Evgeny Morozov: How the Internet strengthens dictatorships

Traducător: Roxana Anamaria Bita Corector: Laszlo Kereszturi

Good morning. I think, as a grumpy Eastern European,

Buna dimineata! Cred ca, in calitate de est-european morocanos,

I was brought in to play the pessimist this morning. So bear with me.

am fost chemat sa joc rolul pesimistului in aceasta dimineata. Asadar, fiti ingaduitori cu mine.

Well, I come from the former Soviet Republic of Belarus,

Eu provin din fosta Republica Sovietica Belarus,

which, as some of you may know,

care, dupa cum poate stiti,

is not exactly an oasis of liberal democracy.

nu este tocmai o oaza de democratie liberala.

So that's why I've always been fascinated

De aceea m-a fascinat intotdeauna

with how technology could actually reshape

modul in care tehnologia ar putea reconfigura

and open up authoritarian societies like ours.

si deschide societatile autoritariene ca a noastra.

So, I'm graduating college

Cand am terminat facultatea,

and, feeling very idealistic,

simtindu-ma foarte idealist,

I decided to join the NGO

am decis sa ma alatur unui ONG

which actually was using new media

care utiliza mijloace de comunicare noi

to promote democracy and media reform

pentru a promova democratia si reforma media

in much of the former Soviet Union.

in mare parte a fostei Uniuni Sovietice.

However, to my surprise,

Totusi, spre surprinderea mea,

I discovered that dictatorships

am descoperit ca dictaturile

do not crumble so easily.

nu se naruie atat de usor.

In fact, some of them actually

De fapt, unele dintre ele

survived the Internet challenge,

au supravietuit provocarii,

and some got even more repressive.

iar altele au devenit chiar mai represive.

So this is when I ran out of my idealism and

Atunci mi-am pierdut idealismul

decided to quit my NGO job

si am decis sa demisionez din ONG,

and actually study how the Internet could impede democratization.

si sa studiez cum internetul ar putea impiedica democratizarea.

Now, I must tell you that this was never

Trebuie sa stiti ca acesta nu a fost niciodata

a very popular argument,

un argument popular.

and it's probably not very popular yet

Si probabil ca inca nu e agreat

with some of you sitting in this audience.

nici de catre unii dintre dumneavoastra, prezenti aici in public.

It was never popular with many political leaders,

Nu a fost niciodata agreat de prea multi lideri politici,

especially those in the United States

mai ales de cei din Statele Unite,

who somehow thought that new media

care credeau ca noile mijloace de comunicare

would be able to do what missiles couldn't.

vor reusi ceea ce rachetele nu au reusit.

That is, promote democracy in difficult places

Adica sa promoveze democratia in locuri dificile

where everything else has already been tried and failed.

unde totul s-a incercat deja si a dat gres.

And I think by 2009,

Si cred ca pana in 2009,

this news has finally reached Britain,

aceasta veste a ajuns in sfarsit si in Marea Britanie.

so I should probably add Gordon Brown to this list as well.

Deci probabil ar trebui sa il adaug si pe Gordon Brown la aceasta lista.

However, there is an underlying argument about logistics,

Cu toate acestea, exista un argument fundamental de ordin logistic,

which has driven so much of this debate. Right?

care a condus o mare parte din aceasta dezbatere. Nu?

So if you look at it close enough,

Daca privesti destul de indeaproape,

you'll actually see that much of this

vei observa ca discutia in mare parte

is about economics.

este de factura economica.

The cybertopians say, much like fax machines

Cyber-utopistii sustin ca, la fel cum au facut

and Xerox machines did in the '80s,

aparatele fax si xerox in anii ’80,

blogs and social networks

blogurile si retelele sociale

have radically transformed the economics of protest,

au transformat radical economia protestului.

so people would inevitably rebel.

Asa incat oamenii se vor razvrati inevitabil.

To put it very simply,

Simplu spus,

the assumption so far has been

presupozitia de pana acum a fost ca,

that if you give people enough connectivity,

oferind oamenilor destula conectivitate,

if you give them enough devices,

dandu-le destule aparate,

democracy will inevitably follow.

democratia va veni de la sine.

And to tell you the truth,

Sincer,

I never really bought into this argument,

nu am muscat niciodata aceasta „momeala”,

in part because I never saw three American presidents

partial pentru ca niciodata nu am mai vazut trei presedinti americani

agree on anything else in the past.

avand aceeasi parere despre ceva inainte.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

But, you know, even beyond that,

Dar dincolo de asta,

if you think about the logic underlying it,

daca te gandesti la logica de la baza ideii,

is something I call iPod liberalism,

este ceea ce eu numesc liberalismul iPod.

where we assume that every single Iranian or Chinese

Este atunci cand presupunem ca fiecare iranian sau chinez

who happens to have and love his iPod

care intamplator are un iPod si il adora

will also love liberal democracy.

va adora automat si democratia liberala.

And again, I think this is kind of false.

Din nou, cred ca aceasta idee e falsa.

But I think a much bigger problem with this

Dar cred ca o problema mult mai mare

is that this logic --

este ca aceasta logica --

that we should be dropping iPods not bombs --

potrivit careia ar trebui sa lansam iPod-uri, nu bombe –

I mean, it would make a fascinating title

Adica, asta ar fi un titlu fascinant

for Thomas Friedman's new book.

pentru noua carte a lui Thomas Friedman.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

But this is rarely a good sign. Right?

Dar acesta e rareori un semnn bun, nu?

So, the bigger problem with this logic

Problema mai mare cu aceasta logica

is that it confuses the intended

este ca se confunda utilizarile intentionate

versus the actual uses of technology.

cu cele reale ale tehnologiei.

For those of you who think that

Cei care cred

new media of the Internet

ca noile media ale internetului

could somehow help us avert genocide,

ne-ar putea ajuta in vreun fel sa evitam genocidul

should look no further than Rwanda,

nu trebuie sa caute mai departe de Rwanda.

where in the '90s it was actually two radio stations

Aici, in anii ’90, doua posturi radio

which were responsible for fueling much of the ethnic hatred in the first place.

au fost responsabile in mare parte de catalizarea urii etnice.

But even beyond that, coming back to the Internet,

Dar dincolo de asta, revenind la internet,

what you can actually see

ceea ce se observa de fapt

is that certain governments

este ca anumite guverne

have mastered the use of cyberspace

s-au specializat in folosirea ciberspatiului

for propaganda purposes. Right?

pentru propaganda.

And they are building what I call the Spinternet.

Iar acestia construiesc ceea ce eu numesc „spinternetul”.

The combination of spin, on the one hand,

Combinatia intre a rasuci („spin”), pe de-o parte,

and the Internet on the other.

si internetul pe de alta parte.

So governments from Russia to China to Iran

Guvernele, de la Rusia la China si la Iran,

are actually hiring, training and paying bloggers

de fapt angajeaza, pregatesc si platesc bloggeri

in order to leave ideological comments

care sa lase comentarii ideologice

and create a lot of ideological blog posts

si sa genereze cat mai multe postari ideologice pe bloguri

to comment on sensitive political issues. Right?

pentru a comenta probleme politice sensibile.

So you may wonder, why on Earth are they doing it?

Poate va intrebati pentru ce Dumnezeu o fac?

Why are they engaging with cyberspace?

De ce se angreneaza in ciberspatiu?

Well my theory is that

Teoria mea este ca

it's happening because censorship actually

se intampla pentru ca de fapt cenzura

is less effective than you think it is in many of those places.

este mai putin eficienta decat credeti in multe din acele locuri.

The moment you put something critical in a blog,

In momentul in care apare ceva critic pe un blog,

even if you manage to ban it immediately,

chiar daca reusesti imediat sa il interzici,

it will still spread around thousands and thousands of other blogs.

tot se va raspandi pe mii si mii de alte bloguri.

So the more you block it,

Deci cu cat il blochezi mai mult,

the more it emboldens people to actually avoid the censorship

cu atat mai tare ii determini pe oameni sa evite cenzura,

and thus win in this cat-and-mouse game.

si astfel sa castige acest joc de-a soarecele si pisica.

So the only way to control this message

Singurul mod de a controla acel mesaj

is actually to try to spin it

este sa incerci sa il rasucesti,

and accuse anyone who has written something critical

acuzand pe oricine a scris ceva critic

of being, for example, a CIA agent.

de a fi, de exemplu, agent CIA.

And, again, this is happening quite often.

Din nou, asta se intampla destul de des.

Just to give you an example of how it works in China, for example.

O sa va dau un exemplu de cum functioneaza in China.

There was a big case in February 2009

A fost un caz important, in februarie 2009,

called "Elude the Cat."

numit „Fereste-te de pisica”.

And for those of you who didn't know, I'll just give a little summary.

Pentru cei care nu stiau, voi face un scurt rezumat.

So what happened is that a 24-year-old man,

Intamplarea a fost ca un tanar de 24 de ani,

a Chinese man, died in prison custody.

un tanar Chinez, a murit in inchisoare.

And police said that it happened

Si politia a declarat ca s-a intamplat

because he was playing hide and seek,

pentru ca se juca de-a „V-ati ascunselea”,

which is "elude the cat" in Chinese slang,

sau in argoul chinez „Fereste-te de pisica”,

with other inmates and hit his head

impreuna cu alti detinuti, si s-a lovit cu capul

against the wall,

de perete.

which was not an explanation which sat well with many Chinese bloggers.

O explicatie care nu prea a multumit bloggerii chinezi.

So they immediately began posting a lot of critical comments.

Acestia au inceput imediat sa posteze comentarii critice.

In fact, QQ.com, which is a popular Chinese website,

Ba chiar pe QQ.com, un website chinez popular,

had 35,000 comments

au aparut 35 000 de comentarii

on this issue within hours.

pe acest subiect in doar cateva ore.

But then authorities did something very smart.

Dar atunci autoritatile au actionat foarte inteligent.

Instead of trying to purge these comments,

In loc sa incerce epurarea acestor comentarii,

they instead went and reached out to the bloggers.

ei au abordat bloggerii.

And they basically said, "Look guys. We'd like you to become netizen investigators."

Practic le-au transmis „Uitati, baieti. Ne-ar placea sa deveniti cetateni investigatori ”

So 500 people applied,

500 de oameni s-au inscris

and four were selected to actually go and tour the facility in question,

si patru au fost selectati pentru a merge si a face turul locului cu pricina,

and thus inspect it and then blog about it.

si astfel sa-l inspecteze, pentru ca apoi sa scrie pe blog despre asta.

Within days the entire incident was forgotten,

In cateva zile incidentul a fost uitat,

which would have never happened if they simply tried to block the content.

ceea ce nu s-ar fi intamplat daca ar fi incercat doar sa blocheze continutul.

People would keep talking about it for weeks.

Oamenii ar mai fi vorbit timp de saptamani.

And this actually fits with another interesting theory

Iar asta se potriveste cu o alta teorie interesanta

about what's happening in authoritarian states

despre ceea ce se petrece in statele autoritare

and in their cyberspace.

si in ciberspatiul lor.

This is what political scientists call authoritarian deliberation,

Asta e ceea ce politologii numesc deliberare autoritariana.

and it happens when governments are actually reaching out to their critics

Si se intampla cand guvernele se apropie de criticii lor

and letting them engage with each other online.

si le permit sa interactioneze online.

We tend to think

Tindem sa credem

that somehow this is going to harm these dictatorships,

ca asta va dauna dictaturilor,

but in many cases it only strengthens them.

dar in multe cazuri doar le consolideaza.

And you may wonder why.

Poate va intrebati de ce.

I'll just give you a very short list of reasons

Va voi da o scurta lista de motive

why authoritarian deliberation

pentru care deliberarea autoritariana

may actually help the dictators.

ar putea de fapt sa ajute dictatorii.

And first it's quite simple.

Iar primul e foarte simplu.

Most of them operate in a complete information vacuum.

Majoritatea opereaza intr-un vid absolut de informatie.

They don't really have the data they need

Ei nu au datele necesare

in order to identify emerging threats facing the regime.

pentru a identifica amenintarile emergente la adresa regimului.

So encouraging people to actually go online

Deci a-i incuraja peoameni sa intre online

and share information and data

si sa faca schimb de informatii

on blogs and wikis is great

pe bloguri si wiki-uri e foarte bine

because otherwise, low level apparatchiks and bureaucrats

deoarece, in caz contrar, operatiuni si birocrati de nivel inferior

will continue concealing what's actually happening in the country, right?

vor continua sa ascunda ce se intampla de fapt in tara, nu?

