When one of the UK’s most respected columnists expresses his qualms about the internet and the uses to which it is put, we should take note. The man in question is Marcel Berlins, and he writes in this Guardian piece of his growing disquiet at way in which the web encourages “lies and deceit”. Berlins explains that anonymity is at the heart of the problem, and supports Estonian MEP Marianne Mikko’s contention that too many blogs are written with “malicious intentions or hidden agendas”. Mikko proposes that bloggers identify themselves and declare any interests they have in the issue they’re writing about, and Berlins finds himself siding with her:
[Mikko's] concerns should be taken seriously. We, the readers of blogs, do not, and normally cannot, know who lurks behind the funny nickname. We need more information about the writers so that we can decide how seriously to take their opinions. Has she a personal stake in whatever it is under discussion? Does he belong to a dodgy or extreme campaigning body? Is she the sister of the owner of the restaurant she’s recommending? Does he bear a personal grudge? We don’t know.
Berlins goes on to cite Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s worry that the internet facilitates the proliferation of cults. Berners-Lee, the man who created the world wide web, seems now to believe that websites should be subject to a kitemark system, by which their trustworthiness is proved. Berlins himself is not so sure, and still believes that “the advantages of allowing virtually unrestricted access to the net outweigh the undoubted negatives”. But he ends his musings with the spectre of the internet mutating, in 20 years, into “a monster we cannot tame”.
At first blush, none of this seems very Web 2.0. What has happened to transparency, collaboration and the free dissemination of information? Why is a professional writer even contemplating fetters on those who might wish to comment on his and other writers’ work? How can the inherent democracy of the web survive if barriers to entry are imposed? And yet perhaps Berlins’ qualms point to the essence of the right way to embrace all that the Web 2.0 world has to offer. If it is the case that now, as never before, the professional sector has an opportunity for the radical reinvention of its working methodology, perhaps it is also incumbent upon professionals in this sphere to grapple with the dilemmas explored by Berlins. We cherish freedom of expression as the benchmark of a democratic, civilized society, but do we turn a blind eye to the unfettered abuse which is all too rife in the blogosphere? Should we accept this as par for the course, or should we say that those wishing to comment on a given topic reveal their identities, so that they are seen to stand by the courage of their convictions?
This is an area in which the professional sector can lead the way. Within living memory those of us who watch football can remember racist chants on the terraces; now, these have all but disappeared. Racism was kicked out of football by the administrators of the game, whose efforts chimed with the sentiment of those at its heart. No one wanted to hear foul racist rants; society had moved on. Could there be an analogy with the blogosphere? Here at Swordplay we suspect that few people really want to exist in an online world in which anonymous abuse is at every corner; those at the cutting edge of this sector should grasp the nettle, set an example – and, counter-intuitive though it might be, consider whether Mikko, Berners-Lee and Berlins might be onto something.
Image of Abu Graib sculpture courtesy of Tim Shaw, whose latest show, Casting a Dark Democracy, opens at the Kenneth Armitage Foundation on 30 September. See www.timshawsculptor.com for more information and meanwhile, consider this: Abu Graib was a truly monstruous moment in human history, but how much would we have known about it without the internet?
- Written by admin
- Filed under Communication
- Leave a comment
