Is anarchy the answer?

There are few, if any, uncontrolled spaces left in society. Public parks close at night, loitering laws prevent unsanctioned gathering, and protests are carefully monitored for incitement. When the internet became widely accessible (which I totally believed I was on the front lines of as an 8 year old), I felt it was the new frontier - where the masses could not be contained, subdued, or controlled. It was poetic, anarchic, and at first glance, kind of beautiful?

Screen Grab from "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"

In 1996, John Perry Barlow wrote A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, a moving, libertarian rant against the American Telecommunications Reform Act. As a poli sci girlie, it ticks all the boxes of a classic manifesto for me -discussing government overreach, the anonymous bodiless masses, the anger the American founding father would feel, and the “righteousness of anarchy".

It may seem standard and harmless(?), but where the alarm bells in my brain start going odd is when I start to read between the lines and see what exactly he is writing against.

This piece is contradictory in nature, which makes it so difficult to parse through. In one line Barlow discussed the creation of “a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice” and, in the same breath, “a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular.”

In other words, it’s okay to be racialized on the internet (because hey! You can hide it) and we’ll serve you a healthy portion of race supremacy science and graphic vitriol with every Google search.

meme created by yours truly <3 on img.flip

While this may seem extreme, let’s think about what’s regulated on the internet. Like child porn (don’t worry, the hyperlinks are stats LOL). Or online organ sales. Can regulation infringe on free speech? Absolutely. Are the most vulnerable in society worthy of protection at the expense of some infringement? Without a doubt.

Barlow discusses how the “ward[ing] off [of] the virus of liberty” insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill & Madison among others. According to my calculations, a Slaveowner, a slaveowner, a racist liberal internationalist, and a slaveowner. Exactly what dreams are being insulted and what dreams “must now be born anew in us”?

The reality of the situation is, government overreach in internet regulation is scarily dystopian. The “Great Firewall” of China being used to track dissidents, spread misinformation and shut out other perspectives and places in the world is nothing short of state control. But does the answer need to be its opposite - an anarchic Internet Cyberspace?

The scary part for me is that some of his logic is sound. There’s an ever-raging battle between privacy and protection, between the ends and the means. But can we trust in every person, on every device everywhere, with all the privileges and prejudices, protections and vulnerabilities afforded by their physical bodies to be safeguarded against harm by nothing but “the Golden Rule”?

He’s calculating in the way that he writes, pulling on the strings of patriotism, American history, fears of immigrant hatred towards born citizens, and democracy to whip up a frenzy of anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-rules rhetoric.

But dare I say the response to pieces like this is moderate dissent? That the internet requires a *gasp* a critical, reflective, and balanced approach? Is it wild to say, considering the vast void of devise political blogs, mainstream media and controversies, that regulation must be proportional?

It might be, because humans are generally not so great at finding a balance. And yet it seems to me that this is the responsibility born of the digital age. We must find a way to hear dissent without devolving into chaos, respecting the right to free speech while safeguarding against incitement, sexual violence, exploitation of the vulnerable AND government overreach. It’s hard–as it should be.

So is anarchy the answer? No. But still, I question, when we’re discussing the independence of cyberspace - are we talking about freedom from overreach, or freedom from morality?