Good morning. I think, as a grumpy Eastern European, I was brought in to play the pessimist this morning. So bear with me. Well, I come from the former Soviet Republic of Belarus, which, as some of you may know, is not exactly an oasis of liberal democracy. So that's why I've always been fascinated with how technology could actually reshape and open up authoritarian societies like ours.
Buna dimineata! Cred ca, in calitate de est-european morocanos, am fost chemat sa joc rolul pesimistului in aceasta dimineata. Asadar, fiti ingaduitori cu mine. Eu provin din fosta Republica Sovietica Belarus, care, dupa cum poate stiti, nu este tocmai o oaza de democratie liberala. De aceea m-a fascinat intotdeauna modul in care tehnologia ar putea reconfigura si deschide societatile autoritariene ca a noastra.
So, I'm graduating college and, feeling very idealistic, I decided to join the NGO which actually was using new media to promote democracy and media reform in much of the former Soviet Union. However, to my surprise, I discovered that dictatorships do not crumble so easily. In fact, some of them actually survived the Internet challenge, and some got even more repressive.
Cand am terminat facultatea, simtindu-ma foarte idealist, am decis sa ma alatur unui ONG care utiliza mijloace de comunicare noi pentru a promova democratia si reforma media in mare parte a fostei Uniuni Sovietice. Totusi, spre surprinderea mea, am descoperit ca dictaturile nu se naruie atat de usor. De fapt, unele dintre ele au supravietuit provocarii, iar altele au devenit chiar mai represive.
So this is when I ran out of my idealism and decided to quit my NGO job and actually study how the Internet could impede democratization. Now, I must tell you that this was never a very popular argument, and it's probably not very popular yet with some of you sitting in this audience. It was never popular with many political leaders, especially those in the United States who somehow thought that new media would be able to do what missiles couldn't. That is, promote democracy in difficult places where everything else has already been tried and failed. And I think by 2009, this news has finally reached Britain, so I should probably add Gordon Brown to this list as well.
Atunci mi-am pierdut idealismul si am decis sa demisionez din ONG, si sa studiez cum internetul ar putea impiedica democratizarea. Trebuie sa stiti ca acesta nu a fost niciodata un argument popular. Si probabil ca inca nu e agreat nici de catre unii dintre dumneavoastra, prezenti aici in public. Nu a fost niciodata agreat de prea multi lideri politici, mai ales de cei din Statele Unite, care credeau ca noile mijloace de comunicare vor reusi ceea ce rachetele nu au reusit. Adica sa promoveze democratia in locuri dificile unde totul s-a incercat deja si a dat gres. Si cred ca pana in 2009, aceasta veste a ajuns in sfarsit si in Marea Britanie. Deci probabil ar trebui sa il adaug si pe Gordon Brown la aceasta lista.
However, there is an underlying argument about logistics, which has driven so much of this debate. Right? So if you look at it close enough, you'll actually see that much of this is about economics. The cybertopians say, much like fax machines and Xerox machines did in the '80s, blogs and social networks have radically transformed the economics of protest, so people would inevitably rebel. To put it very simply, the assumption so far has been that if you give people enough connectivity, if you give them enough devices, democracy will inevitably follow.
Cu toate acestea, exista un argument fundamental de ordin logistic, care a condus o mare parte din aceasta dezbatere. Nu? Daca privesti destul de indeaproape, vei observa ca discutia in mare parte este de factura economica. Cyber-utopistii sustin ca, la fel cum au facut aparatele fax si xerox in anii ’80, blogurile si retelele sociale au transformat radical economia protestului. Asa incat oamenii se vor razvrati inevitabil. Simplu spus, presupozitia de pana acum a fost ca, oferind oamenilor destula conectivitate, dandu-le destule aparate, democratia va veni de la sine.
And to tell you the truth, I never really bought into this argument, in part because I never saw three American presidents agree on anything else in the past. (Laughter) But, you know, even beyond that, if you think about the logic underlying it, is something I call iPod liberalism, where we assume that every single Iranian or Chinese who happens to have and love his iPod will also love liberal democracy. And again, I think this is kind of false.
Sincer, nu am muscat niciodata aceasta „momeala”, partial pentru ca niciodata nu am mai vazut trei presedinti americani avand aceeasi parere despre ceva inainte. (Rasete) Dar dincolo de asta, daca te gandesti la logica de la baza ideii, este ceea ce eu numesc liberalismul iPod. Este atunci cand presupunem ca fiecare iranian sau chinez care intamplator are un iPod si il adora va adora automat si democratia liberala. Din nou, cred ca aceasta idee e falsa.
But I think a much bigger problem with this is that this logic -- that we should be dropping iPods not bombs -- I mean, it would make a fascinating title for Thomas Friedman's new book. (Laughter) But this is rarely a good sign. Right? So, the bigger problem with this logic is that it confuses the intended versus the actual uses of technology. For those of you who think that new media of the Internet could somehow help us avert genocide, should look no further than Rwanda, where in the '90s it was actually two radio stations which were responsible for fueling much of the ethnic hatred in the first place.
Dar cred ca o problema mult mai mare este ca aceasta logica -- potrivit careia ar trebui sa lansam iPod-uri, nu bombe – Adica, asta ar fi un titlu fascinant pentru noua carte a lui Thomas Friedman. (Rasete) Dar acesta e rareori un semnn bun, nu? Problema mai mare cu aceasta logica este ca se confunda utilizarile intentionate cu cele reale ale tehnologiei. Cei care cred ca noile media ale internetului ne-ar putea ajuta in vreun fel sa evitam genocidul nu trebuie sa caute mai departe de Rwanda. Aici, in anii ’90, doua posturi radio au fost responsabile in mare parte de catalizarea urii etnice.
But even beyond that, coming back to the Internet, what you can actually see is that certain governments have mastered the use of cyberspace for propaganda purposes. Right? And they are building what I call the Spinternet. The combination of spin, on the one hand, and the Internet on the other. So governments from Russia to China to Iran are actually hiring, training and paying bloggers in order to leave ideological comments and create a lot of ideological blog posts to comment on sensitive political issues. Right?
Dar dincolo de asta, revenind la internet, ceea ce se observa de fapt este ca anumite guverne s-au specializat in folosirea ciberspatiului pentru propaganda. Iar acestia construiesc ceea ce eu numesc „spinternetul”. Combinatia intre a rasuci („spin”), pe de-o parte, si internetul pe de alta parte. Guvernele, de la Rusia la China si la Iran, de fapt angajeaza, pregatesc si platesc bloggeri care sa lase comentarii ideologice si sa genereze cat mai multe postari ideologice pe bloguri pentru a comenta probleme politice sensibile.
So you may wonder, why on Earth are they doing it? Why are they engaging with cyberspace? Well my theory is that it's happening because censorship actually is less effective than you think it is in many of those places. The moment you put something critical in a blog, even if you manage to ban it immediately, it will still spread around thousands and thousands of other blogs. So the more you block it, the more it emboldens people to actually avoid the censorship and thus win in this cat-and-mouse game. So the only way to control this message is actually to try to spin it and accuse anyone who has written something critical of being, for example, a CIA agent.
Poate va intrebati pentru ce Dumnezeu o fac? De ce se angreneaza in ciberspatiu? Teoria mea este ca se intampla pentru ca de fapt cenzura este mai putin eficienta decat credeti in multe din acele locuri. In momentul in care apare ceva critic pe un blog, chiar daca reusesti imediat sa il interzici, tot se va raspandi pe mii si mii de alte bloguri. Deci cu cat il blochezi mai mult, cu atat mai tare ii determini pe oameni sa evite cenzura, si astfel sa castige acest joc de-a soarecele si pisica. Singurul mod de a controla acel mesaj este sa incerci sa il rasucesti, acuzand pe oricine a scris ceva critic de a fi, de exemplu, agent CIA.
And, again, this is happening quite often. Just to give you an example of how it works in China, for example. There was a big case in February 2009 called "Elude the Cat." And for those of you who didn't know, I'll just give a little summary. So what happened is that a 24-year-old man, a Chinese man, died in prison custody. And police said that it happened because he was playing hide and seek, which is "elude the cat" in Chinese slang, with other inmates and hit his head against the wall, which was not an explanation which sat well with many Chinese bloggers.
Din nou, asta se intampla destul de des. O sa va dau un exemplu de cum functioneaza in China. A fost un caz important, in februarie 2009, numit „Fereste-te de pisica”. Pentru cei care nu stiau, voi face un scurt rezumat. Intamplarea a fost ca un tanar de 24 de ani, un tanar Chinez, a murit in inchisoare. Si politia a declarat ca s-a intamplat pentru ca se juca de-a „V-ati ascunselea”, sau in argoul chinez „Fereste-te de pisica”, impreuna cu alti detinuti, si s-a lovit cu capul de perete. O explicatie care nu prea a multumit bloggerii chinezi.
So they immediately began posting a lot of critical comments. In fact, QQ.com, which is a popular Chinese website, had 35,000 comments on this issue within hours. But then authorities did something very smart. Instead of trying to purge these comments, they instead went and reached out to the bloggers. And they basically said, "Look guys. We'd like you to become netizen investigators." So 500 people applied, and four were selected to actually go and tour the facility in question, and thus inspect it and then blog about it. Within days the entire incident was forgotten, which would have never happened if they simply tried to block the content. People would keep talking about it for weeks.
Acestia au inceput imediat sa posteze comentarii critice. Ba chiar pe QQ.com, un website chinez popular, au aparut 35 000 de comentarii pe acest subiect in doar cateva ore. Dar atunci autoritatile au actionat foarte inteligent. In loc sa incerce epurarea acestor comentarii, ei au abordat bloggerii. Practic le-au transmis „Uitati, baieti. Ne-ar placea sa deveniti cetateni investigatori ” 500 de oameni s-au inscris si patru au fost selectati pentru a merge si a face turul locului cu pricina, si astfel sa-l inspecteze, pentru ca apoi sa scrie pe blog despre asta. In cateva zile incidentul a fost uitat, ceea ce nu s-ar fi intamplat daca ar fi incercat doar sa blocheze continutul. Oamenii ar mai fi vorbit timp de saptamani.
And this actually fits with another interesting theory about what's happening in authoritarian states and in their cyberspace. This is what political scientists call authoritarian deliberation, and it happens when governments are actually reaching out to their critics and letting them engage with each other online. We tend to think that somehow this is going to harm these dictatorships, but in many cases it only strengthens them. And you may wonder why. I'll just give you a very short list of reasons why authoritarian deliberation may actually help the dictators.
Iar asta se potriveste cu o alta teorie interesanta despre ceea ce se petrece in statele autoritare si in ciberspatiul lor. Asta e ceea ce politologii numesc deliberare autoritariana. Si se intampla cand guvernele se apropie de criticii lor si le permit sa interactioneze online. Tindem sa credem ca asta va dauna dictaturilor, dar in multe cazuri doar le consolideaza. Poate va intrebati de ce. Va voi da o scurta lista de motive pentru care deliberarea autoritariana ar putea de fapt sa ajute dictatorii.
And first it's quite simple. Most of them operate in a complete information vacuum. They don't really have the data they need in order to identify emerging threats facing the regime. So encouraging people to actually go online and share information and data on blogs and wikis is great because otherwise, low level apparatchiks and bureaucrats will continue concealing what's actually happening in the country, right? So from this perspective, having blogs and wikis produce knowledge has been great.
Iar primul e foarte simplu. Majoritatea opereaza intr-un vid absolut de informatie. Ei nu au datele necesare pentru a identifica amenintarile emergente la adresa regimului. Deci a-i incuraja peoameni sa intre online si sa faca schimb de informatii pe bloguri si wiki-uri e foarte bine deoarece, in caz contrar, operatiuni si birocrati de nivel inferior vor continua sa ascunda ce se intampla de fapt in tara, nu? Din aceasta perspectiva, a lasa blogurile si wiki-urile sa genereze informatii a fost minunat.
