Introduction
The Internet has often been branded a democratic technology based on the view that it allows freedom in several aspects. Deborah G. Johnson in her book Computer Ethics presents her view on the Internet is a democratic technology by dividing his argument into three parts. By simple definition, “a democratic technology” is whereby the people of a country are accorded the liberty and freedom in the matters that relate to the use of technology, as opposed to the government or other organs dictating what they access. For the Internet to be fully accepted as democratic, it would mean reviewing of the regulations governing the use of Internet to allow freedom of access and ethics related to democracy.
Unmediated, many-to-many interaction
The first argument by the author seeks to bring out the prevailing difference between Internet and other communication means in that it is not filtered and allows many-to-many communications. This refers to a situation where a person with access to the Internet is in a position to relay information to very many people, who also have access to Internet. As opposed to what in the media channels of communication where the information let out to the public is filtered and influenced by what the government want the people to know, the Internet is free of any form of restriction in terms of the information shared by the many-to-many. According to Johnson (2001), democracy here is evident in the fact that through the Internet the user is accorded the freedom to share any information they wish with other users as well have access to a lot of information without having to depend on specific sources like the media.
Information is power
In the second argument, the author states that information is power. This argument links its support to the first argument where it affirms that the idea of allowing many-to-many flow of information presumably is a form of power to the user to share with a lot of people. There is however a need to differentiate between information that is useful, relevant and accurate which is when power is earned, with misinformation which is in no way a source of power. “Information is power only if it is accurate information and relevant information” (Johnson 2001). The user of the Internet is also said to possess power in form of ability to shape attitudes of those reading the information who can in turn relay the information they acquired to other people too and the hence a large group of people are enticed to follow what the original sender stood for. This argument qualifies to be democratic in the sense that, information, which is power, can be passed and accessed by many people which implies that power is therefore given to the many people using the Internet. This is democracy in the view that Internet can accord power to large numbers of people.
More power to less powerful
The third and last argument is titled more power to less powerful. The argument simply implies that the Internet accords additional power to those people who are less powerful. Access to information through the Internet arguably reduces the powers of the most powerful. Through the Internet, people who are separated by geographic distances are able trace down each other and exchange information in common interests forums. The Internet therefore is democratic for the reason that people across the globe advocating for a similar cause can do so with ease and can reach many readers.
Author’s reluctance
However, Deborah G. Johnson who is the author who gave these three arguments expresses her reluctance in accepting the three arguments. While appreciating the fact that the Internet has truly contributed positively in terms of allowing access of vast information by large numbers of people, Deborah G. Johnson states that they are problematic. She holds that in addition to contributing positively as stated in the three arguments, the Internet has also resulted to encouraging other behavior trends that either do not in any way add value to democracy or further still contribute to undemocracy through other Internet practices. Examples given are cases where the Internet instead further empowers the already powerful, as well as being in command of peoples lives and bind them instead of changing their lives positively.
Opinion
Despite the argument presented by the author on the Internet being non-democratic, the arguments that support the benefits of existence of the Internet in terms of giving power to the people across the globe outweigh the negatives. The Internet has done its part in allowing people access to information that is independent of any filtering, while allowing them to share that information amongst a large number of Internet users. This can be backed by the number of social sites that have come up in the recent past for instance facebook with a membership of 350 million users, which has seen people across the globe converge in common interest forums and share information freely. This is a clear indication of democracy supported by the use of the Internet.
Conclusion
In summary, the benefits of using the Internet technology are now well understood. The negative behavior patterns supported by the use of the internet, and which demean democracy, are there for every one to see too. The freedom lies with the individuals on the information they wish to take up.
Reference List
Johnson, Deborah G. (2001). Computer Ethics (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.