Blogs and Stories
The Internet Is Bad For You
Can Obama's plan for universal broadband turn the recession into a political nightmare resembling the 1930s? Yes, it can, writes the author of the controversial book, The Cult of the Amateur.
On December 6, Barack Obama announced his intention to fund a massive public works program of somewhere between $400 and $700 billion which will create enough jobs to avert the economic catastrophe of the 1930s. But I fear that one element in Obama’s well-intentioned infrastructure plan—his goal of providing all Americans with broadband Internet access—might one day be seen as inadvertently laying the foundations for a return to fascism, the political catastrophe of the 1930’s.
In the Europe of the 1930s, representative democracy’s abject failure to confront the rage of mass unemployment and dislocation led to the rise of fascist organizations such as the Spanish Falangists, the German National Socialists, and the Romanian Iron Guard. What the interwar fascists provided—with their messianic leaders, their torchlight parades, their xenophobic propaganda—was a placebo to the hopelessness that had enveloped ordinary people’s lives.
Imagine the FDR-baiting, Hitler-loving Father Charles Coughlin, equipped with his “personalized” YouTube channel, able, at a click of a button, to distribute his racist message to the suffering masses.
The 1930s fascists were expert at using all the most technologically sophisticated communications technologies—the cinema, radio, newspapers, advertising—to spew their destructive, hate-filled message. What they excelled at was removing the the traditional middlemen like religion, media, and politics, and using these modern technologies of mass communications to speak with reassuring familiarity to the disorientated masses.
Imagine if today’s radically unregulated Internet, with its absence of fact checkers and editorial gatekeepers, had existed back then. Imagine that universal broadband had been available to enable the unemployed to read the latest conspiracy theories about the Great Crash on the blogosphere. Imagine the FDR-baiting, Hitler-loving Father Charles Coughlin, equipped with his “personalized” YouTube channel, able, at a click of a button, to distribute his racist message to the suffering masses. Or imagine a marketing genius like the Nazi chief propagandist Josef Goebbels managing a viral social network of anti-Semites which could coordinate local meet-ups to assault Jews and Communists.
Now fast forward to the digital world of 2008 and what even the normally cheerful Economist has predicted will be a “long and deep recession”. Like in the 30s, we are faced with a systemic crisis not only to free market capitalism but also possibly to representative democracy. The 2008 economic meltdown is beginning to rival the 1929 Great Crash for its catastrophic impact on the lives of ordinary people. The United Nations has described today’s world economy as the “weakest since the ‘30s”. And 2009 promises to be worse, much much worse, with the U.N. predicting that the entire world economy will actually contract for the first time since those bygone days, and Princeton’s Nobel prizewinning economist Paul Krugman forecasting that American unemployment may rise to the “double digits”.
In the Thirties, mass unemployment lead to the catastrophe of fascism; in today’s crisis, I fear that it will lead to digital fascism.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
And You Thought the Economy Was Scary?
Andrew Keen is the author of the bestseller Cult of the Amateur, which has been translated into 15 languages. Known as the Anti-Christ of Silicon Valley, he is the most hated person on the Internet. He twitters at @ajkeen.com.
In Defense of Sleazy Lobbyists
Andrew Keen is the author of the bestseller Cult of the Amateur, which has been translated into 15 languages. Known as the Anti-Christ of Silicon Valley, he is the most hated person on the Internet. He twitters at @ajkeen.com.
This user is no longer registered.
Damn tootin'. Keep the peasants working hard and ignorant. If people know things and talk to each other it will only upset them.
We should do away with radio, television and print media as well if we follow your line of reasoning to its logical end. This is one of the most ludicrous pieces of nonsense I've read in a long time, and there are many ridiculous proposals to choose from.
You nailed it, Echostorm.
Lol. Hmmm... fear-mongering? Check. A highly biased body of information? Check. Suggestions that we'd be better off if privy to LESS information? Check. Are you sure you aren't a fascist yourself?
Every day on the internet we all encounter ridiculous claims that we know to blow off, ideas that resonate within us, and notions supported with information that we don't fully understand that we therefore take with a grain of salt. So you think we're going to start resonating with the ideas we would previously have doubted or dismissed? I disagree. This isn't the 30's when some isolated farmer has no access to the outside world beyond the farmer ten miles away and the radio. We've grown more adept at filtering the information we are exposed to.
Yes, we're still the victims of fraud and lies; but that's a different matter. As people join a conspiracy, it becomes more difficult to hide. What you're talking about is starting a movement. But in the time of the internet, we've demonized hate, murder, genocide - and fascism. While any idea imaginable will gain some proponents, the internet also allows for a massive backlash.
I mean, look at the "messiah" we've just elected with the internet. A real radical, huh? Your whole argument rests on one risky premise: that we'll be worse off in four years than we are now.
