A poorly-constructed argument

The Raleigh News & Observer devoted part of its Sunday edition to considering the question, "Who Should Control the Internet?"

The subheading on that set the terms of engagement: "The Internet began as a U.S. experiment but exploded into a worldwide phenomenon. Now, some say, the U.S. should share oversight of the Web."

One Janna Anderson, an Elon University professor leading eight researchers to this week's United Nations Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, attempted to make the case for "shared governance of the Web" being "vital to the greater good."

She botched the assignment.

Her essay was thick with platitudes: "Because the Internet crosses every border, it is unlikely we can achieve agreement on its governance. Instead, we must find ways to work cooperatively to deal with problems that can often seem impossible to solve."

We also got: "Information is power. Corporations are going to continue to acquire, buy, label and sell information, and governments are going to continue to monitor and influence its flow. We can't stop that. We can work to encourage individual leaders to make open, responsible decisions that serve the common good."

Anderson proposed a Platonic ideal without identifying it as such: "Never before has it been so important to have well-educated, informed, good-hearted, visionary leaders."

On the big "who should control the Internet?" question, she proposed collective reponsibility, seasoning the ambiguous suggestion with a dash of guilt imputed to anyone who might think differently: "A system of shared governance -- a network of groups of smart Internet stakeholders with targeted responsibilities -- is an imperfect one at best. But the vast majority of people whose first loyalty is to serve humanity consider this the best option. "

Note how circular that "argument" is. How do you find people whose first loyalty is to "serve humanity" rather than to make money, or defend country, or distribute information efficiently? Why, you make sure you've picked those who are "informed, good-hearted, and visionary." And what's the criteria for identifying that stellar collection of character traits? "Willingness to serve humanity."

Who decides? We're not told, although the implication is that it better be a large group of people not dominated by American citizens.

"That's why it is vital that all of the nodes in the human network -- all of us as individuals -- are constantly engaged in finding ways to continue the positive evolution of this pinnacle of connection," Anderson concludes, without having demonstrated why continued American control impedes the achievement of a goal that many people worldwide already work toward without apparent hindrance.

Neither did Anderson explain how "shared governance" might work in a multinational environment where she's already stipulated that agreement on the mechanics of governance is unlikely.

Regular readers of this blog can guess where I stand on the question of Internet governance. Who better to mind the servers and the domain name machinery than the people who a) created the thing, and b) see it as another manifestation of the free speech tradition very nearly unique to the Anglosphere among the cultures of the world?

I submit that although concerns of corporatist and statist influence are valid, "fairness" is not reason enough to take such Internet governance as there is from a free people for the sole purpose of diffusing it among countries with vastly different political systems-- especially when the goal of this redistribution of power is to promote the growth of an already-flourishing diversity of viewpoint. Moreover, any attempted redistribution of power along the lines that Anderson hints are preferable would more likely consolidate power in the hands of an even smaller and more unaccountable bureaucracy. Don't take my word for it. Ask former ambassador John Bolton, or any midlevel Vatican functionary you can find, about the openmindedness of the United Nations.

Anderson is highly regarded in Elon University's School of Communications. She knows her way around the Internet, and entered academia from journalism. One would hope that any argument she made could withstand scrutiny for more than a few minutes, and yet this one does not. In the most charitable possible interpretation of what happened, I suspect she wrote this essay on deadline and without having given it much thought.