It never was a magic wand and its always been over hyped but it has lived up to some wild predictions, look at Moores law or Facebook subscription growth.

Ever since I scoffed at Mozilla version 1 in 1994 I have lived to regret it. I now don't scoff at the undiscovered power of technological change that can be looking you right in the face.

For the first time in history there could be a worldwide vote on some issue or other, now thats a revolutionary idea, which may come to pass.

Others have scoffed at the internet, most notably Clifford Stoll, one of the early hackers and he has lived to see his folly.

Politics never changes, just the ground its fought upon and the internet does change the ground rules, even if only a little.

I have to agree. The internet is about 50% porn. The other half is just weird.

The internet doesn't make people stupid, it just makes their stupidity more accessible to others.

DJFAKAT drools all over the place-- the internet created child porno? I think not. And ACG1189 must divide his or her time between porn sites and Rush and FOX.
What the internet can do, that couldn't be done easily before, is link people the world over who share common interests-- whether prurient or not-- and increase commercial efficiency unimaginably.
Is the access or progress even? Hardly. The internet is a tool for the haves, not the have-nots. For starters, those without, say, electricity, are pretty much locked out. For those living under despotic rule, there are limitations, sometimes severe.
Is the internet some sort of cure-all for all the world's ills? No, and anyone who thought it might be would be bitterly disappointed. But such an expectation of any new technology would be unreasonable. The internet is to the world's ills what sulfa and later antibiotics were to medicine. It's made the world a much, much better place, and eliminated or reduced many problems. But it hasn't, nor does it have the potential to, make everything perfect.

The ironic thing about this article is that in attempting to disprove an exaggerated, utopian claim, it invokes its own exaggeration to the point that it reads more as a polemic than an actual commentary. In effect, this article seeks to prove that the internet has contributed little or nothing of value to culture, political freedoms, or common understanding, and has sometimes hindered their development. It glosses over the positive contributions in an effort not to inform or provide a thoughtful look into what the internet has or hasn't changed (admittedly less than the ushering in of utopia), but to provoke by its strong language, and dismissive, selective use of facts. It dismisses a tool that has provided enormous benefits to millions as little more than a retooling or drawback to what existed before.

Yes, humans still act like humans- quick to forget and seize on sensationalism, generalize, and buy things that are popular in the areas where they live (I thought that argument was a little far-fetched as a counter to geographic barriers being broken down at all). Still, although many people choose to use the internet for localized interests, with the internet the potential for learning and expanding one's information and viewpoints is virtually unlimited. Yes, there's a lot of trash to filter out and a huge amount of inappropriate/illegal content, that is a precondition of allowing the massive spread of information from virtually anyone with access. Learning to filter out bad information is part of learning to utilize the resources the internet provides, and inherent in the internet is the ability to quickly-double-check facts or access other amounts of information. There are ugly things that people will express and do when given the opportunity- but muzzling them too much restricts the freedom that is also used for positive activities. How many communities have been formed on the internet to meet new people or discuss common interests? How many relationships have been formed as a result of internet dating? Don't dismiss the latter out of hand- it is enormously popular. The networks of child porn and white supremacy, among other groups, that have formed on the internet are terrible, but they are a result of the greater potential for connectivity the internet provides. In some cases, the internet has been used successfully to break up such groups.
Yes, the internet itself is not sufficient to bring down dictatorial regimes, but the exposure of their atrocities has hurt their standing on the international stage and led to pressure and a loss of prestige and explicit foreign backing. This is a small step, admittedly, but the process of discrediting and replacing a dictatorship without an armed invasion or a violent revolution (the Ukrainian and Kyrgyz governments were corrupt, not brutal dictatorships on the level on Burma or Iran) is a slow one. It is also a positive contribution of the internet, in contrast to the article's claim that the internet did not help at all. Though they were put down partially through the use of the internet, how far would the protests in Iran have gotten without internet propagation?
Yes, governments have been censoring the internet and threatening to splinter, while corporations have been claiming chunks as their own, In the latter case, did the utopians predict the fall of private property and capitalist enterprise along with internet? I would argue that the censorship is more a result of the effectiveness of the internet than a reason why it's failed. As technology develops, the internet may provide ways to circumvent such censorship. Even if not, the spread of information the internet represents an overall gain to the people of the censored nations.
The internet is not perfect, and has led to negative consequences, but it has resulted in a greater society that is better informed, more connected, and better able to deal with social injustices. It has not brought about utopia, but it deserves far more credit than this overblown article has given it.

