Two Worlds: The Digital Divide And Our Expectations

It seems to me that we currently live in a state of two worlds where our expectations, morals and judgement diverge to opposite poles. The first is the tangible and material real world where we expect justice, safety, some form of well-fare, regulation and accountability from the state. The second is the online world. Here our expectations could not be more different. As Eric Schmidt observed pointed out, our digital world must be free from any interference from the government - access to it must ubiquitous and fast, and completely unregulated in so far is it cannot be dominated by one single entity. This is what we expect and demand, the existence of a free space outside of society where one can escape to with out the interference with the state. It is the ultimate supranational institution that cannot be dominated by one party. I encourage you to watch one of Eric Schmidt's  speeches to get a grasp of these ideas.

This is what we expect in the West - which is a Western idea. However once we start to look at how governments approach this issue we start to see that western governments are more active in censorship and regulation of the internet than closed societies. One of the reason for this could be low penetration rates in underdeveloped countries but this is not always trues as in the case of China and Iran. Another reason could be far from political but more of an economic nature, such as intellectual property as in the case of the FBI's seizure of Megaupload. I also would encourage you to watch Megaupload's owner first interview after his arrest for some insight. 

Click here for video and transcript.

Google has released a very helpful tool for us to use to measure this phenomenon that showcases the number of take down requests Google receives from each country that it operates in - or pretty much the whole world. I will post the link below but what is of most interests is that the beacon of western liberty (yes I am aware of how ridiculous this sounds but non the less) - the United States ranks at the very top. So what does this mean? Let us consider what governments might when they weigh the benefits vs the costs that come along with internet.

Google Transparency Report Link

Looking at the map above, why is it that open and democratic governments are more prone to censorship and take down requests? One factor that one must recognize is that Google's service isn't entirely accurate - for instance in the case of China the data is misrepresented because Google does not operate in China - it operates in Hong Kong, and so the Chinese government is misrepresented and in reality we actually do not know how much take down requests happen or how the logistics of the matter work. This doesn't take away from our claims however, instead we can ask why are there so many requests in Western countries?

Since the Cold War US has almost exclusively conducted its foreign policy on the basis of realists ideals. These ideals argue that the world is in a state of conflict between states - or international anarchy. Its worth pointing out that anarchy does not suggest chaos but instead the absence of a governing body - in international relations there is no world government or any other such institution  that exists that polices the world .This conflict never disappears but all states must look out for their self interests first and seek to grow their power relative to other states in order to secure them selves from potential aggressors. In this sense power is only important in terms of relative power between the self and other states and foreign policy, international institutions and treaties and diplomacy are only as important as they allow the state to secure more power.

Regulation of the internet can then be seen as a means to retain or seek further power for sovereign states. A states can use its power to use internet as a political tool to achieve its goals internationally such as the promotion and encouragement of propaganda on the ground in transitioning or unstable states. This argument has been made towards social media and protests during the Arab Spring, speculating that some movements were heavily supported and escalated by Western governments. Furthermore, tight control of this information channel can spread a state's own agenda to other areas without physically infiltrating them. There have been reports of the US developing its own mobile internet beacon which would provides access to the internet from anywhere in the world in a device the size of a suitcase - rightfully called "internet in a suitcase."

NY Times Article Link

This would easily combat a state's attempts at controlling or shutting down the internet - making any state's interfere useless. In this case China would not be able to properly regulate its internet and Iran would not be able to implement its own future internal internet network which is cut off from the rest world.

In this sense it would be in the state's best interest to control their own domestic internet because a strong hold on internet at home can provide a strong reach to the rest of the world. Of course this is a complex issue and more than one explanation and scenarios arise. In my next blog I will talk about liberal and critical perspectives and what they mean for international relations and the future of our physical and digital worlds. After which I would like to start the debate between the effects of economic vs digital isolation.