Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Three Myths About the Internet That Refuse to Die

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted June 20, 2008.


The Internet will not magically bring the world together; nor is it likely to destroy us.
Advertisement

Since I started writing this column in 1999, I've seen a thousand Internet businesses rise and die. I've watched the Web go from a medium you access via dial-up to the medium you carry around with you on your mobile. Still, there are three myths about the Internet that refuse to kick the bucket. Let's hope the micro-generation that comes after the Web 2.0 weenies finally puts these misleading ideas to rest.

Myth: The Internet Is Free

This is my favorite Internet myth because it has literally never been true. In the very early days of the Net, the only people who went online were university students or military researchers -- students got accounts via the price of tuition; the military personnel got them as part of their jobs. Once the Internet was opened to the public, people could only access it by paying fees to their Internet service providers. And let's not even get into the facts that you have to buy a computer or pay for time on one.

I think this myth got started because pundits wanted to compare the price of publishing or mailing something on the Internet to the price of doing so using paper or the United States Postal Service. Putting a Web site on the Net is "free" only if you pretend you don't have to pay your ISP and a Web hosting service to do it. No doubt it is cheaper than printing and distributing a magazine to thousands of people, but it's not free. Same goes for e-mail. Sure it's "free" to send an e-mail, but you're still paying your ISP for Internet access to send that letter.

The poisonous part of this myth is that it sets up the false idea that the Internet removes all barriers to free expression. The Internet removes some barriers, but it erects others. You can get a few free minutes online in your local public library, maybe, and set up a Web site using a free service (if the library's filtering software allows that). But will you be able to catch anyone's attention if you publish under those constraints?

Myth: The Internet Knows No Boundaries

Despite the Great Firewall of China, an elaborate system of Internet filters that prevent Chinese citizens from accessing Web sites not approved by the government, many people still believe the Internet is a glorious international space that can bring the whole world together. When the government of a country like Pakistan can choose to block YouTube -- which it has and does -- it's impossible to say the Internet has no boundaries.

The Internet does have boundaries, and they are often drawn along national lines. Of course, closed cultures are not the only source of these boundaries. Many people living in African and South American nations have little access to the Internet, mostly due to poverty. As long as we continue to behave as if the Internet is completely international, we forget that putting something online does not make it available to the whole world. And we also forget that communications technology alone cannot undo centuries of mistrust between various regions of the world.

Myth: The Internet Is Full of Danger

Perhaps because the previous two myths are so powerful, many people have come to believe that the Internet is a dangerous place -- sort of like the "bad" part of a city, where you're likely to get mugged or hassled late at night. The so-called dangers of the Internet were highlighted in two recent media frenzies: the MySpace child-predator bust, in which Wired reporter Kevin Poulsen discovered that a registered sex offender was actively befriending and trolling MySpace for kids; and the harassment of Web pundit Kathy Sierra by a group of people who posted cruelly Photoshopped pictures of her, called for her death, and posted her home address.

Despite the genuine scariness represented by both these incidents, I would submit they are no less scary than what one could encounter offline in real life. In general, the Internet is a far safer place for kids and vulnerable people than almost anywhere else. As long as you don't hand out your address to strangers, you've got a cushion of anonymity and protection online that you'll never have in the real world. It's no surprise that our myths of the Internet overestimate both its ability to bring the world together and to destroy us individually.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: internet, nations, china, censorship

Annalee Newitz Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who is biased in favor of facts.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Jun 20, 2008 3:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, I pretty much knew that, but disagree some. Living in the boonies and unwilling to watch network propaganda, I use my Internet connection as a window to the world. It provides entertainment, access to information I could never find otherwise, and is a boon to a person with curiosity. So how much of my $35 WiFi goes to save postage? A few dollars. But how much time and money would I have to invest in any project requiring a bit of research, if not for the Internet? More than I have to spare, in fact.

The real worry is not about China, et al.; it's about the US government, completely corrupted by the Right wing, and its increasing limiting of privacy along with human and civil rights. The Internet is surely their next target.

Without the help of the Internet, would Dems even have a chance to take the presidency and undo the "legal" dictatorship that Cheney and Bush have so carefully put in place? Given, of course, that we don't have another convenient trigger event in the meantime. Well, my heart may be with democracy, but my money is on the dictatorship.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can buy the corruption, but a dictatorship?
Posted by: amiabledave on Jun 20, 2008 5:59 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have an amiable and intelligent (MENSA) friend who refers to George W. Bush as the Fuhrer and is convinced the U.S. is a dictatorhip. Occasionally I hear that repeated as did the previous respondent.

