3.3. Civil society representatives: On endangered visions, limited participation and the search for a consensus on values

The Internet as the engine of social change processes

When it comes to the pros and cons of the Internet, civil society representatives have their eye on the “big picture”. They want to broaden the focus beyond technological and economic factors and expand the limits of the discourse beyond the Internet’s obvious – and in their view dubious – potential for greater efficiency or creating new markets for products and services. Champions of civil society are interested in the Internet as an agent for social change processes. They are less interested in providing answers to pre-formulated questions. Instead, they want to make sure the right questions are being asked. How can we use the Internet to make a positive contribution to society? How does the Internet contribute to a functioning community? How can the Internet facilitate more participation across different sectors of the population?

Civil society representatives regard access to knowledge and information as critical to participation in today’s society. In their view, the Internet offers the revolutionary opportunity to increase access to knowledge – to make the knowledge resource available to as many people as possible and thereby significantly increase opportunities for education, integration and participation. The Arab Spring has become the classic example of how the Internet and social media can initiate democracy movements.

 “If you understand information as the gold of the 21st century, then it’s clear that access to information and the right to work with the information – in other words, not just the access but also the option to process or use the information – becomes an issue of social participation and integration.”

“The Internet makes it easier to show up, makes it easier to participate. And if you believe in democratic theory, this will improve the quality of our decisions in the future, since more people are involved and participating.”

Despite these more euphoric appraisals, there is also disillusionment. Civil society representatives say the Internet was intended to be different (“it wasn’t meant to be like this”). They point to disquieting changes in the last several years that threaten to undermine the Internet’s potential and original intent. There are signs, they say, that the Internet is increasingly being incorporated into the established power structures. They are disappointed by what they see as a trend towards increased economization of online content, increasingly cut-throat competition for a share of this valuable knowledge resource, and its resulting scarcity. These developments run counter to the original Internet ideals and, in their view, significantly limit user freedom.

“That is where I do indeed see a serious threat. More and more of the content on the Internet is no longer free in the sense of free access and usability. By no means do I mean this as an argument on behalf of the Internet’s ‘freebie culture’, which is not my area of interest anyway. No, what’s meant here is that the Internet offers tremendous possibilities for free access to knowledge and information for all people.”

“The problem is with the logic inherent to capitalism, which says that one always has to earn money with everything. So if I have something with which I can potentially earn money, I cannot then just share it with others for free.”

Personal commitment to creating a free Internet that is a knowledge resource for all

Most civil society representatives consider themselves to be among the first Internet users. In their view, they recognized and took advantage of the Internet’s tremendous potential from the outset. Many even made tangible contributions to bringing the Internet into the world and making it available to the public. The history of the Internet is often closely tied to their personal biographies, even on the emotional level. They remember exactly when they went online for the first time or remember clearly the first feedbacks they received on their blogs.

 “Back then there was, de facto, no Internet access in Friedrichshain. So together with the free broadcasting initiative that was emerging at that time, we used directional antennae […] to transmit Internet into town and set up the first open Internet café on Boxhagener Square. We wanted to provide people with free Internet access, but we also offered several courses […]. It was really about empowerment, about learning how to acquire knowledge for yourself, by yourself with the help of technology […] and to find your own approach. It was for individuals as well as for groups such as political groups.”

These players believe strongly in the Internet as an open-access space that essentially unifies the world’s history and knowledge. Through their personal commitment and initiative, they work to establish and defend values such as transparency, personal autonomy, freedom of speech and unlimited access to the Internet’s knowledge resources. They see themselves as important influencers of policy – as Internet experts who are in a position to educate policymakers, point out the potential consequences of proposed actions, and help policymakers make better decisions when it comes to trust and security on the Internet.

“When you speak to Wikipedians, they are at least aware of the fact that what they’re doing here is classical volunteer work. They are not getting paid, they are under no obligation to do anything, but they are getting involved on behalf of the community, society, the common good, and are building a common knowledge resource.”

Industry and government are locking people out of the Internet

In the early stages of their Internet advocacy, these civil society representatives were focused mainly on the users and ensuring more and improved Internet access. Today they have shifted their focus on to the social sectors that, in their view, are hindering both participation and transparency. Their two main culprits are large international corporations and government, and although the interests and goals of these two players are quite different, the civil society representatives maintain that both interest groups are pushing ahead with processes that could potentially close off the Internet.

 “The Internet is at risk – at risk of being regulated by interested parties and losing its freedom, its room to maneuver, and its potential to expand and enhance democracy. We are trading this in for the reward of increased security and control, which of course may be very relative.”

“For me, the Facebook example runs counter to the spirit of the Internet. It’s exactly the opposite of Internet. You could actually say that Facebook is the death of the Internet. It’s a closed off space, where very specific strategies are being pursued that make it as difficult as possible for users to ever get back out of this space.”

