to the gen erations

nurtured on 1984, Cointel-

pro, and The Matrix,  the

image of a global free-thought zone where

people will always be able to say and do

 what they like has obvious emotional

appeal. Little wonder that the notion of

the Net’s inherent uncontrollability has

migrated to the mainstream media from

the cyberpunk novels and technoanarchist

screeds where it was first articulated in the

late 1980s. A leitmotif in the discussion

of the Napster case, for example, was the

claim that it was futile for the recording

industry to sue the file-swapping company

 because an even more troublesome file-

swapping system would inevitably emerge.

Nonetheless, the claim that the Inter-

net is ungovernable by its nature is more

of a hope than a fact.

Insisting that digital technology is

ineluctably beyond the reach of author-

ity [is] inadvertently making it far more

likely that the rules of operation of the

Internet will be established not through

the messy but open processes of democ-

racy but by private negotiations among

large corporations.

 We are in the beginning stages of the

transfer of most of society’s functions—

 working, socializing, shopping, acting

politically—from what Internet denizens

 jokingly call “meatspace” into the virtual

domain. In the real world, these func-

tions are wrapped in a thicket of regula-

tions and cultural norms that are, for the

most part, accepted. Some free-speech

absolutists dislike libel laws, but it is gen-

erally believed that the chilling effect on

discourse they exert is balanced by their

ability to punish gratuitous false attacks

on private individuals. Regulations on

the Net need not be any more obnoxious.

The risk, of course, is overreaching—

of using law and technology to make the

Internet a locus of near absolute control,

rather than near absolute freedom. Para-

doxically, the myth of unfettered online

liberty may help bring this undesirable

prospect closer to reality. “Governments

are going to set down rules,” says [Internet-

law specialist Justin] Hughes, “and if you

spend all your time fighting the existence

of rules you won’t have much chance to

make sure the rules are good ones.”

In other words, hackers may be their

own worst enemies. By claiming that the

Net is uncontrollable, they are absent-

ing themselves from the process of creat-

ing the system that will control it. Having

given up any attempt to set the rules, they

are allowing the rules to be set for them.

Corporations are by no means intrinsi-

cally malign, but it is folly to think that

their interests will always dovetail with

those of the public. The best way to coun-

terbalance Big Money’s efforts to shape

the Net is through the untidy process of

democratic governance—the exact process

rejected by those who place their faith

in the ability of anonymous hackers to

circumvent controls. An important step

toward creating the kind of online future

 we want is to abandon the persistent myth

that information wants to be free.”

 Excerpted from “Taming the Web,” by

Charles C. Mann, first published in the Sep-

tember 2001 issue of Technology Review .

The Myth of aFree InternetA 2001 essay warned

advocates of free expression

not to delude themselves into

thinking the Internet can never

be controlled.

13 Years Ago