Freedom in Cyberspace
by Robert Russo
We all use the internet as a vehicle for promoting or researching Libertarianism, but to date I have never seen our way of life (or any social guidelines for that matter) applied toward the online community itself. Millions of users are connected every second of the day and yet there is no defense of their liberties against totalitarianism. I am not speaking of censorship of the material we see online, for that was an issue of people first discovering this realm to research or check email that doesn’t require them to interact with other online citizens. I mean the time one spends in social situations (chat rooms, message boards, private messaging) in the company of fellow users. This realm is one of those social voids in our society which is constantly used but never acknowledged. When one gets up from the desk it ceases to be. I hear continuously the opinion of the part-time user who connects once a day to do research or send his email, saying that what happens online is not to be taken seriously. For some time I have wanted to write the opposite, the deterioration of the internet from the perspective of a fulltime user, for a general audience.
A decade ago when many of us logged in for the first time, competing ISP's offered a complete online experience to those who had never had one before. Chat rooms, message forums, downloads, one didn't even have to use the Web to enjoy themselves. AOL was at the head of this small pack. Then when Netscape and Internet Explorer debuted, they became AOL's biggest competitors not by offering similar services, but advertising lower rates and better connectivity without mentioning they had nothing AOL has, just a web browser with email. In most areas of business a competitor does not succeed by targeting people who don't want the full product or don't know it exists. But AOL is still so addictive it has become a monopoly (not necessarily of its own accord), offering AIM and connection services to non-members because their own ISP's won't provide it. It has no peers as an online business provider.
In the early days of chatting there was no limit to how many people could fit in a room. It was like the Wild West where the defense of oneself and others against jerks and predators was in one's own hands. Users could say what they pleased and download software to punt people offline they didn't like (much like the Second Amendment allows us to protect ourselves in the real world). This gave patrons of a forum a degree of control over staying on topic and challenging the detractor. (In a world of only words, character and determination have value.) Now on AOL there are no visible moderators, no tolerance for any language that could be considered hurtful, and the patrons of a room are at the mercy of whoever comes in next. Conversation is an eavesdropped farce where the last person standing is the one who rats on everyone else.
Most non-AOL chatters use webchat, a far more complex program. Each website is a private enterprise so there is no way to judge them all. In one of the most successful long-standing webchats, I have observed this same "code of civility" maintained by a mafia-like staff of moderators 24/7. Honest bickering and defense of one's neighbor are forbidden, instead the chatters demand a setting that is free of issues or dissent at any cost. The result is a favored clique of chatters who can have anyone of their choosing removed because they are trusted, even when they are shouting obscenities. A host enters, identifies the disruption (the minority) and boots them. In this way the hosts are puppets and don't abide by the rules that come with being a moderator (a moderator does not take sides, a moderator does not use their authority to enforce their personal opinion). If there is griping about the website or its staff the participants in this discussion lose their accounts. This is a preview of how our society in the real world might someday be.
People complain ad nauseum but the response from the webmaster or ISP is always the same, "it's just chat". The national media now respects bloggers, and yet people refuse to acknowledge there is a society here and it has the same problems and solutions of a society. I am not advocating a lifestyle where people sit in front of a screen all day as the only source of their comradery and attention, but if they are going to be online they should be able to do so without the headaches and helplessness of having no rights. The answer is not dictatorship or gang-warfare, it is the promotion of a better online citizen. To do this one must take their time and their words seriously, even on the computer, as they would in any aspect of their life where attention is needed to work and play unhindered.
Question of the Week: Were your rights of free speech online ever denied or taken down? If so do you believe this problem is better addressed online or offline? Please send your experiences to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input!