Wow, that ended up longer than I intended. I registered just to write that.

While I agree with most of the points in this piece, I do think the Internet can be a source for good in society: http://www.coffeehousetalks.com/2010/04/evgeny-morozov-has-interesting-piece-in.html

I really don't have time for this. I've got to be at work, and I simply can't set aside the time to dismantle this deluded individual's pathetic argument to the extent it deserves.

I can't explain how the internet has been a geopolitical gamechanger, how it has opened up new and greater lines of communication across the world, how it has directly contributed to the manifestation of social networking, and wireless communication. If I only had the time...well, OK,. here's the five-cent version, I may come back later and give more, it depends on how much this dope's BS continues to annoy me while I'm at work

The main point that the author fails to note is that the internet is but a piece of the puzzle, a puzzle that includes the discovery of telegraphy, radio, and television toward achieving all the things we hope to attain as enlighted individuals. The internet has perhaps not reached its full potential yet, but that is hardly a reason to label it a failure.

Almost everything has a potential to be used for wrong. So hate groups use the internet. I don't have a problem with that. I would have a greater problem if the 'net were censored so that ideas, even bad, wrong ideas, weren't availabe for discussion and debate. There are few things so bad that they can't be talked about, and through this discussion we can gain a better understanding of right and wrong.

Telegraph and radio weren't world changers? I define "world changing" to mean that something has changed the world. What on earth is Morozov's definition?

The ability to transmit information instantly over vast distances hasn't made the world a better place? What a ridiculous argument. Tell that to the seamen who can communicate with their ports and get instantaneous weather information, which has saved untold lives and cargo. Tell it to NASA. Few of the things we enjoy as a result of space age technology would likely exist if not for what radio allowed us to acheive. Tell it to the military. Has the authorever heard of RADAR? Did he know it was an acronym for RAdio Detection And Ranging? That hasn't been a huge benefit? Hell, tell it to FP, who invites us on this page to follow them on twitter, facebook and RSS.

Moving on, what a heap of nerve you have to blame Google for the information restricting totalitarian regimes that they sometimes have to do business with. I bet you anything that you have untold items in your house that were imported from China, Does that make you a hypocrite? How about being a citizen of a country that owes billions upon billions of dollars to that regime? How about that?

I can only quickly note that Twitter was instrumental in getting out word to the world about the oppressive tactics of the Iranian government during the elections, and in so doing, certainly undermined their despot's plans to steal the election unnoticed. While it is possible, even likely, that some of the people involved there may face repercussions from the Iranian government, that only serves to heighten the bravery of their actions, and the author is a pathetic piece of trash to try to undermine that sacrifice. Remember Neda.

Finally, would we have the opportunity to read this joker's pointless, illconceived and baseless foolishness, and then respond with our own equally ignorant rebuttals were it not for the 'Net, and all that came before it?

That's good, right?

uh...right?

This was a very well-written and enjoyable post to read.Each & every tips of your post are awesome.I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it.Keep blogging.
nutritionals_74

This article is right on the money. The internet is a tool and at first it was tool used by idealists and students and the most hopeful and bright in society. However, like all technologies, that great gray ignorant mass has learned how to use it and twist it to villainous ends. It has become a tool of division and propaganda and for every 'enlightened' Facebook groups there is another one that is diametrically opposed.

Tools like the internet is only as good as the person who uses it and let's face it humanity always finds the most destructive use for every tool we can invent.

In the final analysis it is a numbers game.

There are 6 billion human beings yearning for freedom and only a small fraction of sociopaths, masquerading as "leaders", prime ministers, presidents, army generals and police commissioners.

The people will invariably win in the long run and even in the short term they will find innovative ways to circumvent the restrictions and censorships created by the "leaders".

Even bonafide war criminals like Rumsfeld has openly said its very hard to control or spin the news:

Rumsfeld was indignant at the publication of shocking images depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US troops: "We're functioning with peacetime constraints, with legal requirements, in a wartime situation in the Information Age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3695897.stm

>British Prime Minister Gordon Brown famously declared last year that the
>Rwandan genocide would have been impossible in the age of Twitter.

The author of this article is absolutely clueless. The Rwandan genocide took place with active assistance from the UK. The UK government even made sure that the massacre wasn't officially called a "genocide", because, then, under international law, the West would have been compelled act. The fact was that the UK government - or, rather, the politicians - or, rather, a bunch of psychopaths in positions of authority - decided that the lives of the Rwandan people - including babies and children! - were expendable.

British historian and journalist, Mark Curtis, provides a good summary of America's and Britain's involvement in the slaughter of the Rwandans:

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/rwanda/mc_rwanda.html

"The following month, with perhaps hundreds of thousands already dead, there was another UN proposal - to despatch 5,500 troops to help stop the massacres. This deployment was delayed by pressure mainly from the US ambassador, but with support from Britain. Dallaire believes that if these troops had been speedily deployed, tens of thousands more lives could have been saved. The US also ensured that this plan was watered down so that troops would have no mandate to use force to end the massacres.

"The US and Britain also argued that before these troops could be deployed, there needed to be a ceasefire, even though one side was massacring innocent civilians. The Czech republic's ambassador confronted the security council saying that wanting a ceasefire was 'like wanting Hitler to reach a ceasefire with the Jews'. He later said that British and US diplomats quietly told him that he was not to use such inflammatory language outside the security council.

"Britain and the US also refused to provide the military airlift capability for the African states who were offering troops for this force. The RAF, for example, had plenty of transport aircraft that could have been deployed."

Gordon Brown is the man who told the British public that he would work hard to prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible during Israel's attack on Gaza. So, he went away, and told British diplomats at the U.N. to work with the U.S. in PREVENTING a ceasefire. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador found this out through his contacts at the U.N:

"Gordon Brown Is a Murderous Two Faced C**t":
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/gordon_brown_is.html

Hundreds of children were killed in Israel's devastating bombing campaign that Brown worked hard to PROLONG. This is the man who sobbed on TV over the death of his baby - it died of natural causes! - at birth, I think. A fine piece of acting. Psychopaths have no conscience, let alone feelings for others.

I should point out that his Conservative party predecessors were just as bad.

If Brown recommends using Twitter as a political tool, then avoid Twitter is my advice.

Mr. Morozov, through his various examples and assumptions (unsupported by statistical data), has essentially shown that the Internet, like any other communications tool, is only as powerful or as weak, as capable of connecting as of dividing, as beneficial or as detrimental, as the people who use it and regulate it. Does that mean that because the Internet can be perverted to disseminate propaganda we find morally offensive that it’s not a “force for good?” Does that mean that because some people dared to be idealistic that we should stop trying to achieve grander goals? I hope not. Will we forever be trying to balance open expression with the protection of human dignity? Probably. That by no means devalues the “freedom to connect.” What the Internet may have done, through the vast networks it makes possible, is focused more attention on the need for social and political responsibility. And that’s a good thing.

Tools like the internet is only as good as the person who uses it and let's face it humanity always finds travesti the most destructive use for every tool we can invent.

Inventions do not change human nature, for that you need a religious imperative, or a structure of moral belief sustained by Art and Entertainment, the former to inspire moral ideals and the latter to dissipate the vices flesh is heir to. We are perhaps fortunate that so many of the oil slicks of human filth have found confinement within the Internet.

What the Internet has surely done is create an exponential explosion of information. T S Elliot saw how vast accumulations of information become responsible for equally vast ignorance. I quote from “The Sacred Wood”:

“When there is so much to be known, when there are so many fields of knowledge in which the same words are used with different meanings, when everyone knows a little about a great many things, it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to know whether he knows what he is talking about or not. And when we do not know, or when we do not know enough, we tend always to substitute emotions for thoughts”.

That was written 90 years ago and he had in mind the 19th century eruption of information and its effect on a relatively definable minority. Today, it is out of control in the West where everyone feels naked without an opinion on every conceivable subject. The long-term effect is likely, I fear, to be de-humanising, increasing the tendency for people to ignore muggings on the sidewalk or genocide in remote countries because they can get their emotional catharsis in the comment sections of the Huffington Post.