It is ironic that I do not consider
myself a fan of the internet and yet I make use of its ‘services’. I say that I
am not a fan because if there would be no constraints as to time, resources,
etc., I would prefer talking to someone tete-a-tete, writing and reading in
paper, receiving letters, drawing with paint, and the many physical
counterparts of things that cyberspace had simplified. I have assumptions on
why people crave disclosing the tiny details of their tiny (in parity to the
world wide web) lives in the internet, that I would rather not say here because
I am sure we all have are own opinion about it. It is also ironic that I am not
a fan when I was already acquainted with a computer as early as the 2nd
grade and such was a time when not all schools offer computer subjects in their
curriculum. The internet for me is only a helpful tool, and we can still
function without it. This view is partly based on the idea that we human beings
should not be slaves of technology and human interaction is best done in the
flesh, not through packet switching, and partly based on my distrust of the
internet system as a whole.
How can one not distrust the
internet when these are happening nowadays?
- News from the CNN that some hackers have in their possession 1.2 billion usernames and passwords
- As if one internet is not enough? Clearly, the influence of the internet in people’s live will grow even more up to a point that we won’t be able to function without it.
- This concept of the internet of things gave me a chilling effect. What else could this mean if not the sense that humans are now likened and used as computers?
Upon watching the video, I gained
new insights. I realized that the internet is neutral and it is actually the
person (his preferences, needs, and use of the internet) that shapes his outlook
of the system. The internet is nothing but a set of codes that are changeable
to fit the needs of people. Humans, not machines, will still rule.
My second realization is that a
good law will not have bad consequences. People’s disagreement and contentions
on forms of regulation are brought about by their distrust to the government
that rules over them. This might not be the case in a world where citizens are
secured that their rights and freedoms will not be abused by those in power. It
is true that the enjoyment of a right may sometime entail a sacrifice of a bit
of our freedom, as embodied under Article 19 of the New Civil Code. When we
vote the leaders who will represent us, such freedom of choice is accompanied
by the capitulation of our control over some aspects of society and though
indirectly, of ourselves. That is why I agree with Lawrence Lessig when he said
that legislators must understand the relationship of the modes of regulations
with behavior. What he is implying is that we must choose our leaders well and
pray that they realize the responsibility and the authority conferred by their
office. Still, the flaw lies on humans. We all come from different backgrounds
which shaped our system of beliefs. One person’s priority may not be another’s.
The same applies to our legislators. The only hope I see is the eradication of
the concept of “is-ism”. Nothing is constant.
Here is the video :)
No comments:
Post a Comment