On October 31st , exactly two hundred years ago, Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses or Disputation on the Power of Indulgences on the door of the Catholic Church in Wittenberg. It was an iconic moment that challenged ecclesiastical authority and a big deal for the course of European history.
Fortuitous and concurrent events that aided Luther: the invention of the printing press
I’ve heard the internet compared to the printing press specifically in this Martin Luther 95 Theses context a number of times now. The comparison isn’t wholly inaccurate or woefully presumptuous either, though I personally find it to be a bit over the top when those writing their theses and manifestos seem to insinuate a shared romanticism and identity with Martin Luther.
I think there are a couple of fundamental differences that really preclude the emergence of a modern Martin Luther. First, Martin Luther challenged pal authority initially within the system of the Catholic Church, claiming complete separation from the US government online as solvency isn’t really a Luther move. Second, the modern Martin Luther will likely be a collective body of shared opinion and thought that manifests itself as a governing body, Great Man history is a relic of the past.
To address the primary assumption that the internet is entirely comparable the printing press.
It’s interesting and useful to see the printing press and internet as analogous developments. Both allow for the relatively rapid dissemination of information making it available to a large public audience.
Both as information spreading mediums, have in turn posed questions and challenges to the incumbent institutions.
Where I think many of these “new Martin Luther” type manifestos miss out is the acknowledgement that print itself has gone through a legislative and social transformation that is directly observable and comparable to the internet.
To declare to the cyberbvoid that the government has no right regulating to me seems absurd when historical precedent boasts of intervention. The modern printed word has evolved to be subjected to punitive scrutiny. From banning topics on erotica to birth control to evolution from print, the government has had a hand in governing the sphere of the printed word whether fairly or not—there is no reason the government will not be involved in the online sphere of content as well.
The question is then to what extent should intervention be tolerated. What’s interesting about the modern”printing press, in my opinion, is its co-existence with a viable predecessor. To the extent that the existence of both has created a two-tiered system of information credibility is fascinating to me. What I see as the primary difference today between the printed and typed word is simply barrier for entry.
For the most part, authors still have to go through publishing houses, and numerous rounds of editing before thought is transubstantiated into page. While this is not to say that all the books in print are perfect, they are subject to two limiting factors that the average internet fiend is not: 1. Editing and 2. Time.
The “real-time” pace of the internet and the absence of the expectation for curated thought creates a lot of nonsense and bullshit and that is arguably fine in a two-tiered system.
In fact, I think it’s exciting and vital that there be a free and open collective conscious space where ideas can be shared. All of human development has stemmed from the collaborative efforts of interactive knowledge sharing.
That being said, there a certain expectations for certain parts of the internet that the government and private companies can and should be responsible for regulating.
Thanks to net neutrality, the internet is, and will by the grace of God remain, an essentially public good. However, like with any “public space” there are nested “public/private” as well; so called “fractal discursions” that pervade our linguistic personas online that shape the way we think of our public and private selves.
Essentially, a public bathroom might be a public bathroom but the stall you do your business you would not hesitate to call private. Likewise, the internet may be a public platform, but we feel innately there are limits where the public/private distinction must be upheld. The role of governance is to sort through those boundaries and legislate accordingly.
Obviously, that isn’t nearly as simple as it sounds. Because the internet is a new media, many of us haven’t been socialized into drawing distinct well-informed lines between our public and private selves on the internet. Just think the difference between the Facebook profile of say an older professor and the the Snapchat story of say any middle schooler who enjoys using a googly eye filter.
The point of this is to say, we have better established norms regarding public private distinctions in more established realms of public life; we have yet to figure them out for ourselves online.
Apparently, it’s the role of social anthropologists to think about this kind of stuff. Drawing from a paper on the public/spheres by Susan Gal that I read for another class, I started thinking about how her analysis might apply to the internet.
The United States, as a capitalist country, is more concerned with this public/private distinction in terms of spatiality than non-capitalist countries in Eastern Europe. Because capitalism is intently concerned protecting private property, the question of intellectual digital property poses a paramount issue for governance. This becomes morally and ethically prescient when it comes to issues like revenge porn which the government has, for whatever reason, refused to act on with more alacrity and seriousness.
And it also raises questions for democracy and governance insofar as voting is a matter of the private self participating in an act of civic engagement with public consequence.
There is actually so much to talk about regarding this that in the spirit of the modern Martin Luther I’m just going to list some of my concerns in 95 words:
Revenge porn should be illegal.
Facebook and other public platforms should close accounts that create an atmosphere of fear or inteolerance.
Facebook should be held accountable for deceitful advertising.
*Companies should not censor art.
Sponsored content should be labeled as such.
Private companies need to collaborate with governments in monitoring content.
Facebook and other private companies should prevent the spread of false news that would lead to the targeting/harming of an individual.
Private companies should be held accountable for the loss of customer data.
I have five words left.
Revenge porn should be illegal.
One Comment