6 ms·

Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon

33 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

Lost_BiomedE 15y ago
I was hoping this was an economics article. It is a politics article on protest organization. Me sad.
dreamux 15y ago
I think people are overcomplicating the issue, social media simply gives community to people who may have otherwise thought their ideals lacked popular support. This was previously done with outspoken radicals speaking to the masses, but is now accomplished with a general consensus of individuals. Interestingly, I see the same effects promoting atheism instead of political change here in the west.
galactus 15y ago
It is a bit cynical to mention the role of the internet in the uprise against Mubarak as an example of the internet being "america's greatest weapon" given Mubarak's position as a longtime US ally.
- cstavish 15y ago
  Perhaps you mean "ironic"? If so, absolutely. Irony and hypocrisy are seldom divorced from US foreign policy.
- astine 15y ago
  "Cynical?" That seems like a strange word choice to me. Either way, I agree that saying the Internet is somehow America's weapon, as if the US government was somehow the architect of these revolts or that they are specifically in the US's interest, seems to be a misnomer. Maybe the OP means 'America' as in the spirit of democracy which America represents, but it's been a long while since America was really the single shining beacon of democracy for the world (if it ever was.) The US government has, for a long time now, preferred alliances of convenience to alliances of ideology. I'm not even sure that this is a bad thing.
  - zeemonkee 15y ago
    " I'm not even sure that this is a bad thing." Actually, it's been a pretty awful thing and led the US to create enemies were none existed before. The alliance with the Mujehaddin in Afghanistan in the 80s is a good example. (BTW as interesting a discussion as this is it really belongs in Reddit)
dean 15y ago
What a strange title for this story "Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon". It implies a lot about the mindset of the author. Clearly, the author still sees America as a shining beacon of democracy for the world, and believes that America should spread democracy everywhere it can. Equally clearly, America does not act this way. While they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq, and they are willing to send fighter jets to support the rebels in Libya, they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria, who also suffer under a brutal dictator. To paraphrase Thomas Huxley, all it takes is one ugly fact to ruin a beautiful theory.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Syria and Libya are not comparable examples. Libya has a much smaller population (less than 1/3rd of Syria's), and Gaddafi's army is much smaller and less well armed than Assad's. More importantly Syria is known to have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve gas. If we were to set up a list of brutal dictatorships based on the order of which are most deserving of being toppled then likely North Korea would be on the top, perhaps even above Libya right now. However, the cost and sacrifice (in civilian lives as well) of such actions must be taken into account, and for both North Korea and Syria it's highly questionable whether that math adds up. We could overthrow North Korea or Libya's government if we desired. But without an imminent external threat the question remains whether it would be worth the hundreds or thousands of lives of american troops lost, and the perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (in the case of North Korea) of innocent civilians that would die in the conflict.
  - dean 15y ago
    I agree with you. The cost in lives and treasure of mounting a military campaign against some of these dictatorships would be very high. And practically speaking, it's not necessarily worth it for America (as cold as that sounds). On the other hand, some dictatorships are 'friendly' to America, and would never be considered for an invasion anyway. But my point was more the mindset of the author, who appears to believe that America's goal really is to spread democracy around the world. And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening. Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention.
cies 15y ago
tcp/ip was developed by the military in the first place, wasn't it? a bit of a long term payoff, but now we have: a new battle field to rule :)
maeon3 15y ago
The power of the internet comes from anonymity, Eben Moglen talks about how the internet is going to lose what made it great when you are unable to connect to it without an authority tracking your every query, every click and every mouse rollover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORNmfpD0ak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORNmfpD0ak
joelhaus 15y ago
Democratic forms of government are best represented by the internet. Dictatorships are best represented by television. The internet best reflects American values and therefore, poses all sorts of problems to dictatorships. E.g. organizing protests, consuming/producing non-approved messages and images, economic productivity gains. It is a no-win perdicament for dictators unless they are willing to be completely totalitarian and hold back almost all economic progress for their nation. It makes one wonder if flooding a country with cheap smartphones combined with a satelite based network would be a better long-term tactic than sending in an Army. The effectiveness of the internet in facilitating change truely does make it America's best weapon.

