The Price of Freedom
First of all, I'm WoW-free for two days now.
The topic of the day is freedom. Freedom is a word that is used easily -- maybe too easily -- by anyone who claims that their way is the right way, and that people that are being stopped from doing the same are not free. But, really, is there freedom anywhere?
It's hard to talk about true freedom, as it's impossible to be so.
But let's start from the beginning.
I used to think that the Internet was a pile of stinking shit to look for reliable, factual information. That never stopped me from looking, and some topics (pop culture, technology as a whole) would prove to be somewhat more accurate and reliable than others (such as mathematics, politics and history). Simply put, stuff that was a general topic of interest would be easily available from numerous sources, and it was easy to find out what was right and what was not.
Awesome, cool. What does that have to do with freedom? You mean that the ability to post innacurate information was making you believe that the internet was free?
No, of course not. The internet was never free, in as much as you would always have some censorship points between you and the information: the ISP that connected you could easily ban sites, the ISP that hosted the information could easily ban sites, and the governments declared some time ago that the internet was their territory, based on where the servers containing the information were physically held. (Which is why there's so many crack and pirate websites based on Russia and nearby countries -- the place's hell itself for copyrights.)
Well. So, what's the point?
The point is that I thought that the internet was an unreliable source of information until I found Wikipedia. (www.wikipedia.org)
Well, shit. Look at that. An online, open database of information about, well, anything. With mostly unbiased and accurate articles on some of the tough cookies from the rest of the internet.
Want examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existance
Now, try to find some concise and clear explanations on the above on Google.
And I thought that I had finally found a definitive source of informations for me. After all, if someone screwed up, the other millions of viewers would step in and fix. As such, we would have a place where the general consensus (and thus, reality -- no matter what you think, what the majority thinks is what will be considered right) could be found.
And then, I came across something there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_hilton
Well, well. Seems like information is not so free here. On topics that the general consensus has some very differing opinions (as well as those that generate strong emotions in people), Wikipedia was forced to lock down the article for user only editing. Thus, effectvely creating a "Censorship Tool" in a supposedly open community. If you have to identify yourself, you won't post your sexual experiences with Paris Hilton, or your personal analysys on Hitler's capacity as a charismatic leader or artist.
However, those mechanisms are necessary to keep a filter to prevent people of overstepping their bounds. After all, you could also post on Paris Hilton's entry that she's a failure, a bitch, a whore, or a goddess. And you could post the same on Hitler's entry.
And that would also break down the idea of objective and common sense in Wikipedia. Thus, the censorship was a tool to cut off extreme positions, and to maintain the information that is generally accepted... Even if not the whole truth. Remember, what the population accepts as right is right. No matter what you personally think.
Which brings us to the question I raised initially:
Is ther freedom anywhere?
The answer is short and bitter sweet: No.
You will not find free information, you will not find free people.
What's generally accepted as "freedom" is the good, old declaration of Human Rights. You are free to go and come as you please, to believe in whatever you want, to associate with whoever you want.
Well, guess what. That doesn't happen anywhere. When the USA break into Iraq and impose their culture there, they are breaking the Iraqis' right to believe in whatever they want. When there's a law that prevents you from killing someone, your freedom is being diminished. When I'm not allowed into a high security government building, yes, my freedom of movement is being destroyed.
More than that, the existance of an ego prevents someone from being free on a much more fundamental level.
And you know what? That's all right. Because for someone to be totally free, another person would have to lose their freedom. I think the closest beings to ever be free would be the Kings and Queens of old times. Absolutely powerful, and with a legion of people enslaved to them.
Now, the issue with that is to measure how much of your rights are being taken from you, and how much are you getting in return. While it's nice to be protected against the possibility of being murdered, it's not so nice to see tortured prisioners in a war.
And, on my opinion, that's why there must always be those who strive for true freedom from the system in which we live (like Bansky, for example, or the eternally rebellious Alan Moore), to allow us to always keep in mind that the concept of freedom does exist, and that we must never give up too much on it, least we end up living in a dystopian society, controlled by laws and bodies so strict that would put the Big Brother to shame.
