I didn't like this book. It was redundant, and for someone who grew up with the internet, it didn't present too many new ideas. That said, it might be of more value to the right audience. I just felt that I wasn't that audience.
One thing that I did find interesting that was presented in the book was the idea of a purely democratic self-government. As an example, let us analyze the very first example presented in the book. A phone was stolen, and as a result the self-government decided to prosecute the offender. One of the methods of doing so was a de-privatization of Sasha's life. In and of itself, it may be wrong to post people's private information on the internet, as it is a breach of privacy. It may be unconstitutional. But the internet is not governed by national law.
Therefore, the way the internet governs, very simplistically, is this: if a wrong is done by one, a wrong may be done to that one. An example is the hacking group Anonymous. If the group decides that someone's actions are wrong, the group then does a wrong to that person.
The problem with this is that morality on the internet is defined by individual users and organizations, and even if a right action was done, someone may see it as wrong, and the actor may suffer consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment