Sunday, December 03, 2006

The Wealth of Networks

The conclusion of Benkler's discussion of the position of the internet in modern society is an interesting bookend to Goldsmith and Wu's Who Controls the Internet? While Goldsmith and Wu strongly believe that the internet has and will continue to be controlled by governmental policy, Benkler sees blogging, Wikipedia, and other collaborative social efforts to be ultimately in control of the internet. Benkler believes that "social production," or the efforts of group collaborations, are ultimately more profitable under the new market introduced by the internet. Like Goldsmith and Wu, Benkler acknowledges the role of government control over the internet, realizing that it can impede on the growth of this new sector of the economy, but he seems to think that this is less likely. Benkler is much more optimistic about the democratic future of the internet. He sees the freedoms expanding through these new ecnonomic opportunities.

While the reading was dense at times, his theories are interesting. However, after reading Goldsmith and Wu I am tentative as to the true "freedoms" the internet may hold. While large-scale group collaboration is possible on the internet without restriction (such as through blogs like our very own), I do not think the amazing transformation of "markets and freedoms" that Benkler implies is likely. New freedoms will be established, and the market will adapt to fit this new economic sector (as it already has begun doing), but eventually the internet will suffer the same regulations as all other spheres. The most interesting aspect of Benkler's arguement, in my opinion, was how he considers "social sharing" a form of free transaction. I had never thought of simple daily transactions in this manner before. Such a mindset opens up an entire world of unrealized freedoms, uncontrolled by government regulation. Benkler's implication that expanding this sector of transactions would undoubtedly expand freedoms in general is an interesting connection, but seems overly idealistic.

0 comments: