'…while to be against “the Internet” is unhelpful, it’s perfectly okay…to be against “because the Internet”…
…a mode of argumentation…that seeks to replace political argumentation—about the future of education or publishing or healthcare—with just one reductionist argument: “Because … the Internet.” Thus, we are invited to accept MOOCs, the disappearance of high-quality journalism, the threat to serious literary publishing, the constant push to get citizens more anxious about their health based on the same argument: all these sacrifices must be made because the “Internet” is here and it’s taking no hostages. This is an argument that might boost the public importance of “Internet experts” but it’s weak tea as far as public deliberation is concerned.
'…remember that the early days of the internet were driven by counterculture figures who indulged in psychedelic drugs and saw computer technology as a mind-expanding, salvific force. They valued cooperation, sharing, liberation from governments and corporations. Information sharing and openness were built into the protocols of the internet.But they rejected commercialism and profit motives. In their early days, the CEOs of Google and Facebook rejected advertising and commercialism. This didn’t last long…'
In the technocratic world of Google (which owns YouTube), my musical brethren and I are no longer artists; we’re not creators—we are merely ‘content providers.’ Copyright and intellectual property mean nothing to the technocracy. They’ve built multi-billion-dollar, global empires on the backs of creative, working people who are uncompensated. They’re wrecking entire industries…There might be a legislative fix, but there seems to be no political will. Google alone has about a dozen lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Google spent over $11 million last year on lobbying and over $18 million the previous year. They spread the money and the propaganda around like manna, employing their favorite buzz words like ‘innovation.’ Regulation, they say, will ‘stifle innovation, and the legislators all nod in agreement.
…women who are harassed online are expected to either get over ourselves or feel flattered in response to the threats made against us…But no matter how hard we attempt to ignore it, this type of gendered harassment—and the sheer volume of it—has severe implications for women’s status on the Internet. Threats of rape, death, and stalking can overpower our emotional bandwidth, take up our time, and cost us money through legal fees, online protection services, and missed wages. I’ve spent countless hours over the past four years logging the online activity of one particularly committed cyberstalker, just in case. And as the Internet becomes increasingly central to the human experience, the ability of women to live and work freely online will be shaped, and too often limited, by the technology companies that host these threats, the constellation of local and federal law enforcement officers who investigate them, and the popular commentators who dismiss them—all arenas that remain dominated by men, many of whom have little personal understanding of what women face online every day.