The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom by Evgeny Morozov

May 14, 2013 Victor Gonzalez rated it 4 of 5 stars

It is not difficult to imagine that technologies that are created for one purpose end up being used for another. Technology is used and adapted by the needs of each person that use it. If we talk about the use of twitter, some might use it to sell their persona, as a politician, as a guru in one are or they might use it to explain the situation that is happening in the place they are. Each user of twitter has a reason for using the technology and they use it according to their own purpose.

In the...more It is not difficult to imagine that technologies that are created for one purpose end up being used for another. Technology is used and adapted by the needs of each person that use it. If we talk about the use of twitter, some might use it to sell their persona, as a politician, as a guru in one are or they might use it to explain the situation that is happening in the place they are. Each user of twitter has a reason for using the technology and they use it according to their own purpose.

In the book “The Net Delusion: the Dark Side of the Internet Freedom” Morozov argues how technology pretends to bring internet freedom to everyone in the world, but how it backfires and allows some authoritarian government to have more control over their own people. Technology might be initially developed to allow people to keep in touch with friends and share information with them. Imagine if a government is targeting a group that is against them, if they find one of the members of that group with the same technology mention they can easily identify members of that group, just because they are friends with one of the person that they targeted.

Morozov shows how technology and politics interweave, and how internal politics might contradict that of the foreign politics that a country has, he specially focus on that inconsistency of governments on the west. There has been a strong discussion about net neutrality in the US and it has it opponents as well as its supporters, but if the net stop being neutral in the US and companies are able to discriminate traffic because of its origin or type, then how can the US (or any country that denies net neutrality) can ask a government not to censor the web? This feeling of inconsistency can be seen throughout his book but it’s more pronounce we he says “… inconsistency between the strong anti-regulation impetus of Western foreign policy and the equally strong pro-regulation impetus of Western domestic policy” (p 218).

Technological determinism is another aspect he refutes because with it then the social aspect is lost and movements that are of social problems get attributed to the technology. Instead of understanding why a revolutions started or what was the revolutions fighting for or against, the medias named it the twitter revolution.

Morozov shows how technology can be used for “good” or “evil”, and how we are not really understanding all the aspect of the technology we use, he also shows how hypocrite foreign policy can be.(less)

like · see review

Feb 13, 2013 Michael Burnam-fink rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2013, sts

Morozov is on a crusade against 'Internetic-centric foreign policy' and 'cyber-utopianism', which he describes as a constellation of power interests linking Silicon Valley tech companies (Google, Twitter, Facebook) with Cold Warriors (Cheney, Clinton, Rumsfeld) in a profoundly misguided and dangerous effort to promote democracy overseas through technology. He argues that rather than being an unalloyed force for freedom, the internet can be used in many ways that strengthen authoritarian regimes....more Morozov is on a crusade against 'Internetic-centric foreign policy' and 'cyber-utopianism', which he describes as a constellation of power interests linking Silicon Valley tech companies (Google, Twitter, Facebook) with Cold Warriors (Cheney, Clinton, Rumsfeld) in a profoundly misguided and dangerous effort to promote democracy overseas through technology. He argues that rather than being an unalloyed force for freedom, the internet can be used in many ways that strengthen authoritarian regimes.

The evidence for that last claim is overwhelming: I doubt a single case of 'internet abuse' between 2005 and 2010 has been left out of the book. For that first claim, that the tech companies and Cold Warriors are in alliance, Morozov's evidence is much more hand-wavey. A few speeches, a few NSA sponsored trips, some conference reports.

What this book does not have, and what it really needs, is a theory to organize these disparate elements into a coherent whole. Political power and the governance of internet technologies are complex issues, but the role of the public intellectual to render these complex issues, if not simple, at least comprehensible. Morozov gestures at the fact that the tools used to crack down on pedophiles, terrorists, media piracy, and spam in the West are the same tools used to crack down on activists and dissidents in authoritarians regimes, but he doesn't explain what this conflict means for those of us who would enjoy both a free world and an orderly internet. Likewise, he doesn't address why some states are 'democracies' and some states are 'authoritarian'. Sure, the US just throws Code Pink activists out of Senate hearings while Russia murders journalists, but why is some power legitimate and some illegal?

Most tellingly, for someone who is all about promoting 'cyber-realism', he is blurry on the specifics of what should be done (aside from localizing policy-which leads to embarrassing situations like the tweets from the US Embassy in Egypt). These days, both democracies and authoritarian regimes use the internet for the same reason they use trucks to transport soldiers, or have their citizens breath air; it'd be impossible not to. But a covert organization has different information strategies from a mass protest, and a mass protest is different from a revolutionary army or transitional government.

This lack of theory exacerbates the other problem with a lack of theoretical perspective; the inability to incorporate new information. This book was published in 2011, which means it was probably written in 2010, but Morozov hasn't substantially updated his thinking to include the Arab Spring and divergent outcomes in Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt, Syria etc. (the fact that they're different might mean that he's right, but still, they all occurred simultaneously...) Wikileaks barely gets a mention, despite the diplomatic cable leaks beginning in February 2010. If there was a theory to The Net Delusion, you could ask how new information fits into or changes the framework. Even in a popular book that is less rigorous than an academic treatise, you need to do more to contextualize your ideas than wave at Foucault, Langdon Winner, George F. Kennan and so on. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Dec 08, 2012 Steve Stanton rated it 4 of 5 stars

The Net Delusion is an insightful political commentary debunking the myth of cyber-utopianism, the notion that freedom of information will lead to democratic change in the world. With extensive and detailed historical research, Evgeny Morozov argues that the internet is just another form of entertainment and not a tool of empowerment, and that technological determinism ratifies current culture worldwide.