What's your goal with this article, anyway? To prevent the widespread adoption of broadband and the corresponding freedom of information? Or do you see it as, on the long shot that you're right, you were the prophet of doom? Or do you have an ulterior motive: are you just trying to get rid of the competition for our minds?
This article is possibly the most brain dead piece of fear mongering that I have ever read. The internet has made people more politically sophisticated, on average, and increased progressive and youth participation in politics to record levels. These are all positive developments. The internet, if anything, is a bulwark against mainstream media promotion of fascists. I contend we would be living in a full blown fascist nation RIGHT NOW if it were NOT for the internet. My opinion? The writer is bass-ackwads in his
reasoning. He must be a recently unemployed MSM guy or something. Maybe HE is the fascist, no? After all, what he is arguing for is restricting the flow of information to the masses.
Sounds pretty fascistic to me.
Mr. Keen: Get off the Internets! Such dangerous information you are spreading to the ignorant, who are able to read it without benefit of librarians and others who will properly "educate" them. Have you ever read any Orwell, sir?
another neocon hypocrite... polarization and isolation is the first step, etc... you know the drill. another case of 'keep it simple, stupid' out of the morphing sources of repression and entitlement. boring. really fupin boring... to them above me in comment, woohoo with confirmation and support... us 'internet stupids' need to chime in together...you know, like electing a president? geesh....
Obviously we need a huge world wide fact checking organization to approve anything put on the internet. And also, we should make sure less intelligent, poor, unemployed, etc. people don't have internet access. I am so relieved to know that the mainstream media only publishes absolute truth, and also you betcha.
This is nothing but an opinion piece. I doubt whether many thoughtful people will agree with this author's elitism.
This the worst article I've seen on the daily beast.
You could apply your logic that links the internet and Hitler to anything and write virtually the same piece.
Could you imagine if Ipods existed in Hitlers time? He would have used them to play hateful speeches.
Could you imagine if an efficient postal service existed in Hitlers time? He could have used them to mail out hateful fliers.
Amiblue, I concur with your post.
So... fascists of the 1930's used state of the art media to get their message across to the masses... and you're afraid they'll do the same using the internet? Well of course, but you fail to explain why the internet is more inherently dangerous than older modes of mass communication.
Indeed, I'd argue it's LESS dangerous for two key reasons: first, the internet is *interactive*. Instead of being subjected to what one writer or speaker determines, you can pick and choose among many more sources, or even for different selections within a writer/speaker's oveure. Feedback and response is also a hallmark of the modern age. Most people get suspicious of content/opinion that doesn't allow feedback, or restricts any response short of praise. In the 1930's, liberals, progressives, and jews couldn't instantly call out Coughlin or Lindberg's ignorance -- today, they'd be right there, in the comments, in the google searches, challenging what's being put out there.
Similiarly, the internet also has almost ZERO barrier to entry. While this does mean that almost any nutjob with a laptop can get their ideas out there, it also means that ANYONE can fire right back with the truth, with facts, and with arguments.
I'm not saying that there won't be things to fear, and that there won't be demagogues appealing to the lowest, most fearful common denominator... but I am saying that they will no longer be able to position themselves as prophets preaching from the hilltops. No, they will now be one voice among hundreds, barkers calling out in a marketplace of ideas. As our last election showed, lies, hate, and xenophobia have a much harder time winning out in such an environment, where they are challenged at every turn!
I must say, I had heard this was a good and interesting site, but what do I see here? Prominently placed posts by know nothing neo-fascists, (Mr. Keen), a morally bereft hooker with no real intellect to speak of, and that other woman, the not too bright rube who was bilked by Madoff, so self obsessed and cowardly that she publicly admits to contemplating suicide, even though she is STILL RICH, and better off than 85% of the rest if us. See ya, Daily Beast. I'm deleting the bookmark and WONT be back.
The verdict seems unanimous; this is a very misguided article containing little substance, value, or insight. What's the message? Despite the vast and ever-increasing ways that the internet informs, benefits, and helps level the playing field, we should focus on some vague and barely substantiated theory and demonize the internet... What's this guys point? Any decision is bound to bare some negative fruit... but let's not go preaching doom because we don't fully foresee the consequences of becoming more plugged in. don't fear progress.
The change the internet will bring that i can't wait for: internet replacing network tv as primary source of video entertainment. watch it online!
You can do better than this, Daily Beast. Either you owed the author of this article a favor, or he is his own editor. Any way you slice it, there are better writers out there. Dismiss this hack and bring some talent on board.
Good article and I agree. In your list you forgot sexism and misogyny, which comprises the worst hate speech and imagery on the Internet by over a 60% margin. I think hatred and fascism are way more visible and powerful due to the internet today as well, and when times get really tough, it won't be pretty.
