Skip to main content

Net delusions: Are Morozov and Watson's dystopias any good?

First a disclaimer: I have not read the two new books I mention here, and it is unlikely that I ever will. You may see this as ridiculous or as an interesting experiment. The thing is, judging on the media coverage the books have attracted so far, many people have already read them and many more will. I'm talking about two recent examples of what I'm inclined to call the dystopian trend in popular writing about the Internet: Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion and Richard Watson's Future Minds: How The Digital Age Is Changing Our Minds, Why This Matters and What We Can Do About It. But before I discuss to them in turn, a short note on the (far too) bright side of things: Utopias.

Historians of the Internet have already started to look back at the 1990s as the decade where cyber utopianism ruled. John Perry Barlow's A Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, for example, is mentioned time and again as the epitome of the many Internet-fuelled hopes of refinding community, reinvigorating democracy and reinventing freedom. However, with the coming of the new 'digital' millennium, academic researchers have sought to sober the debate up using social science methods. One early study infamously concluded that Internet use was associated with depression. But a few years later it became clear that there was no easy arrow pointing from Internet use to neither positive nor negative social effects. This was demonstrated by - among many others - the very same researchers who published the first study.

Research about the Internet will continuously calibrate its account to achieve a still better balance between positive and negative impacts of what is ultimately nothing more and nothing less than another new communication technology. And I guess popular accounts will always tend to exaggerate things, as they often do when treating scientific endeavours. But that said, it does seem that the Internet has been especially fertile ground for hype, much more than for example the mobile phone that is quietly reaching above 4 billion users worldwide, and transforming lives on its way.

Hype, of course, needs correction. But the media seem to let Evgeny Morozov carry them all the way to the opposite side of the road: Pessimism, or even dystopianism. It is an easy win to make fun of American political rhetoric about social media as "freedom tools" (or EU talk about becoming the world's strongest "IT economy", for that matter). And showing how the Internet can be turned against the people by authoritarian regimes in China, Russia and most recently Iran is of course terrifying. But the truth is that technology is simply never inherently good or bad -- it is a set of resources and constraints that can be used and shaped by humans to serve their often conflicting interests. According to The Guardian's review, Morozov indeed rightly recommends that we become "cyber-realists", but he only does so after having ridiculed cyber-utopianists to an extent that makes him almost just as bad. The very recent, promising events in Egypt underlines this point: Yes, a dictator can turn off the Internet (just as he can block the roads). But he does that for a reason: A powerful uprising become even more powerful with many-to-many communication platforms, such as the now closed 500.000+ members strong "We are all Khaled Said" Facebook group that helped coordinate protests.

Similarly, Richard Watson, a British futurist, seems to insist on seeing the dark side of life as he compiles the many ills of new communication technology. Watson is concerned that the extreme amount of communication and information that flows through us via new technologies will obstruct deep and creative thinking. A fair point, to some extent -- we all now the urge to surf on instead of actually spending the time to understand what is in front of us. But when the RSA gives Watson space to speak about digitalisation as a fundamental threat to human enlightenment, I can't help thinking: Was it so much better when kids were conveniently pacified with trash TV? Or when the majority of the labour force spent their lives with creativity-killing jobs in front of the assembly lines? No it was not, and indeed, new technologies have always been met with moral panic in the tone of Watson.

So, is this blog post any good? Probably not, if you already believe in balanced and well-grounded accounts of technology and society. But if you are a bit like me and sometimes get a bit too easily excited by strong narratives made to sell books and magazines, then maybe these hesitations can serve as inspiration to not become too inspired in any one direction.


  1. Interestingly, a microblog called mattermorphosis wrote someting along very similar lines today, suggesting Turkle's new "Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology And Less From Each Other" also is a part a utopian trend in Internet Studies:


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Official statistics: 51% of 16-74 year old Danes use Facebook

In making a case for why my MSc dissertation here at the Oxford Internet Institute should be concerned with something as hyped and mundane as Facebook, I've been looking for numbers on the Danish social media landscape.

On the English-language web, the commercial SocialBakers Facebook statistics suggest that 49% of the Danish population are on Facebook.

This rather non-transparent number can now be compared with a recent report by Statistics Denmark, suggesting that 51% of 16-74 year old Danes have a Facebook account. The second-largest online social network service in Denmark, LinkedIn, is trailing far behind at 8%. Most surprisingly perhaps, a mere 3% of the surveyed age cohort use Twitter.

As such, there are compelling quantitative reasons for choosing Facebook over e.g. Twitter for a case study of how social media reflect life in Denmark. Another recent survey produced for a Danish daily confirms this: A tiny elite of the 319 most active Twitter users in Denmark write half of …

Two (used) comments on Gillespie's new chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms"

I'm in Paris this semester, as a visiting doctoral student at the Center for the Sociology of Innovation (CSI) at Ecole des Mines and at the médialab at Sciences Po. 
Apart from finding myself in the middle of two very lively research communities, I've also been so lucky that a series of cross-institutional seminars on Digital Methods are taking place in Paris this spring.
The last seminar was on "Transformative interaction: web effects on social dynamics", for which I volunteered to prepare a brief comment on one of the selected readings, namely Tarleton Gillespie's chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms", forthcoming in an edited volume on "Media Technologies" to be published by MIT Press. (The full chapter has been uploaded by Gillespie here).
Since I prepared the comments in writing, and since they did in fact spark some discussion, I've decided that it might be appropriate to recycle them as a blog post. Here goes:

Introducing: The Twitter-thing!

Context: The Twitter-thing is the (awkward?) translation into English of 'Twittertinget' - a project I worked on last year with two Danish colleagues, Irina Papazu (CBS) and Tobias Bornakke (Uni. of Copenhagen) in collaboration with the Danish newspaper Politiken. The Twitter-thing is a tool that draws on TCAT in order to build a network visualisation of how Danish MPs use hashtags on Twitter. Here follows my abstract for the upcoming Data Publics conference in Lancaster, where I'll be exhibiting the Twitter-thing.

Parliaments could seem to be highly issue-agnostic places. All sorts of problems move in and out of these large and expensive devices (Dányi 2015), while the membership stays more or less the same in-between elections. But as issues are taken up and left behind by parliaments, they also make cuts in the parliament in the sense that specific sets of parliamentarians become attached to specific issues. The aim of the Twitter-thing tool is to trace these cuts and v…