Western governments are increasing censorship and surveillance techniques in response to int...more

like · see review

Aug 17, 2012 D.M. Dutcher rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: politics, nonfiction

Good, if over-long book about how the power of the internet is often overrated when it comes to helping democracy flourish. It can easily defuse movements and be co-opted by the state for propaganda and surveillance.

Evgeny would call himself a cyber-realist, and his book is a needed corrective to the idea that Twitter and Facebook can cause revolution and peaceful change. He witnessed the failure of the net in Belarus, and his arguments are multiple and well founded. Facebook can connect disside...more

like · see review

Apr 08, 2012 Leah R rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: interesting-useful-fun-nonfiction, future-predicting, reviewes

Really important book for the modern age- Morozov exposes the cliches that policymakers use when talking about the internet and explains the harm such oversimplifications can cause. However, the poor writing style of this book detracted from my reading experience- the book needs more editing, for typos, awkward phrasings, abused idioms, and grammatical errors unfortunately abound. Some of the ideas, as well, were poorly developed and some terms were never defined (like democracy! He kept using i...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 14, 2011 Craig Shier rated it 4 of 5 stars

The Net Delusion is an extended discussion of the relationship of the Internet, authoritarian governments and western foreign policy. The main thesis is that Internet technology will not inevitably lead to democratic revolution in autocratic regimes across the world.

Morozov provides powerful examples from around the world demonstrating the less than desirable consequences of promoting Internet freedom in repressed countries.
- Large segments of the population are content with the entertainment...more The Net Delusion is an extended discussion of the relationship of the Internet, authoritarian governments and western foreign policy. The main thesis is that Internet technology will not inevitably lead to democratic revolution in autocratic regimes across the world.

Morozov provides powerful examples from around the world demonstrating the less than desirable consequences of promoting Internet freedom in repressed countries.
- Large segments of the population are content with the entertainment provided by the Internet and access can dull their discontent with authoritarian government.
- Dissidents under these regimes often do not envision the kind of liberal democracy that westerners hope they will. The forces that shape their discontent and objectives are as diverse as the cultures they emerge from.
- Authoritarian leaders know how to exercise power and they rapidly learn how to apply Internet technology to reinforce their hold on more traditional centers of power, often with fatal consequences for dissidents.

These facts alert us to the need to think clearly about what their objectives truly are when western governments promote dissent internationally. Are we truly seeking the benefit of the people in line with ‘self evident truths’ or are we promoting a commercial culture that ultimately benefits us commercially?

A strong subtheme is the inherent contradiction between a fully open Internet that protects the freedom of all individuals and the ability to seek out and suppress dangerous elements in hostile governments or those who would disrupt the existing order. There seems to be an escalating double helix of technologies to protect privacy and technologies to permit government invasion of that privacy. Access to these technologies is not limited to nice people.

This is a cautionary book, designed to warn us off thinking technology is a panacea for the world’s troubles. Those troubles emerge from deep and intertwined roots. Solutions need to address the root and not apply the latest techno-gimmicks cosmetically.

The narrative flows easily and can be read in detail or skimmed for the overall effect. It is thoroughly researched and contains a 70-page bibliography but would benefit from footnotes linking text and source.

Morozov grew up in Belarus and lives in the United States.
(less)

like · see review

Aug 15, 2011 Edwin rated it 4 of 5 stars

(Z mojego blogu: http://bendyk.blog.polityka.pl/2011/0...
Jednocześnie w dwóch niezwykle ważnych i opiniotwórczych amerykańskich magazynach, „Foreign Policy” i „Foreign Affairs” ukazały się duże artykuły krytykujące politykę Internet Freedom zainicjowaną przed rokiem przez Hillary Clinton. W styczniu ub.r., po sławnych chińskich atakach na Google i kilkadziesiąt innych amerykańskich korporacji, po których nastąpił otwarty konflikt Google’a z władzami Chin Clinton ogłosiła, że USA będą bronić woln...more (Z mojego blogu: http://bendyk.blog.polityka.pl/2011/0...
Jednocześnie w dwóch niezwykle ważnych i opiniotwórczych amerykańskich magazynach, „Foreign Policy” i „Foreign Affairs” ukazały się duże artykuły krytykujące politykę Internet Freedom zainicjowaną przed rokiem przez Hillary Clinton. W styczniu ub.r., po sławnych chińskich atakach na Google i kilkadziesiąt innych amerykańskich korporacji, po których nastąpił otwarty konflikt Google’a z władzami Chin Clinton ogłosiła, że USA będą bronić wolności internetu jak niepodległości. Internet bowiem stał narzędziem rewolucyjnej walki aktorów wszystkich kolorowych rewolucji, by wspomnieć tylko Mołdowę i Iran. W ramach polityki Internet Freedom rząd USA zdecydował się m.in. wspomóc przygotowanie oprogramowania anonimizacyjnego Haystack oraz wspierać różne dysydenckie inicjatywy w internecie (Haystack okazał się totalnym niewypałem).

Niby wszystko OK, pierwsze problemy pokazał w ub.r. Malcolm Gladwell w „New Yorkerze” w tekście „Small Change. Why the Revolution Won’t Be Tweeted”. Gladwell pokazał, jak znikoma była rola tzw. social media w irańskiej rebelii, choć została ona okrzyknięta rewolucją twittera. Teraz Evgeny Morozov w „Foreign Policy” i Clay Shirky w „Foreign Affairs” idą głębiej i dalej w swej krytyce entuzjazmu otaczającego rewolucyjny potencjał internetu i opartą na tym entuzjazmie politykę Internet Freedom.

