Shirky squares the circle

By K.N.C. | OTTAWA

FOR wizened cyberpunks, it is a seemingly timeless debate: does the internet inherently promote openness and democracy, or can it just as easily strengthen the hand of authoritarian regimes? A decade ago Andrew Shapiro's book "The Control Revolution" argued the former, while Shanthi Kalathil's and Taylor Boas's tome "Open Networks, Closed Regimes" dissented. This week sees the publication of "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom" by Evgeny Morozov, which sides with the pessimists.

The argument usually ends in a stalemate of competing anecdotes. Street protests organised by mobile text messages successfully oust Philippine President Joseph Estrada in 2001; Iran's supposedly Twitter-powered Green Movement gets quashed in 2009. And so on. Clay Shirky, one of the preeminent public intellectuals of the internet, who has previously sided with cyber-utopian optimists, has now elegantly squared the circle by establishing an intellectual framework to consider the topic in "The Political Power of Social Media", an article in the current Foreign Affairs. (Users must register to access the complete essay, but it is free.) Mr Shirky's essay makes three principal contributions to the debate.

First, Mr Shirky separates the technical tools from the environment in which they exist (something that Mr Morozov, in his new book, also insists is vital). For example, the call by Hillary Clinton, America's secretary of state, for anti-censorship software to assist cyber-dissidents—the common "instrumental" view—is found wanting. It is too narrowly applied to specific cases. And it eases the flow of information in a 20th century broadcast-model way, rather than an inter-networked way among individuals. This provides a modest benefit to freedom of information—reports can get out of a country where the government has cracked down—but not so much to freedom of speech or assembly, which the internet also provides. "Access to information is far less important, politically, than access to conversation," Mr Shirky writes. More useful is to take an "environmental" view: promoting communications to change the setting, to assist the public sphere generally.

Second, his essay distinguishes between short-term goals and long-term objectives. Most debates over cyberspace versus sovereignty get bogged down by looking for immediate effects. Mr Shirky rightly avoids this. He notes that the technology's primacy is measured in longer time scales. Its importance lies in lowering the cost of communication and coordination. The argument goes like this: enabling people to communicate among themselves strengthens civil society. This in turn exposes the contradictions between what the authorities say and what truly exists—creating what Mr Shirky calls a "conservative dilemma" (employing a term from media studies). Thus the groundwork is set for reform. The technology simply helped it happen. (Mr Shirky cites Eastern Europe casting off communism to support his point, but the example is more than a bit exaggerated, as Mr Morozov explains in his book.)

Mr Shirky's third contribution is to recast the debate over the impact of technology on political power by elevating the role of the public. It is no longer a matter of assisting geeks to use encryption software; it is about promoting civic discussions and organization within the society at large. "Internet freedom is a long game, to be conceived of and supported not as a separate agenda but merely as an important input to the more fundamental political freedoms," he writes.

Framing the debate in this way points to what enlightened policy for 21st century digital diplomacy might look like. And it exposes the American government's admirable efforts, but also its shortcomings. Mr Shirky recommends that America change its emphasis from promoting open international internet traffic for Google and YouTube in favour of encouraging internal communications within authoritarian countries, to foster the public sphere. America should also engage with companies and create a legal framework for open communications, akin to the rules over protests in a shopping mall, considering that the technical platforms for dialogue are privately owned and operated.

There is even a delightful irony in his prescription. Among the groups Mr Shirky proposes that American embrace is WikiLeaks. His essay was evidently penned before the site was cursed by American officials for releasing hundreds of US diplomatic cables onto the net. America can benefit from promoting social media, he concludes, "even though that may mean accepting short-term disappointment". If only he had known what was to come.

Between the cyber-utopians and cyber-pessimists, Mr Shirky has articulated an astute framework and found a sensible middle ground. His essay lays out a clearer way to think about the issue and exchange views. It is now up to today's digital diplomats to take heed.