Net Neutrality and Public Sphere

Net neutrality in terms of politics and government often refers to regulations, policies and censorship. For the purpose of this discussion, we look at net neutrality in two ways: (a) freedom of political debate in public sphere and (b) governmental policies pertaining to Internet regulations and censorship.

When it comes to public sphere, countries with democratic polity often take the concept of public sphere for granted. Noted German philosopher Jurgen Habermas describes political sphere as a society which has engaged in and will continue to engage in critical political debate [1]. According to him, one of the important conditions of political sphere is the fact that all citizens must have access to the ongoing debate which is aimed at forming some sort of consensus or public opinion [2]. As compared to other mediums, Internet, though not perfect, can be considered as a suitable medium for existence of public sphere. For the existence of an active public sphere, citizens require information and expert views, which can be used to frame issues and push public opinions as well as challenge existing norms in different aspects of public sphere. Internet has a potential to provide the medium where extensive information can be made available (news, expert opinion blogs, etc.), and platforms can be provided for further debate and discussions (social network, comments, etc.). For this reason, net neutrality is extremely critical when it comes to public communication. In fact, the existence of net neutrality is responsible for the effectiveness of Internet as a forum for public debate [3].

Numerous examples of Internet activism has been observed in the recent past. The Arab Spring, though not triggered by the internet and social media, is once such event the Internet played a central role in shaping political debates [4]. Similarly, the Occupy movement that spread across more than 25 countries effectively used the Internet for communication and dissemination of information. Academicians in the recent past have studied Internet as a tool for political deliberation as well [5]. Internet provides newer and more accessible ways for political participation as well as to acquire information previously inaccessible. This can include in depth information of the backgrounds and political history of candidates, past deeds good or bad etc. [6].

Online petitions (e.g. Jan Lok Pal Bill in India), direct questioning of candidates (e.g. 2007 CNN-YouTube debates that invited questions from public) has seen a rise across the world. While the efficacy of Internet is debatable and matter of further research, Internet does provide a very vibrant platform for communication in the public sphere.

Net neutrality proponents argue that allowing ISPs to decide on this flow of information will be highly detrimental to the public sphere. ISPs, if left unchecked, can easily slow down or block website content that go against political ideologies or corporate profits. Absence of net neutrality has the potential to turn the Internet to what television has become today [7]. Just like a news broadcast house selects what news go on television and in what order and time, the Internet users may also get to read the content the ISPs want to promote, have political or commercial interests in. With selective promotion or blockage of content, ISPs and their partners can convert and exploit the Internet into another agenda setting medium. Thus, net neutrality becomes highly critical for public sphere as it is an essential element of free speech, which is the prerequisite for healthy public debate and political participation.

The second, more critical aspect in the net neutrality issue refers to regulatory censorship and governmental policies. A brief look at some of the Internet governance and net neutrality / related policies will indicate that from West to East, governments have shown different attitudes towards the issue of Internet governance.

Censorship is probably one of the biggest threats to net neutrality, especially in the public sphere. To further the debate, we consider the example of China. China’s Internet Censorship policy take blocking content over the Internet to the extreme. The Great Firewall of China blocks access to various websites such as Google, Facebook to name a few, as these sites refuse to block certain type of content that the Chinese government does not wish to release to its people. Officially referred to as the Golden Shield project, the firewall it is achieved using sophisticated Internet Protocols that enable selective content to go through to the end user. Content is often filtered and blocked based on keywords (e.g. Tiananmen) or specific websites (Twitter, Facebook, Google search etc.). In some cases web content on websites is temporarily disrupted. For example, on October 1, 2014, Yahoo services were disrupted as China sought to control information coming from Hong Kong democracy movement from reaching mainland readers. Just two days before, on October 29, 2014, Facebook’s photo-sharing application Instagram became inaccessible in China. [8].

While China is an extreme example of censorship and lack of net neutrality, it’s implications on net neutrality globally cannot be ignored. China shows that technologically, it is possible to create selective access and temporary blockage of web content. The bigger problem is that, this practice can be easily replicated by governments and corporate giants for purposes of personal agenda or profits. By keeping the practice of selective flow of information sparse and low key, net neutrality can be easily compromised.

While largely, we agree that net neutrality is essential for vibrant and active public sphere, complete lack of governance on Internet is proving to be extremely tricky in today’s era. The debatable outcome of Arab Spring, emergence of ISIS terrorist group and their usage of social media to influence and recruit far beyond their boundaries, has raised essential questions on security at large. Proponents promoting Internet regulations also state that blocking content on the web becomes a necessity with issues of public safety and law and order. Volatile matter on the social networking sites or defamatory video content can trigger be socially unacceptable or may lead to outrage creating law and order situations. There have been instances where governments have selectively blocked access to Internet pages, for example, UK government with the help of Google identified search terms that would restrict content related to child pornography [9]. During one recent incident of communal clashes in Gujarat India, government ordered temporary suspension of mobile internet and text messaging services. The government justified this move by stating that it was done with an intention to stop the clashes from spreading across other parts [10]. While, such issues do have some value and raise concerns for need of selective and responsible Internet governance, giving the power of governance to select few ISPs may not be the way forward.

For the purpose of this debate, we conclude that as far as public sphere is concerned, net neutrality is critical. Lack of net neutrality, and permission to ISPs to govern the Internet sphere will convert Internet into a mass medium comparable with today’s radio or television, which is largely in existence for corporate growth and profits only. Net neutrality is essential to achieve information and media literacy. Openness of the Internet is essential for self-empowerment, critical thinking and evaluation of information. If information is available selectively, the completeness of the information will be in question, thus, affecting the quality of public communication and debate in the public sphere.

References:

[1] Habermas, Jürgen (German (1962) English Translation 1989).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Thomas Burger. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 52. ISBN 0-262-58108-6.

[2] Habermas, Jürgen (German (1962) English Translation 1989).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Thomas Burger. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 27. ISBN 0-262-58108-6.

[3] Barron, B. (2007). The Importance of Network Neutrality to the Internet's Role in the Public Sphere. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 3(1), 90-105.

[4] Howard, P.N., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W. & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?. Seattle: PIPTI. Retrieved September 29, 2014 from http://pitpi.org/index.php/2011/09/11/opening-closed-regimes-what-was-the-role-of-social-media-during-the-arab-spring/

[5] Warnick, B. (2007). Rhetoric online: Persuasion and politics on the World Wide Web (Vol. 12). Peter Lang.

[6] Bowen, C. (1996) Modem Nation: The Handbook of Grassroots American Activism Online. New York: Random House.

[7] Barton, M. D. (2005). The future of rational-critical debate in online public spheres. Computers and Composition, 22(2), 177-190.

[8] Yahoo Restricted in China as Hong Kong Protests Spur New Control. (2014). Retrieved October 3, 2014, from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-30/yahoo-restricted-in-china-as-hong-kong-protests-spur-new-control.html

[9] Hyland, J. (2013, November 25). UK government moves to clamp down on Internet, citing child pornography. Retrieved from http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/11/25/goog-n25.html

[10] Bhan, R. (2014, September 29). 40 Arrested After Communal Clashes in Vadodara in Gujarat. Retrieved from http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/40-arrested-after-communal-clashes-in-vadodara-in-gujarat-599209