The topic of the day is freedom. Freedom is a word that is used easily -- maybe too easily -- by anyone who claims that their way is the right way, and that people that are being stopped from doing the same are not free. But, really, is there freedom anywhere?
It's hard to talk about true freedom, as it's impossible to be so.
But let's start from the beginning.
I used to think that the Internet was a pile of stinking shit to look for reliable, factual information. That never stopped me from looking, and some topics (pop culture, technology as a whole) would prove to be somewhat more accurate and reliable than others (such as mathematics, politics and history). Simply put, stuff that was a general topic of interest would be easily available from numerous sources, and it was easy to find out what was right and what was not.
Awesome, cool. What does that have to do with freedom? You mean that the ability to post innacurate information was making you believe that the internet was free?
No, of course not. The internet was never free, in as much as you would always have some censorship points between you and the information: the ISP that connected you could easily ban sites, the ISP that hosted the information could easily ban sites, and the governments declared some time ago that the internet was their territory, based on where the servers containing the information were physically held. (Which is why there's so many crack and pirate websites based on Russia and nearby countries -- the place's hell itself for copyrights.)
Well. So, what's the point?
The point is that I thought that the internet was an unreliable source of information until I found Wikipedia. (www.wikipedia.org)
Well, shit. Look at that. An online, open database of information about, well, anything. With mostly unbiased and accurate articles on some of the tough cookies from the rest of the internet.
Want examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existance
Now, try to find some concise and clear explanations on the above on Google.
And I thought that I had finally found a definitive source of informations for me. After all, if someone screwed up, the other millions of viewers would step in and fix. As such, we would have a place where the general consensus (and thus, reality -- no matter what you think, what the majority thinks is what will be considered right) could be found.
And then, I came across something there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_hilton
Well, well. Seems like information is not so free here. On topics that the general consensus has some very differing opinions (as well as those that generate strong emotions in people), Wikipedia was forced to lock down the article for user only editing. Thus, effectvely creating a "Censorship Tool" in a supposedly open community. If you have to identify yourself, you won't post your sexual experiences with Paris Hilton, or your personal analysys on Hitler's capacity as a charismatic leader or artist.
However, those mechanisms are necessary to keep a filter to prevent people of overstepping their bounds. After all, you could also post on Paris Hilton's entry that she's a failure, a bitch, a whore, or a goddess. And you could post the same on Hitler's entry.
And that would also break down the idea of objective and common sense in Wikipedia. Thus, the censorship was a tool to cut off extreme positions, and to maintain the information that is generally accepted... Even if not the whole truth. Remember, what the population accepts as right is right. No matter what you personally think.
Which brings us to the question I raised initially:
Is ther freedom anywhere?
The answer is short and bitter sweet: No.
You will not find free information, you will not find free people.
What's generally accepted as "freedom" is the good, old declaration of Human Rights. You are free to go and come as you please, to believe in whatever you want, to associate with whoever you want.
Well, guess what. That doesn't happen anywhere. When the USA break into Iraq and impose their culture there, they are breaking the Iraqis' right to believe in whatever they want. When there's a law that prevents you from killing someone, your freedom is being diminished. When I'm not allowed into a high security government building, yes, my freedom of movement is being destroyed.
More than that, the existance of an ego prevents someone from being free on a much more fundamental level.
And you know what? That's all right. Because for someone to be totally free, another person would have to lose their freedom. I think the closest beings to ever be free would be the Kings and Queens of old times. Absolutely powerful, and with a legion of people enslaved to them.
Now, the issue with that is to measure how much of your rights are being taken from you, and how much are you getting in return. While it's nice to be protected against the possibility of being murdered, it's not so nice to see tortured prisioners in a war.
And, on my opinion, that's why there must always be those who strive for true freedom from the system in which we live (like Bansky, for example, or the eternally rebellious Alan Moore), to allow us to always keep in mind that the concept of freedom does exist, and that we must never give up too much on it, least we end up living in a dystopian society, controlled by laws and bodies so strict that would put the Big Brother to shame.