Obaj autorzy dowodzą bowiem, że polityka Internet Freedom wolności w krajach takich, jak Iran, Rosja, Białoruś zaszkodziła. Białorusin Morozov doskonale zna realia posowieckiej sceny politycznej i pokazuje, w jaki sposób były przez autorytarne władze interpretowane różne pro-internetowe wypowiedzi – komunikat, że Departament Stanu podczas zamieszek w Iranie poprosił zarząd Twittera o to, by wstrzymał prace nad modernizacją serwisu, by go nie wyłączać ani na chwilę i nie hamować rewolucji został odczytany jednoznacznie: internet stał się bronią ofensywną w rękach amerykańskiego rządu, a amerykańskie korporacje jego najemnikami. Ponieważ zaś podstawowa infrastruktura internetu należy właśnie do Amerykanów, należy się od nich uniezależnić, blokując dostęp do takich serwisów jak Facebook, Twitter, Gmail i YouTube oferując w zamian lokalne, kontrolowane przez lokalne służby specjalne.

Drugi wniosek, jaki wyciągnęli dyktatorzy polegał na odkryciu, że za pomocą internetu można walczyć z dysydentami – na miejsce każdego bloga dysydenckiego pojawia się kilka blogów prorządowych, nie mówiąc o akcjach flamingu i trollingu. W końcu nasilenie inwigilacji i innych działań o charakterze czysto policyjnym, które doprowadziły do represji wobec setek opozycjonistów w Iranie, Rosji, Białorusi, etc. (Morozov pisze elegancko: zachodni entuzjaści internetu chodzą do talkshow, dysydenci idą do więzienia).

Analiza Morozova jest wyciągiem z jego wydanej niedawno bardzo ciekawej książki „The Net Delusion”. Zawiera ona niezliczone, bardzo szczegółowe analizy przypadków, w jaki sposób internet był wykorzystywany politycznie, z jakim skutkiem, etc. Shirky z kolei w swym eseju w „Foreign Affairs” pokazuje, że internet ma kolosalną rolę polityczną, zarówno w krajach demokratycznych, jak i autorytarnych. Jego znaczenie polega na tym, że umożliwia rekonstrukcję sfery publicznej rozumianej jako przestrzeń konwersacji, która prowadzi do budowy więzi społecznych. Z tego punktu widzenia potencjał polityczny mają nawet najzwyklejsze serwisy zrzeszające ludzi w różnych sprawach – podczas buntów wołowinowych w Korei jedną z platform, która umożliwiła koordynację protestu koreańskim nastolatkom był serwis fanowski jakiego piosenkarza pop. W sumie Shirky przypomina to, co już pisałem w książce „Antymatrix” sześć lat temu (m.in. analizując przypadek mobilizacji politycznej w Korei w 2002 r. podczas ówczesnych wyborów prezydenckich) – kluczem do działania są więzi społeczne. Shirky pokazuje jednak, że polityka Internet Freedom spowodowała wzrost podejrzliwości władz autorytarnych wobec internetu w ogóle. Ba, nawet rządy demokratyczne nie kryją pokusy poddania internetu większej kontroli.(less)

like · see review

Mar 28, 2011 Doug rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: nonfiction

I remember reading an article saying how the internet is making us dumber, and I was cynical on how some pundits claim that this same internet is introducing democracy to despotic regimes through Facebook and the Twitter Revolution and whatnot (Malcolm Gladwell also has a good take on this). This book brings it all together.

On a 2009 visit to Shanghai, Barack Obama was all too happy to extol the virtues of the Internet, saying that "the more freely information flows, the stronger society becomes

...more I remember reading an article saying how the internet is making us dumber, and I was cynical on how some pundits claim that this same internet is introducing democracy to despotic regimes through Facebook and the Twitter Revolution and whatnot (Malcolm Gladwell also has a good take on this). This book brings it all together.

On a 2009 visit to Shanghai, Barack Obama was all too happy to extol the virtues of the Internet, saying that "the more freely information flows, the stronger society becomes, because the citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity." In contrast, when he spoke to the graduates of Hampton University in Virginia less than six months later, Obama communicated almost an entirely different message, complaining about “a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which we don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. . . . With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and Playstations . . . information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

It also makes a compelling case that evaluating the social effects of a new technology without taking into account existing social institutions is a pointless exercise.

[Raymond] Williams worried that placing technology at the center of our intellectual analysis is bound to make us view that what we have traditionally understood as a problem of politics, with its complex and uneasy questions of ethics and morality, as instead a problem of technology, either eliminating or obfuscating all the unresolved philosophical dilemmas. . . . [T]echnical determinism also prevents us from acknowledging what is political about technology itself (the kind of practices and outcomes it tends to favor), as its more immediately observable features usually occupy the lion’s share of the public’s attention, making it difficult to assess its other, more pernicious features.

It's interesting that this has all been done before. People thought that clipped messages in telegraph communication would be the end of the English language and thoughtful discourse, the OMG and LOL of the 19th century. People thought that the radio would mean a golden age of democracy because politicians can speak directly to the people, but also allowed totalitarian demagogues like Hitler and Stalin to come about. Warren Buffet has a form of economic corollary to how even transformative technologies tend to overpromise and underdeliver.

