Gilder, Negroponte, and Barlow

In responding to the question of whether or not new media can me an emancipatory tool, it seems clear that Gilder identifies the movement from television to the computer as one that will greatly expand individual freedom. He initially describes television as a monolithic force, one that quickly overtook the telephone and the radio; he also states that its effect on the population was one of mass influence, rather than an extension of freedom, "Television heavily determined which books and magazines we read, which cultural figures ascended to celebrity and wealth, and which politicians prospered or collapsed" (Gilder 8). Gilder goes on to articulate the technical limitations of television. He takes issue with the fact that television audiences are passive and without control, while those operating networks and stations decide what (and when) their viewers will see and feel. Indeed, the invention of the computer to replace the television seems inevitable as soon as its technology was developed, "No longer was there any justification for allowing television to hog the spectrum. No longer was there any reason for video to use a vulnerable, complex, inefficient, and unmanipulable signal. No longer was there any logic in leaving the brains of the system at the station" (17). Gilder expresses excitement about the change from the television, which dictates what people think, to the telecomputer, which he hopes will accomplish the opposite, "Rather than exalting mass culture, the telecomputer will enhance individualism. Rather than cultivating passivity, the telecomputer will promote creativity" (18). I agree that the computer does promote individualism, but in this way, it can also be a restriction on freedom. When people are isolated from one another, what changes can they bring? I suppose that freedom doesn't mean actually changing anything, but having the ability to do so...in this way, I definitely see the internet as emancipatory, although many people don't use it to achieve new levels of personal freedom.


I found Negroponte's book (or the chapters that I read) to be contradictory at times. In some chapters, he would suggest that personal computers and advancing technology will promote great individualism, that machines would be able to understand the individual greater even than other human beings, "True personalization is now upon us...The post-information age is about acquaintance over time: machines' understanding individuals with the same degree of subtlety (or more than) we can expect from other human beings, including idiosyncrasies...and totally random events, good and bad, in the unfolding narrative of our lives (13). Other times, he would write that the digital age promises a unification of people, "The harmonizing effect of being digital is already apparent has previously partitioned disciplines and enterprises find themselves collaborating, not competing. A previously missing common language emerges, allowing people to understand across boundaries." I suppose that it is not Negroponte being contradictory, but it is just the nature of new media itself that it both establishes strong individualism in addition to bringing people together. However, this 'harmonization' depends on the type of people it's able to bring together. Like Negroponte writes, perhaps a 50-year old steel mill worker cannot fully appreciate the effects of the digital age, and so "as we move more toward such a digital world, an entire sector of the population will be or feel disenfranchised." This, of course, begs the question of whether or not these people should even be taken into consideration? It seems callous to ignore them because they're 'too old' or just ignorante of new technology, but a certain amount of isolation between different social groups also shouldn't hinder technological advancement. After all, Negroponte writes that the access, the mobility, and the ability to effect change are what will make the future so different from the present." 

Barlow's first essay, "A Declaration of the Independence of Cybersspace" is certainly an idealized version of what the internet could be. Perhaps rightfully, he condemns the government for attempting to place restrictions on a medium that he states they should not control. In describing cyberspace, he writes, "We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth. We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity." I suppose in some ways this is true, though prejudices are certainly present online, as well as in the 'real' world. Also, it isn't true (at least today) that people are free to say or write or post whatever they like online, without repercussions... but I suppose this regulation isn't coming from the government itself. Probably, Barlow doesn't object to censorship of some kind on the internet, but the idea of the government regulating its contents really bothers him, but I wonder, if the result is the same, why it would matter? There is probably a reason for this, but I don't know enough about the politics and authority of government to actually answer my own question. Barlow goes into the economics of cyberspace in "Selling Wine without Bottles: The Economy of the Mind on the Internet" and writes of the complexities of responsibility and jurisdiction online, "The greatest constraint on your future liberties may come not from government but from corporate legal departments laboring to protect by force what can no longer be protected by practical efficiency or general social consent." Barlow certainly believes that the internet can promote great personal freedom, but the political and economic contemporary attitudes don't allow for it maximize this ability.