cj#474> MEME 2.03: Myth of Digital Nirvana


Richard Moore

Date:         Sun, 18 Feb 1996
From: "David S. Bennahum" <•••@••.•••>
Subject:      MEME 2.03
To: Multiple recipients of list MEME <•••@••.•••>

meme: (pron. 'meem') A contagious idea that replicates  like a virus,
passed on from mind to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses
do, propagating through communication networks and face-to-face contact
between people.  Derived from the word "memetics," a field of study which
postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural evolution. Examples
of memes include melodies, icons, fashion statements and phrases.

MEME 2.03

In this issue of MEME:

                 o Untied Nodes of Internet -- are we forming a digital nation?
                 o Call for Comments from Around the World.

If you're like me in just two ways -- you live in the United States and
subscribe to a lot of electronic discussion groups -- chances are your
email box is brimming with alerts, updates and invective about the "end of
the Internet."

The Internet -- or cyberspace -- reached one of those rare and crucial
junctures in its history this February.  As you probably know, the Congress
of the United States passed a law called the Communications Decency Act
(CDA) making it a felony to transmit "indecent" or "patently offensive"
material on-line.  This law, signed by President Clinton, is now in
quasi-limbo, awaiting a final verdict from US judiciary on its
constitutionality.  I will not tire you with the logistical details of this
process, other than to invite you to visit Voters Telecommunications Watch
(http://www.vtw.org/) which contains plenty of information on the timetable
and the bill's history.  You can also read my editorial opposing the bill,
printed in the New York Times last May

But why is this a critical juncture?  No, it is not because the Internet
will be "shut down" as some argue.  It is not because the CDA passed.  This
is a critical juncture because the CDA is pushing avid users of the
Internet towards a self-defining decision, a decision with long-term
consequences.  At the heart of this decision is a basic question: will we
deal with the real world or retreat into our own private delusion -- one
which places cyberspace above and beyond the realities of the physical

The Myth of Digital Nirvana

Some people believe cyberspace is separate from the realities of the
physical world.  They argue that cyberspace, because it is "not where
bodies live" is the inevitable catalyst which will usher in a new, better
world.  The CDA is then just another example of foolish, ham-fisted
government.  Government, according to these prophets, a vestige of
primitive society, will soon become obsolete, replaced by a society of
mind.  So who cares what governments think?  Why not just wait out these
times of troubles until the new world is unveiled?  Don't roll your eyes
yet -- serious people, at least serious in the sense that they get media
attention and the public sees them as representatives of cyberspace, argue

"This bill was enacted upon us by people who haven't the slightest idea
who we are or where our conversation is being conducted. It is, as my
good friend and Wired Editor Louis Rossetto put it, as though 'the
illiterate could tell you what to read.'

Well, fuck them.

Or, more to the point, let us now take our leave of them. They have
declared war on Cyberspace. Let us show them how cunning, baffling,
and powerful we can be in our own defense."

That quote comes from "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace," by
John Perry Barlow (http://www.eff.org/homes/barlow.html).  Barlow, a
co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org), former
Grateful Dead tunemaster (an American rock and roll band) and cattle
rancher is perceived by the public and the media as a messenger
representing the views of a new wired culture.  So, his opinions do matter.
This declaration of independence, written the week after the CDA became
law, is the best encapsulation to date of all that is wrong with seeing
cyberspace as separate from the rest of the world.  (You can read a copy at
http://www.reach.com/matrix/barlow.html).  It is wrong because it invites
people to ignore reality, and sit with their thumbs in their eyes while the
real world passes them by.

Reality Check

The Internet received direct US Federal funding until April of 1995,
through the National Science Foundation which managed the high-capacity
fiber backbone (in April, management was turned over to private industry).
Today the Internet receives indirect Federal funding through government
agencies which use the Internet to distribute information to the public and
from Federal research grants to universities conducting research that the
US government wants to promote.  NASA is one such institution, MIT is
another.  All the protocols governing the exchange of information through
the Internet -- things like FTP, TCP/IP, HTTP, SMTP -- were set by
standards bodies, a de facto kind of government.

