Lifecourse Blog

It's understandable that the WSJ would want to downplay the effect of internet freedom, considering how it's being used in the U.S. to promote a liberal agenda that's unwelcome to the Journal's editorial position. If there is an error in what it's calling “net utopianism,” though, it lies in a belief that the liberalizing effect of information flow will be instantaneous or unmediated by more conventional (and potentially violent) struggle.

Historically, free information flow HAS been a revolutionary thing, and it's not new with the Internet. The same thing happened centuries ago with the invention of the printing press. That led to an explosion of literacy, to the demand for the Scriptures in common language translations, and so to the Protestant Reformation and the first Awakening era you and Bill Strauss recognized. After that, it led to both the scientific revolution and the spread of democratic ideals.

The Internet is simply a bigger, faster, more interconnected version of the same thing. By facilitating communication among people with a progressive agenda, it encourages revolt. Of course, it can also be used by the authorities to find and crack down on dissident leaders, but only to the extent that the state has the physical resources to follow up on the information acquired, which is inversely proportional to the number of people involved.

The one thing we should avoid doing is expecting such revolutions to be bloodless. Information by itself won't overthrow a tyrannical regime, action will be required. But information is a key part of the process, without which the action can't be coordinated. If the U.S. does put internet freedom into our diplomacy as a goal, I predict this will create considerable friction with certain other countries, notably Iran and China, but also Saudi Arabia. These governments know what a powder keg they're sitting on. The last thing they want is a lighted match getting too close to it.