Information is power, and whoever controls communication technology, controls information. We saw this is the history of telegraph cables and British control over most of the process; from raw materials to boats laying cables across the Atlantic. In fact, as Professor Hayden told us,the first military act of WWI was cutting off Germany's access to underwater cable lines, which would not have been possible if the UK did not have such a high stake in the communication cables.
Even today we see this power struggle over information, we are watching a battle between the advancement of technology offering access to information, and those that want to control that information. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and communist China hold power by censoring the press and controlling access to the internet, allowing their citizen's little access to information that is not packaged and controlled by their governments. But does this censorship actually help a regime maintain control? Or is is a cyclical event where advancements in censorship technology and control result in advancements of telecommunications technology?
In Hanson's book, "International Communications", she described the downfall of the Catholic church when the invention of the printing press allowed the illiterate access to information that used to only be in Latin. Even when Bishops forbade the printing of any books in their territories, information ultimately won out. We then saw the invention of wireless telecommunications and short-wave radio, which gave rise to the Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe that transmitted behind the iron curtain and into Eastern European states that were controlled by communist USSR. The USSR initially jammed the signals of these radio stations, but ultimately gave in and access to information beaming from those stations still continues today. Over the past year we have see multiple uprisings and revolutions in the Middle East that have toppled leaders who have been in power for decades. The argument about access to social media and the internet and whether or not these technologies added to civil unrest and disobedience is still being debated. It seems though that history is repeating itself, and that in the end, people will always find a way to access information.
So are these regimes and leaders who practice censorship and control helping or hindering their cause? As a child growing up you may remember your parents telling you "Don't touch that," or "You can't watch that," which ultimately made the forbidden all the more desirable. You probably did touch what you weren't supposed to, and you snuck into the living room to catch a glimpse of what you weren't supposed to be watching. So while I do not believe access to social media and the internet is the ultimate downfall for these regimes, I do believe that in the end censorship will fail. They are making sites like facebook and youtube 'forbidden fruit' which adds to their appeal and mystery, whereas if the sites were readily available they might go by unnoticed and not have half the power to disrupt as they do now.
In Hanson's book, "International Communications", she described the downfall of the Catholic church when the invention of the printing press allowed the illiterate access to information that used to only be in Latin. Even when Bishops forbade the printing of any books in their territories, information ultimately won out. We then saw the invention of wireless telecommunications and short-wave radio, which gave rise to the Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe that transmitted behind the iron curtain and into Eastern European states that were controlled by communist USSR. The USSR initially jammed the signals of these radio stations, but ultimately gave in and access to information beaming from those stations still continues today. Over the past year we have see multiple uprisings and revolutions in the Middle East that have toppled leaders who have been in power for decades. The argument about access to social media and the internet and whether or not these technologies added to civil unrest and disobedience is still being debated. It seems though that history is repeating itself, and that in the end, people will always find a way to access information.
So are these regimes and leaders who practice censorship and control helping or hindering their cause? As a child growing up you may remember your parents telling you "Don't touch that," or "You can't watch that," which ultimately made the forbidden all the more desirable. You probably did touch what you weren't supposed to, and you snuck into the living room to catch a glimpse of what you weren't supposed to be watching. So while I do not believe access to social media and the internet is the ultimate downfall for these regimes, I do believe that in the end censorship will fail. They are making sites like facebook and youtube 'forbidden fruit' which adds to their appeal and mystery, whereas if the sites were readily available they might go by unnoticed and not have half the power to disrupt as they do now.
~Amy Wozniak
No comments:
Post a Comment