The Internet is a wonderful product, the beneficiary of a rare kind of
international cooperation.  In a world where the dynamics of the free
market are hailed as the best way to manage systems, the Internet is a
great, and fascinating, example of a successful collective.  Too easily we
dismiss this phenomenon, but the development of the Internet is remarkable.
It flies in the face of those who argue government is inherently
inefficient and tyrannical -- a vestige of some primitive cycle in human
evolution.  I cannot fathom how Internet users like Barlow can dismiss the
importance or role of government in shaping this medium, and that it can
have no positive influence from now on.  Was the US government not a
primary influence behind the development of the Internet, from 1969 (the
year the Pentagon started funding research on packet networks) to 1995?

In the world of polemic, invective and hyperbole, history is nothing more
than fiction to be manipulated to suit the appropriate end.  So when Barlow
trashes government by claiming:

"Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can
build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It
is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions."

I look back at the Pentagon, the Defense Department, the American
universities with Federal funds paying AT&T, Sun Microsystems, and others
to build a network of cables and computers and telephone lines and I think,
what is he talking about?  Government built the heart of this thing with
real money -- the kind you get by collecting taxes.  An "act of nature" is
a rain storm or the moon rising, it is not the spontaneous birthing of
packet network spanning the globe.

Anyway, having ditched history, Barlow presents a simple solution to
problems which might interest governments, like phone sex companies
advertising their services through web-pages featuring nude women and
orgasmic audio tracks (http://www.cyberslut.com/cyber.html):

"You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve.  You use
this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts.  Many of these problems
don't exist.  Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we
will identify them and address them by our means.  We are forming our own
Social Contract."

I'm wondering what it means to form a social contract in cyberspace, one
with the kind of authenticity and authority of a constitution.  Sounds
great in theory, but I don't actually "live" in cyberspace -- I live in New
York city, in the state of New York, in the United States of America.  I
guess I'm taking things too literally.  Apparently my "mind" lives in
cyberspace and that's what counts.  It's my vestigial meat-package, also
known as my body, which lives in New York.  Government, geography, my body
-- all are obsolete now thanks to "cyberspace that new home of mind,"
Barlow explains.  That's why, speaking to government, Barlow argues:

"Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and
context do not apply to us.  They are based on matter.  There is no matter

This philosophy is a Potemkin village, a sham of language, which serves to
create its own self-contained universe of logic where the real world is
always wrong and the cyber world is always right.  It is not a universe I
want to live in.

This is the cyberspace I know -- and there are lots of them.

The essay you are now reading is being disseminated, initially, to the
readers of MEME -- a bi-weekly newsletter I author.  At last check, MEME
had 2500 subscribers in 54 different nations.  A sample: Iran, Pakistan,
Singapore, Turkey, Chile, India, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Japan, England,
the United States, Ukraine.  This is the world into which this essay goes.
What might I ask, are the binding values between the nations I mention
above -- Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Secular -- Democracy, Monarchy,
Theocracy?  How do we "form our own Social Contract", as Barlow proposes?
Is it realistically possible?  Each and every reader of MEME is
participating in the creation of Cyberspace.  How, cutting through the
digital polemic, do we then, as supposed "cyber-citizens" or "netizens" act
in consort to form a community with the depth of complexity equivalent to a
geographic nation?  The last time I checked, some of these countries on my
subscription list were in state of near war, yet we are all expected to
form some autonomous, self-governing community on-line,  bypassing the very
real history of Homo Sapiens?  Unless the last 30,000 years of recorded
human history are suddenly null and void, I think the odds of pulling that
off in the near future are pretty low.

So this ostensible solution of creating a parallel government in cyberspace
will not work anytime soon.  Why is this then a center piece of debate over
establishing standards for cyberspace?

What will work?

Computer networks and the communications they carry are products of people,
and people live by geography, in physical space, under the rule of law.
Cyberspace then will be governed by people in the context of their culture.
The great challenge is to create a set of standards which somehow bridges
this incredible range of cultures, while allowing people the freedom to
communicate.  Part of what makes this difficult to solve is the mystique
surrounding cyberspace, as if the whole thing were one monolithic
environment.  It is not.  Cyberspace is actually a set of different
communications tools, each of which should be treated differently.  One end
can be marked "private" and the other end "public."  The more "public" a
forum, the greater the rights of society; the more "private" the greater
the rights of the individual.  In the real world, life is a constant
balancing act, a perpetual negotiation.  Cyberspace is part of the real
world.  By forcing this debate into a "winner takes all" do or die
struggle, we get to avoid the tedium of negotiating, arguing and trading to
reach a consensus.  But that, in the end, is the tried and true way of
succeeding.  So to start with, here are examples of what I mean by
different communications tools, ranging from the private to the public.

Electronic Mail, one-to-one.
Internet Rely Chat (by invitation only.)
File Transfer Protocol (Password protected.)
CU-SeeMe Video conferencing (point-to-point, by invitation only.)
Internet Audio Telephone (point-to-point, by invitation only.)
World Wide Web (password protected sites.)

Electronic Mail-based distribution lists (like MEME).
File Transfer Protocol (Anonymous, no password required.)
Usenet News.
Internet Relay Chat (Open, no invitation needed.)
World Wide Web (no password required.)
CU-SeeMe Video conferencing (open reflector site, no password required.)

There is a precedent for seeing media this way (in the United States).  The
content of telephone conversations is seen as private, and moving through
the spectrum of media the other extreme is broadcast television.  Broadcast
television is the ultimate public medium (and hence faces the most public
restrictions on content).  In between the telephone and television you get
a series of media, moving from private to public, with print,
videocassettes and film falling in the middle.  The tricky thing with
cyberspace is that it is all these mediums rolled into one.  When Yahoo!, a
popular Web site, gets 14 million hits a day, that starts to look a lot
like television.  This newsletter, sent to several thousand people who
subscribe, looks a lot like print -- bit more regulated than a phone call,
but a lot less regulated than a television show.  Yet the technology behind
MEME and Yahoo! is the same.

I don't think a lot of lawmakers really understand this.  That's one good
reason why we must work to demystify cyberspace.  Prose that keeps this
medium mysterious only serves to increase confusion and does more harm than
good.  Legislators, unfamiliar with this medium, look askance to rhetoric
which simply tells them they are dinosaurs trudging towards the dust bin of
history.  Their response is to listen to the stimulus they do understand:
politics.  What we can do, as people who cherish this medium, is work to
get it in the hands of those who set our laws.  Unfamiliarity with the
medium is cyberspace's worst enemy.

Lost in the shuffle may be the important fact of why cyberspace is worth
nurturing: it is a medium, which for the first time in the history of the
world, gives one person the power to reach another person or a million
people equally easily.  Never before has such power rested in hands of
non-elites, such as television companies and governments.  Wider access to
power is the essence of what is great about the Internet, acting like
vaccine for a world where information is consolidating into the hands of a
few media-monoliths.  But this power is also the source of the Internet's
own potential undoing.  Greater power for each of us requires greater
responsibility.  That's the flip side of the equation -- are we up to that

I see this as the start of an essential and self-defining discussion.  I am
extremely interested to hear from readers who do not live in the United
States, especially those living under laws separate from the traditions of
secular democracies.  What is your impression of the limits of acceptable
behavior in cyberspace?  Can we reach a consensus, as a global medium?  Do
you feel the debate over free-speech in the United States is a universal
debate, which speaks to you?  Do you think, as a group, Internet users can
form a community able to justly govern itself?

My intention is to gather these comments, and make them available to
everyone in a future issue of MEME.  If you wish to keep your identity
confidential, I will do so.  Your thoughts matter, because only through
dialogue can we reach consensus.

The contents of Meme are (c) 1995 by David S. Bennahum.  Pass on the Meme
anywhere you want, including other discussion lists, just be sure to keep
this signature file at the end.

Meme propagates bi-weekly.  You can subscribe to Meme directly via email by
emailing •••@••.••• with a message that reads "subscribe
MEME firstname lastname" where firsname is replaced by your first name and
lastname by your last name (do not include the quote symbols.)  Visit the
WWW home of Meme at Into the Matrix:

Send comments to •••@••.•••.


 Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
   Cyber-Rights:  http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.