Net neutrality is about POWER
The rules protect our right navigate and link to contents of our choice, allowing us to question and (re)construct our identities.
In 1989 Tim Berners-Lee submitted a short document to his boss in which he outlined a proposal to build what eventually became the Web. On the corner of the document, his boss wrote “vague but exciting”…allowing Berners-Lee to continue. It was a very accurate assessment. No irony intended. Vagueness, I would dare say, is a characteristic of openness. Creators of open systems don’t define outcomes. They only provide a space in which things will happen. And Berners-Lee pushed his employers to ensure it would be open. He opened the code, and made it available free of royalties, for everyone.
What followed was a radical change in the distribution of power.
Anyone with a connection to the internet can create a website and make content easily accessible to anyone. No permissions required.
This was in itself a revolution. But perhaps the qualitative leap many of us today take for granted was the incorporation of the hyperlink: The web allows anyone to connect any two pieces of information by placing a “link” between them. The web itself has no attitude towards the person linking, or the pieces being linked. Nor are there different types of links. All links are the same. So through this hyperlink design, a non-hierarchical way of organizing information emerged. What’s more, a link between two pieces of information is itself a new piece of information that talks about a relationship between the two original pieces. Thus the web gets woven.
That is what the web is ultimately about: creating, organizing, and sharing information. And the way we organize information affects the way we think, and therefore the way we see the world and ourselves.
In the document mentioned in the outset, Berners-Lee argued:
“Perhaps a linked information system will allow us to see the real structure of the organization in which we work.”
That is, the web is to the mind what a microscope to the naked eye. It amplifies our understanding of how things are connected.
Some have even argued the web represents our collective brain, where over time connections between pieces of information are built, allowing us to leverage our collective experience as a means to learn and enrich our lives.
The links are thus a tool through which we build our individual and collective identity.
The web’s capacity to connect people and ideas could explain why the powerful want to tame it. They feel threatened by the innumerable connections between pieces of information that can be made, and what we could discover in that process about ourselves…or them.
Net neutrality rules seek to stop Internet Service Providers from:
- Blocking = undermining the construction of new meanings by blocking access to a piece of information that was linked to, or which could have been linked to.
- Traffic discrimination (e.g. throttling or paid prioritization) = making certain constructions of meaning more attractive than others, based on how much is paid to promote them.
Net neutrality rules therefore ensure that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot subvert a design that enables meaning to be explored, and constructed by any individual or collective.
All links were created equal.
Any person should be able to link to any website.
ISPs should not be allowed to make certain connections (links)more attractive than others. That is none of their business.
It is unsurprising that the battle for net neutrality is being framed as a racial justice issue. The open web has given groups that never had access to the mass media a way to voice their concerns and connect with each other. A way to construct their own history, collectively, horizontally, one link at a time.
That’s why
-ISPs should focus on making the internet run faster and at more affordable prices.
-ISPs should focus on enabling the web to grow.
-ISPs should NOT be allowed to define how the web will grow.
If the web were in fact our collective brain, allowing ISPs to block connections would be the equivalent of allowing ISPs to chop off a piece of gray matter. Traffic discrimination (allowing ISPs to define the shape into which the web develops) could be equated to submitting our collective brain to clock-work Orange processes of mind control.
Net neutrality is about keeping power distributed!
The web has gone a long way since its inception. Its openness has delivered revolutionary platforms like Wikipedia. This is a testimony to what decentralized collaboration can achieve. But the web is “always and only becoming.” It’s under constant construction. Perhaps like our brains. Only half of the world is online today, and the web has only been around for 30 years.
The web is far from having achieved its full potential. It has many things in store for us. But without net neutrality the web’s capacity to grow organically would be curtailed.
The web only stands a chance if you fight for it.
