1984 Foreword: Internet and social control

[jbor]

You're right, of course, that it's a political issue rather than a
technological one. The notion that the Internet promises "social control" is
a flawed premise. It's the way it is used, just like other communications
systems (media and telecommunications networks, global positioning
satellites, coconut shells on strings etc).

I guess Pynchon's sentence does say that the "*development* of the Internet
promises ... ", which hints at the fact that there are human manipulations
going on (originally? in the future? hypothetically? -- it's not clear in
the sentence) behind the control panels. But it's still a little bit askew
and not really saying that the Internet and the US government are gross
evil-doers who should be slain, as seems to be (big surprise!) the basis of
the argument.

best


on 30/6/03 10:19 AM, barbara100 at jps.net at barbara100 at jps.net wrote:

> The solution might not be in controlling the Internet at all, but in
> electing governmental representatives less inclined toward that
> fascistic disposition in the first place.
> Like maybe Dennis Kucinich here at home...
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> 
>> And even allowing it as a legitimate concern, what's the solution?
> Increased
>> regulation? Total deregulation (thereby allowing child pornographers and
>> terrorist networks free rein and absolute legal impunity)? Boycott?
>> Sabotage? Smashing all the computers like some modern-day Lud? Or, most
>> bizarre of all, putting one's name to (and brazenly advertising) a manual
>> which not only assists but *encourages* all the corporate sharks in their
>> ongoing manipulations of the medium for the purposes of, if not fun,
>> certainly profit, social control and, potentially anyway, tyranny, while
>> simultaneously calling for the moderation of an open discussion forum and
>> flooding the 'Net with propagandistic spam on a daily basis?!
>>