Essay needing corrections... ;)

[jrivera]

Considered one of the best books of the year 2011 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this book offers an interesting analysis of the relation between the Internet development and its political consequences, specially in authoritarian governments. We could say then than this book is more about policymaking than about technological and social changes.

The book is focused on the concept of “democratic promotion”, a political frame that shapes all the arguments of the author, (unfortunately) without further discussion on what these noble aim is supposed to mean. An alternative title for this book could perfectly be The Open Network and Its Enemies (paraphrasing Popper), due to the profound presence of this line of liberal thinking in Morozov approaches (with all the complexity that it means).

In my opinion, this is clearly the main flaw of the book, as I am arguing later, it rests depth to the analysis of political strategies and its consequences. Anyway, the book does not fail in giving a powerful argumentation against most of the wrong assumptions the public and the policymakers make about the influence of the Internet in world politics.

Main Ideas and Style

As some other critics of the book have already said, the assumptions that Morozov fights back are mainly two:

Cyber-utopianism: this naïve idea proposes that all the advantages of the new media play in the benefit of the well intended citizens and activists, neglecting the downside, that is autoritarian governments taking also advantage of new media to improve their repressive methods.
Internet centrism: it is the “technological determination” adapted to the Internet medium, the idea that the effect of Internet development is the same regardless of the socio-political environment.

However, reducing the book to this two concepts is quite simplistic and definitely wrong, because it presents quite a lot of relevant ideas and insights to understand the new techno-political situation. I could only find two reasons why his critics opt for this reductive analysis, one could be the repetitive style of the author (quoting The Guardian), and the other could be the rigid frame from which the book has been writing (that's my personal bet).

We can also say that the book has two different parts characterized by two styles:

In the first one, from chapter 1 to 7, Morozov gives powerful arguments against the cyber-utopian perspective. The style is fresh and teasing, with impressive titles like: “Orwell''s favorite lolcat” or “Why the KGB wants you to join Facebook” the author tries to engage the attention of the reader, something that remembers to some great American writers like Levitt or Gladwell. In these chapters we can also find good descriptions of the use of the Internet by authoritarian governments, in what Morozov calls the trinity of authoritarian strategies: censorship, propaganda, surveillance.

The second part has a more technical or academic style, discussing the role of technology in social changes from a broader perspective. We could say that it focused on Internet centrism and technological determinism, but actually it deals with much more issues, like the challenges and and errors of Western policymaking in Internet matters. It seems that Morozov feels better in this kind of writing position than when he tries to impress the reader.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrivera

Considered one of the best books of the year 2011 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this book offers an interesting analysis of the relation between the Internet development and its political consequences, specially (wrong word) in authoritarian governments. We could say then than this book is more about policymaking than about technological and social changes.

The book is focused on the concept of “democratic promotion”, a political frame that shapes all the arguments of the author, (unfortunately) without further discussion on what these (check agreement) noble aim is supposed to mean. An alternative title for this book could perfectly be The Open Network and Its Enemies (paraphrasing Popper) (book title needs to be offset), due to the profound presence of this line of liberal thinking in Morozov approaches (with all the complexity that it means).

In my opinion, this is clearly the main flaw of the book. As I am arguing later, it rests (wrong word) depth to the analysis of political strategies and its consequences. Anyway, the book does not fail in giving (not wrong, but the infinitive is more commonly said in this phrase) a powerful argumentation (wrong word) against most of the wrong assumptions the public and the policymakers make about the influence of the Internet in world politics.

Main Ideas and Style

As some other critics of the book have already said, the assumptions that Morozov fights back are mainly two:

Cyber-utopianism: this naïve idea proposes that all the advantages of the new media play in the benefit of the well intended citizens and activists, neglecting the downside, that is, autoritarian governments taking also (incorrect placement) advantage of new media to improve their repressive methods.
Internet centrism: it is the “technological determination” adapted to the Internet medium, the idea that the effect of Internet development is the same regardless of the socio-political environment.

However, reducing the book to this (agreement) two concepts is quite simplistic and definitely wrong, because it presents quite a lot of relevant ideas and insights to understand the new techno-political situation. I could only find two reasons why his critics opt for this reductive analysis; one could be the repetitive style of the author (quoting The Guardian), and the other could be the rigid frame from which the book has been writing (need the past participle here) (that's my personal bet).

We can also say that the book has two different parts characterized by two styles:

In the first one, from chapter 1 to 7, Morozov gives powerful arguments against the cyber-utopian perspective. The style is fresh and teasing, with impressive titles, like “Orwell''s favorite lolcat” or “Why the KGB wants you to join Facebook”. The author tries to engage the attention of the reader, something that remembers to (wrong verb) some great American writers like Levitt or Gladwell. In these chapters we can also find good descriptions of the use of the Internet by authoritarian governments, in what Morozov calls the trinity of authoritarian strategies: censorship, propaganda, surveillance.

The second part has a more technical or academic style, discussing the role of technology in social changes from a broader perspective. We could say that it focused on Internet centrism and technological determinism, but actually it deals with much (agreement) more issues, like the challenges and and errors of Western policymaking in Internet matters. It seems that Morozov feels better in this kind of writing position than when he tries to impress the reader.

I've marked what needs to be changed. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

[jrivera]

Thank you very much Rusty!


I think I have it right. I am copying only the phrases in which I am doubtful.

- .... the relation between Internet development and its political consequences, with an special emphasis in authoritarian governments. - As I am arguing later, it takes away depth from the analysis of political strategies and its consequences.
- Anyway, the book does not fail to give powerful arguments against most of the wrong assumptions the public
- authoritarian governments also taking advantage of new media
- The author tries to engage the attention of the reader, something that reminds of some great American writers like Levitt or Gladwell.



Thanx!

[GuapaErika]

Originally Posted by jrivera

Thank you very much Rusty!


I think I have it right. I am copying only the phrases in which I am doubtful.

- .... the relation between Internet development and its political consequences, with an special emphasis in authoritarian governments. - As I am arguing later, it takes away depth from the analysis of political strategies and its consequences.
- Anyway, the book does not fail to give powerful arguments against most of the wrong assumptions the public
- authoritarian governments also taking advantage of new media
- The author tries to engage the attention of the reader, something that reminds of some great American writers like Levitt or Gladwell.



Thanx!

Looks good to me, Javier!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jrivera

Thank you very much Rusty!
You're welcome!

- .... the relation between Internet development and its political consequences, with an special emphasis in authoritarian governments.

The 'n' isn't needed when the following word begins with a consonant sound, of course. What I had in mind, though, when I marked your original essay, was how American English speakers prefer 'especially'. This means the same as 'particularly' or 'in particular'.
The word 'specially' has another meaning, to us in the U.S., anyway.

[GuapaErika]

Originally Posted by Rusty

The 'n' isn't needed when the following word begins with a consonant sound, of course. What I had in mind, though, when I marked your original essay, was how American English speakers prefer 'especially'. This means the same as 'particularly' or 'in particular'.
The word 'specially' has another meaning, to us in the U.S., anyway.

Sheesh, how did I miss that "an"?? And yes, I agree with using "especially" or "specifically."

[jrivera]

Thank you again Rusty. And Happy new year!
It's a bit hard for me to distinguish between specially and especially, so I guess it would be better to choose another word.

[Rusty]

Use 'particularly', then. It means the same thing as 'especially'.

[caliber1]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Use 'particularly', then. It means the same thing as 'especially'.

Estoy de acuerdo

[jrivera]

I really appreciate your help. ;=)