Internet Gift Economy: Does it

¶ … Internet gift economy: Does it really exist?

A gift economy was typical of many traditional societies. In this method of economic exchange gifts, or non-monetary items, were used to cement friendships between families or tribes. Sometimes the exchange would be mutual, other times one leader might dispense gifts freely, as a demonstration of largess and power or in an apparent sign of pure altruism. Capitalism and impersonal exchange relationships based upon monetary value have replaced tribal economies. The Internet and its seismic effects upon modern social life and commerce have prompted some to say that a new gift economy has been generated online, through file-sharing, open source software, and personal donations. But the question of whether such an economy is purely altruistic in nature, or if it can supplant self-interested capitalist exchanges remains controversial.

Online, people 'give away' free content in the form of posted blog posts. Music and file-sharing is common. Attempts to place a monetary value upon shared content has met with mixed success. In some instances, as in the case of iTunes, people have proven willing to pay a fee for music. This only occurred after a lengthy legal battle between music companies, artists, and file-sharing services. Many fans found themselves facing threatened legal repercussions if they downloaded music free of charge: thus the idea that there is a willing 'gift' economy seems suspicious. Even dedicated fans are often unwilling to pay for songs by their favorite artists if they do not have to -- they do not give 'gifts' to their favorite artists unless forced to do so. Music studios are only willing to grant access to songs for a fee. In the case of premium content news websites, few users are willing to pay for added information when similar content is available for free elsewhere. Free sites are only free because advertisers pay to sponsor the websites, or the sites, such as government-run websites, have other sources of revenue. None of these function as 'gifts.' The Internet is impersonal, and can discourage voluntary donation, rather than encourage it, by its faceless nature.

Some organizations, such as Altruists International, stubbornly insist that the Internet is an ideal vehicle to create a new, modern gift exchange: "we aim to provide a system of matching up donors and recipients, in a way that is efficient, decentralized (= free of control by any small group) and uses decentralized accounting to reward generosity, and protect its users from those who have yet to free themselves from the modern infection of selfishness" ("Internet gift economy, Altruists International, 2009). This proposed match-up can free needy people from their dependence upon self-interested bankers, the Altruists state. But to call this a 'gift economy' seems to deny the fact that even when no money exchanges hands, there is always some sort of an exchange of value. The giver may wish to gain some sort of power over the recipient, may want to get a tax deduction, or at the very least, the giver desires to enhance his or her self-esteem. Even tribal gift exchanges served a political purpose. Moreover, although this type of gift economy may encourage some philanthropists to give without 'strings attached,' it is unlikely many people will give, without some assurance of some sort of return. Even online, the spirit of altruism is hardly universal and has its limits. Few people can afford to be so generous.

The Altruists would counter that the Internet itself began as a gift-giving exchange of information. In 1961, during first germination of the Internet, a network joining four universities known as ARPANET was created at the Stanford Research Institute near Palo Alto: "university students and scientists, struggling to share information faster" created a computer-based information system. "Beyond the pragmatism behind their motivations, lay a philosophical and political conviction: the free exchange of information would have to be embedded in the Internet culture that would emerge, otherwise it made no sense!" (Suarez 2009).