Gibson, in his 1984 novel Neuromancer, imagined an alternate hallucinatory world, an open "cyberspace," defended by the likes of the creative and talented people who helped build it (4). However, as Wu illustrates in his book The Master Switch, it can be extremely difficult for the innovators of a technology to keep control of it in the face of powerful corporations. In an economy largely run by major conglomerates, especially when it comes to information industries, it is questionable whether or not a future like the one Gibson presents is even possible.
It is true that new technologies are usually born out of the tireless work of creative individuals with little or no support behind them. Wu quickly points this out when he speaks of Alexander Bell and his assistant "toiling in their small attic laboratory," to create the telephone (18). It is an inspiring image; two dedicated men, working endlessly of their own accord, who managed to create a technology that would completely transform human communication. Of course, this innovation also gave rise to one of the biggest monopolies in information technology history: AT&T.
Once a technology is created it is natural for a few companies to seize and maintain control of it. They often do this at the cost of individual inventors who companies simultaneously rely on for innovation and exploit for their own money and power. Take, for instance, the development of FM radio. Essentially an improved version of AM radio, FM had better sound quality and didn't use as much power for its broadcast (Wu 128). But FM was too good. Because it posed a threat to the existing radio broadcasters and also could have eliminated the need for AT&T's long distance lines, the technology was buried for several decades until RCA was able to establish adequate control and regulation over the technology (132).
Companies feel threatened by disruptive technologies which they view as at odds with their own interests. Because such innovation is usually the work of one or two people it is not difficult for companies to take control, through the use of money, the law or even illegal activity, to spin the odds in their favor. When RCA placed FM technology in their televisions, they did so without the permission of the inventor assuming that a large company with extensive resources would have no problem winning a lawsuit against an individual inventor (134).
This phenomenon is one reason why Gibson's future is so unlikely. Companies will generally try to gain control of influential technologies in order to enhance their own power and influence. It is unlikely that the internet, the most pervasive and widespread information technology today, will prove an exception to this rule. If anything, the fight to control the internet will probably be the strongest and most contested one yet. It is nearly impossible for individuals to maintain any defense when a corporation decides that they want to control something. The economic assets and resources of a large corporation are simply too great for most any individual to successfully fight.
Even beyond the desire for power and wealth, companies and possibly even the government may try to gain increased control over the internet for control over content. Because the internet reaches so many people the stakes are very high. Always seeking to shape public opinion in their favor, companies with content control on the internet would hold an unprecedented amount of power. However, a completely open internet leaves a lot of room for dissenting ideas that may be just as threatening to companies as disruptive technologies tend to be.
Control of ideas is grounded in the history of information industries as well. In the 1920s, a strict production code was placed over Hollywood filmmakers in the name of "decency and Christian morality" (Wu 118). The goal behind the code was to support the status quo without allowing any alternative ideas or questionable behaviors to be presented to the public (115). Movies, shown all over the country, were being regulated to severely limit the content that the American public was able to see. Hollywood became a medium to perpetuate the ideas of the few who had created the code rather than a mode free and creative expression. This is powerful because the creators of the code had the opportunity to attempt to instill their values into the American public at large without any competition.
Throughout his novel, Gibson presents exactly the type of free dissent that threatens large entities. As Case and Molly weave their way through cyberspace they gain access to information that allows them to break down the barriers created by the extremely powerful Tessier-Ashpool clan. This is what companies will seek to prevent by gaining control over content. Free reign on the internet is threatening to the businesses whose practices are not always the most noble. When people have the ability to communicate and access information without regulation it puts these companies at serious risk. Companies will use the vast resources at their disposal to make sure that this doesn't happen by gaining as much control as they can over the content that individuals can access.
Gibson's future is possibly most unlikely because it limits internet access to a few talented professionals. Cyberspace as Gibson imagined it is a highly immersive technology in which one's consciousness actually enters into the network; a "consensual hallucination" as Gibson puts it (6). Such an experience requires more of a commitment by the user. Gibson's internet is not the casual communications interface that we know today but rather a more specialized technology. Navigating Gibson's cyberspace takes more skill and is therefore more naturally limiting. Indeed, there is no mention of general public use of cyberspace in Gibson's novel. The entire story centers on Case, Molly and a handful of experienced others. Given the context that Gibson provides, it is difficult to imagine casual, everyday use of his version of cyberspace.
In order to sustain itself, an information technology needs to appeal to a widespread set of users who are confident in their abilities to use the technology to their convenience. Gibson provides no evidence that his vision of cyberspace allows for this. Rather, it seems that Case and Molly use cyberspace in increasingly complex ways. Without a widespread set of users it is unlikely that Gibon's matrix would remain a force for long in the technological world because more useful and user-friendly technologies would replace it. In Gibson's world, individuals are able to maintain control over cyberspace but this is probably due to the fact that it would not be highly appealing to large companies. If there is not a widespread set of users then the technology is not lucrative for the company and it does not allow them to shape public opinion in their favor.
However, the interface that we have today reaches across the globe to a widespread set of users everyday. This makes it appealing to companies looking to expand their influence and build capital. Wu shows that corporate control of information industries does not generally bother users so long as it does not negatively affect individual experience. It could even sometimes be useful in providing better service to customers (161). The promise of extensive wealth and power mixed with the ambivalence of the public creates an ideal climate for large companies to exercise control.
It could be argued that the internet is fundamentally different than any other previous information technology industries and therefore not subject to the same fate. The internet was created with the intention that it would be a decentralized, open network (Wu 170). This means that it will have ardent defenders trying to make sure it remains that way. However, because the scope and influence of the internet is so great it will also be highly appealing to corporations hungry for market control. Unless corporations also adopt an ideology that values an open network the future of internet control will continue to be a heated debate. But if a few large corporations decide, in the perfect moment, to seize control over the network there will be little that any individual can do to stop them.
Sources:
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Penguin, 1984. Print.
Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Random, 2010. Print.
I like your analysis of the current Internet regulation. Besides censoring different populations and limiting their access to the Internet, the way the we use the Internet is very regulated. For instance, domain names are now marketed, bought, and sold. And the advertisements... don't even get me started.
ReplyDeleteBut access to the Internet also regulates how we use it and, more specifically, if we can use it. I disagree with your statement about the globalized spread of the Internet - by global I think you mean Western. Most of the most popular Internet sites are in English, but this is not what the majority of the world speaks. Many people don't have access to the Internet or even a computer. And even here, at home, millions still don't have regular access. When you consider how immersed we are in technology, imagine how successful you would be if you didn't know how to use a computer.
Also, Gibson certainly has created a world exclusively biased towards computer hackers. Their minds are correctly wired to be successful in that world, but perhaps this sort of individual is not confined to a hacker identity alone. The hacker seems to embody a type of revolutionary, someone constantly challenging the established systems rather than conforming to them. Maybe Case would make for a terrible hacker in today's world, but his revolutionary tendencies makes him the successful protagonist in Gibson's vision.