Secondly, involving public in any decision making is also great because it helps you to share the blame for the policies which eventually fail. Because they say, "Well look, we asked you, we consulted you, you voted on it. You put it on the front page of your blog. Well, great. You are the one who is to blame."
In al doilea rand, implicarea publica in luarea deciziilor este de asemenea benefica pentru ca iti permite sa imparti vina pentru politicile care in final vor esua. Pentru ca vor zice „Uite, v-am intrebat, v-am consultat, ati votat pentru asta. Ati pus-o pe prima pagina a blogurilor. Atunci voi sunteti de vina.”
And finally, the purpose of any authoritarian deliberation efforts is usually to increase the legitimacy of the regimes, both at home and abroad. So inviting people to all sorts of public forums, having them participate in decision making, it's actually great. Because what happens is that then you can actually point to this initiative and say, "Well, we are having a democracy. We are having a forum."
Si in final, scopul oricaror eforturi de deliberare autoritariana este de obicei sporirea legitimitatii regimului atat acasa, cat si peste granite. Deci a invita oamenii la tot felul de forumuri publice, a-i implica in luarea deciziilor este de fapt foarte bine. Pentru ca in consecinta poti indrepta atentia catre aceasta initiativa si poti spune :”Pai avem o democratie. Avem un forum democratic.”
Just to give you an example, one of the Russian regions, for example, now involves its citizens in planning its strategy up until year 2020. Right? So they can go online and contribute ideas on what that region would look like by the year 2020. I mean, anyone who has been to Russia would know that there was no planning in Russia for the next month. So having people involved in planning for 2020 is not necessarily going to change anything, because the dictators are still the ones who control the agenda.
Doar ca sa va dau un exemplu, una din regiunile rusesti isi implica acum cetatenii in planificarea strategiei pana in anul 2020. Deci ei pot intra online si pot contribui cu idei despre cum va arata acea regiune pana in anul 2020. Oricine a fost in Rusia stie ca nu exista planificare in Rusia nici pentru luna urmatoare. Asadar implicarea oamenilor in planificarea pentru 2020 nu va schimba neaparat ceva. Asta pentru ca tot dictatorii sunt cei care controleaza agenda.
Just to give you an example from Iran, we all heard about the Twitter revolution that happened there, but if you look close enough, you'll actually see that many of the networks and blogs and Twitter and Facebook were actually operational. They may have become slower, but the activists could still access it and actually argue that having access to them is actually great for many authoritarian states. And it's great simply because they can gather open source intelligence.
Va voi da un exemplu din Iran. Cu totii am auzit despre revolutia Twitter care a avut loc acolo. Dar daca privesti cu atentie, vei vedea ca multe din retelele si blogurile si Twitter si Facebook erau de fapt operationale. Poate ca au incetinit, dar activistii puteau in continuare sa le acceseze si sa sustina ca accesul la ele e de fapt benefic pentru multe state autoritare. Si e benefic pentru ca pot culege informatii cu sursa deschisa.
In the past it would take you weeks, if not months, to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other. Now you actually know how they connect to each other by looking at their Facebook page. I mean KGB, and not just KGB, used to torture in order to actually get this data. Now it's all available online. (Laughter)
In trecut iti lua saptamani, daca nu luni, sa afli cum intrau activistii iranieni in legatura unii cu altii. Acum stii cum relationeaza vizitandu-le pagina de Facebook. KGB-ul, si nu numai, obisnuia sa tortureze pentru a obtine aceste informatii. Acum totul e disponibil online. (Rasete)
But I think the biggest conceptual pitfall that cybertopians made is when it comes to digital natives, people who have grown up online. We often hear about cyber activism, how people are getting more active because of the Internet. Rarely hear about cyber hedonism, for example, how people are becoming passive. Why? Because they somehow assume that the Internet is going to be the catalyst of change that will push young people into the streets, while in fact it may actually be the new opium for the masses which will keep the same people in their rooms downloading pornography. That's not an option being considered too strongly.
