It has become a popular statement in the media and other sources that the Internet is an agent of democratization. From the early 1990’s onward breathless academic and popular commentators have spilled liters of ink writing about the ability of the Internet to sound the death knell of authoritarian governments all over the world. This idea is nothing new, looking back over the history of communications technology it becomes clear the introduction of a new mechanism of communication is closely followed by optimistic statements regarding its ability to change the world. As an example after the Tienanmen Square protests a short-lived “Fax for Freedom” program was introduced to leverage the awesome power of the fax machine to pester the Chinese Communist Party. Commentary on the Internet went through a similar phase, featuring a Jetson’s like level of optimism and faith in the bright and shiny future created by technology. Users would be able to get an unlimited about of information about politics and other important events around the world, discuss this data with their peers and undertake direct action in the form of online voting, petitions and protests. This growing series of connections would present such a strong challenge to non-democratic regimes because their citizens would now be capable of finding alternate sources of information outside of state sanctioned channels. The globalization of information would eventually lead to a more active and informed global populace capable of eventually toppling even the most repressive regime from the inside out.

But these rosy predictions did not come true. Explanations for this failure generally fall into two camps, those focused on the state and those which pin the blame on the users.

The former argues that the Internet ultimately has failed to present a strong challenge to non-democratic regimes because states are better positioned to take advantage of the benefits of online connectivity to increase its own capacity.This increase in capacity takes two forms, greater surveillance powers and an increase in government responsiveness. Both of these factors lower the likelihood of opposition to a non-democratic regime. The growth in surveillance comes from the increased opportunities offered by data mining and other forms of intelligence gathering created by the Internet. Users leave trails online that can be followed and monitored, allowing any potentially dangerous actions to be observed and countermanded. Additionally, states can make use of the Internet to increase the quality of their own services, utilizing e-government techniques to create a more nimble and responsive government. According to those who blame the state, these changes are likely because any given state has significantly more resources and motivation to utilize the Internet than the average user. This advantage in funding, mobilization and willpower manifests itself as a strong control and co-optation of the Internet to serve the needs and goals of the state, making the Internet a tool of authoritarian regimes, not their downfall.

Alternatively the blame can be placed on users. It has been argued that the Internet promotes polarization or laziness among those who use it, distracting them from worthwhile and important causes with an array of trivialities and meaningless arguments. Instead of leveraging the power of the “network of networks” to pursue tangible and productive goals users are more likely to amuse themselves with copious amounts of porn. If one’s attention ever does turn to politics the structure of the Internet promotes dispute and polarization instead of consensus and mobilization. Search engines generally present content based on its popularity, but the sheer volume of commentary on the Internet means that it is hard for any one account to stick out from the pack. Therefore information which is the most successful also tends to be the most inflammatory. Saying that a political opponent’s policies are flawed is not as interesting as calling them the Antichrist and therefore gets fewer hits and becomes less visible. This trend facilitates polarization and the atomization of the online polity into smaller more ineffective groups.

However it seems that there is more evidence to support a cautiously optimistic stance on the relationship between the Internet and anti-authoritarianism than ever before in history. From the attempted “Green Revolution” in Iran with its connections to twitter to the use of Facebook in the Tunisian and Egyptian protests the idea that the Internet can facilitate democratization is experiencing a renaissance. This offers an opportunity to reexamine the modern Internet, which has advanced so far from the BBS systems of the early 1990’s and comment on how it has contributed to these struggles.

The common factor in all of these events is the population capitalizing on the ability of the Internet to break down the barriers that previously separated the producers and consumers of content.

Think for a moment about television, or radio. Those involved with these means of communication can be divided up into two distinct camps; those who produce content and those who consume it. Producing content requires complex technology, regulatory approval and a large amount of time. Therefore the control of this production is generally centered around a few producers in a given area, such as the national television stations or local radio broadcasters. Relatively centralized production means that a state can easily control and monopolize content within a given area, allowing for the state-sanctioned version of events to become the popular version as well.The Internet distributes the ability to produce. Anyone with a basic connection, a bit of time and ego can write a blog. The average person on the street can shoot a video with their cellphone or take photos with a camera. This information can then be published and becomes accessible to people around the world, generating interest and public pressure against authoritarian regimes.

But the success of this tactic depends ultimately on the users who are exposed to this content.

For those of us sitting outside, watching what is happening in Egypt or Tunisia it is our job to find, distribute and publicize the content that is being generated by our fellow users. Content is only as effective if it is seen, if it is heard, if it is experienced. Therefore take the time, post links to Facebook, tell your friends, your family and your coworkers about what is going on. It is the least we can do to compliment the bravery and courage of those taking to the streets to express their opinion in the face of repression.