How are people defining dictatorship? Is there any validity to such an ominous charge?

It seems to me that in a dicatorship, I wouldn't be on the Internet hurtling insults at political leaders without a knock at the door. I haven't seen any roundup of people on the way to the furnace, nor have I seen any book burnings.

I don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You really do live . . . Posted by: Scientz
» The Patriot act,.... Posted by: Bbear41
Great article!
Posted by: talkville on Jun 21, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's excellent to see a critical and aware exposition and demystification of the Internet--hopefully work like Annalee's will continue and perhaps be a bit catchy! Keep at it!

Like any other Tool, the Internet and all the devices attached to it can be routes to either regaining or relinquishing of power for those who would seek liberation, justice, and equity.

And few things are more liberating than a clear and INTER-active understanding of the technologies and other means of communication available. Keep up the work, Annalee!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Myths...
Posted by: cordas on Jun 21, 2008 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When people talk about the internet being free they often mean something different to what the author of this article is talking about.... Once you have your computer (or mobile or whatever) and your internet connection you are then able to surf for free, well apart from pay sites obviously. The whole free arguement is about how big business is wanting to move in and start making users pay more and more for using the internet, its part of the whole Web 2.0 idea.

The Internet knows no boundaries.... Sitting here at my PC, with my internet connection I can look at just about anything I want on the web (assuming I am prepared to pay for pay sites) if I was so inclined I could find out how to build a nuke, look at sick pictures of young children, or the latest footage of people being killed in Iraq. I can also read sites such as Alternet and other radical sites.... My internet is effectively without boundaries.

The internet can be full of danger, if I where unaware of the risks. However a little knowledge goes a long way in this regard.

What am I saying.... That the Myths brought up in this article aren't quite as black and white as the author makes out, I am not actually disagreeing with anything she says as she does raise valid points, but she is sometimes rather limited in the scope of the questions she asks. I think that in the next 5 - 10 years the internet is going to undergo huge changes, and there is going to be a fight for its soul and the 3 Myths talked about here are going to be integral to that fight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Myths... Posted by: Survivor77
duh
Posted by: andor on Jun 21, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess there really are people who get paid to state the obvious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: duh Posted by: talkville
hmmm
Posted by: davesilvan on Jun 21, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To an extent, he's right, but what's preventing someone from walking into a library or coffee shop that host computers connected to the 'net for their customers and preventing them from sending an email via yahoo or gmail or hotmail? and what's to prevent them from attaching their digital camera to that computer and uploading pictures to their photobucket account? Nothing. Now that large swaths of the country are covered by wifi service, sure, you need to buy a computer to access the internet, but, as I pointed out earlier, you don't need to own a computer to access the internet; conversely, just because you buy a computer doesn't automatically give you access to the internet. Computers are good for much more than just surfing the net. Sorry. You fail. However, the large majority of us (including companies that provide the backbone of the 'net) are paying for a service anyone could use for free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quick! To the Romero-mobile!
Posted by: davesilvan on Jun 21, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
:) I hope you didn't miss that memo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Internet possibilities
Posted by: chorton on Jun 21, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The internet has greatly expanded our access to news and information; but it has not yet put that information into the hands of the tens of millions. The Internet is the vehicle for a vast increase in the number of people who are contributing to campaigns and speaking out on issues, but it has not apparently increased the number of people sitting down face to face and talking. And the Internet is vulnerable. It can and probably will at some point be disrupted, restricted or cut off.

Right now we have a great window of opportunity for disseminating news and opinions and for organizing - for however long it remains open. We need to be expanding our boundaries to reach all the people, not just the activists and the news junkies, and we need to be developing structures and practices that can survive a possible reaction.

I have registered the site www.newschain.org to pursue one such approach: developing a culture of disseminating blocked news stories person-to-person.

As I conceive of them, news chain alerts are vehicles for news stories, of national interest and importance, that have been widely ignored by the media. For this to work, people need to feel free to pass them on without committing to a stand on the issues referred to.

