I Can Has Freedom of Expression?

According to Ethan Zuckerman’s “cute cat” theory of activism, the great power of the Interwebs resides in its use as a low-value tool for the masses. The web has a remarkable staying power because we all use it for what are admittedly not the most highbrow, intellectual activities. Sharing pictures and videos of cute animals, for example. Or creating hilarious Tumblr blogs of grad student life. Or, you guessed it, watching porn. All judgment aside, the most popular applications of Web 2.0 tend to be those that allow us to engage in this type of sharing. And so, the logic goes, if a digital platform is popular, it will be difficult to justify shutting it down to clamp down on activists.

Consequently, activists benefit from a degree of immunity and are able to continue using online tools to organize. What’s more, a government’s attempt to limit access to the web can actually backfire by recruiting casual users to the activists’ cause. God help the government that gets between me and my GIFs.

The theory makes sense, but it obviously doesn’t apply in all cases. To me, one of the most important lessons of the post-Arab Spring is that the technology isn’t enough (or it is, but only if “enough” applies to a limited scope). I think we can all agree that social media played a role in the revolutions; the more interesting question is, how? What conditions have to be in place for social media to serve as a positive tool for activists? People much more digitally literate and politically savvy than me have been unpacking this question for the past year and a half, but given our readings this week, I think it’s clear that the appeal of “cute cats” can only keep you safe if the government is playing Web 2.0 catch-up.

MacKinnon goes into detail about the Chinese model, which she refers to as a form of “networked authoritarianism.” The Great Firewall enables the Chinese government to own the online network end-to-end, but the government goes beyond censorship. China has in fact implemented its own, parallel ecosystem of Web 2.0 platforms where Chinese citizens can get their “cute cat” fix without all of that pesky Western dissent and resistance.

Morozov makes the further sinister point that authoritarian governments have much more to gain than lose from the Interwebs. Just as Web 2.0 lowers the barriers for people to self-organize, it also lowers the barriers to propaganda, surveillance, and censorship. In my mind, the “cute cat” theory demonstrates just how easy it is for us to be complacent. We’re satisfied with our low-value activities unless prodded into more substantive online engagement.

As someone who (arguably) does not live in an authoritarian state, my ultimate concern boils down to the tension highlighted by both Zuckerman’s theory and the Arab Spring: the tools designed to entertain us have been appropriated for civic purposes, yet the institutions in charge of these tools are ultimately driven by profit and control. Wael Ghonim does not equal Google. And, unfortunately, there is a tremendous lack of transparency and accountability with respect to tech companies and their dealings with government. The Global Network Initiative is a step in the right direction, but is it enough?