Originally published on the CGS blog on September 30, 2013.
Not Quite the World Wide Web: a three-part series about the importance of full access to the Internet for all
Like streaming video or shopping online? Are you willing to pay extra to reap all the benefits of the Internet? In my previous installments in the Not Quite the World Wide Web series, I discussed the implications of Internet access a basic human right and how advocates are trying to reach the disconnected. The final issue is how to keep the Internet free and open for those who do have a connection. Internet in the US is fairly open but for citizens of China and even future generations of Americans, internet censorship is and is going to be a huge problem.
Free speech activists are warning against a future where Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as Comcast or Verizon, will sell you different tiers of internet connectivity. It would be similar to how cable providers operate now. You could pay a basic fee for general Internet access like Wikipedia and non-profit websites but you would have to pay for a more expensive package to receive access to more popular websites like Amazon, Netflix or Facebook. ISPs could also charge popular websites extra to ensure smooth steaming of services, this way the ISPs make money on both ends. This fear has caused many people to support an idea of, “net neutrality.” This idea refers to a free market of information. If I send my friend in Dubai a link, the page should look the same on my computer as on his (with the exception of language differences and advertisements). Most Americans currently enjoy “net neutrality” but Tim Wu, the Columbia Law professor who coined the term, cautions that all technologies, from radio to film, go through a cycle in which the technologies start out open and free but eventually get tied up by monopolists looking to turn a profit.
Perhaps the scariest prediction of the future picture of the internet comes from Rebecca MacKinnon’s book, Consent of the Networked. She predicts that since much of the Internet’s growth is happening through mobile devices that Internet users will be divided into two categories: a wealthy class with home computers that will be empowered by a more open and neutral Internet, and a poor class who will mainly use the Internet though highly controlled, easily tracked, non-neutral mobile devices. If this scenario were to arise, it would have huge implications on the already vast economic gap in countries around the world.
In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council condemned the arbitrary blocking or filtering of information on the Internet in its “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression.” The report singled out China specifically stating, “China, which has in place one of the most sophisticated and extensive systems for controlling information on the Internet, has adopted extensive filtering systems that block access to websites containing key terms such as ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned that [Internet censorship has become] increasingly sophisticated, with multi-layered controls that are often hidden from the public.”
Ironically, every member of the UN Human Rights Council, including China, signed the 2012 resolution to protect human rights on the Internet. The idea that internet should come unrestricted is obviously popular but, as with many issues the UN tackles, a signature can sometimes mean very little. China’s delegate stipulated that “free flow of information on the Internet and safe flow of information on the Internet are mutually dependent,” in a sign that the country is not about to tear down the “Great Firewall of China” anytime soon.
The internet is an incredible tool for society but can conversely be used as a powerful weapon to propel profits or political agendas. In the end it will be us, the users of the internet, who will have to mandate our freedoms of expression and association.
Comment below with your thoughts about internet censorship.