Thus News Chain Alerts have no instructions about what to think or do, except for the claim that they are important stories that weren't covered by the major media. The articles they point to - as much as is possible - are from recognized sources, are not opinion pieces and are more news than analysis. This is not a news service, not a roundup of stories we think people should be paying attention to. If it's on ABC and CNN, and I want people to pay more attention to it or do something about it, I might send out an email to my personal list to talk about that, but I won't label it a "news chain alert". And they aren't there to promote a particular agenda. For example I don't really care very much about Barr and the Libertarian Party, and I am not a Ron Paul booster. Neither are friends of the working people. But Barr adopting an anti-war platform and Paul getting 26% of the Republican vote in Idaho were stories of national interest - they were on the wire services and were picked up in Europe! - about trends that could affect the elections. The Major Media saw fit to ignore them - across the board. They met my criteria. I sent out news chain alerts for both stories.

It will take work to build this. We need to build recognition and support for the idea, establish a project with integrity and defend that integrity.

I need help with this project.

Tasks ahead that I see:

*Immediate*:
Building a leadership group.
Finding out who is already doing stuff like this, or is set up to do it, and making contact with them.
Setting up a website, planning a publicity campaign and designing a way of measuring effectiveness and effects.

*Ongoing*:
Maintaining the site.
Handling stories:
- Identifying possibly unreported stories.
- Verifying that they are from a reliable source and that they have not been covered by the major media.
- Evaluating their importance and interest.
- Then deciding whether to launch them.
- Disseminating them.
Ongoing promotion and publicity.
Ongoing organizing and networking.
Ongoing research.

If you see anything here you'd like to talk about or participate in, let me know. Or if you know of anyone we should be talking to, let them know or send me their contact info.

chrisahorton@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Safety?
Posted by: lamar on Jun 21, 2008 10:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The internet might become much more dangerous if the RIAA is able to convince a federal judge that it shouldn't have to prove anything wrong happened to collect $150,000.

How safe can the internet possibly be if you can be nailed for $150,000+ just for having a connection?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Join the EFF Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Join the EFF Posted by: lamar
» I Am Spartacus Posted by: frantaylor
The golden years of the internet are already behind us
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 21, 2008 10:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The future is huge cost increases, bandwidth throttling, invasions of privacy by the government, and restricted access.

There will be internet "refugees" roaming the Earth as nomads, seeking unrestricted access to the internet.

I will be among them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Only in the Stupid USA Posted by: frantaylor
mick3
Posted by: ArtemInox on Jun 22, 2008 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mick3's response was far more interesting than this entire article. Good job =)

http://www.addictedtoaggravation.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little history lesson
Posted by: teanatl on Jun 22, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you stop and think about the impact of the Internet on our daily lives it's almost unbelievable. In less than two decades what started out as a curiosity advanced by a small group of academics has become an indispensable appliance to literally billions of people around the world. Imagine the impact the Internet will have when it's been around as long as television! (And think about the impact of that medium on our lives!) As much as it's changed our lives already, the Internet will continue to transform us in the coming years in ways we can't even imagine.

Europe in the 14Th century was in the throes of the Dark Ages. It was a rough century...the Hundred Years' War, the Crusades, and the Black Death, which claimed the lives of nearly half the population of Europe. It's no wonder so many people predicted the end of the world would come soon. It was easy to think the seven horsemen of the Apocalypse had been set loose upon the earth. Of course, just as the darkest hour is before the dawn, there followed a "reawakening" or Renaissance...greatly facilitated by the invention of a device that made communications much faster and cheaper, allowed widespread access and furthered the sharing of ideas, knowledge and skills. Sound familiar...it was called the printing press. But for it's invention the Renaissance might never have spread beyond a few city states in Italy and the Modern World as we know might never have been born.

The Internet can have a similar impact on our time but it's anything but inevitable. Any technology, no matter how awesome, is but a tool. The Internet is capable of being used for great good or for great evil if it falls into the wrong hands. It's up to us to insure it doesn't and continues to be an agent of creative destruction in the post Modern World.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A little Internet lesson Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: A little Internet lesson Posted by: teanatl
The internet pays for itself easily
Posted by: Landbaron on Jun 22, 2008 3:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pay bills online (save postage), shop online (free of tax in many cases and save vehicle expenses), manage my bank account, have Vonage for $17.00 a month (before that was paying the phone company over $40 a month) and lots of free porn etc. etc. I say it's virtually free...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not really Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Free Posted by: Landbaron
More Internet myths
Posted by: frantaylor on Jun 22, 2008 6:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Myth 1: Censorship

Technologies falling under the generic name of "steganography" can hide information inside of other information that appears to be completely legitimate. A typical image, even such as the ones on this web page, can have an extraordinary amount of information hidden inside them, with no artifacts detectable with the eye or even by sophisticated software designed to look for it. It's a cat and mouse game to be sure, but those with information to spread WILL be able to do it.