So from this perspective, having blogs and wikis

Din aceasta perspectiva, a lasa blogurile si wiki-urile

produce knowledge has been great.

sa genereze informatii a fost minunat.

Secondly, involving public in any decision making

In al doilea rand, implicarea publica in luarea deciziilor

is also great

este de asemenea benefica

because it helps you to share the blame

pentru ca iti permite sa imparti vina

for the policies which eventually fail.

pentru politicile care in final vor esua.

Because they say, "Well look, we asked you,

Pentru ca vor zice „Uite, v-am intrebat,

we consulted you, you voted on it.

v-am consultat, ati votat pentru asta.

You put it on the front page of your blog.

Ati pus-o pe prima pagina a blogurilor.

Well, great. You are the one who is to blame."

Atunci voi sunteti de vina.”

And finally, the purpose of

Si in final,

any authoritarian deliberation efforts

scopul oricaror eforturi de deliberare autoritariana

is usually to increase the legitimacy of the regimes, both at home and abroad.

este de obicei sporirea legitimitatii regimului atat acasa, cat si peste granite.

So inviting people to all sorts of public forums,

Deci a invita oamenii la tot felul de forumuri publice,

having them participate in decision making,

a-i implica in luarea deciziilor

it's actually great.

este de fapt foarte bine.

Because what happens is that then

Pentru ca in consecinta

you can actually point to this initiative and say,

poti indrepta atentia catre aceasta initiativa si poti spune

"Well, we are having a democracy. We are having a forum."

:”Pai avem o democratie. Avem un forum democratic.”

Just to give you an example,

Doar ca sa va dau un exemplu,

one of the Russian regions, for example,

una din regiunile rusesti

now involves its citizens

isi implica acum cetatenii

in planning its strategy up until year 2020.

in planificarea strategiei pana in anul 2020.

Right? So they can go online

Deci ei pot intra online

and contribute ideas on what that region would look like by the year 2020.

si pot contribui cu idei despre cum va arata acea regiune pana in anul 2020.

I mean, anyone who has been to Russia would know

Oricine a fost in Rusia stie

that there was no planning in Russia for the next month.

ca nu exista planificare in Rusia nici pentru luna urmatoare.

So having people involved in planning for 2020

Asadar implicarea oamenilor in planificarea pentru 2020

is not necessarily going to change anything,

nu va schimba neaparat ceva.

because the dictators are still the ones who control the agenda.

Asta pentru ca tot dictatorii sunt cei care controleaza agenda.

Just to give you an example from Iran,

Va voi da un exemplu din Iran.

we all heard about the Twitter revolution

Cu totii am auzit despre revolutia Twitter

that happened there,

care a avut loc acolo.

but if you look close enough, you'll actually see

Dar daca privesti cu atentie, vei vedea

that many of the networks and blogs

ca multe din retelele si blogurile

and Twitter and Facebook were actually operational.

si Twitter si Facebook erau de fapt operationale.

They may have become slower,

Poate ca au incetinit,

but the activists could still access it

dar activistii puteau in continuare sa le acceseze

and actually argue that having access to them

si sa sustina ca accesul la ele

is actually great for many authoritarian states.

e de fapt benefic pentru multe state autoritare.

And it's great simply because

Si e benefic pentru ca

they can gather open source intelligence.

pot culege informatii cu sursa deschisa.

In the past it would take you weeks, if not months,

In trecut iti lua saptamani, daca nu luni,

to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other.

sa afli cum intrau activistii iranieni in legatura unii cu altii.

Now you actually know how they connect to each other

Acum stii cum relationeaza

by looking at their Facebook page.

vizitandu-le pagina de Facebook.

I mean KGB, and not just KGB,

KGB-ul, si nu numai,

used to torture in order to actually get this data.

obisnuia sa tortureze pentru a obtine aceste informatii.

Now it's all available online.

Acum totul e disponibil online.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

But I think the biggest conceptual pitfall

Dar cred ca cea mai mare capcana conceptuala

that cybertopians made

in care au cazut cyber-utopistii

is when it comes to digital natives, people who have grown up online.

este in privinta nativilor digitali, a celor care au crescut online.