This book uses a lot of intellectual firepower to address the narrow issue of whether the internet really inevitably means democracy. It obliquely goes into a lot of other issues, and I wish this book would address them head on, in particular, which institutions and social structures are most effective at harnessing the internet to promote or prevent democracy. But overall, a really good read.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 12, 2013 Nate Huston rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Very well-written and easy-to-read book. Morozov's purpose with the book is to provide an alternative narrative to the so-called cyber-utopians and internet-centrists of the world who believe that all internet is good internet (i.e. "information will set you free") and those who cannot look beyond the internet in their analysis of its impact (e.g. to understand the impact of Twitter in the Arab Spring, one must look beyond Twitter itself (p324)).

Though the book at first comes off as a bit one-s...more Very well-written and easy-to-read book. Morozov's purpose with the book is to provide an alternative narrative to the so-called cyber-utopians and internet-centrists of the world who believe that all internet is good internet (i.e. "information will set you free") and those who cannot look beyond the internet in their analysis of its impact (e.g. to understand the impact of Twitter in the Arab Spring, one must look beyond Twitter itself (p324)).

Though the book at first comes off as a bit one-sided, it becomes clear that Morozov's purpose is not to provide a balanced account but merely counter what he views as an excessively rosy (and blind) outlook on the impact of the internet on foreign policy, with specific attention paid to the US policy of freedom through information. He makes this abundantly clear in his afterword to the paperback edition, and I think he does a fine job of presenting an alternate method of evaluating the internet's "place" in foreign policy. He acknowledges the utility of tools such as Facebook and Twitter for coordinating movements and "finding" like-minded individuals, but castigates the West for the very dangerous practice of ignoring the "dark side" of the internet: it is a very powerful tool for monitoring and propaganda. Even if censorship is ultimately unrealistic, there is no guarantee that "the repressed masses" will choose to explore freedom manifestos over funny cat videos (Morozov specifically cautions that in authoritarian regimes, the internet is sometimes used as the opiate of the masses - no need to rise up when you can settle down for a night of Lolcats and boob videos).

Morozov finishes up with a call for cyber-realism, a view that puts cyber in context with any other aspect of international affairs. It may be used for "good," but it also may be used for "evil." Rather than bloviating over its universal "goodness" or "badness," we must examine its utility in the context of specific environments and policy objectives. In this way, he says, we can combat internet-centrism. He also introduces the concept of cyber-agnosticism in his afterword to the paperback edition. Essentially, this is an acknowledgement that the internet is not and cannot be a universal tool for democracy any more than it can be a universal tool for repression. "Sticking to either of the two poles of this dichotomy infuses us - and especially policymakers - with a false sense of intellectual master over the internet." (p 339)

In all, a very enjoyable read. Highly recommended to anyone looking for a contrarian (and, in my opinion, much more realistic) viewpoint regarding the power of the internet. I believe I'm squarely in the cyber-realist camp and Morozov's given me a few things to think about regarding the future of technology. As he says, "not everyone who takes technology seriously is an Internet-centrist," (p 335) but everyone ought to have a realistic view of its potential.(less)

like · see review

Sep 13, 2011 Ron rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is worth reading in combination with The Master Switch for those interested in the topic. Evgeny provides a much needed corrective to all of the overly optimistic thinking about the role of the Internet in repressive regimes around the world. I was introduced to him through debates he had with Clay Shirky, a super optimist on the subject. Evgeny points out that repressive regimes are becoming good at using the Internet to suit their purposes, so the mere fact that there is a free and uncens...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 15, 2012 Wise_owl rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

This is a good solid book about a very important subject. Questioning the way in which policy makers in the west have become enamored of the 'democratizing' nature of Internet technology, and how that ideology of 'cyber-utopianism' is making policy, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Morozov touches on the origins of these trends, how they have expressed themeselves, the clearest example being the talk that surrounds the Iranian 'Green Revolt', or how the US interprets the emergence of bloggers i...more

like · see review

Apr 18, 2013 Shua rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: technology

Few things delight me as much as a contrarian.

I enjoy reading Wired magazine; its a welcome blast of techno-optimism every month. And yet... Wired magazine stands out for its high concentration of "the Internets shower the masses with freedom and young entrepreneurs will solve all of life's minor inconveniences"! Wired is not alone in this attitude and is not the worst; its just an easy target for me because I actually read it. I avoid the other stuff.

Evgeny Morozov picks apart many of the assum...more

1 like · like · see review

May 13, 2013 Cathy (Ms. Sweeney) rated it 2 of 5 stars

Long story short - the internet and technology is a double edged sword that can be used for promoting a free exchange of ideas and philosophies and can be used by authoritarian governments to track opposition groups and individuals, spread misinformation, and distract the people.

And the author really seems to dislike Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I found the book interesting, in the beginning, although not quite as original and earth shattering as the author seemed to believe. The somewha...more

like · see review

Jan 31, 2013 Laurel rated it 5 of 5 stars

The author writes in his introduction, "The idea that the Internet favors the oppressed rather than the oppressor is marred by what I call cyber-utopianism: a naive belief in the the emancipatory nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside".

This book, along with "The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires" are required reading for anyone interested in digital technology and how it is changing culture. The Net Delusion smashes utop...more

like · see review

May 15, 2013 Danny Elder rated it 4 of 5 stars

A refreshing read in the age of cyber-utopianism. Morozov gets unfairly labeled as either being an anti-tech Luddite and an Internet-hater but he actually carves out a great argument for more reasonable approaches to technology and shifting our perspectives on it to understand that it's not technologies that shape societies so much as societies that shape technologies. Technologies change rapidly but human nature far less so. The penultimate chapter is a fantastic exploration of the ways in whic...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 25, 2011 Trish rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: computerology, nonfiction

Morozov is debunking the notion that internet access = internet freedom. In fact, he tells us that internet "freedom" is a term with no meaning in the conventional sense since it implies that users are free to say what they like and use the technology for their own ends. But, his argument goes, if one user (an authoritarian regime, say, with a reason to dampen enthusiasm for democratic reforms) controls any points of internet access, or subverts the open sharing of ideas on social networking pla...more Morozov is debunking the notion that internet access = internet freedom. In fact, he tells us that internet "freedom" is a term with no meaning in the conventional sense since it implies that users are free to say what they like and use the technology for their own ends. But, his argument goes, if one user (an authoritarian regime, say, with a reason to dampen enthusiasm for democratic reforms) controls any points of internet access, or subverts the open sharing of ideas on social networking platforms to their own ends, "freedom" immediately becomes compromised.

