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.
Dobro jutro. Mislim da sam kao džangrizav istočni Evropljanin doveden ovde da izgravam pesimistu ovog jutra. Stoga, moraćete da me trpite. Ja dolazim iz bivše Sovjetske republike Belorusije, koja, kao što neki od vas možda znaju, nije baš oaza liberalne demokratije. Zato sam uvek bio fasciniran time kako tehnologija može da preoblikuje i otvori autoritativna društva kao naše.
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.
Pa, diplomirao sam na fakultetu i, osećajući se vrlo idealistično, rešio sam da se priključim nevladinoj organizaciji koja je zapravo koristila nove medije da promoviše demokratiju i reformu medija u gotovo celom nekadašnjem Sovjetskom Savezu. Međutim, na moje iznenađenje otkrio sam da se diktature ne slamaju tako lako. Zapravo, neke od njih su preživele izazov interneta, a neke su postale još represivnije.
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.
Tada sam napustio moj idealizam i rešio da napustim posao u nevladinoj organizaciji i proučavam kako to internet može da sputava demokratizaciju. Sada, moram vam reći da ovo nikada nije bio mnogo popularan argument i verovatno još uvek nije mnogo popularan kod nekih od vas u publici. Nikada nije bio popularan kod mnogih političkih vođa posebno onih u Sjedinjenim Državama koji su nekako mislili da će novi mediji moći da urade ono što rakete nisu mogle. A to je, da promovišu demokratiju u nestabilnim mestima gde je već sve ostalo isprobano i nije uspelo. Mislim da su do 2009, ove vesti konačno stigle do Britanije, pa bi trebalo verovatno da dodam i Gordona Brauna na ovu listu.
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.
Ipak, postoji osnovni argument o logistici koja je bila pokretač ove debate. Ako pažljivo posmatrate, možete zapravo uočiti da je mnogo toga o ekonomiji. Sajberutopisti kažu, baš kao što su faks mašine i kopir mašine radile u 1980-im, blogovi i društvene mreže su radikalno transformisali ekonomiku protesta, pa bi se ljudi neizbežno pobunili. Da pojednostavimo, pretpostavka je dosad bila da ako date ljudima dovoljno povezanosti, ako im date dovoljno uređaja, demokratija će neizvesno ići uz to.
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.
I da vam kažem istinu, nikad nisam pao na ovaj argument, delimično zato što nisam nikada video da se tri američka predsednika slože oko bilo čega u prošlosti. (Smeh) Ali, znate, čak iza toga, ako mislite na logiku koja je u osnovi, to je nešto što ja zovem iPod liberalizam, gde pretpostavljamo da svaki Iranac ili Kinez koji poseduje i voli svoj iPod će voleti i liberalnu demokratiju. Ponavljam, mislim da je ovo neka vrsta laži.
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.
Ali mislim da je mnogo veći problem sa ovim taj da ova logika - da treba da bacamo iPodove, a ne bombe - mislim, to bi bio fascinantan naslov za novu knjigu Tomasa Fridmana. (Smeh) Ali ovo je retko kada dobar znak. U redu? Veći problem u vezi sa ovom logikom je da meša nameravanu sa stvarnom upotrebom tehnologije. Za neke od vas koji misle da novi medij internet može nekako da nam pomogne da izbegnemo genocid, ne treba da gledate dalje od Ruande, gde je 1990-ih bilo zapravo 2 radio stanice koje su bile zadužene za potpirivanje etničke mržnje na prvom mestu.
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?
Još dalje od toga, vraćamo se na internet, ono što zaista možete videti je da su određene vlade ovladale korišćenjem sajberprostora u propagandne svrhe. U redu? I grade ono što ja zovem Spinternet. Kombinaciju spinovanja, s jedne strane i interneta sa druge. Zato vlade od Rusije preko Kine do Irana zapravo unajmljuju, osposobljavaju i plaćaju blogere koji ostavljaju ideološke komentare i kreiraju mnogo ideoloških blogova u kojima komentarišu osetljiva politička pitanja. U redu?
