From hungary-online-owner Tue Aug 29 14:01:57 1995 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) (fnord) by nando.yak.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) id OAA26348 for hungary-online-out31415; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:01:57 -0700 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) (fnord) by nando.yak.net (8.6.5/8.6.5) id OAA26338; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:01:44 -0700 Received: from jhorv@mars.iif.hu () via =-=-=-=-=-= for hungary-online@hungary.yak.net (26336) Received: from mars.iif.hu (mars.iif.hu [192.84.225.92]) (fnord) by nando (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id OAA26332 for ; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 14:01:13 -0700 Received: by mars.iif.hu (5.67a8+/ULTRIX-1.01) id AA16171; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 22:59:58 +0200 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 22:59:57 +0200 (MET DST) From: John Horvath To: Hungary On-line Subject: (HOL) revised article on new media Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Charset: US X-Char-Esc: 0 Sender: owner-Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net Can Democracy Survive the New Media? by John Horvath The mass media is traditionally held suspect by progressives as one of the major threats to democratic society and individual freedom. Concentrated in the hands of a few, it defines for us what we can see, hear, and say. Indubitably, it's the next step to the creation of a mass mind, in where individualism does not exist and the freedom of expression is either shunned upon or is outright suppressed. With the public surge in the area of telematics in the last few years the new media, i.e., computer-based telecommunications, seem to counteract the enveloping influence of traditional mass media. Information flows more freely and faster between individuals, bypassing the structural constraints of newspapers, radio, and television. Unlike traditional media, the new media operates not only within the realms of education, entertainment, and news but extends, or has demonstrated the potential to extend, to areas such as health and employment. In Europe, the major changes and upheavals to society caused by the new media is welcomed and is referred to as the dawning of the Information Society. The term "Information Society" is somewhat inappropriate since information alone can't be the basis of social cohesion. Nevertheless, the European Commission has stated that the main objective of a united Europe is that the Information Society must be achieved "rapidly and in a socially acceptable manner." Because of the economic potential involved, the European Commission has recently established a high level group of experts to evaluate the impact the Information Society will have on a united Europe, the issue of employment being the main focus. Already, there is optimism that the alternative ways of work, education, and social life in general, will offer hope of higher social standards. Moreover, the leveling effects of technology are regarded as minimal, enabling member states to retain their distinctiveness within the framework of a "European Information Society". Contrary to the view that the new media is laying the groundwork for a new social revolution, the Information Society is regarded as nothing more than an acceleration of social changes already taking place. This is because the modern industrial economy is changing: traditional manufacturing sectors are giving way to services. Hence, present trends such as the increasing number of women in the workplace, the growing level of part-time work, and the growing importance of self-employment are being reinforced by the new media. In particular, the position of women in the labor market is expected to show a quite marked improvement thanks to teleworking. Based on such positive prospects, the new media and the Information Society are seen by eurocrats in Brussels and others throughout Europe as hope for the future -- not only in accessing information upon which our lives will ultimately be based, but in real economic terms as well. Yet, despite such optimism there is growing concern that the new media and Information Society might be headed in a different direction: that the new media will be nothing more than a luxury toy of the rich while the Information Society will evolve into a two-tier society of haves and have-nots. Teleworking highlights some of these dangers. By altering working norms, it undermines the democratic structures of the modern industrial work environment, already in a precarious state as it is. In fact, it would destroy it altogether. Consequently, teleworking would lead to an increase in worker isolation, reduce solidarity among workers, and lead to a lower quality of working life. In conjunction with this, delocalization is a looming economic threat to democracy arising from the Information Society. The manufacturing sector of industrial society is not giving away to services because of an ongoing process of change; rather, it is being relocated to where higher profits can be reaped -- namely the Third World. Europe is fortunate in the sense that poorer member states as well as eastern Europe provide additional sources of cheap labor. This relocation of the manufacturing sector of the modern industrial economy is nothing new and has been going on for decades. Therefore, it can be clearly seen that the other sectors of the economy aren't responsible for the decline of manufacturing but have been merely filling the gap left by the east/south shift of the "global economy". The concern now is that since services and other sectors can be delocated via the new media, it is most likely that they too will soon follow manufacturing to where profits can be maximized. The question remains as to what, if anything, will fill the vacuum left by delocalization. In the end, the Information Society would create within Europe a division between those who possess a broad range of technical and professional skills and those with only narrow technical competence. Most of the former would be from countries such as