The following article by Martin Schmitt in the context of the seminar "Politics 2.0 - How the web changed 2.0 Policy and Governance, held in the summer term 2010 at the Institute of Political Science, University of Tübingen, created .
The World Wide Web revolutionized politics. Former condemned to passivity citizens can now participate actively by the new technical possibilities and their social use in political processes. Due to the dynamic forms of communication results in political space for policy exchange and community building. Previously insurmountable walls be torn down and made the policy more transparent. Comprehensive information is often only a mouse click away. In particular, the so-called "Web 2.0" this potential opportunity learned in recent years in Western industrialized societies an enormous boost.
sees But what of the other side of the West? What role can the "Web 2.0" play in non-democratic and totalitarian states? It undermines established forms of government through widespread availability of uncensored information through new, horizontal communication and highly flexible, network-like organization? Or is there autocratic regimes new tools of the exercise of power and control in hand?
A first look at this highly complex and far-reaching questions we offer case studies of conflict between Google and China in early 2010 and with the elections in Iran associated public protests in 2009.
Google versus the Chinese State: The new power of the Internet companies
The conflict between Google and the Chinese government to smolder for several years before it escalated in March 2010. Fundamental issue in the debate over the censorship demanded by China of search results through the American search engine company Google. In China, to "protect its own people" certain information on the Internet, such as censored at the massacre at Tiananmen Square or the Tibetan independence movement. Since this information was available on Google, there were from China before 2006, only a very volatile access to the American side of the search engine.
order in the booming Chinese market, not the outside to stay in front, opened the company in 2006 a Chinese offshoot of his page and submitted for the Chinese censorship. Google officially launched the ground that it would expand its scope of action slowly, but must abide by the rules. It was an attempt, as an Internet heavyweight, the Chinese practice of interior soften out. Gradually expanded Google in a tense relationship with the Chinese government will offer. Initially, it offered only the search, later offerings such as Gmail.
Gmail then also became a bone of contention, was driven in December 2009 as a massive hacker attack on Google's mail server. The traces of the attack could be traced back to China according to Google. In particular, accounts of dissidents had been hacked. Google, the company responded: "We will not like it can and will no longer be subject to self-censorship. Chinese visitors to the site were automatically redirected to the uncensored site in Hong Kong. The Chinese government responded snubbed because their censorship practices were disclosed. They remained inactive, however. First, they threatened to Google's license as a content provider in China not to renew. That would mean the end of the Chinese version of the search engine. Second, certain search results are blocked. Users saw the headlines, however, continue to result, only the page itself could not be reached. This was clearly what is censored. In order not to lose his license in China, agreed on Google and the Chinese government finally on a compromise: Google stopped the direct link, but could still say with a link to the page in Hong Kong. The license was subsequently renewed.
result for the political scientist from the conflict between China and Google, two interesting implications. First, international Internet companies are increasingly on political actors. Their power over the more essential human quality, communication allows them to offer even states the forehead. Of course, this comes from self-interest, accompanied of a utopian rhetoric of improving the world. Google has a vital interest in a free exchange of information which is subject to any state control. Based on its business model: provide as much information with advertising. Google explains the behavior in this conflict.
But why does the Chinese government on a compromise with Google, instead of chasing it out of the country? A thesis of this would be that the Chinese government, the economically important middle class, in which Google has a high popularity scare do not want to. The concession would be less one on Google, as to its own people. The rigid control policy is to the appearance of diversity of information and popularity of the U.S. group sweetened.
Hence the second implication for the political scientist: The new communication possibilities are the lives of the people to stay. They change the nature of the information gathering and exchange of information, with enormous consequences for the political sphere. That had to feel even China, which has found its own way to deal with it.
The elections in Iran - New possibilities of media attention generated
The policy transformative power of new communications technologies and their use of mass Iran was also in the clear. In terms of government censorship there, it looks quite similar, here is the Internet with similar methods as in China censored in the strongest terms. Still could not prevent it in the protests against the outcome of elections in the summer of 2009 was the opponents of the regime, to use the Web to generate attention. Since the Iranian regime blocked the traditional channels of media coverage, were user-generated content central to its source. One of the regime's opponents on the video platform YouTube uploaded video via a mobile phone killed in the protests by the Iranian security forces, for example, women led the world's outrage. The protests at home probably swelled massively because of the video. The Web thus allowed a visual corridor in previously state-suppressed areas of social rebellion.
gave them given the new technologies the opportunity. Both for internal communication such as e-mail, phone or Twitter, as well as the production and publication of content through Google Docs, YouTube and blogs.
this but also the problems of network-based mediation for both Prostierende and also for the reporting journalists became clear. It was rarely clear what sources were from the respective images. They were exploited, or made them a reality in the country from? This had some bizarre results. Sun protesters wore on their shields the supposed image of the above, killed by security forces woman. The pictures showed, however, does not the woman, but a woman of the same name. The image had been downloaded from Facebook. Even reputable media as the issues of the day succumbed to the suggestive power of images. It took a hint from the audience clarified, for example, that in the show aired, supposedly new video of the protests was six months old already.
The individual user has more journalistic power, since the barriers to entry have dropped significantly by the new media. This will give the recipients all the more important content to critically.
seized the same time, the Iranian regime of the new means of communication. Where a mass surveillance of communications was not possible, the communications options were limited once radical. The Internet in the whole country was in protest to achieve little or only very slowly. Mobile networks have been shut down deliberately. By compromising videos and loads of fake posts in Web 2.0-style "protests have been discredited - a tactic that is widespread in China. But it went much further: Iranian opponents of the regime was identified on the Internet and made public. Regime-friendly groups should "take" of her. In addition, the activities of the regime's opponents were protokoliert, hacked their web accounts specifically disclosed and therefore the entire community. For the individual and his family had massive consequences: exclusion from the university, about negative effects on their own career to torture, rape and imprisonment. The protests failed and the world is now more interested in computer viruses in Iranian nuclear facilities as the fate of the "Twitter-revolutionaries".
Conclusion: A mixed picture
Both case studies leaving such a mixed picture. On the one hand, the combination by new technological possibilities and their mass distribution of radical new possibilities. They seize individuals to take through communication, collaboration and publication on the formerly closed political level influence. The Web alone is not enough. However, there is a 'critical mass' civic engagement that makes the new tools to use to get their acts an unexpected force. Authoritarian regimes, it is then more difficult to enforce their sole claim to power with repressive methods, and the supreme control of the communication of their own people. At the same time, however, prepare them as well. The new technical possibilities in connection with enormous state resources to give them the power-encompassing computer-based control, and therefore the suppression of their own people.
Martin Schmitt
0 comments:
Post a Comment