Civil society representatives see government and the private sector pursuing a common goal – to “lock up” and “lock in”. Even if their intent is different, the result is the same: the user’s access to the Internet becomes neither unrestricted nor unconditional. And if he does get in, he cannot get back out, because the Internet (whether in the form of data-gathering companies or government regulatory agencies) forgets nothing, retains everything and continues processing and exploiting contextualized data, i.e. profiles.

According to civil society representatives, government and the private sector pursue different legitimization strategies to justify their actions. Government, they say, intimidates with its fear-driven discourse and offers people care and protection (welfare) as an antidote. Regulatory control measures are sold as protective measures to gain people’s trust. Instead of empowering people, government takes the paternalistic approach, which can then lead to almost absurd forms of over-regulation.

Meanwhile, the business landscape is characterized by increased monopolization. “Data kraken” hoard entire cultural collections and libraries, then require users to release personal data before they can take part in interaction or gain access to content. The user feels pressure to accept these conditions, especially since some providers have evolved into infrastructure service providers, who have no competition and are the user’s only alternative. Civil society representatives remain hopeful that the self-destructive power of competition will, at the very least, allow new players to emerge onto the market. And they suspect that today’s top players in business underestimate the power and influence of the users.

“The players that have highly desirable products and services have a lot of power, that’s for sure. There are the Googles and Facebooks, who have achieved the status of ‘infrastructure players’ for one reason or another. But ultimately their power is finite, of course. Take Yahoo. No one even mentions Yahoo anymore – at least not in Germany. So even these players can’t afford to take too many liberties. And if someone comes along who does it better, then it’s a new game, although that is certainly difficult to do, no question. Take Ebay. To be honest, Ebay is total garbage, but there still isn’t anyone better on the market.”

The need to democratize knowledge and decelerate regulation

In line with their goals to preserve the Internet as a free, open and accessible instrument for use by any and all people, the civil society representatives see it as their primary task to protect the Internet
– from government’s regulatory efforts, and from the forces of unfettered capitalism.

 “This classic idea that we can just ‘leave everything to the natural play of forces’ has not exactly proven itself a success over the last 10,000 years of human history.”

Civil society representatives see open source initiatives as one alternative to economically- oriented, commercial business models. But many such alternatives have very limited distribution and remain relatively unknown (Diaspora as an alternative to Facebook, for example).

Civil society representatives want government to abstain from additional regulation. In their view, the legal framework of Germany’s basic law (constitution) can be applied just as well to the Internet. They also advocate a more relaxed approach to security issues and see themselves as decelerators of overly hasty legislative action.

 “For me there is a very clear need for government action – they need to allow more and try less to solve problems that do not exist.”

Civil society representatives want to see a coordinated and consistent Internet policy that does justice to the Internet’s dynamic evolution. They also want to lead negotiations – ideally an international negotiations process – to establish a consensus on common Internet values. In their view, we are now in a sensitive transition period. There are still things that are technically possible that have not yet been done; and it is not yet technically possible to do everything that one could do. This makes it all the more important, in their view, to establish an international code of values that is accepted by users around the world. As the civil society representatives search for new ways of self-regulation, they remain highly optimistic about what they consider the core values of the Internet community.

“No, you certainly cannot hash out a system of criminal law by way of social consensus. That goes for the road traffic laws too – I’m very thankful that someone else has established those rules. And there is a need for that kind of thing on the Internet too. Criminal law has to apply to the Internet just as it does everywhere else. Nobody is ever going to seriously challenge that logic. But in other areas I would really like to see us rely more on the possibility that we can negotiate and work out rules, regulations and procedure amongst ourselves. […] Especially from politicians and policy- makers, I would like to see more trust in what we call common sense, more trust in what we call citizen involvement, less compulsion to take political action, and the occasional willingness to wait out the possibilities. Even if this means risking a gap in the regulation, which will certainly be taken advantage of.”

Today’s Internet community is in the process of negotiating minimum standards, guidelines and codes of values. According to the civil society representatives, extreme phenomena and even taboo breaches are always going to accompany the introduction of a new medium, but these phenomena will be relativized and marginalized with time through mutual agreements and consensus building. The principle of self-regulation, they point out, does include the possibility of punishment if the agreed- upon code of standards and regulations is violated. This means that Internet users, for example, should have some leverage against providers – also in areas beyond criminal or legal concerns. It’s not clear who will guarantee this. Ultimately it is just as important, if not more important, for users to be able to protect themselves on the Internet.

 “There are no neat and tidy enforcement mechanisms. I can’t go to Facebook, for example, and say, ‘hey, you said this is your code, you said you would abide by it, but you don’t abide by it.’ You’ve got no chance of being taken seriously there.”

“Of course I cannot assume that everything will work out fine and just sit back and make myself comfortable in my hammock. That’s a false assumption and I can’t let that happen. I need to develop a kind of healthy skepticism with regard to certain mechanisms and things out there. Even if I wish these things were different, in this case they just aren’t. This could apply to data protection regulations or things like that.”