Your story and it's responses prove two things. One, any brain dead fear-mongering fascist idiot can easily get whatever mindless propaganda he wants onto the internet. And two, intelligent people will be right on top of it, ready to expose it for what it is.
As it's a two-way street, you can put your ideas out and after getting that feedback, maybe you see the other side and learn a thing.
The fascists that you're worried about are already out there, and easy access to the internet might show some the flaws in their ideas.
@mary50 This is a horrible article. The Internet has actually helped women as well. If you believe a man like Andrew Keen, there is no hope for you my lady. Come away from the dark side. More Communication is better. PS I wouldn't trust a librarian who will hand over my list of books borrowed to the government without my knowledge or permission. Andrew Keen's world is facism, oh yeah, we live in that facist government now. thanks to george "wtf" bush.
anyone who read the author's truly awful book would not be the least bit surprised by this. Why does a guy who thinks that bloggers are "a pyjama army of mostly anonymous, self-reverential writers who exist not to report news but to spread gossip , sensationalize political scandal" be bothering to write here?
I feel like Ms. Brown is messing with me. I don't want to read an article that is so misguided that I get irritated just so that I can leave an angry comment. I want insight! News! Thoughtfulness!
You can only jerk your audience around for so long before you lose them altogether. If this is a joke, it's in poor form. If it's not a joke, then I agree with most of the other commenters: NO.
wow.. I don't think I've ever not liked an article on this site until now. all I can see here is fallacy after fallacy.
Andrew, your question, "...wouldn't it be better to invest that money in local libraries and librarians, where their education could be supervised by accountable human beings?", brought to mind a few counterpoints on the subject of libraries.
I just gave one of the librarians at our main county library a mini-interview over the phone. She informed me that even though they have reduced their open hours because of budget cuts, more users are checking out books-- and more of them-- these last six months, because they have more free time.
I asked her what she thought about your suggestion that Obama's "goal of providing all Americans with broadband Internet access might one day be seen as inadvertently laying the foundations for a return to fascism".
She made the point that the library's publicly available computers are being used more often by people doing job searches and applying for unemployment benefits in this economic recession than by neo-Nazi's looking for white supremacist sites. On the other hand, she said if they want to read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamp, it's there on the shelves. If they want to correspond online with Muslim-hating skinheads, they can.
I also asked her what she thought about the taxpayers' money being used to subsidize the non-productive time spent by people playing games or viewing pornography on the library's non-filtered internet.She didn't need to remind me that most of those people have been taxpayers themselves, but she did say that it's not the library's mission to judge what information they access there, as long as it's legal.
But I still think it's an excellent idea to invest some of that money Obama wants to spend on our infrastructure in public libraries. Perhaps some of it should be spent on developing better language-translating software as well, so that our educated can better communicate with the educated populace in places like Iran. They might even do some of that communicating from the computers in our libraries. No homegrown diplomat is going to convince a jihadist of the sword that he should lay down his arms, but not every Muslim is a fanatic.
I think the same approach is applicable to publicly-subsidized broadband Internet access. Even now those who are liable to be misled have easier access to all information that might dissuade them than Father Charles Coughlin's radio listeners ever did. Of course, this comment thread itself is proof that many people won't listen to reason, and are here only to jeer those they disagree with, but I believe even some of them can be educated.
The internet is our best hope for making friendly contact with the teeming hundreds of millions of our fellow citizens on this planet. I'd go so far as to say that it would be a worthwhile goal to aim for making access to it universal, but we have to figure out how to feed and make medical care accessible to everyone first.
That astute librarian also told me, in response to my questions about public demand for censorship of certain books, that the Bible is the book most often subject to a request for a ban, and that all the great classics of literature, from the Grapes of Wrath to Montaigne's Essays, have been the objects of such calls for removal.
Apropos of your concern for the individual empowerment of unemployed millions and their susceptibility to the persuasive powers of would-be demagogues, I was heartened by her assurance that the people have the right, and should exercise it, to challenge what information is available in a public library.
Those books sitting on the shelves or downloaded from computers, and paradoxically, our right to hold their gatekeepers accountable for them, are our best protection from the likes of Sarah Palin.
Mr. Keen's crap is a good reason to ban the Internet altogether.
This is possibly the most ludicrous article i've ever read.
reading this article is the only time I've been worried about the internet leading to the loss of common sense. i'm more likely to believe that Cheney is behind 9/11, than one word of this article. maybe I shouldn't even log onto daily beast anymore. writer's like Andrew Keen just may convince me that the internet is bad for us. I think Keen is just looking for a scapegoat for his bad book sales. build more libraries. ha. I wouldn't even read Keen's books if he paid me...
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.