The Virtual Commons

Is it not a worthwhile idea to have the internet networks such as Facebook, twitter, Linkedin, etc, be government or at least neutrally controlled or run? In general the internet is now becoming the main source of social and informational interaction for both official and private interaction. Google, dictates what comes up when we search for something and companies can ‘move up’ their ‘Google position’. We basically are turning into a world where corporations are controlling our public contacts and usage. I mean if you think about it, corporations don’t run public spaces, they don’t run ‘the air’, or ‘the water’, they simply don’t run ‘the commons…’ This is not to say that there aren’t companies that own water and profit from it – but this has proven to be one of the great travesties of the globalizing world anyway. And yes companies pollute the air, and fight every ounce of regulation, but they still must gain government approval – which may come in the form of a payout, or it may come in democratically elected committee approval – but it is still run through the people that are ‘theoretically’ charged with looking out for the people of that area’s best interests. Theoretically, these are public goods for everyone’s usage. But more pointedly, the internet is a virtual public good. Everyone wants access to it and wants to be able to use it free of charge and unhindered by the restraints of someone or some entity that they don’t know, and whose interests are not in question. So why is something as basic and simple as the virtual commons not simply run not-for-profit or by a public entity? I mean the definition of a non-profit includes limits on the purposes of the organization's activities, a ban on personal benefit from those activities, restrictions on political and lobbying activities, the publics right to inspect corporate records, etc, and its mission is for the public good while, for the most part, must have a substantial amount of money (usually about 1/3) come from public donations based on public interests and visible to the public. In the form of a government – though this could be seen as corrupt or not trustworthy though some eyes, if it is democratically founded it is instituted by the people and in their own best interests. On the other hand, a for-profit corporation is beholden to its shareholders and it interests are based on turning a profit or losing jobs, etc. Granted, politicians want to get reelected, non-profit employees want to maintain their positions, but the inherent motives are both for the public good – not the financial interests of the shareholders. Basically, I see a conflict of interests when a for-profit company is responsible for choosing what information I am presented with.

Now, in terms of social networking sites, this is even more important. They are not just controlling information, but people. Who you speak to, how you interact with them, under what circumstances. Imagine you walked into a park – which of course was built by government funding and in many ways designed to control space to some extent, yet designed by people looking out for the public good (in a democracy of course) – and in that park there are police officers not just making sure that you don’t spray-paint on the benches or kill someone, but how you move through the park, what paths you take, with whom you may speak, where you can sit, what you can look at, etc. Now in a democratic society these police officers’ remit is to protect the public good. But imagine if in this social situation the police officers where not looking out for the public interests, but where in fact ‘rent-a-cops’ with all the authority of the police on this property, because it was privately held. Doesn’t sound too bad yet, but what if the security officers where allowed to tell you what to do where to go, where to interact, and with whom? The only thing you could do to stop it, was just not to come to this ‘park’ anymore. But what about in our lives now? With the direction that the world – especially the virtual world – is going, you can not leave these worlds. You can not ignore them, as they will soon become the life-blood of society. The virtual world is already the easiest way to communicate, shop, and interact for most people (emails, don't need to leave the house, delivery). Imagine that the layout or and our moves within this virtual park were in fact dictated by a company that was trying to channel us all in specific directions that gained them more money as opposed to us choosing our own directions based on finding our own happiness? The internet is about money. It is a business venture that is now taking over humanities social interactions. Should this be governed by someone with conflicting interests of the public good versus profit maximizing motives and shareholder rights? I would say no, I do not want my information or my social existence dictated by someone else with ulterior motives to that of my own. The government may be truly flawed, and non-profits have their critics, but at least on a fundamental level their interests are based on the public good, public financing and public trust. If they don’t succeed in satisfying their electorate or public donors, they don’t get reelected, or lose there jobs. It is not that they lose their jobs for not making several individuals enough money.

Simply put, the virtual world, and specifically the social interaction within it, are part of the global ‘commons’. There is a fundamental conflict of interests if human interaction is dictated by an entity that has motives that are not about providing the best ‘common’ area for society, but rather ‘how to get the most people from within society to visit this space so that these individual interests can gain the most ‘impressions’ and in turn the most revenue - profit maximization. They only want to satisfy you if it makes them money, and I don’t trust someone that is simply interacting with me, not out of good faith, but in trying to ‘get something from me’ – especially when it is money...