Breaking Free: Independence in Cyberspace

One's casual venturing of the Internet is not necessarily a political stance against the status quo since the decision of where one ends up and what they choose to do there is entirely reliant upon the user. However, as the Internet becomes its own domain where different, often more lenient rules, or "laws" for a better comparison, are being formulated continually, it would suffice the user to be able to become a citizen of this nation of the computer without any outside influences, (i.e. the government). For many, the restrictions that the government has enforced upon viewership of and participation in certain locations on the Web should not be validated. Users feel that this is an intrusion upon a society that does not belong to the American government and therefore yearn for the opportunity of non-surveillance.

Take for example in A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age, cyberspace is an "ecosystem" where everything is connected through wires and cables, reaching far beyond just the Internet. Technology itself, (electromagnetic waves, fiber-optics, etc.), is the space and its hold is international. Information is then distributed and redistributed in these formats, (via the telephone, television, computer, etc.) and because the system is so vast, proponents of government-free Internet believe that even attempting to control the Web is a plan set out to fail. The opposition claim that the vastness of technology is precisely the reason why it should be government controlled due to the rise of a hacking/terrorism correlation, it would be for the user society's own protection. Nevertheless, the two sides can agree to disagree.

The primary question for the debate is really what could be considered ultimate freedom online and who would determine it. Following that logic, who or what could determine a set standard for decency? Is one's ability to trespass the modern conventions of what is morally right or wrong determined as an ultimately freeing experience and if so, would that be intruding upon another user's rights to not see, hear, or think about certain things? Is the translation of freedom the same as in a non-user, (i.e. 'real world'), American society? In the original concept of democracy, one has the freedom to be who and/or what one is, whereas in a digital society one has the freedom to become whoever and/or whatever one wants.

In Barlow's Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace, the author agrees that the Internet is vast and therefore a space of the mind. Upon this realization, he believes that it can not be policed for the Internet is "an act of nature that grows itself through our collective actions". Like our founding fathers, Barlow believes that it is the right of this new society to take care of itself and to set its own regulations. "Cyberspace," he says, "consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live." Despite all this arguing, however, about what society should hold merit in another, all parties are essentially talking about the same thing: the want to do what one wants and the prevention of letting others do what they want, a largely American statement all by itself.

MUDdy Up the Brain: The Loss and Gain of the Real

Reality is a term that is used lightly within discussions about the internet for what one feels as real could distract from what is tangible. Virtuality and reality tend to be separated from one another but for the computer devotee, the two could easily be lumped together. The natural response upon the realization that technology has a heart, albeit digital, is usually to attack in fear that we are being sucked into a black hole where androids will melt our collective brain into a gooey concoction. Clearly, we have to get our priorities straightened. Full reliance is an issue but the vision behind the MUD is one of temporary escapism, not the forfeit of one's entire being.

MUDs, or multi-user dungeons, are virtual worlds created entirely out of text. Much like their 'choose-your-own-adventure' book counterparts, MUDs depict a scene and allow users to navigate this imaginary world by choosing a variety of paths, or actions, by typing in a command which the MUD reciprocates with another path. For example, in Sherry Turkle's Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, the author references an experience in "Dred's Bar". In it, the author known as 'ST' in the MUD, meets up with a fellow MUD user named 'Tony'. The two have a drink and try out their dance moves. They converse. One might wonder why these two can not go to an actual bar and have face to face conversations like 'normal people' and why they insist to be anonymous dwellers in an imaginary world with keyboarded talk. The most obvious reasons one might come up with is that these people are anti-social, afraid of reality and dependent on their computers. Normalcy is a funny thing, however, since the standard for the modern era is changing so much at a rapid pace. The majority of people do have some kind of online profile and participate, in varying degrees, on these social networking sites. They email and text each other on cell phones. Somehow, despite all of this, there is still this strong opposition to the computer as its own entity.

MUDs, an exercise in anonymity/intimacy, broke off into a billion little pieces and spawned other global interactive sites like World of Warcraft, Second Life, and the serge of social networking like with Facebook. Here graphics opened up a whole new realm alongside text but the same basic principle applies: the presentation is an extension of one's self and not the actual flesh and bones. On the other hand, advocates of the MUD would claim that one's thoughts and feelings are the most realistic and important part of a person and therefore their true form is being seen on the Internet; the body is just a container of these energies and is not crucial to building a relationship with. The opposition would most likely counter that the body, soul and mind can not be separated so easily and those who feel that hard drives are just as warm as hugs are losing their sense and appreciation of reality. Take for example in Turkle's article where she refers to two versions of a crocodile; one is a Disney animatronic and the other is the scaled lizard we all know and fear. A young girl who saw the Disney crocodile is instantly captivated by its rolling eyes and sideways movements with sneaky viciousness. This same girl comes across a real crocodile, lazily sunbathing amongst all its brothers and sisters, and is bored to tears. She wants to be entertained and yearns for the fake.

It seems as though, we as a society, are not quite satisfied with our realities and feel the need to create a different one. Perhaps in this alternate world, we can become better looking, social butterflies with lots of money and wit to share with all our happy, glamourous friends. While there seems to be a loss for some physicality in the world there also seems to be a gain in the connotation of a real human being. Does the expression "I think, therefore I am..." really have any validity or is it the only type of validity we need?