Myth 2: Control

The Internet is NOT under the control of the ISPs, or the government. The people CAN take back the Internet with mesh networking and community networks.

Myth 3: Surveillance

The Internet transmits all data, encrypted or not. It doesn't care. Data can be encrypted with mechanisms that are virtually possible to decrypt. Combined with Steganography, encrypted messages can pass through firewalls and censors. You can choose very large encryption keys. and it would take someone longer than the known life of the universe to decrypt your message, even if every atom in the entire universe were turned into a powerful computer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ehm... no?
Posted by: sprightx on Jun 22, 2008 7:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Internet is free means that there is no form of censorship or legal constraint to what content one may publish or view on it, not that it is free in a monetary sense.

While many people will say that there are forms on censorship and content control this is only true of websites that require registration and abbiding the terms of a contract. By registering you accept that the webmasters and mods have the right to remove or edit your published content if they deem it inapropriate, be it for any reason.

"We seek to encourage intelligent, thoughtful and respectful conversation and debate in these forums, and we reserve the right to moderate as we see fit.

AlterNet will not tolerate:

personal attacks on our writers or readers
excessive profanity
racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language
comments that are off-topic or irrelevant to the story or discussion at hand
Readers who fail to follow these guidelines may have their comments deleted and their commenting privileges disabled with or without warning."


That is alternet's policy on comments, if me or anyone else fails to comply our posts will be deleted, but this does not mean the internet is not a free medium of expression and communication, in fact, all of us on here previously agree to these terms to be able to post. There are tens of thousands of websites and communities that do not moderate their user published content; if you are naive enough to believe that free internet refers to monetary costs, or are unable to find these websites, anything you say on the matter isn't worth reading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ehm... no? Posted by: pomes
4. The Internet makes people anti-social
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 23, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see above..

Why do the technophobes cling to this belief that people who use computers and Internet access regularly are somehow anti-social illiterate disconnected bums? I'd vouch the opposite. People who use (graphical) Internet access and its accompanying protocols (IRC for instance) are way more socially connected than some toothless goober who frequents his/her local pub. The idea that physical proximity is a requirement to being a "social" is totally flawed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The internet IS free
Posted by: captbobalou on Jun 26, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To expand on an earlier comment: the technologies used to peer with other networks (to "internetwork") are indeed, free. Open-network architecture, pioneered by Bob Kahn at BBN during the 60's and 70's, paved the way for the "open-source" movement. The underlying protocols that connect the computers that make up the network are not patented, and are in the public domain, free for anyone to create new applications and services that take advantage of them.

The Internet is not the cables, signals and computers that relay them: it is a set of standards and protocols that are freely available to anyone wishing to connect to networks of computers that use TCP/IP internetworking protocols.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another myth: Al Gore claimed to have invented it
Posted by: fanny666 on Jun 27, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The quote was, I believe, "I took the initiative in the creation of the internet."

This is accurate. Even Newt Gingrich has backed Al Gore on this statement.

There used to be an emergency communications system called Arpanet, which was not publicly available. Al Gore took the initiative, as a senator, to make this system publicly available. That was how the internet as we know it first came to be. High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991

Now, I think that it was a giant giveaway of taxpayer funded research to private concentrations of capital. It makes no sense that we have to pay to use technologies that we paid to create. And if you're rich enough, you can buy stock in some company which exists because of taxpayer research, and then you can make MORE money from publicly created technology. But that, as they say, is a whole nother story

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The internet was a DARPA project
Posted by: pomes on Jun 27, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was the world wide web in specific that was built up by a community of academics. The technology on which the internet runs was developed for military applications by DARPA.

DARPA is the same agency that now wants to push Total Information Awareness, LifeLog, and the Sentient World Simulation using behavioral data mined from our internet use (among other sources). Try googling or reading those on Wikipedia.

What I'm saying is, among its many other uses, the Internet, just like the phone network, was designed to make it easier to monitor and keep tabs on us, to profile us behaviorally, and to predict our future actions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to make a dictator
Posted by: FURonnie on Jul 3, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make a partnership with Cheney and Mr. Potato Head and you have a Dick-Tater.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]