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.
Pitate se, zašto oni to rade? Zašto se angažuju u sajberprostoru? Moja teorija je da se to dešava jer je cenzura zapravo manje efikasna nego što mislite u mnogim tim mestima. Onog trenutka kad stavite nesto kritično na blog, čak iako uspete odmah da ga zabranite, i dalje će se širiti širom hiljada i hiljada drugih blogova. Tako da što ih više blokirate, više ohrabrujete ljude da izbegavaju cenzuru i samim tim pobede u ovoj igri mačke i miša. Jedini način da kontrolišete tu poruku je tako što ćete da je spinujete i optužite nekoga ko je napisao nešto kritično da je, na primer, 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.
I, ponavljam, ovo se dešava prilično često. Samo da vam dam primer kako to funkcioniše u Kini. Postojao je veliki slučaj u februaru 2009. koji se zvao: "Izbegni mačku". Za vas koji niste znali, daću vam kratak uvid u to. Desilo se da je 24-godišnji čovek, Kinez, umro u pritvoru. Policija je rekla da se to desilo jer je igrao žmurke što se kaže "izbegni mačku" u kineskom žargonu, sa drugim zatvorenicima i udario glavu u zid, što je objašnjenje koje se nije baš svidelo mnogim kineskim blogerima.
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.
Tako da su odmah počeli da ostavljaju gomilu kritičnih komentara. Zapravo, QQ.com, popularni kineski sajt, je imao 35 000 komentara na ovu temu za nekoliko sati. A onda su vlasti uradile nešto veoma pametno. Umesto pročišćavanja ovih komentara, oni su se obratili blogerima. U suštini su rekli: "Gledajte momci. Želeli bismo da postanete istražitelji preko neta." Prijavilo se 500 ljudi i njih četvoro je izabrano da zaista idu i ispituju po objektu i samim tim ga pregledaju, a zatim bloguju o tome. Za nekoliko dana incident je zaboravljen, što se nikad ne bi desilo da su oni jednostavno pokušali da blokiraju sadržaj. Ljudi bi govorili o ovome nedeljama.
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.
A ovo se slaže sa još jednom zanimljivom teorijom o tome šta se dešava u autoritativnim državama i njihovom sajberprostoru. To je ono što politikolozi zovu autoritativno razmatranje, i dešava se kada vlade pokušavaju da dopru do svojih kritičara i puštaju ih da se angažuju sa drugima onlajn. Skloni smo razmišljanju da će ovo nekako da šteti ovim diktaturama, ali ih u mnogo slučajeva ojača. Možda se pitate zašto. Daću vam veoma kratkak spisak razloga zašto autoritativno razmatranje može zapravo da pomogne diktatorima.
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.
Prvo je prilično jednostavno. Mnogi od njih rade u potpunom informacionom vakuumu. Oni zapravo nemaju podatke koji su im potrebni da bi prepoznali narastajuće pretnje režimu. Zato ohrabrivanje ljudi da budu onlajn i dele informacije i podatke na blogovima i wikijima je sjajno jer u suprotnom, osrednje birokrate će nastaviti da prikrivaju šta se stvarno dešava u državi, u redu? Zato iz ove perspektive, imati blogove i wikije koji proizvode znanje je bilo sjajno.
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."
Drugo, uključivanje javnosti u donošenje odluka je takođe sjajno jer vam pomaže da podelite krivicu za politiku koja će na kraju propasti. Zato što kažu: "Pa vidite, pitali smo vas, konsultovali se sa vama, glasali ste za to. Stavili ste ga na naslavnu stranu bloga. Pa, divno. VI ste ti koje treba kriviti."
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."
I konačno, svrha bilo kog autoritativnog razmatranja je uglavnom da poveća legitimnost režima, kod kuće i u inostranstvu. Stoga pozivanje ljudi na bilo koju vrstu javnog foruma, njihovo učestvovanje u donošenju odluka, je zapravo sjajno. Jer ono što se dešava tada je da možete ukazati na ovu inicijativu i reći: "Pa, imamo demokratiju. Imamo forum."
