Social Media Revolutions?
We’ve seen the profound political effects of use of Twitter, Facebook and other Internet social networking in Tunisia and Egypt – and to a lesser extent elsewhere. We’ve also seen governments trying to suppress uses of social media, particularly when threatened by political upheaval and loss of power. What does this foreshadow? Will we see increased uses of the Internet in undermining and overthrowing authoritarian governments? Will we see conflict over access to the Internet?
Media, terrorism and national security in the Internet Age:
As with dramatic crime, incidents of terrorism are newsworthy – there is, of course, immense public interest (particularly post 9/11). But in providing news reports, particularly broadcast reports with video images, publicity is also given to terrorist incidents – and those terrorist groups. Given that much of the value of terrorist violence is in provoking fear among large numbers of people, what responsibilities should broadcasters and other content providers have? How can manipulation by terrorist groups be avoided? And, given striking differences in views as to what groups are terrorist and what groups are simply “resistance fighters” or “national liberation” groups, how can the problem of terrorism be dealt with by the media?
Who should pay for news? Does journalism have a future?
Newspaper readership in most, if not all, Western countries continues to decline and other traditional news media which have relied on advertising now find that the revenues needed to sustain reporting — journalists, bureaus, editors – are being cut back significantly. But democracies need an active press, with extensive reporting, not only so voters are informed, but to provide the kind of transparency that is critical to good government. Are there new business models which should be considered by news media? Or, as has been proposed, should news reporting be funded b y private foundations? Or does the old public broadcasting model – whereby the general public pays for an organization that may be quasi –governmental, but is run independently? Or are there other means that should be considered? At the same time does the rise of “citizen journalism” (through use of cell phone cameras, camcorders, and the Internet) threaten the future of professional journalism? Should distinctions between professional journalists be made and, if so, how? Who will be trusted – and by whom? – as a reliable source of information? If journalistic tasks are carried out by users, will user communities emerge – and, if so, what form will they take? How will the critical functions of the press as watchdogs and critics in a democracy be carried out in the future?
Cultures and values in the Information Age:
Both modern communications – including, importantly, the Internet – and increased geographic mobility have resulted in clashes of cultures and of values. The modern Western values of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press have been strongly criticized by some when seen by them as insulting to their religion or blasphemous in their view. There are also those who believe that there should be limits to freedom of speech and press for other reasons, including political or national considerations. It is not just a matter of government censorship or repression: content providers are among those with difficult decisions to make as to what should or should not be provided to the public. (The recent case of a Dutch filmmaker who could not find a film distributor or television station that would show his film expressing a negative view of Islam is an example of what might be called self-censorship.) But there are difficult issues for governments as well, both domestically and in relations with some other states. Is any sort of reconciliation of values possible? Is there a case to be made for limits imposed for cultural reasons?
Media concentration and bias in the Information Age:
Even as the media landscape is changing rapidly, with both new media and changing roles for existing media, and new technologies and new uses for technology are resulting in new kinds of media – such as You Tube and Facebook – large media companies continue to play a major role and, indeed, the concentration of media ownership has continued. And with advantages conferred by various software programs and the acquisition of content carriers by large software companies, will there be further concentration? And with concentration, what kinds of biases will be found – particularly given the desire of firms to not offend in markets around the world. The regulatory policies of the US and the European Union differ in many aspects – but should there be harmonization, given the global reach of media in a networked world? And even if there is harmonization of US and EU regulations, what impacts would that have, given large and growing markets in other parts of the world?
Legal Liability of Internet Service Providers:
ISP liability touches on several hot topics—defamation, organized crime, national security, privacy, and intellectual property. Normally, ISPs function like telephone companies. They are passive carriers, or mere conduits, and they do not monitor the material that passes through their servers. Because of their passivity, they are generally not legally liable for the defamatory materials that their customers post on their websites, or complicit in the criminal activities that are plotted over their wires, or seen as part of an international terrorist conspiracy that is facilitated by their service. The question occurs, should the ISPs be more pro-active in this regard? Should they pull the plug on websites that promote hate speech, should they install technologies that will allow them to intercept and disable terrorist links, should they adopt monitoring systems that allow them to help enforce copyright on the internet and shut down the pirates? This question is of great importance to many of the emerging online information distributors—Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, YouTube, Wikipedia among them. If the ISP is told of the criminal activity, or the defamatory content, or the rampant copyright piracy taking place over their servers, should they have a legal obligation to disable the malfeasor’s access to the internet? President Sarkozy has made ISP liability a French enforcement priority, and many copyright experts contend that the Berne Convention, the GATT/TRIPs Agreement, and the new WIPO Internet Treaties all require strong government action to end illegal file-sharing on the internet. What should be done?
Network Neutrality:
This term reflects, as described on Wikipedia, “a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communications streams.” Should a broadband provider to individual households be able to use its control over the “last mile” infrastructure to block certain internet applications, particularly those being sold by its competitors? Bob Kahn, the co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, sees some kinds of discrimination, particularly to guarantee “quality of service” as highly desirable. He calls the term “net neutrality” a slogan, warning that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net if it [is adopted]. If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability is probably only going to have in on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else’s net.” The U.S. government has urged restraint in imposing a regime of strict net neutrality, and wants to let the technology mature for a while longer before deciding whether or not government intervention is desirable.
Information Overload:
The exponential growth of both information and information availability poses problems for both users/viewers and content providers. How much does the public want and how much can the public deal with before “tuning out” entirely? And if information is to be sorted, managed and edited, who can be trusted to do it? Profit-making companies are likely to do so with the “bottom line” in mind; governments may well have a political bias (favoring the political party in power); others are likely to have their own biases. And to what degree will there be reliance on automated systems?
What are the implications, both economic and political, of “information overload”?
Sovereignty in a Networked World:
This topic addresses the role of governments or private industry groups in influencing to nature of the content that passes over the internet. It touches on censorship and community standards writ large. Should a government be able to prevent its people from watching programming the will incite them to riot, hurt their national pride, or offend deeply rooted religious beliefs? It also has a cultural aspect–the threat to local and regional cultures and languages under pressure from ubiquitous news and entertainment programming from international sources. It also has an intellectual property dimension. With digital technology, new licensing models are springing up for the online distribution of entertainment programming, sound recordings, motion pictures, and sports. Historically, the rights to use music and video content have been licensed on a territorial basis—i.e., limited to a particular country. With the borderless internet, some experts question the continued relevance of territorial licensing, and suggest one-stop-shopping as a better model, with worldwide rights cleared by one multinational organization, private or governmental. Such a streamlined system would eliminate costly administrative duplication and result, at least theoretically, in more money in the pockets of the creators. But many national licensing organizations express concern about this threat to their continued existence, and some governments would favor the current territorial system which in their view helps preserve cultural diversity and their unique national language.
