Now we are talking about the positive values of the Internet as a way of spreading and preserving democracy.

Marc Rotenberg says that this conference seems quite aligned with the values of the open internet. He suggests four ways of talking about the Net that work with the conference’s values.

Pekka Himanen worries that we are answering terrorism with “fearism.”

Desiree suggests that we build more “trusted spaces” where people with divergent views can talk. (E.g., ThreeFatesForum.) Should government finance these? She also worries about the “war on terror” inculcating fear.

Dan Gillmor worries about the mass media dumbing us down and the effect that has on our ability to govern ourselves. Now we have the ability for all people to communicate with one another. It’s “massive and wonderful thing.” We need an ecosystem of media, he says, from citizen journalism to mass media. Finally, Dan asks if this is a binary question: Do we have to choose between privacy and a working Internet. He suspects not. (John Perry Barlow comments that in general, if someone presents you with a binary choice, he’s trying to control you. :)

I say that we should phrase our report by talking about how an open Internet supports democratic values. We should be very careful about our vocabulary and metaphors. (E.g., “anonymity” is probably not taken as a positive value by state leaders.) And we should stress, I believe, that the Net is a force for global democracy not just because it enables people to publish dissents, but because it allows people to connect, and that’s at the heart of democracy.

Rebecca MacKinnon talks about the need to have voices other than the media in conversation. The media tend to magnify extremists, she says. We should bring in the “silent majority,” which of course means addressing the digital divide.

Andrew McLaughlin says that he’s heard these issues raised so far: Terrorists attacking the Network, terrorists attacking the real world by coordinating over the Net, terrorists using the Net to market themselves. And he’s heard, as a theme, that there’s a single response to all of these: Maintain an open Net. He proposes this as a framework for discussion.

There’s good discussion of how to talk about these issues to government leaders who don’t think in these terms. And Andrew McLaughlin pointedly asks how we can maintain the value of anonymity in a city where terrorists were caught because their communications were tracked back to them.

To follow the conversation, go to the IRC: irc.freenode.net #madridopendemo [Technorati tag: SaferDemocracy]

Categories: Uncategorized dw