Morozov compiles an extraordinary collection of examples from around the world of how this is happening now, and challenges (especially U.S.) policy makers to acknowledge that funding bloggers or promoting social networking sites is not an adequate response in and of itself to authoritarian regimes and/or dictatorships. He argues persuasively that U.S. Secretary of State Clinton’s speeches on Internet freedom do not adequately address the issues of authoritarian control, and suggests that only by closely aligning stated country-specific political policies with the promotion of Internet access in these same countries will produce the results the U.S. government seeks.

In other words, we have to stop talking out of both sides of our face. We can’t suppose that financing a corrupt regime on the one hand and supplying financing for anti-regime bloggers on the other is going to produce creditable results. And when it comes to Internet freedoms, one size does not fit in all cases. Some governments have embraced the Internet revolution so thoroughly that they are closely intertwined in the social networking sites, uncovering dissidents and following their adherents. Some have only the crudest knowledge of and reaction to social networking: witness the Internet shutdown for several days during the protests against Egyptian government.

At first I thought Morozov was arguing for international regulation of the Internet and perhaps even self-policing by internet services providers. But I realized he is far too realist to imagine that international regulation (were it even possible) would be practically ineffective and asking internet service providers to police is even more frightening than the authoritarian regimes he opposes. But his contention that the Internet too often “empowers the strong and disempowers the weak” is probably true. However, adding even fractionally to the access of the disempowered means proportionally huge gains in their knowledge and connectivity with ideas and others sharing their beliefs. As messy and inadequate a poorly-regulated Internet may be, it has undoubtedly had some effect on information dissemination to good effect. It is now up to those shackled masses to bend their minds to the task of building better governance than that which they have had to suffer in the past.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 12, 2013 Jenni rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: 2013

If it were possible, I'd go for 4 and a half stars for this book. It's a very interesting read about the state of internet all around the world but especially in authoritarian countries. While some things are already a bit outdated, it offers a lot food for thought, brings up issues I never even stopped to think about and in general discusses the way we use and talk about internet in a fascinating way. It draws parallels between historical and current events and is a must read for anyone who is...more

like · see review

Oct 29, 2011 John Carter McKnight rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: academic

A trenchant critique of internet utopianism, particularly in its uptake into American foreign policy. Morozov is a classic foreign policy realist and statist, but his analysis transcends his perspective.

The book could have stood editing: there are numerous redundancies and stock phrases that rival Homer's in frequency (the price of the book is about $0.10 for each use of "Clinton's seminal speech on Internet freedom"). Despite this tendency to gassiness, it's an exceptionally useful counter to...more

like · see review

Feb 09, 2013 Trav Hallen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: saass, 667

A great book that is well-written and thoughtfully argued.

The basic thesis is that the belief that the Web 2.0 will democratize the world is naive and ignores the lessons of history. If we regard Twitter and Facebook as the keys to the demise of authoritarian regimes, we ignore the fact that such regimes may also use the connectivity of such tools towards their own ends.

As Morozov highlights at the end of the book, to believe that technology will bring an end to authoritarianism is to ignore t...more

like · see review

Mar 01, 2013 David Dinaburg rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The first throes of modern Internet nostalgia have descended, and with it, the weight of reconciling not only life pre-‘net but the fresh idealism that always accompanies a shift in telecommunications (see: telegraph, telephone). Twitter’s constant deluge of compressed inanities and pointless musings have supplanted Usenet’s core of dedicated, experienced and technically savvy users. The internet used to have some barriers to entry; most of them were financial. If you were “online” it was becaus...more The first throes of modern Internet nostalgia have descended, and with it, the weight of reconciling not only life pre-‘net but the fresh idealism that always accompanies a shift in telecommunications (see: telegraph, telephone). Twitter’s constant deluge of compressed inanities and pointless musings have supplanted Usenet’s core of dedicated, experienced and technically savvy users. The internet used to have some barriers to entry; most of them were financial. If you were “online” it was because you wanted to be. But being plugged in back in the 1980s and 1990s didn’t imbue you with the title “Networking Scion” and lay upon your brow the gift of intelligent discourse.
Is it the 24 hour news cycle or the 140 character limit that is compressing the time requirement of nostalgia, or has it always been this way?

The brevity of the telegraph’s messages didn’t sit well with many literary intellectuals either; it may have opened access to more sources of information, but it also made public discourse much shallower. In 1889, the Spectator, one of the empire’s finest publications, chided the telegraph for causing “a vast diffusion of what is called ‘news,’ the recording of every event, and especially of every crime, everywhere without perceptible interval of time. The constant diffusion of statements in snippets...must in the end, one would think, deteriorate the intelligence of all to whom the telegraph appeal.”

It’s in spotting the exceptionalism that The Net Delusion does it most subtle and finest work. The Internet, the “American” internet, is often touted as a tool of disdain—used by the dregs of society—to bandy about wretched opinions, pointless gossip, and non-stop distraction. The caricature of the prototypical internet user has spawned a thousand memes—what they all have in common is a supreme lack of self-awareness; the internet isn’t a special club for the lonely and the broken, and the toxic self-destruction splashed across the Internet in an attempt to portray all Internet users negatively from other users on the Internet is deluded.