Dar cred ca cea mai mare capcana conceptuala in care au cazut cyber-utopistii este in privinta nativilor digitali, a celor care au crescut online. Auzim adesea despre cyber-activism, despre cum oamenii devin mai activi datorita internetului. Rareori auzim despre cyber-hedonism, de exemplu, despre cum oamenii devin pasivi. De ce? Pentru ca ei presupun cumva ca internetul va fi catalizatorul schimbarii care va scoare tinerii in strada, in timp ce de fapt ar putea fi noul opiu pentru mase care va tine aceiasi oameni in camerele lor, downloadand pornografie. Aceasta nu e o optiune luata prea serios in calcul.
So for every digital renegade that is revolting in the streets of Tehran, there may as well be two digital captives who are actually rebelling only in the World of Warcraft. And this is realistic. And there is nothing wrong about it because the Internet has greatly empowered many of these young people and it plays a completely different social role for them.
Deci pentru fiecare renegat digital care se revolta pe strazile Teheranului, ar putea foarte bine sa existe doi captivi digitali care se razvratesc de fapt doar in World of Warcraft. Iar asta e o perspectiva realista. Si nu e nimic in neregula cu asta, deoarece internetul i-a capacitat enorm pe multi dintre acesti tineri. Iar pentru ei joaca un rol social complet diferit.
If you look at some of the surveys on how the young people actually benefit from the Internet, you'll see that the number of teenagers in China, for example, for whom the Internet actually broadens their sex life, is three times more than in the United States. So it does play a social role, however it may not necessarily lead to political engagement.
Daca studiezi cateva din sondajele despre adevaratele beneficii ale internetului pentru tineri, vei vedea ca numarul adolescentilor din China, de exemplu, carora internetul de fapt le-a imbogatit viata sexuala este de trei ori mai mare decat in Statele Unite. Deci joaca intr-adevar un rol social, dar nu duce in mod necesar la angajament politic.
So the way I tend to think of it is like a hierarchy of cyber-needs in space, a total rip-off from Abraham Maslow. But the point here is that when we get the remote Russian village online, what will get people to the Internet is not going to be the reports from Human Rights Watch. It's going to be pornography, "Sex and the City," or maybe watching funny videos of cats. So this is something you have to recognize.
Modul in care tind sa vad lucrurile este sub forma unei ierarhii a cyber-nevoilor in spatiu. O copie ieftina dupa Abraham Maslow. Dar ideea aici este ca, atunci cand un sat rusesc izolat va intra online, ceea ce ii va aduce pe oameni pe internet nu vor fi raporturile privind monitorizarea drepturilor omului. Va fi pornografie, Sex in the City, sau poate urmarirea unor videoclipuri amuzante cu pisici. Asta e ceva ce trebuie recunoscut.
So what should we do about it? Well I say we have to stop thinking about the number of iPods per capita and start thinking about ways in which we can empower intellectuals, dissidents, NGOs and then the members of civil society. Because even what has been happening up 'til now with the Spinternet and authoritarian deliberation, there is a great chance that those voices will not be heard. So I think we should shatter some of our utopian assumptions and actually start doing something about it. Thank you. (Applause)
Asadar ce ar trebui sa facem? Eu cred ca trebuie sa nu ne mai gandim la numarul de iPod-uri pe cap de locuitor si sa incepem sa gandim moduri in care putem sprijini intelectualii, disidentii, ONG-urile, si apoi membri societatii civile. Deoarece, date fiind cele petrecute pana acum cu spinternetul si deliberarea autoritariana, sansele sunt mari ca acele voci sa nu fie auzite. Eu cred ca ar trebui sa distrugem unele din presupunerile noastre utopiste si sa incepem sa facem ceva concret. Va multumesc. (Aplauze)