Marhshall McLuhan argued that in each socio-cultural era
the medium in which information is created and transmitted
determines the essential characteristics of that culture. He
also predicted the evolution of an interconnected "global village". The shift from a centralized media industry
modeled on industrial revolution structures to a
decentralized chaotic information-age soup is having a
profound effect on the messages we exchange and shaping the
characteristics of our culture. The global village comes to
a crescendo with podcasting, and you can participate in the
revolution with tools that are easily within reach: your
imagination, the computer you're using to read this web
page, and a video camera. We're not going to predicting
what's next, as that's going to depend on what you, yes you,
plan to do with new media. If the flutter of one butterfly wing, can
trigger a chain reaction of events resulting in a storm
half-way across the planet, imagine the effect millions, or
billions, of individually produced videos will have on the
characteristic of the global village and the media
landscape.
Jessica Ice on 26 Jan 09Anonymous communication is seen as the cornerstone of an Internet culture that promotes sharing and free speech and is overtly anti-establishment. Anonymity, so the argument goes, ensures governments cannot spy on citizens and thus guarantees privacy and free speech. The recommendations of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's conference on "Anonymous Communication Policies for the Internet" [1] support this view. Among the findings were that "online anonymous communication is morally neutral" and that "it should be considered a strong human and constitutional right." This view is fundamentally mistaken; by allowing anonymous communication we actually risk an incremental breakdown of the fabric of our society. The price of our freedoms is not, I believe, anonymity, but accountability. Unless individuals and, more importantly, governments can be held accountable, we lose all recourse to the law and hence risk our very freedom. The following sections argue this in more detail and suggest the only real solution is more openness, not less.
