By Natalie Zirngast
The development of new information technology, and the internet in particular, has led to some new debates about how social change can come about. Some are now talking about an “internet revolution”, subverting the system via the world wide web.
Those who proclaim an “internet revolution” highlight the internet's anarchic nature, anti-authoritarian roots, accessibility and potential to disseminate alternative information.
Proposals have included “internet rallies” to replace public demonstrations, and “culture jamming” -- which involves activities like publishing alternative information and making changes to government or corporate internet sites.
Whilst useful tactics within a broader struggle, political activity solely or mainly via the internet has massive limitations. For a real revolution, people will have to get off their computer chairs and out onto the streets.
The internet is inherently de-centralised because it is based on many host computers, or servers. This has made censorship difficult and distributing alternative information easier.
If you do have access to the net and can use the technology, you can set up a web site, use e-mail or find information. The ability both to receive and to “publish” information for others relatively easily is what makes the internet unique as a mass medium.
However, those who are able to use the internet are still mainly a small, generally privileged group in the First World. Women, older people, migrants and the unemployed are less likely to have access to the internet, or know how to use it. And most people in the Third World couldn't even dream of having a computer.
Even in the First World, the more passive skills needed to access information and use e-mail are more widespread than the more active ability to create web pages.
Those who have the greatest access to the internet, and the greatest ability to dominate it, are still the big corporations, advertisers and media conglomerates.
The web, like all mass media under capitalism, reflects the far from progressive social reality. Reactionary ideas, meaningless crap and pornography account for much of what is on the internet.
It is impossible to stem this tide until there are significant changes in society itself. While disseminating alternative information can assist, it is not enough by itself; such information needs to be joined to practical political campaigning.
Eli Spiegelman from the US magazine Adbusters describes one campaign, by university students from a range of countries, that was coordinated through the internet: against the corporate giant Pepsi.
Pepsi had made large investments in Burma despite it being ruled by a brutal dictatorship. Students from more than 100 universities became involved in the campaign, and campus action kits were distributed electronically, containing pamphlets, letters, petitions and “Gotta Boycott” stickers.
As a result, many US universities refused to allow Pepsi or its subsidiaries on campus. Pepsi eventually pulled out of Burma.
There are many positive ways to use the internet, but it is not essential for political success. Students in Indonesia overthrew the dictator Suharto last year with little more than the use of leaflets, megaphones and large mass actions; they had minimal computer assistance.
So while improved communication is a useful tool, it is no substitute for active participation in social change.
Within campaigns, it is also obvious that broad, democratic participation cannot be achieved simply over the internet. E-mail lists are very useful, but not everyone has access to them or the time to contribute via computer. Campaign meetings, forums, conferences and newspapers are still indispensable.
The internet does currently provide relative freedom of speech. However, this is under attack from federal government censorship plans, which make material that is legal offline illegal on the internet.
Under the guise of protecting children, and requiring X- or R-rated material to have “adult verification mechanisms”, the government's plan opens the way to further censorship of the net.
Because the “filtering” technology being proposed is very primitive, other types of information will immediately be affected. Most filter programs are supposed to block pornography, information about the availability of illegal drugs and bomb construction manuals. But they have also blocked information about sexual health, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights and safe drug use.
Any censorship of the net should be opposed, but the government's legislation makes it clear that we are far from living in a utopian “media democracy”. The net does have huge potential for the mass dissemination of alternative information. But in the end, the medium will only be as good as those who control it.
