Firmly held opinions on the social role of information and communication
technology (a.k.a. "the internet") suffer from a problem. They assume (or
presume) that one is either "for it" or "against it", or still trying to
make up one's mind.  There is much more at stake here than having a
position. A recent well ment posting in reponse to comments by me wrote:

"I have had this same debate with Sam before. I do not
denigrate his energy and enthusiasm to use the Internet for
good, but I do not agree with his metaphysical vision that
the Internet and network/computer technologies are somehow
inherently benevolent."

There is a grave error in analysis, or oversight, here that puts us on a
very slippery slope. First, my dialectical vision (thought and practice
are the furnace from which we forge our reality) of ICT is that it is a
space for social process, and one in which humans are able to REPRODUCE
MOST OF THE GOOD AND BAD that they have forged in the literal, religious
and psychological territories we now inhabit.  To repeat: A place where
society (read: capitalism, democracy, saints, organized crime, lovers,
idiots, etc.) will conduct important elements of what it does with and to
each other, for good and for bad.

I don't think it is inherently benevolent. If I and those I work with
thought that we would be sitting on a sunny beach drinking rum and
celebrating the fact that this particular technology is going to save us.
The fact that we are in the trenches trying to push history this way,
rather than that way, is evidence that we do not see it as an "inherently
benovolent" technological force.

We see it as a battle ground for common struggle. To miss that point is to
miss everything. To just have firmly held opinions is a luxury of those
for whom the outcome doesn't really matter. That is part of the "If I'm
okay, eveything must be okay", or "Nothing can be done so nothing matters"
crowd.

In fact, the metaphysical element in the vision (and all "visions" have
this element)  is that it is a territory in which the forces of democracy
and accoutability need to carry on the self-same fights that we carry out
on a day to day basis in literal space.

 To struggle for a better society (to "dream" in the Martin Luther King
style is still possible) we cannot ignore this electronic venue as a
social change workspace. To do so would be a leave an important and
powerful space to others, most of whom are the source of the problems we
are trying to deal with.

If many of us have beliefs in this area, the reduce to two: The first is
that this electronic venue is just as real for social struggle as are the
'literal spaces' we are more familiar with. The second is that in the long
run this venue will be much more important for social struggle (for
building civil society) than it will be for purely economic and commercial
activity. All of that economic stuff will occur of course but the big
struggles will be over social issues and not consumer protection in online
purchases.

To understand this is not to see this space as inherently benovolent,
quite the reverse. It is to see it as a high stakes territory. To not
understand this and sit firmly in the technophobe or technophile camp is
to be away frolicing at the beach while the world burns.

We have two choices, to sit and wait (in vain) for deliverance, while
having this or that firmly held opinion, or to get in the trenches and
work. While many of us in the trenches will be see to lean this way or
that way on a give day, we do believe that the right place to be is in the
trenches. The struggle to realize a potential is quite different from a
belief that things will come of their own accord.

At least, that is the view from the trenches.

Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>