does internet freedom rank among the inalienable rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?
The information revolution is something that democracy couldn’t plan for. With 30 million users in the UK and worldwide users nearing 1 billion, Facebook is a force to be reckoned with. Many of us trust the site with our most precious memories and data, accessing the site numerous times daily via mediums of handhelds, laptops, and portable tablets. We rely on Facebook to keep us in contact with ‘friends’ we would otherwise lose touch with. Facebook is interchangeably very personal and very social. Comparable to the www, Facebook is subject to and defined by a number of theoretical and pragmatic paradoxes and binary oppositions which have ramifications for the way in which we utilise the medium and are affected by it.
This information paradox was conceptualised by Betz and Stephens in 2011 as presenting a wealth of opportunities for commercial enterprise and for the delivery of public goods and services, as well as new ways for citizens to participate in civil society; of this Facebook is exemplary. However, the writers also realise the opportunities that arise for refined militaries and non-state actors in employing new ways and potentially powerful means of strategic action through an online medium; means of strategic action which are intrinsically difficult to defend against. As William Hague put it, ‘’there is a darker side to cyberspace that arises from our dependence on it’’.
This article does not seek to discuss the dark side of cyber security, but rather, the subject of internet freedom, addressing the question of whether Facebook and internet freedom rank among the inalienable rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’? Facebook’s recent move to charge New Zealand users for ‘promoting’ their posts prompts moral questions of an emerging internet un-freedom as a restriction of self-determination of movement and speech in the cyber realm, which is arguably comparable to that of the physical. Paid for applications are nothing new on the website, and in this instance, Facebook may be targeting big corporations looking to improve their social media marketing. However, the moral dilemma of where to draw the line on a paid service is blurred. Facebook has repeatedly stated its aversion to a pay-for service, but what if its shareholders were in a position to overturn this? Meanwhile, services such as linkedin invite members to pay for ‘the complete experience’, leading to what is essentially an uneven playing-field. Whilst I am not suggesting that the access to all knowledge online should be free to everyone, individuals certainly (providing the technology exists) should have the ability to connect with friends, promote awareness of issues, and access their photos.
Internet restrictions proved a turbulent subject in 2011. The proposition of ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) and other comparable acts in the US and worldwide heralds the possibility of an internet tightly policed by enforcers of intellectual property rights. This has been met by fierce resistance and the suggestion that internet censorship in the Western world could rival that of ‘the great firewall of’ China, and realise a subordination of the user to the interests of profit motivated multi-national corporations. Our reliance on the internet for freedom of information renders its restriction an infringement of our rights to liberty and the freedom of information, along with freedom of movement and speech; the core tenets of any democratic state.
There are many who oppose this assertion. Vint Cerf, a vice-president at Google argues that freedom of speech and freedom of access to information, ‘’are not necessarily bound to any particular technology at any particular time’’, concluding that internet access is not a human right. Whilst a recent United Nations Human Rights Council report finds internet access to be a human right, it does concede that the internet is valuable as ‘’a means to an end, not as an end in itself’’. Indeed, unlike other human rights, internet access is not necessary for survival or even achievement, but a legally grounded response to Cerf finds that internet access falls within article 8 of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) as the concept is inextricably linked to freedom of expression and information.
Despite the fact that internet access doesn’t quite cut it as one of the core tenets of democracy, it is comparable to the inalienable rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, because in certain contexts, it complements and cultivates each aspect of this triad. At a time when online restrictions such as paid services on social networks, and the enforcement of copyright laws threaten a future of mass censorship resulting in the unashamed commodification of the user, relationships, and online culture, it is important that internet access is realised as an inalienable and inherently democratic right. This will prompt the circumvention of a future of internet access in the western world comparable to that which is seen in China.
by Ed Pocock
photo obtained on Flickr by Vincos
PostScript 