We often hear about cyber activism,

Auzim adesea despre cyber-activism,

how people are getting more active because of the Internet.

despre cum oamenii devin mai activi datorita internetului.

Rarely hear about cyber hedonism, for example,

Rareori auzim despre cyber-hedonism, de exemplu,

how people are becoming passive.

despre cum oamenii devin pasivi.

Why? Because they somehow assume that the Internet

De ce? Pentru ca ei presupun cumva ca internetul

is going to be the catalyst of change

va fi catalizatorul schimbarii

that will push young people into the streets,

care va scoare tinerii in strada,

while in fact it may actually be the new opium for the masses

in timp ce de fapt ar putea fi noul opiu pentru mase

which will keep the same people in their rooms downloading pornography.

care va tine aceiasi oameni in camerele lor, downloadand pornografie.

That's not an option being considered too strongly.

Aceasta nu e o optiune luata prea serios in calcul.

So for every digital renegade that is revolting in the streets of Tehran,

Deci pentru fiecare renegat digital care se revolta pe strazile Teheranului,

there may as well be two digital captives

ar putea foarte bine sa existe doi captivi digitali

who are actually rebelling only in the World of Warcraft.

care se razvratesc de fapt doar in World of Warcraft.

And this is realistic. And there is nothing wrong about it

Iar asta e o perspectiva realista. Si nu e nimic in neregula cu asta,

because the Internet has greatly empowered many of these young people

deoarece internetul i-a capacitat enorm pe multi dintre acesti tineri.

and it plays a completely different social role for them.

Iar pentru ei joaca un rol social complet diferit.

If you look at some of the surveys

Daca studiezi cateva din sondajele

on how the young people actually benefit from the Internet,

despre adevaratele beneficii ale internetului pentru tineri,

you'll see that the number of teenagers in China, for example,

vei vedea ca numarul adolescentilor din China, de exemplu,

for whom the Internet actually broadens their sex life,

carora internetul de fapt le-a imbogatit viata sexuala

is three times more than in the United States.

este de trei ori mai mare decat in Statele Unite.

So it does play a social role,

Deci joaca intr-adevar un rol social,

however it may not necessarily lead to political engagement.

dar nu duce in mod necesar la angajament politic.

So the way I tend to think of it

Modul in care tind sa vad lucrurile

is like a hierarchy of cyber-needs in space,

este sub forma unei ierarhii a cyber-nevoilor in spatiu.

a total rip-off from Abraham Maslow.

O copie ieftina dupa Abraham Maslow.

But the point here is that

Dar ideea aici este ca,

when we get the remote Russian village online,

atunci cand un sat rusesc izolat va intra online,

what will get people to the Internet

ceea ce ii va aduce pe oameni pe internet

is not going to be the reports from Human Rights Watch.

nu vor fi raporturile privind monitorizarea drepturilor omului.

It's going to be pornography, "Sex and the City,"

Va fi pornografie, Sex in the City,

or maybe watching funny videos of cats.

sau poate urmarirea unor videoclipuri amuzante cu pisici.

So this is something you have to recognize.

Asta e ceva ce trebuie recunoscut.

So what should we do about it?

Asadar ce ar trebui sa facem?

Well I say we have to stop thinking

Eu cred ca trebuie sa nu ne mai gandim

about the number of iPods per capita

la numarul de iPod-uri pe cap de locuitor

and start thinking about ways in which

si sa incepem sa gandim moduri in care

we can empower intellectuals,

putem sprijini intelectualii,

dissidents, NGOs and then the members of civil society.

disidentii, ONG-urile, si apoi membri societatii civile.

Because even what has been happening up 'til now

Deoarece, date fiind cele petrecute pana acum

with the Spinternet and authoritarian deliberation,

cu spinternetul si deliberarea autoritariana,

there is a great chance that those voices will not be heard.

sansele sunt mari ca acele voci sa nu fie auzite.

So I think we should shatter some of our utopian assumptions

Eu cred ca ar trebui sa distrugem unele din presupunerile noastre utopiste

and actually start doing something about it.

si sa incepem sa facem ceva concret.

Thank you.

Va multumesc.

(Applause)

(Aplauze)