Scholars and Agree That Social Networks (Twitter,

¶ … scholars and agree that social networks (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are good for democracy. One academic who argues that social media will not aid democratic movements is Evgeny Morozov, whose book, The New Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom points to reasons why dictators in some countries will control the Internet.

There are many reasons mentioned in this article as to why the Internet will not be free from censorship -- cannot be free from censorship -- and why governments are eager to have people believe they have privacy when in fact their communications and tweets and posts are not private. Some of what is presented in the article can be proved or will be played out in reality as time goes on. For example, "Various new sophisticated techniques for data mining" are helping unscrupulous government leaders spy on political opponents; this is one way governments can foil organizers of demonstrations and rallies. And in China, where they have their own version of Twitter (called Weibo, with 300 million registered users), the communist government can allow people to have "lively discussions" they think are private but in fact those online conversations are being monitored.

It is cynical for a government to allow people to have social media with the thought that it is better to have them "blow off steam" through the written word than to go into the streets to protest government? The answer is yes it is cynical. But is it true? The article quotes a journalist with the respected publication, the Guardian (Tania Branigan), who writes that the reasons the Chinese government allows the Weibo to become popular is because China then can censor what is said back and forth. The Communist Party is happy to have people logging on and learning about what is going on in the public sphere, as though this is the only way the government can discern the mood of the country. But let's take China out of the discussion.

The most simplistic argument that Morozov makes is that governments are not stupid and hence, they can use social media and the Internet for their own ends. This is not a new or particularly compelling argument. Governments used people private phone conversations to their own twisted ends before there was a cyberspace. The best argument Morozov makes is that it will take "hard work" to keep the Internet free. "We have to make sure we defend it" and make sure that it "…doesn't become a fully [monitored] space where everyone's identity is recorded" and where governments know where people go, what they think, and how they live.

In this article the views of Jeff Jarvis are blasted by Morozov. Jarvis (who wrote What Would Google Do?) believes that any attempt to totally control the Internet is "futile," and I agree. Certainly there will be attempts to control the Internet, and there will be hackers causing havoc and some snooping by government. But when you have technologically brilliant and innovative companies like Google, I believe they will always be a step ahead of those who want to spy on conversations or attack websites they don't agree with. Google and other technology companies will develop blocking software in time that will prevent governments or agencies from peeking into private conversations.