Advice to the candidates: the Internet is no toy
Commentary by ADAM TANOUS
At the end of last week’s Republican debate, the moderator asked
a final question of the candidates. She wanted to know how familiar they were with the
Internet, if they used it at all, and if they enjoyed it. At the time, it seemed a fairly
open-ended, even irrelevant question. Perhaps because it was such a seemingly easy
question, it occurred to me later that there might be more to it. And, of course, there
is. The Internet is laden with both huge potential and significant pitfalls.
Alan Keyes, in one sentence, said, yes, he used the Internet. He then
used his time to blather on about some totally unrelated, previous question.
McCain quickly foisted the issue on to his wife saying that,
"...she was a wiz on it."
With a somewhat sardonic smile, Bush said, yes, "...he clicked
around, surfed around."
All in all, I thought the candidates offered fatuous comments on a
topic that may seem to be the domain of teenagers and weird, late night hackers, but, in
fact, may present one of the more profound changes in our lives since the development of
the telephone.
Granted the Internet does not make a good hero. Unlike inventions
such as the car and the transistor, the web of interconnected computers we call the
Internet is hardly tangible and somewhat difficult to define. But what it does offer is
change in our lives that is one of kind not degree.
It could be argued that the transistor is simply a dramatic
improvement over the vacuum tube. After all, the function is basically the same. The web,
on the other hand, introduces a concept never before available: that of providing millions
of people the ability to communicate simultaneously, irrespective of geographic, political
or economic considerations.
The car may have been a better horse drawn cart and the transistor a
better vacuum tube, but the web is not a better telephone. It is an idea of a different
color altogether.
The advent of the Internet is significant because it profoundly
affects the two threads that hold the fabric of western society together, democracy and
capitalism.
In the ancient Greek governments, democracy was direct. Every member
of the population voted on all issues. Access to information was vital, but communication
among the electorate was less so. In modern representative democracy, we vote for
representatives who then vote for us. Communication and access to information are
paramount in representative government. For the will of the people to be expressed there
must be an efficient and reliable link between the people and the representatives casting
votes.
This is where the Internet shines. It dramatically expands freedom of
speech and the exchange of ideas. Because of the quasi-anonymous nature of the Internet,
all voices are heard at the same volume. What is more, access to information is almost
unlimited. Provided we get to the point where everyone has access to a computer (and I
don’t think that day is far off), our democracy can only get stronger and more
representative of the people.
What the Internet offers capitalism is the ultimate free market. Just
about anybody can buy or sell anything, anywhere, anytime. It expands one’s
perspective of supply and demand curves.
In sum, the Internet is helping our systems of government and
economics reach their potential. And like any development that dramatically expands our
world, there are implicit dangers to avoid along the way. Recognizing potential gains and
their costs is what leaders need do. This is why I think Bush, McCain, and Keyes all
missed the home run pitch the other night.
How we proceed from here will determine the Internet’s ultimate
value. A central feature of it, often lost on people, is the fact that there is no editor.
It is both the beauty and the beast of the matter.
Freedom of speech always pits the individual against society’s
desire for stability, law and order. Is all information and speech on the Internet created
equal? In other words, does pornography, bomb making, and hate language have a place on
the web? Should the editing be done by government, the people or no one at all?
The entire economic relationship between a government and its people
comes into question as well. In a world of commerce without geographical distinctions, how
does a government tax goods and services? Or should it, for that matter?
Privacy on the Internet is an issue now and will be a bigger one as
time goes on. If one considers the Internet as being one giant conversation, should anyone
be listening for the protection of society as a whole? If the F.B.I. is allowed to monitor
terrorists’e-mails regarding future bombings, how do they make distinctions as to
what is a threat and what is not? Does everyone with an Arabic last name become
suspicious? Or do red flags go up every time ammonium nitrate is mentioned in an e-mail?
Further, who decides what the rules of eavesdropping are?
There are equality issues to consider as well. My argument that the
Internet has the potential to revolutionize our political and economic relationships is
predicated on the fact that everyone has access to the web. Today that is not the case.
According to a poll by National Public .Radio., the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the
Kennedy School of Government, only 51 percent of blacks have a computer at home while 73
percent of whites do.
Similarly, the gap exists between low income and higher income
workers (54 percent vs. 81 percent). The obvious place to diminish these gaps is in the
schools. Again, political leaders have to acknowledge these gaps and decide how to
eliminate them.
Finally, there are questions as to how the Internet affects our
social and familial relationships. More than half of the people questioned (58 percent) in
this study felt that they spent less time with family and friends as a result of using
computers. Further, 46 percent felt that they had less free time because of computers.
As with any exciting, new development, the complexities and
unintended consequences of the exploding Internet are difficult to ferret out. We must,
nonetheless, try to anticipate the subtleties of innovation. We would be foolish, as were
the candidates the other night, to shrug off the Internet as some idol curiosity used by
high school students writing papers.
One could say of the Internet, as Gertrude Stein once said of
Oakland, "There is no there, there." Like it or not, there is where we will be.