It’s only Americans and Europeans Google is presumed to be making stupid; for everyone else, it’s presumed to be a tool of enlightenment. While many in the West concede that the Internet has not solved and may have only aggravated many negative aspects of political culture—consider the rise of the “death panels”-kind of discourse—they are the first to proclaim that when it comes to authoritarian states, the Internet enables their citizens to see through the propaganda.

This internet exceptionalism—Orientalism in the digital age—does have an impact, conceptually:

The carefree way in which Western policymakers are beginning to throw around metaphors like “virtual walls” or “information curtains” is disturbing. Not only do such metaphors play up only certain aspects of the “Internet freedom” challenge (for example, the difficulty of sending critical messages into the target country), they also downplay other aspects (the fact that the Web can be used by the very government of the target country for the purposes of surveillance or propaganda).

The Net Delusion struggles against the common Western interpretation that life in the West is the Ur-template that can be extrapolated to life everywhere on the planet, while still maintaining that our online vices and negative habits won’t translate to the rest of the world. It is an absurdity to hold the Internet as a cesspool filled with anonymous, negative commentary and meaningless snark but also the last best hope of a free and connected global village. U.S. Foreign policy is not immune to this internet-dissonance:“Concerns over getting oil out of Azerbaijan won’t give way to concerns over getting tweets from the Azeri opposition anytime soon, if only because Washington has long made a strategic decision not to undermine the friendly Azeri regime.” The impetus and undercurrent of The Net Delusion is the belief that the West is attempting to repurpose the tools of the last major global conflict—the Cold War—simply replacing samizdat with blogs and awaiting the fall of the digital Berlin Wall collapse. Even the metaphors have been refashioned: "Ever since a 1997 article in Wired magazine dubbed this system “the Great Firewall of China,” most Western observers have relied on such mental imagery to conceptualize both the problem and the potential solutions." This makes for great headlines and catchy phrases, but it doesn't seem to bear much causal relationship to actual history:

Any information-centric account of the end of the Cold War is bound to prioritize the role of its users—dissidents, ordinary protesters, NGOs—and downplay the role played by structural, historical factors—the unbearable foreign debt accumulated by many Central European countries, the slowing down of the Soviet economy, the inability of the Warsaw Pact to compete with NATO....but if it turns out that the dissidents did not play much of a role in toppling communism, then the popular expectations about the new generation of Internet revolutions may be overblown as well.

The conflation of “net neutrality” with “Internet Freedom” furthers the international confusion of what direction, exactly, the Internet is headed, be it through government intervention, government control, or human impulse. That much of the modern Internet is built from American technology does not help refute the image that rather than "neutrality" or "freedom," internet access represents American imperialism, expansion; cyber-global Manifest Destiny. "Even though Google does not publicize this widely, Keyhole, the predecessor to Google Earth, which Google bought in 2005, was funded through In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s for-profit investment arm. That Google Earth is somehow a CIA-funded vehicle for destroying the world is a recurring theme in rare comments given by those working in security agencies of other countries." The perception, however untrue, of being painted as American agents is just as damaging for dissidents in authoritarian regimes. When—as the international article from Reuters stated—"The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it had contacted the social networking service Twitter to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that would have cut daytime service to Iranians who are disputing their election," it's hard to avoid the specter of undue influence of idealism in "neutral" corporations.

Moeed Ahmad, director of new media for Al-Jazeera, stated that fact-checking by his channel during the protests could confirm only sixty active Twitter accounts in Tehran, a number that fell to six once the Iranian authorities cracked down on online communications. This is not to understate the overall prominence of Iran-related news on Twitter in the first week of protests...it’s just that the vast majority of them were not authored or retweeted by those in Iran.

Twitter's impact was less for Iranians who were disputing the elections and more for Westerners congratulating themselves on push-button digital activism. The Internet isn’t a targeted samizdat, and a political message will likely only find those already predisposed to political action. With the internet comes entertainment:

[Researchers] found that those East German youth who could receive Western television were, overall, more satisfied and content with the regime; the ones who could not receive Western television were much more politicized, more critical of the regime, and, most interestingly, more likely to apply for exit visas. Thus, they wrote, “in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had attributed to religious beliefs in capitalism societies when he condemned religion as ‘opium of the people.’”

If popular opinion is taken as true, Western Democracies a depicted as effective governmental forms while their constituents are moronic, mouthbreathing basement dwellers who are incapable of parsing truth from propaganda, grown slothful and stupid on Huxleian bacchanalian excess. Totalitarian and Authoritarian governments are plodding, bumbling bloated corpses ready to fall, leading a driven and austere population, each and every one ready to give their freedom, lives, and family for the chance to blog their opinions and vote.

From the government’s perspective, it’s far better to keep young Russians away from politics altogether, having them consume funny videos on Russia’s own version of YouTube, RuTube (owned by Gazprom, the country’s state-owned energy behemoth), or on Russia.ru, where they might be exposed to a rare ideological message as well. Many Russians are happy to comply, not least because of the high quality of such online distractions. The Russian authorities may be onto something here: The most effective system of Internet control is not the one that has the most sophisticated and draconian system of censorship, but the one that has no need of censorship whatsoever.

The Internet is being treated like an analogue of the physical world when it suits the narrative to do so, and a unique location—cyberspace—the remainder of the time. It is treated like the communications tool that it is almost never.