Germany, France, Switzerland, etc... while most of the latter would be from countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece, as well as the countries of eastern Europe. The labor movement, which is indispensable to any democratic society, would subsequently range from severely weakened (in countries such as Germany) to almost non-existent (in countries such as Hungary). Ultimately, the question of in which direction the Information Society will lead to is dependent upon two factors. The first is macrocosmic and can only be answered fully in retrospect: whether society will be shaped by technological forces or if technology will be shaped by society. The second is more down to earth and is of immediate concern: who will end up controlling and influencing the new media. Presently, the new media as a liberating force in communications technologies is already under threat, with power gradually slipping away from the individual end user through encroaching government regulation. The Exon amendment to the Telecommunications bill recently approved by the American Congress is an indication of things to come. Although legislators argued that it was to protect society, namely children, from the "depravity...that is being practiced on the Internet today", the said amendment, which seeks to prosecute "any indecent communication in any form", is ambiguous and can be easily abused. In essence, political opposition can be suppressed on the basis of being "indecent" to a ruling elite. Proponents of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the subsequent Exon Amendment have stressed that the legislation in question represents a carefully balanced response to growing concerns about the inappropriate use of telecommunications technologies. Its purpose is to translate already existing laws on obscene phone calls into legislation that will regulate the use of the new media. Hence, any Internet user, BBS Sysop (bulletin-board operator), or on-line service that makes "obscene" material available can be prosecuted. It may seem that the amendment to the CDA is just a load of empty words. But it is only the tip of the iceberg. Originally formulated to prevent pornography from becoming "the primary beneficiary of the information revolution", it actually extends the reach of the CDA, and thus government control, beyond the realms of sex. The amendment makes it a felony to send or receive over computer networks any obscene material. This also applies to those who unknowingly send and receive material that is considered "obscene". Thus, if you download material to your computer and find out that it is something you didn't expect, you could be prosecuted for receiving it. Moreover, not only is it a crime to send someone obscene e-mail messages, but it is also a criminal offense to send a message with "indecent" or "filthy words" that you hope will annoy another person. As an opponent to the amendment illustrated: "If someone sends you an annoying e-mail message and you respond with a filthy four-letter word, you may land in jail for 2 years with a $100,000 fine. If you picked up the phone and did the exact same thing, you are perfectly OK. But if you type it out and send it to the person electronically, no matter how annoyed you might be, tough." Apart from those that send and receive "obscene" material, what is at issue is who determines what is obscene and what is not. For instance, if I make a comment that "the only good Tory is a lavatory", what is stopping a conservative government in the UK or Canada (where the conservative political parties are called Tory) from throwing me in jail? As it stands, even unwritten words are liable to incriminate, as the following joke from the Thatcher era demonstrates: "When the UK was a Kingdom, it was ruled by a king, when Great Britain was an Empire, it was ruled by an Emperor, now that England is a country, it is ruled by a ..." The CDA and the subsequent Exon Amendment provides ample opportunities for legislatures to censure the words that they don't want others to read. As James Gleick, in a recent article to the New York Times, noted: "the legislation is a historically far-reaching attempt at censorship on a national scale". In essence, what is at stake is control of the new media. The reasons for doing so are quite clear. Throughout history communications have determined the scale and nature of political institutions. River systems, roads, railways, radio, and television have all enabled political institutions to consolidate and extend their influence, often determining the size and scope of their power. Fascism is a prime example: Hitler's success can be largely attributed to the fact that he was the world's first "pop star". It is now possible for a government to build up for itself a dream world through which to retain power and exert control. Dramatized leaders with purely fictitious abilities are able to give the appearance of prosperity, reporting triumphs over rivals which have been invented for the purpose and boasting of the success of improbable and exaggerated policies. Although the internet is a sufficiently complex system, there is no guarantee in the future that it shall remain immune from those that seek to control it. What is more, regulation will be deemed necessary as more commercial enterprises seek to use the new media to extend the reach of traditional mass media. As a result, the more cable companies and others wish to exploit the new media so as to enhance traditional mass media, the more regulatory the new media will become until systems like the internet will no longer be a medium for the free interchange of ideas; instead, it will be just another tool of media magnates. At this point, the new media will have evolved into the "new mass media", and future generations will look back with envy to the days when mass media was limited to only newspapers, radio, and television. ############# # This message to Hungary-Online@hungary.yak.net # was from John Horvath # # To unsubscribe, # send "unsubscribe" to # An announcement-only subscription (less volume) is available # at # Send mail to for more information, # or to if you need human assistance. #############