SOCIAL NETWORKS DO NOT NEED TO DEMOCRATIZE [1]

America leads a discussion about Internet services, which are often overestimated in its effect by the media

... there is a debate in America about the power of social networks and their relationship to state power. The policy researcher Evgeny Morozov strongly in America represents the view that social networks do not help to more democracy. This opinion he had taken in an extensive interview with Clay Shirky, which has the websitewww.edge.org published [4] with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (11.4.) titled "Digital Power and It's Discontents." This is about the debate between utopians and realists in terms of social networks, namely the question of whether the Internet is more a medium for human emancipation and revolution, or a tool to control and repression. Morozov calls it ridiculous if someone takes from the American Foreign Ministry, the CEO of Google or Twitter with a business trip. The fact that Google with the American intelligence agency "National Security Agency working together, is a dangerous proximity between politics and business. Because no citizen could be so happy if the e-mail traffic will be handled by a company that works closely with the national safety. The problems concerning the control of people including democratic governments.

Morozov provides the power of social networks like Twitter or Facebook rather skeptical. Even millions of cell phone cameras directed at the soldiers would not deter the Iranian government to resolve the violent demonstrations. The protests were lost in the sand column and the country further. Morozov sees the use of networks rather the possibility that the Iranian authorities have early information on anti-government groups and provide the intelligence agencies with this information. The coordination of the Internet users and the coordination in the reality gapes however far apart for the Belarus-born scientists. He had protested doubts that many demonstrators had left because of the information on Facebook or Twitter to the streets and coordinated. The demonstrations are more likely with "lava" as compared with planned events.

The media often reports on the role of networks for protest movements. Other and equally important issues are neglected. About whether the Internet can not promote a hedonistic colored ideology, which discourages people from more political commitment. Nongovernmental forces can gain power in the Internet, such as nationalistic, but also the very same state. For many countries, says Morozov, no protest waves, as is the case in China. In the interview, is also the Danish philosopher Kierkegaard on language, had complained before more than 150 years that in the then emerging era of newspapers, cafes and formed a public sphere where opinions were more in circulation and no longer a matter feel obliged. There is no more, what people would die. This is what also Morozov and many similar Internet critics the "indiscriminate nature of the digital activism: it recognizes our commitment to political and social issues that are really important and require permanent victim down. This is also the American computer scientist Jaron Larnier that the Internet destroys the individual creativity and speaks of "Digital Maoism", the more appealing to the swarm intelligence of the people, because Internet like Wikipedia disseminated not truth, but the average opinion of the anonymous mass. That sounds judged hard, but true when it comes to questions about ultimate things too far. For the representation of knowledge calls for Larnier and personal responsibility. In this direction also argues Morozov, the blogger does not hold for large icons critical of the government campaigns: "The people must be led by people who are willing to courageously stand up for their cause, to sacrifice to go to jail and the next Havel, Sakharov's Solzhenitsyn, or to be ... My fear is that it will not be a Twitter-age Solzhenitsyn more. "He would probably disappear just because the networks much earlier in the prison. The Chinese government has long since developed new strategies, methods of propaganda, in order to supposedly 'netizens' meet. She had admitted to investigators of a network 15 rounds in a police station, in which a young man who died mysteriously, and the "investigators reported" then the net, there is nothing remarkable. Later came out then that there were former employees of state media.

David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale University, compares the Internet with a school, but not with artificial intelligence. One could learn a lot on the internet like in school, but would if it mutates into an institution like the school, it would be a disaster.

The debate on edge.org expands the view of the Internet as crucial aspects. By highlighting the positive effects of the network, there is no doubt, it is not enough. The force is easy to overestimate the social networks and overestimated the Internet with regard to the crucial problems of man.