Nations are now arguing about whether Google Earth Renders their borders in accordance with their wishes. Syria and Israel continue battling about how the contested Golan Heights territory should be listed in Facebook’s drop-down menus. Indian and Pakistan bloggers have been competing to mark parts of the contested territory of Kashmir as belonging to either of the two countries on Google Maps.

It seems more likely that the Internet will not dissolve nations and boundaries but further emphasis sects, enclaves, niches, or groups of like-minded individuals—confirmation bias, justification, and propaganda, coupled with the uncoupling of distance to time, will allow self-selection and group identity across an international landscape.

Tweets will not dissolve all of our national, cultural, and religious differences; they may actually accentuate them. The cyber-utopian belief that the Internet would turn us into uber-tolerant citizens of the world, all too eager to put our vile prejudices on hold and open up our minds to what we see on our monitors, has proved to be unfounded. In most cases, the only people who still believe in the ideal of an electronic global village are those who would have become tolerant cosmopolitans even without the Internet: the globe-trotting intellectual elite.

If you’re a Western user of the Internet,The Net Delusion will fill in some dark spots. There is a repetitious cadence to the ideas, which is to its benefit. It does take the mind a few attempts to grasp the basic concept presented precisely because it is contrary to everything being tossed around right now. In a few years, the rosy glow of nostalgia will color this era as simplistic: the dawn of participatory networks, maybe—or perhaps the fomenting of new wave of digital sectarian violence? Whatever broad brush the present is painted with in the future, the tenant of The Net Delusion will remain to as true then as it is now; the internet is not a tool unique to freedom—it’s just a tool:

In 2009 police in Azerbaijan reprimanded forty-three people who voted for an Armenian performer (Armenia and Azerbaijan are at war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabach territory) in the popular Eurovision contest, summoning some of them to police headquarters, where they were accused of undermining national security, and forced to write official explanations. The votes were cast by SMS.

Other types of governments can use it too.(less)

like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 Andrea rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Morozov has done extensive and excellent research on how the Internet is heralded as a democratizing tool on theory but how things happen in practice. He has looked at the wide context surrounding events such as the "Iranian Twitter Revolution", something we cannot say of many journalists and certainly not of Internet gurus. It also gives a good overview of people´s expectations to various technologies throughout history such as the telegraph and the airplane.
It is a serious book that is probab...more

1 like · like · see review

May 03, 2012 mingfrommongo rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

It should be obvious. The internet does not make us smart, or stupid, or better-looking (or get the weeds out of our lawns). It just gives us more opportunities to show how smart or stupid or good-looking we are. Yet there are many, in and out of government, who think that internet applications an achieve foreign policy goals by themselves. When the same class of idiots that said "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators" starts talking about "internet freedom" and "Twitter Revolutions", it's...more

like · see review

May 20, 2012 Bob rated it 3 of 5 stars

The internet has a dark side, a dark side in that it is not only those who love freedom and want others to be free that use it but dictators and tyrants use the net as well. The author shows how the net is used by those (both individuals and governments) who want to bring about change, specifically the toppling if oppressive regimes. He then evaluates the effectiveness of the net. By dealing with how the internet affects us socially and psychologically, he the reveals that the net has not been a...more

like · see review

Apr 01, 2011 Jeff Scott rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, internet

The ideas in this book are not unique. Social networking has many advantages, but people tend to exaggerate their performance and importance. In a general setting, this might hurt a corporations marketing plan, but Morozov does something different here. He discusses the problems with applying this notion that social networking and free internet in oppressed areas is the miracle drug that will free everyone. He argues that other causes lead to a successful revolution and to believe that the use o...more The ideas in this book are not unique. Social networking has many advantages, but people tend to exaggerate their performance and importance. In a general setting, this might hurt a corporations marketing plan, but Morozov does something different here. He discusses the problems with applying this notion that social networking and free internet in oppressed areas is the miracle drug that will free everyone. He argues that other causes lead to a successful revolution and to believe that the use of Twitter to organize and effective lead a revolution is foolish and dangerous, in particular to those on the front lines doing the tweeting. In fact, over reliance on its importance will counteract the revolutions efforts. Morozov is also very pessimistic in this book. Turning away from the warzone, he examines the lives of those supporting the revolution. He feels that they would support a revolution based on appearances and impressing their friends rather than truly feeling for the cause. To him, this kind of support is worse than no support at all as it also exaggerates the importance of events. Morozov seems to argue that we aren’t these freedom loving free thinkers, but selfish self-centered narcissists who don’t really care about revolutions or movements unless the support impresses their friends. This kind of cynicism rather ruins the book. Furthermore, he argues that a free internet has just lead to more passivity as people would prefer to look at lolcats online than start a revolution or do something more meaningful.

“While we thought the Internet might give us a generation of “digital renegades” it may have given us a generation of “digital captives”, who know how to find comfort online, whatever the political realities of the physical world.” P. 70

Believing that free internet, communication, and social networking is extremely effective for starting a revolution is a fallacy. In fact, the use of these tools can lead to exposure for those tweeting the revolution, in some ways counterbalancing that revolution by exposing the leaders, their friends, and associates. Furthermore, how that same information can be used by the regime to fool other participants aiding in rounding them up. Most of his examples are based on the failed Iranian Green Revolution, in which he argues that there weren’t that many people tweeting from within Iran and it wasn’t the best means of communication, and those that used it (90% of those who did) were captured by authorities.

