Crowd Intelligence: The Case for Supporting a Free Web Globally

In a previous post regarding civil liberties, I mentioned that philosophically one could argue that total freedom of information could reasonably be dangerous to society especially in democracies where lines can be blurred between what constitutes a criminal action versus what is simply freedom of expression (the ambiguous term 'terrorist' being one such issue). Although, I suggested we should look at what actions constitute the intent to actually harm or impede on the rights of others versus actions that promote public accountability of one's government policies.

Currently, in Bahrain where protests are ongoing, the government has violently cracked down on opposition supporters and the media. The Bahrain Human Rights Council claims that 370 people have been arrested since the imposition of the emergency law on March 15. These include bloggers, human rights activists, and journalists. On March 28, the military public prosecutor imposed a media gag, banning "any publishing, through print, audio, video and online media, based on the requirements of discretion and commitment to the principle of confidential investigation." Here we have a government which instead of empowering and serving its people seeks to serve its own selfish interests by suppressing them. This is an unwise policy that is likely to backlash in the long-run. Moral realism and political karma will eventually prevail. No government can succeed or have stability for the long-term without seeking to serve the population on which its legitimacy depends, whether it's a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy.

Consider this, right now the Internet is not a free medium globally. Censorship imposition and information regulation varies in different countries and government monitoring is quite common. I am not against monitoring the web if it is to prevent crime with proper privacy laws in place to protect innocent individuals. However, if monitoring is utilized to root out, blackmail, arrest, or even kill political opposition leaders such technology should not be sold by democratic countries to non-democratic ones. 

A free web benefits everyone politically, socially, and culturally because it empowers individuals. If people globally were to have open access to information, without political censorship, exchange ideas, have public forums of free debate then collectively the Internet becomes a powerful catalyst to transform societies simply by granting individuals the responsibility to verify fact from fiction and to organize collective decision-making in keeping their own governments accountable. Of course this depends on a population that has access to the Internet and who are literate, something that should be encouraged and promoted. Above all, greater civil liberties on the Internet also means inspiring greater creativity in individuals through collective exchange. This has massive impact not merely among artistic and literary groups, but also among corporate, business, and civil society groups who can connect through the Internet. Problems that have gone unresolved through isolated decision-making can benefit by access to crowd intelligence.

In 2004, James Surowiecki published a fascinating book The Wisdom of Crowds. Surowiecki argues that  the aggregation of information in groups results in decisions that are often better made than any single individual in the group. He argues that four elements are necessary for a 'wise crowd': 1. diversity of opinion, 2. independence of opinion (i.e. one's opinion is not influenced by others), 3. decentralization (i.e. people can draw from their unique local knowledge), and 4. aggregation (i.e. mechanisms are in place to turn private judgments into a collective decision). 

In corporate cultures, even among NGOs and in government departments, decision-making can be easily isolated, 'cliquefied', and threatened by the possibility of group-think. Surowiecki addresses the cases where crowd intelligence has failed: where opinions in a group are homogenous rather than diverse, where hierarchies are too strict, where groups are protective of their 'turf' or specialization and don't allow outsiders to contribute, where decisions are imitated, and where emotionalism or herd instinct can take hold. 

Now consider the massive resource potential of collective intelligence the Internet provides if it were a free medium globally. People across the world could easily provide for at least three of Surowieki's conditions for a 'wise crowd.' Already, mediums such as Wikipedia and Twitter allow people to cross reference information, cite sources, share news and opinion, and debate dubious points. Twitter and Facebook have been cited as factors helping aid the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. Although their influence has been questioned in regards to the current Arab revolutions taking place, one can't underestimate them as powerful tools or organization or to rally public opinion among a younger generation of net users.

Governments do themselves a disservice through the imposition of censorship and fail to tap a significant resource when they limit forums of information exchange. What if these online crowds were properly utilized to resolve major political, social, and economic problems globally instead of relying solely on 'experts'? The possibilities the Internet provides for this is endless. A politically uncensored Internet globally could well transcend language barriers and provide for collective creativity and problem-solving as well as for social, cultural, and political transformation.