299: The internet is based on a bad consensus

In today's Observer, Rafael Behr worries about how the internet is facing a 'clampdown' which will alter its special role as an alternative world built 'on trust'.

I disagree. The internet serves many purposes and has many benefits (my job, for example!) but it's not utopia, and it's not inherently good. The most important service it provides is for unenmedi-ised (like unenfranchised, but referring to access to the mass media) citizens to voice their opinions, fears, uncertainties and joy to an almost limitless potential audience. This is obviously an interesting facility that the internet has presented us with, but in some ways it underlines the flaws in modern society that gave birth to the Blogger (et al) community.

It seems obvious to me that the key reason for the explosion in the opinion based internet of the 2000s is naked vanity. The main content of most personal homepages is based on the assumption that someone is interested in what the author says. In the same way, the very nature of modern culture implies that we ought to value the personal expression of anyone with little judgement, criticism or caution. I find this situation pretty untenable. It's absolutely wrong that anyone can publish whatever views they like and not face criticism.

While freedom of expression is a right fought hard for and correctly prized, much of the internet's freedom of expression seems to benefit only those whose expressions are troubling. The squatting of right-wing Americans on The Guardian's blog messageboards is representative of a general malaise on the internet: the use by unpleasant people of rights to air their unpleasant views.

Now, it's obvious that some people will say 'Well, who's to judge what's pleasant and unpleasant, Mr Tom?', and my answer won't satisfy them. I do believe that there is a form of morality that needs to be applied to the internet. I believe it's unacceptable to voice your thoughts if your thoughts are racist, fascist or discriminatory in any other way. I believe it's wrong to support the business of prostitution. I believe it's wrong to steal music and any other property from the people who made it. And yes, I'm guilty of it all (except the racism, fascism and discrimination bit). That is to say, a liberal, socialist point of view free from hatred or party affiliation: that's who should say what's right and wrong.

I suppose that my point is this: there have been a lot of liberties taken on the internet, but not all of them are deserved. While it's obviously wrong for China to block any weblog (or my website, as they did previously) - it is absolutely imperative that organisations and individuals shouldn't be able to hide behind freedom of speech and anonymity in order to espouse discriminatory opinions and other unpleasant material.

Muddled and bloated as it looks, this is something I am thinking about a lot at the moment. I'm on the verge of nailing my fucking protest to the church door.

tombcn.com - my blog posts about travel, books, food and music