. Nor do we assume that its potential will be manifest by
magic. Rather, we think it is an interesting heuristic to explore
what can be done to promote the positive, in order to guide both
entrepreneurial action as well as government policy. We
ask, “How can the use of net technology support positive, democratizing
social change, especially when combined with other strategic
initiatives such as the positive development of the law in media and
communications, international relations, and in developing countries?”
We have not done enough to study the negative sides, even of the most
positive initiatives. First of all, we need to seriously study
failures of net-promoted social change. The web-supported efforts
to prevent the invasion and occupation of Iraq failed. The Dean
campaign, measured by winning elections, failed miserably. There
are lots of issues of equal import to Trent Lott’s racism that blog
campaigns have failed at keeping alive.
Everyone keeps talking about “the lessons” of this or that
initiative—but negative lessons are seldom explored. Along this
line, researchers at Stanford Business School have been studying
failure and finding it much better in some cases that studying
success. In success, there are many spurious correlations—things
that you think mattered and made the difference, but perhaps did
not. In failure one often finds these same “keys to success” do
not deliver. Such findings spur us to deeper consideration and
wisdom.
I agree heartily with John Robb that we have also not done enough to
study phenomena that we find objectionable. Internet hate speech,
death squads, terrorist cells and networks, Internet-powered political
frauds, lies and slander, are all of interest. The excellent book
Networks and Netwars does a good job of looking at powerful movements, regardless of the values animating them. Jonathan Schell’s terrific new
book shows how the power of the people is sometimes expressed in
non-violent movements, and sometimes in highly violent uprisings—and
that ideas and values are often shared across both. Both,
according to Schell, can contribute to progress or regress.
We are always at the beginning of studying our own eras. I feel
that we are at the beginning of studying net-powered social change in
the modern, communications intensive world. Bless John for
objecting to one-sided study of our condition. We need to face
ourselves in all our manifestations.