1 Day One: The Past, or The Era of Rights 1 Day One: The Past, or The Era of Rights
9/16
The era of rights, from roughly 1995-2010, emphasized freedom of speech and platforms’ abstention from moderating users’ content. In this era John Perry Barlow could articulate a vision of the internet free from government repression, and could write that “[w]e 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.” Section 230, passed in the same year, was similarly intended to encourage the unregulated development of free speech on the internet: by saying that online services weren’t liable for third party content, it removed the incentive for service providers to over-regulate online speech. Section 230 also allowed for the rise of platforms. Yet, the architecture of these platforms ran counter to Barlow’s vision. As Lessig noted in Code V.2, “there are very few major Internet or cyberspace institutions that run by the rule of the people.” Calls for robust moderation came mostly from autocratic regimes, and platforms, Inspired by norms of free speech, largely avoided shaping the flow of’ contributions.
1.1. “The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto” by Timothy May (1988).
Early proponents of internet culture emphasized privacy and anonymity afforded by the architecture of the internet. May presents the internet as actively undermining the power of the state.
1.2. “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” by John Perry Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation (1996).
This manifesto articulates a bold vision of decentralized internet sovereignty which stands in stark defiance of the global world order and its “weary giants of flesh and steel.” He presents the internet as ideally unregulated and even unregulatable. Barlow captures the techno-utopian spirit held dear by many of the internet’s framers and visionaries. Do Barlow’s words still ring true today? Is control over the internet still meaningfully decentralized?
1.3 [PDF TO BE CIRCULATED] “Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World” by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu (2006). Read p. 1-22. 1.3 [PDF TO BE CIRCULATED] “Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World” by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu (2006). Read p. 1-22.
Goldsmith and Wu provide context to understand the early vision of the internet as a borderless community espoused by May and Barlow. They then describe how governments began to pressure local intermediaries to restrict online content, debunking the claims of techno-utopians.
1.4. 47. U.S. Code § 230 (1996)
CDA 230 has enabled the growth and development of today’s largest platforms by insulating them from liability relating to content posted by users. Do you think that today’s platforms still need these protections?
1.5. Code V.2 by Lawrence Lessig (2006). Read p. 1-8
Here Lessig lays out one of his most famous contributions to the study of cyberspace – the notion that “code is law.” In the assigned section on sovereignty in cyberspace, Lessig explores the implications of this thesis for existing power structures. How do today’s platforms reflect the “code is law” concept? Where do their powers and responsibilities match those of nation states, and where do they fall short? And what implications do they have for the founding principles of the internet?
1.6. “Google Search for ‘Jew’” by David Mikkelson, Snopes (2007).
In 2004, a Google search for ‘jew’ would return the anti-semitic website jewwatch.com. Google refused to alter its results, stating that “We find this result offensive, but the objectivity of our ranking function prevents us from making any changes.” What does this tell us about the priorities of platforms in this era? What were users’ expectations of Google?
1.7. “It Wasn’t Just the Trolls: Early Internet Culture, “Fun,” and the Fires of Exclusionary Laughter” by Whitney Phillips, Social Media and Society (2019).
Whitney Phillips interrogates the underside of ‘internet culture,’ and argues that it was representative of the discursive style and perspective of white men. To whom was the internet an accessible and hospitable place in the era of rights? To what extent should we see the arguments of rights proponents as susceptible to the critique Phillips makes of ‘internet culture?’