This is the conclusion of a debate that ran on The Economist website a couple of month’s back. In what appeared to be a well structured debate the conclusion of the moderator was as follows…

“By a narrow margin, the floor has chosen to oppose the motion. In so doing, you have declared your belief that the internet is “inherently” a force for democracy.

The motion did not ask to what extent the internet favours democrats or tyrants. Yet it is notable that in comments from the floor contributors on both sides of the argument frequently played down its significance. “Just another tool” was a commonly used phrase. Perhaps, as I suggested in my opening, such caution is a reaction to breathless media coverage of the web’s role in revolutions. Perhaps you are naturally cool-headed.

Over the past two weeks, supporters of the motion frequently refused to accept that such a “tool” could inherently favour either side. Such a question, they argued, was nonsensical. Sometimes it was used for democratic means. Often it was not.

But the majority disagreed. The internet is naturally inclined to encourage the free circulation of information, many contested. And the free circulation of information, they argued, is inherently incompatible with authoritarianism—even if some governments have succeeded so far in inhibiting the internet’s full power. It is this view that has largely carried the day. I hope such optimism proves well-founded.”

While I accept the moderator’s view and the weight of current public opinion on this particular debate I remain ‘uncomfortable’ with the conclusion. Continue reading →