33 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

I was hoping this was an economics article. It is a politics article on protest organization. Me sad.

I think people are overcomplicating the issue, social media simply gives community to people who may have otherwise thought their ideals lacked popular support. This was previously done with outspoken radicals speaking to the masses, but is now accomplished with a general consensus of individuals. Interestingly, I see the same effects promoting atheism instead of political change here in the west.

galactus 15y ago

It is a bit cynical to mention the role of the internet in the uprise against Mubarak as an example of the internet being "america's greatest weapon" given Mubarak's position as a longtime US ally.

cstavish 15y ago
Perhaps you mean "ironic"? If so, absolutely. Irony and hypocrisy are seldom divorced from US foreign policy.
astine 15y ago
"Cynical?" That seems like a strange word choice to me. Either way, I agree that saying the Internet is somehow America's weapon, as if the US government was somehow the architect of these revolts or that they are specifically in the US's interest, seems to be a misnomer. Maybe the OP means 'America' as in the spirit of democracy which America represents, but it's been a long while since America was really the single shining beacon of democracy for the world (if it ever was.) The US government has, for a long time now, preferred alliances of convenience to alliances of ideology. I'm not even sure that this is a bad thing.
- zeemonkee 15y ago
  " I'm not even sure that this is a bad thing." Actually, it's been a pretty awful thing and led the US to create enemies were none existed before. The alliance with the Mujehaddin in Afghanistan in the 80s is a good example. (BTW as interesting a discussion as this is it really belongs in Reddit)

dean 15y ago

What a strange title for this story "Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon". It implies a lot about the mindset of the author. Clearly, the author still sees America as a shining beacon of democracy for the world, and believes that America should spread democracy everywhere it can. Equally clearly, America does not act this way. While they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq, and they are willing to send fighter jets to support the rebels in Libya, they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria, who also suffer under a brutal dictator. To paraphrase Thomas Huxley, all it takes is one ugly fact to ruin a beautiful theory.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
Syria and Libya are not comparable examples. Libya has a much smaller population (less than 1/3rd of Syria's), and Gaddafi's army is much smaller and less well armed than Assad's. More importantly Syria is known to have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve gas. If we were to set up a list of brutal dictatorships based on the order of which are most deserving of being toppled then likely North Korea would be on the top, perhaps even above Libya right now. However, the cost and sacrifice (in civilian lives as well) of such actions must be taken into account, and for both North Korea and Syria it's highly questionable whether that math adds up. We could overthrow North Korea or Libya's government if we desired. But without an imminent external threat the question remains whether it would be worth the hundreds or thousands of lives of american troops lost, and the perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (in the case of North Korea) of innocent civilians that would die in the conflict.
- dean 15y ago
  I agree with you. The cost in lives and treasure of mounting a military campaign against some of these dictatorships would be very high. And practically speaking, it's not necessarily worth it for America (as cold as that sounds). On the other hand, some dictatorships are 'friendly' to America, and would never be considered for an invasion anyway. But my point was more the mindset of the author, who appears to believe that America's goal really is to spread democracy around the world. And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening. Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention.

cies 15y ago

tcp/ip was developed by the military in the first place, wasn't it? a bit of a long term payoff, but now we have: a new battle field to rule :)

maeon3 15y ago

The power of the internet comes from anonymity, Eben Moglen talks about how the internet is going to lose what made it great when you are unable to connect to it without an authority tracking your every query, every click and every mouse rollover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORNmfpD0ak http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORNmfpD0ak

joelhaus 15y ago

Democratic forms of government are best represented by the internet. Dictatorships are best represented by television. The internet best reflects American values and therefore, poses all sorts of problems to dictatorships. E.g. organizing protests, consuming/producing non-approved messages and images, economic productivity gains. It is a no-win perdicament for dictators unless they are willing to be completely totalitarian and hold back almost all economic progress for their nation. It makes one wonder if flooding a country with cheap smartphones combined with a satelite based network would be a better long-term tactic than sending in an Army. The effectiveness of the internet in facilitating change truely does make it America's best weapon.