Net Culture
“Whatever you think the world is withholding from you, you are withholding from the world. You are withholding it because deep down you think you are small and that you have nothing to give,” -
“Eckhart Tolle: A New Earth.”
The existence of the internet has made available a wealth of literature, media, music and film. The questions surrounding this freedom have been many and mainly focusing on our rights to such a wealth.
Do we have a right to the wealth of knowledge and entertainment our human race has produced? Or should we pay up for the fruits of another’s toil?
In a world that has such an abundance of knowledge, culture, wisdom and beauty, is it right to withhold access to others? Just because someone is poor, should this restrict him from educating himself?
We’ve, previously, asserted that education solves most problems and that with greater learning and life experience one can stretch his soul to the furthest breadths imaginable, surmount conflict and work towards a better world. Are we, in this case, not being counter productive, in restricting access to knowledge?
I feel that one has basic rights to information and pleasure. The situation should be that if you have money to buy a book, go ahead and buy it is much nicer to read in print. But if you don’t have money, your rights continue and you have to find a way to exercise them.
Join the Conversation
Aside from keeping your 6 year old from watching pornography, I am a strong believer in right to information and people having only the most minimal restrictions on their right of expression.
I believe the Internet is something akin to a miracle.
Yet another interesting post from you!
I don’t think it’s ever right to restrict access to knowledge. I think we should all work together, globally, to pump as much info as possible into as many mediums: newspapers, internet, radios, all of which should either be free or affordable.
If people in this region, for example, had more access to this sort of information, we’d all be in a better place. Though illiteracy rates are rising because education asks for too much money, and people don’t have a lot of options. For example, the number of moderates are decreasing because there aren’t enough moderates who are vocal enough in places other than the internet, something most people don’t have access to.
Money shouldn’t limit us when it comes to knowledge. If you don’t have money, you should still have access to a wealth of information. Our states should make sure of that. I’m thinking public libraries is a good way to start; you pay so little to gain so much, but are people ever encouraged?
In our societies, where things are so limited, many people consider education useless because they don’t have enough opportunities to actually do something with that education. You won’t convince somebody by saying, “education is always good to have.” They can refute your argument pretty quickly, stating that they’d rather work to keep on living. I wish they’d focus on their kids. If they don’t have the time and money to do it for themselves, they should invest on their kids, and give them the education required to go far in life.
Also the free flow of information is very key to a successful society. We need to have access to a lot of different resources. It’s one of the main things keeping our societies from moving forward, other than incompetent leaders. It’s the only way we’d ever actually celebrate our diversity rather than fight over being a dominant majority. Knowledge and education will do wonders to our part of the world.
I wish people had more access to the internet, so they’d be able to read and participate in sites like these. I really think it makes a difference.
I feel that one has basic rights to information and pleasure.
This is an interesting statement. I think it shows a generation character. For example, just to take the situation I am currently in here in Japan, my in-laws live in the same block, we rent from them. They grew up from 1920′s. I can hardly imagine and I have never experienced the lack of pleasure and information that their society had. In those days, and you can even read examples of this in the 1950′s English study books, in the average home, their book collection was probably only a dozen books. Books with hard covers, illustrations, pages of text. Books as a reference were very expensive. My point here is that when something is very very precious, we value it more. We appreciate it more. We take care of it, protect it. If it becomes as cheap as, as toilet paper, then we probably don’t value it as much. The Japanese expression of this idea is, “Mo ta nai”. A regal looking black woman from Kenya is famous here on TV as the “Mo Ta Nai” Woman.
We are flooded with cheap information, and it isn’t as valuable because the means and the method of creating it is cheap, and produced of a general lower quality than before. The internet allows us to publish anything, everything.
PLEASURE. a right to pleasure.
Forgive me Ha Ana Za, (what an interesting name) but the right to pleasure, and I imagine you seriously saying this… It makes me smile. Who would have thougth this is needed as a right? before World War II? Well, Californians, and the rich from all over the world have probably felt this way. But good manners prevented anyone from saying this out loud.
An artist, who has spent years and years perfecting their voice, their craft, and then the struggle to get recognized, to get people to pay attention to their work, to tolerate endless questions and comments while standing in a gallery or coffee shop trying to get someone, anyone to pay attention to their efforts. What price per hour is their work worth? Or is a work of art, any work of art to be judged differently from the way we pay for other things? It is all in what the market will bare, isn’t it? But this problem for the artist7s compensation is not simply charging what he thinks is fair, because he has to create a demand for his work. His work has to be noticed and appreciated before he can ask for a compensation that is more fair. And in those early days he has to almost or really give his work away. And this isn’t fair compensation.
The internet has an ocean of work, and we can’t notice but a tiny percentage of it, for various reasons. The internet has an ocean of information and artistic work that is copied, fake, pirated, misinformed, degenerate, trivial, or mediocre, as well as beautiful, original, classic, RECOGNIZED, traditional, etc.
If you are worried about paying for something, this is unavoidable, and paying fair compensation for works of art is justice. There will always be free or almost free art and information available as well. ONe form will not destroy the other. The real global market will decide. It won’t be controled by one country, culture, or one philosophy, or economic system.
I think we have to worry about teaching users and surfers of the Internet how to tell the quality from the junk. How to be influenced by the quality and not the junk. So again this gets back to education. a never ending story?
To make a quick response to Esra’a's comments. I don’t think quantity of information will solve anything about our social problems. I don’t think for example that if the poor in Sadr City had the Internet, or if more Palestinians or Israeli had more internet access that it would make the issues easier to solve. I have met some “poor”(compared to American poor) black Afro-Americans in the tiny village in South Carolina. THe only thing they educated themselves with is the Bible. These people didn’t need the Internet to tell them how to live their lives, or what is right and wrong. They had enough education to read, do some calculations. More information would not improve their lives. A good sewage system would. The same is true in other situations.
I am not saying the Internet isn’t useful. But I don’t think it is necessary. We can’t stop the advancement of technology. But I think we need to pay equal attention to our ethics, our souls, our moral behavior. I can’t see free or cheap information paid for by the government helping with this problem.
Not necessarily quantity of information, but rather the number of people information is being exposed to. Most information is not easily accessed out there, the internet makes it a lot more easier to gain access to the information we find necessary. If you don’t find a book in your local library, worry not, you can buy it online even if it’s banned where you are.
More internet access certainly wouldn’t solve anything, but I said it would make a difference, which I really think it would. A small difference, perhaps, but a difference nonetheless. It will cause an increase in communication and dialogue, two things that are essential in problem-solving and having a well-informed opinion.
You don’t think the internet is necessary?! Well, I don’t know about you, but I do know that most of my friends have completely changed their political, social, or religious views due to the internet. The internet is the reason why I hold many of the beliefs and opinions I hold today – in fact I trace my “moderation” to the blogs and sites I read. It is VERY influential in this electronically accelerated global culture. Ask any young person with internet access (and who use this access for real information, I’m not talking about free access to porn.)
Intercultural and international communication is the key to the future. I’m a very strong believer in that. If you educate people only within your own borders, problems will still ensue because of a huge lack of a cultural understanding. However the internet is an amazing system which enables us to communicate faster and more effectively. Like someone once said, “if the revolution won’t be televised, it will be online.”
If you don’t believe that, you should think about cyber activism and the way in which it influenced real life in many parts of the world. The Middle East included.
Esra’a: Thanks
I completely agree with you in the points that you made about access to the internet contributing to moderation and a more open minded nature. I myself think that the internet has allowed me experiences (albeit limited) that I would not have had unless I’d travelled far and wide- in this respect in gives us oppurtunities that would not otherwise have been possible without money.
Edo River: Whilst I see your point that fifty years ago the attitude to a right to pleasure would be very different i do think it is important to recognise that we have moved on since then.
…..well perhaps this with a bad choice of words but I do believe that we have the right to pleasure through knowledge and reading…if society is to advance then this is a must. Call me naive but I do believe that. Otherwise I think we just have a clash of opinion….knowledge is power and should be free
As to the right to pleasure…which so amused you