It’s interesting to note that since this book has been published, many of Morozov’s assumptions are put immediately to the test, and I believe it passes that test in this context. He compares how western government used media to subvert Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe. He demonstrates that many western nations are attempting to do the same thing to dictatorships in the Middle East and other countries and how that philosophy is a flawed one. In this section I think there is a clear distinction in how the regimes fell in the Soviet Union and how they fell recently in Tunisia, Egypt, but NOT in Libya.

Excerpt from section:
“On this reading, the East German regime was simply unwilling to crack down on the first wave of protests in Leipzig, well aware that it was heading for a collective suicide. Furthermore, in 1989, unlike in 1956 or 1968, the Kremlin, ruled by a new generation of leaders who still had vivid memories of the brutality of their r predecessors, didn’t think that bloody crackdowns were a good idea, and East Germany’s senior leaders were too weak and hesitant to do it alone.” P. 53

Western nations also have a level of hypocrisy according to Morozov. They want to have increased access to the internet and social networking believing that this freedom will lead to democracy and countries to act more like them. When they find that the technology only emboldens others to expand THEIR influence as opposed to adopting the West’s viewpoints, quiet censorship takes place.

The Revolution will not be tweeted is the section of the book receiving so much attention, particularly from Malcolm Gladwell. In this section, he compares Twitter and Facebook to coffeehouses in the 18th century and Kierkegaard’s disdain for them. He believes that the short chatter instead of long and deep thought does not lead to action. Someone who does something because they saw it on twitter is less likely to do take action because of the cause is important, but that all their friends are doing it. Peer pressure controls that action more than the increased attention to the issue through social networking. This particular section is rather condescending and probably has received the most criticism over the work, but the essay section provides the seed to the entire book. It is only one component, but it wraps up his entire discussion very thoroughly. Social networking is a tool that can be used along with all the other tools available and its use for any action on its own is questionable.

"A further clarification might be in order at this point. The border between cyber-utopianism and cyber-naivete is a blurry one. In fact, the reason why so many politicians and journalists believe in the power of the Internet is because they have not given this subject much thought. Their faith is not the result of a careful examination of how the Internet is being used by dictators or how it is changing the culture of resistance and dissent. On the contrary, most often it's just unthinking acceptance of conventional wisdom, which posits that since authoritarian governments are censoring the Internet, they must be really afraid of it. Thus, according to this view, the very presence of a vibrant internet culture greatly increases the odds that such regimes will collapse." (I'm not sure I agree with this section. I think the believe is that freedom of expression leads to democratic action. This is a tool that helps expand that freedom of expression. However, he is right that the tool doesn't make it happen, the absence of oppression makes that happen). (less)

1 like · like · see review

May 25, 2013 Forrest rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: cbr5

The following is a joint review of two books by Evgeny Morozov and is cross-posted in both review sections.

This is going to be a very atypical review. In reading The Net Delusion and Click Here, I was attempting to develop a cohesive personal position on the problems of internet advocacy. There is a lot of literature and scholarly articles on the benefits of using the internet in the cause of advocacy, either as a method of raising awareness or as a means to a fundraising end, but there is very...more

like · see review

Feb 28, 2013 Pliss Quern rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Wow cool thanks goodreads for losing my review. This'll be a lot shorter than it was previously.

My dad got me this for Christmas because I'm into "the internet and stuff". Which is true. I am also into being bored, miserable and seeking attention. Wow.

Initially, with its snarky title and chapters like "Orwell's favourite lolcat", I was sceptical, but this is a book which is easily accessible to people with scarce knowledge of technology or foreign policy (such as myself) whilst avoiding excessiv...more

like · see review

Jan 21, 2012 Chris Bronsk rated it 3 of 5 stars

Morozov attacks both cyber-utopians (if there are any still out there) and neoliberal triumphalists who want to credit the Internet for, well, just about anything that benefits them. These critiques sound very much like mainstream globalization debates with some anti-capitalist rhetoric refocused toward the Internet and digital media communication technologies. That is, nothing new. But this book is nevertheless an important critique for how Morozov, through his lively style and effective use of...more

like · see review

Aug 31, 2011 Ivan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: newmedia

The Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo said “Internet is God’s gift to the Chinese people.” But Evgeny Morozov isn’t easily cajoled by that statement. He draws as far as Huxley and Orwell’s views towards authoritarian governments in their works Brave New World (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948) to prove that evangalists’s discourse on the Internet is wrong. He’s critical towards the hypocritical US Government’s Internet policies, the profit-sucker Silicon Valley companies, and the generation of c...more

like · see review

Feb 08, 2011 Joshua rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: iran, technology-internet, americanforeignpolicy

This is an interesting book that makes good points. Sure, it sets up straw men, but the "the Internet will save the world" crowd can really get ahead of itself, so refuting seemingly ridiculous arguments is sometimes in order here. Where the net delusion goes wrong is in trying to take its hard headed pessimism too far, and ending up contradicting itself. The Internet cant be both an ineffective way for progressives to organize popular protest and an effective way for reactionaries to organize p...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 12, 2012 Phil rated it 4 of 5 stars

Comprehensive rebuttal to those who believe that the internet will liberate the world. The best part is when he discusses how modern regimes have chose overt Huxleyian methods of control (distraction) while surreptitiously employing Orwellian surveillance methods. This came out months before the 2011 Arab Spring, but his discussion that democracy is deeper than ballot boxes and that the internet cannot create political order on its own still holds water.

like · see review

title link	preview: The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom
avg rating	preview: The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom Goodreads rating: 3.70 (360 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10003400-the-net-delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1297025324l/10003400.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10003400-the-net-delusion?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom by Evgeny Morozov[/url]

The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (12)

Videos About This Book

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Evgeny Morozov

Books by Evgeny Morozov

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About El desengaño de i...