More Wikileaks Backlash

"Backlash" has become the word of the week so I shall engage in a bit myself.

The backlash from the release of diplomatic cables has the website Wikileaks bouncing around the net looking for a safe haven. This backlash resulted in people like Joe Lieberman demanding that sites like Amazon cut all ties to the website. This backlash resulted in a coordinated attack on anti-Wikileak websites that caved in to political pressure. This backlash has caused us all to begin questioning the very core nature of the internet. My backlash does not wish to show support for any individual or group embroiled in this controversy. There is almost too much opinion flying around this situation. In fact, I would rather investigate the nature of the lash itself.

Cloud computing, blogging and global communications have all had a pretty easy time of it up until recently. Anyone clamouring for a reduction in what they felt was the pervasive influence of these media could simply choose to opt out. Or rather, they believed that they could opt out. This controversy has highlighted just how integral the internet is in society and it has done so in the guise of a major threat to the freedom of information on the internet. Again, I am not stating an opinion on whether information should or should not be curtailed on the net. The point I am driving at is that the honeymoon period is over for 'Web 2.0'. It is becoming increasingly obvious that it must now gain a political impetus in either opposition or agreement to global politics in order to protect its own existence.

Some critics seem to view two possible outcomes of this situation: the end of political influence on the internet or the end of the internet as we know it. A third, less exciting result is equally possible: the crisis will crumble without any resolution. The politicians will go back to their camp with Assange's scalp, the hackers will go back to theirs with a safe domain for Wikileaks. The world will keep spinning. However, to ignore the lessons and potential threat to both sides caused by this argument could be fatal to either one.

While this controversy may go away, it leaves the fundamental question of "who owns the internet and the content of the internet" utterly unresolved and increasingly urgent.

-The English Student

A Smaller World with Greater Distance

Terms like "The Global Village" get thrown around by IT experts these days but I must wonder if the world is becoming a smaller place.

In some respects the closing of distances in the world is very obvious. The internet has allowed people to make contact with others from every country in the world and at any time desired. Mobile phones have also allowed easy communication between every corner of the world. This coupled with the rise of "Web 2.0" and other media like Twitter equate to a very high level of access to information and other people.

But one thing that the IT revolution has not been able to replicate is the real nuances of human communication. These online methods can only really take second place next to actual contact. Of course, web cameras and microphones can simulate these interactions but no innovation has managed to bridge the physical gap caused by distance and time.

In fact, the tools of the "Global Village" actually increase the gap between people. When engaged in some kind of electronic communication with someone it is very easy to view the medium in contrast to physical contact. These media will always be compared to this physical contact and yet will never surpass it. Much like the advent of the telephone or fax, it is natural to assume that new methods of electronic communication will decrease the gap between people. While they do make certain forms of communication possible and certainly have huge advantages there is simply no replacement for physical contact with someone.

The absence of this contact has become more obvious and thus increased the distance between people.

-The English Student