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.
Čisto da vam dam primer, jedan od ruskih regiona, recimo, sada uključuje svoje građane u donošenje strategije do 2020. godine. Tako da oni mogu da budu online i doprinose idejama kako bi region trebao da izgleda do 2020. godine. Mislim, svako ko je bio u Rusiji zna da u Rusiji nije bilo planiranja za naredni mesec. Tako da uključivanje ljudi u planiranje za 2020. neće nužno da promeni bilo šta, jer su diktatori i dalje ti koji kontrolišu dnevni red.
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.
Čisto da vam dam primer iz Irana, Svi smo čuli za Twitter revoluciju koja se tamo dogodila, ali ako dobro pogledate, zapravo ćete videti da mnoge od ovih mreža i blogova i Twitter i Facebook su zapravo bili funkcionalni. Možda su postali sporiji, ali aktivisti i dalje mogu da im pristupe i tvrde da imati pristup njima je odlično za mnoge autoritativne države. A odlično je čisto jer mogu da sakupe otvorenu inteligenciju.
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)
U prošlosti bi vam trebale nedelje, ako ne i meseci, da utvrdite kako se povezuju iranski aktivisti jedni sa drugima. Sada zaista znate kako se povezuju gledanjem njihovih Facebook profila. Mislim KGB, i ne samo KGB, je mučio u cilju dobijanja ovih podataka. Sada je dostupno onlajn. (Smeh)
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.
Ali ja mislim da je najveća konceptualna zamka koju su sajberutopisti napravili je ona koja se tiče digitalnih urođenika, ljudi koji su odrasli onlajn. Često slušamo o sajber aktivizmu, kako su ljudi aktivniji zahvaljujući internetu. Ređe slušamo o sajber hedonizmu, na primer, kako ljudi postaju pasivni. Zašto? Zato što oni nekako pretpostavljaju da će internet biti katalizator promene koji će da pogura mlade ljude na ulicu, dok zapravo može biti novi opijum za mase koji će držati te iste ljude u svojim sobama skidajući pornografiju. Ta opcija nije dovoljno razmatrana.
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.
Zato za svakog digitalnog otpadnika koji se pobunjuje na ulicama Teherana, isto tako može biti 2 digitalna zarobljenika koji se pobunjuju jedino u World of Warcraft. I ovo je realnost. Ništa nije pogrešno u vezi s tim jer je internet osnažio mnoge od ovih mladih ljudi i igra potpuno drugačiju društvenu ulogu za njih.
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.
Ako gledate neka ispitivanja o tome kako mladi zapravo profitiraju od interneta, videćete da broj tinejdžera u Kini, na primer, za koje internet zapravo obogaćuje njihov seksualni zivot, je tri puta veći nego u Sjedinjenim Državama. Stoga on ima i socijalnu ulogu, međutim to nužno ne mora da vodi političkom angažovanju.
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.
Zato na to mislim kao na hijerarhiju sajber potreba u svemiru, potpuni preokret od Abrahama Maslova. Poenta ovde je da kada dobijemo udaljeno rusko selo onlajn, ono što će privući ljude na internet neće biti izveštaj Čuvara ljudskih prava. Biće pornografija, "Seks i grad" ili možda gledanje smešnih videa mačaka. Zato je ovo nešto što morate da prepoznate.
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)
Šta bi trebalo da radimo povodom toga? Pa, ja kažem da moramo da prestanemo da razmišljamo o broju iPodova po glavi stanovnika i da počnemo da razmišljamo o načinima na koje možemo da osnažimo intelektualce, disidente, nevladine organizacije i članove civilnog društva. Jer uprkos tome što se dešavalo do sada sa Spinternetom i autoritativnim razmatranjem, postoji velika šansa da se ti glasovi neće čuti. Zato mislim da treba da odbacimo neke od naših utopijskih pretpostavki i zaista počnemo da radimo nesto povodom toga. Hvala vam. (Aplauz)