The Net Delusion - Evgeny Morozov [53]
If we view all Internet activity in authoritarian states as being primarily political and oppositional, we are likely to miss much of what makes it so rich and diverse. While the Western media pay a lot of attention to how China’s “human flesh search engines”—people who name and shame misbehaving public officials and other Internet users by publicizing their personal details—are making the Chinese government more accountable, they rarely report that the Chinese government, too, has found ways to co-opt these same “search engines” to score propaganda points. When in March 2010 an Internet user from the Chinese city of Changzhou complained about pollution in Beitang River and accused the chief of the local environmental protection bureau of failing to do his job, demanding his resignation, the local administration mobilized the local “human flesh search engines” to track down the complainer, so that he could be rewarded with 2,000 yuan.
One of the temptations that Western observers should avoid is to interpret the fact that authoritarian governments are adjusting their operating methods as a sign of democratization. This is a common fallacy among those who do not yet understand that it is perpetual change, not stagnation, that has enabled authoritarianism to survive for so long. A modern authoritarian state is much like the Ship of Theseus in Greek mythology: It’s been rebuilt so many times that even those navigating it are no longer sure if any of the original wood remains.
Although prominent Western blogger-academics like Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds laud the power of mobile phones and argue that “converting an unresponsive and murderous Stalinist/Maoist tyranny into something that responds to cellphone calls is not an achievement to be sneezed at,” we should not just pat ourselves on the back, clap hands, and praise the inexorable march of Internet freedom. A tyranny that responds to cellphone calls is still a tyranny, and its leaders may even enjoy fiddling with their iPhone apps. Nor should we automatically assume that tyrannies do not want to respond to cellphone calls. The supposed gains of “democratization” may look considerably less impressive if they are seen as indirectly facilitating the survival of dictatorships, even if in slightly modified form.
The Kremlin Likes Blogs and So Should You
Contrary to the usual Western stereotypes, modern dictators are not just a loose bunch of utterly confused loonies lounging around in their information-resistant bunkers, counting their riches, Scrooge McDuckstyle, and waiting to get deposed, oblivious to what is happening outside. Quite the opposite: They are usually active consumers and producers of information. In fact, finding ways to understand and gather information—especially about threats to the regime—is one invariable feature of authoritarian survival. But dictators can’t just go and interview random people in the streets; they almost always have to go to intermediaries, usually the secret police.
This, however, rarely gives an accurate view of what’s happening, if only because nobody wants to take responsibility for the inevitable malfunctions of the authoritarian system. That’s why throughout history rulers always tried to diversify their news sources. In fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad