de Gara 1

POLI 424: Social Media Assignment

April 15, 2014

L J de Gara

260406255

#rockthevote:

The Political Character of the Internet as New Media, OR: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and

Love the World Wide Web

The internet, like all forms of mass media, is inherently political. Infinite access to information,

capability to publish one's views, and unfettered access to the views of others (however

unpalatable or strange they may be...) These are principles of gleeful anarchism, or at very least,

libertarianism; they are also the foundations of the World Wide Web. Even as internet usage has

become entirely mainstream, the internet has retained a good deal of its "Wild West" reputation

among policymakers. While other forms of mass media can and have been influenced, even

controlled, by government policy and ownership, the internet is slippery and elusive. If the media

really is the message, as Marshall McLuhan famously said, then the internet's message of total

freedom is somewhat uncomfortable for governments around the world. Generally speaking, this

has made governments-- particularly conservative governments-- reluctant to embrace the

internet's potential as whole-heartedly as their citizens have. The Canadian government under

Stephen Harper, for instance, has deliberately distanced itself from online voting in its new,

controversial legislative reform bill . In other words, the government would prefer to keep the

internet at arm's length, by not integrating the internet into its policies; by extension, it keeps the

citizens most dependent on the internet (those under thirty) at arm's length as well. This reality

has made one Canadian journalist incredibly angry-- angry enough to blog about it.

In one of his trademark "Rick's Rants" called "The Kids are Online," Canadian comedian

and journalist Rick Mercer takes issue with two disparate, but interconnected issues. The subject

of his current frustration? Prime Minster Harper's contentious (and arguably ironically named)

Fair Elections Act, which aims to revise voting law in Canada, makes absolutely no mention of

online voting. It has already been widely criticized by Harper's opponents as a voter suppression

bill masquerading as democracy (Globe & Mail, 2 April 2014) for its needless focus on fraud

and voter identification-- when there is no data suggesting widespread fraud, as the bill claims.

The bill's critics claim that its alarmist tone and fundamental needlessness are distracting the

public from current Conservative fumbles, like the failed attempt at appointing the unqualified

Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court in March (Globe & Mail, 21 March 2014) , and the ongoing

senate expenses scandal, which the Prime Minster still maintains he had no knowledge of.

Regardless of the smoke and mirrors surrounding the bill, Conservative opponents and legal

watchdogs alike agree: the bill will not protect Canadian voters from fraud, and will not

encourage more democracy.

de Gara 2

As Mercer sees it, these criticisms of the bill's contents are legitimate, but nowhere near

as significant as one of the bill's conspicuously absent components: nowhere in the ponderous

252 page document (Bill C-23: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to

make consequential amendments to certain Acts) is there even a passing reference to online

voting. In 2014, a proposed major revision to the Canadian electoral system would still not make

accommodations for its highly digitally connected citizens. For reference: online voting is

already in place for national elections in Estonia and Switzerland, and in many OECD countries,

including the United States, for regional elections. (Vibariigi Valimiskomisjon, Government of

Estonia.)

Canada is lagging behind extensively in this particular arena. The move towards online

voting abroad is not just the question of digital advancement for digital advancement's sake; by

providing an alternative to paper votes, these countries are, in essence, making democracy more

accessible to young people. As "Rick's Rant" puts it: "

lining up in a church basement, getting a little stubby pencil and marking an X. And do you

know what that makes me? A dinosaur." (Mercer) His words are characteristically glib, but he

most definitely has a point. While 83% of Canadians report home internet access, (Stats Canada)

the internet remains a resource whose user base is extensively divided by generation. The Baby

Boomers and older members of Generation X use it frequently for business, but for those under

thirty, it is the be-all and end-all of everyday functioning. For young Canadians, it is the number

one means of interfacing with the world. As the Rant rightly states:

[Young Canadians] are some of the most wired people on the planet. They go to school

online, they work online; heck, they find husbands and wives online. There are literally

millions of young Canadians who have never walked across the room to an attractive person

and tried to score a phone number because there ical

imperative won't get them

it. (Mercer)

Of course, while presented in the style of a joke, Mercer's assessment of the situation is

backed up by data. In a country with abysmally low voter turnout in general-- only 61% of

eligible individuals cast their vote in the 2011 federal election. Even worse, only 38% of eligible

voters under thirty participated in that same election. (Elections Canada On-line.) Young people

have historically voted more seldom than their older counterparts, but the fact that only a third of

young voters participated in the election is exceptionally low; by contrast, 49% of voters under

thirty participated in the United States' presidential election in 2012. (CIRCLE USA) The United

States famously has higher youth political engagement, as a result extreme partisanship and long-

standing, highly integrated party alignment campaigns which can begin in childhood (Young

Democrats and Young Republicans, among others.) Acknowledging that, however, the

de Gara 3

membership to these groups cannot account for a full 11% difference in youth engagement.

Canada's youth and young people are among the most educated, most highly digitally connected,

and most adaptable strata of the citizenry; and yet, they do not participate formally in politics on

a broad scale. What could justify this deliberate inaction? Some believe it is a question of

Canadian politics fundamentally being more "dull" than those of our southern neighbours; more

substantively, academics and pundits maintain that Canadian youth democratic disinterest is a

question of infrastructure and access, not inherent interest.

Canada's young people clearly have opinions about politics-- Quebec's tuition protests of

2012 are proof enough of that-- and yet they are squarely uninvolved with voting, one of the

most simple acts of citizenship. Is the government's rigid restriction to analog voting causing

disinterest among the youth of Canada? Potentially. For a demographic so wholly focused on

digital interaction that it influences work, academics, and intimate relationships, pen-and-paper

voting is looked upon as quaint, or worse, scorned as an anachronism.

The unwillingness of the Harper government to embrace online voting is evidence of one

of two things. Either it is an inept government, so out of touch with its young people that it

cannot comprehend their utter separation from analog voting; or, more darkly, a regime which is

entirely aware of its young voters' lifestyles, but who does not want to engage them, to ensure

their own political longevity. In the case of the former, it is reminiscent of one of the great

political parables of the twentieth century: Richard Nixon's unwillingness to wear make-up

during his televised debate with John F. Kennedy is widely cited as partially responsible for him

losing the 1960 Presidential election. Nixon was unwilling to embrace the new media which had

come to define the time, and so he was left in the dust, looking sweaty and embarrassed. ("The

Nixon-Kennedy Debates.")

In the case of the latter-- a government which manipulates and test the confines of the law

specifically to suppress opposition-- then a slightly later, more notorious Nixon parable becomes

equally applicable: Watergate. As astute historians may recall, the later scandal with media also

ended somewhat badly for the then-president. Indeed, the more the "Parables of Richard Nixon"

are examined, the more indicative they are of the consequences that may befall a government

which does not wholeheartedly embrace media, especially new media.

The complex relationship between Richard Nixon, the media and the law has been the

topic of extensive debate since the Watergate scandal was revealed to the public. In their 1976

article "Structuring the Unseen Environment," Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw briefly

examine how definitive Watergate was to all news and political media which came after. Their

primary focus is on agenda-setters: news outlets, and other privileged organs of media, whose

reporting effectively tells people what to care about. In the case of Watergate, the first arrests in

connection with the illegal monitoring of the Democratic Convention were made in 1972, but

were considered to be largely unimportant compared to other political issues around election

time; it was barely reported on, and Nixon was re-elected in a landslide vote. (McCombs and

de Gara 4

Shaw, 21.) Conversely, once the media began reporting extensively on the extent of the

Watergate scandal, the public became deeply perturbed with the prospect of Nixon continuing to

hold office if he had obtained re-election while engaging in illegal activities. A televised

question-and-answer period with the press on November 17, 1973, yielded one of Nixon's most-

remembered soundbytes:

People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've

earned everything I've got. (Kilpatrick, Washington Post: November 18, 1973, A01)

By April 1974, Nixon had been cowed into releasing 1,200 pages of formerly classified

conversation transcripts between himself and his aides. By May 9, 1974, the House Judiciary

Committee opened impeachment hearings-- which were to be broadcast on every major

television network in the United States. There are no confirmed records as to whether or not he

opted to wear make-up for the proceedings, but it is fair to say that even a generous layer of

foundation would not have prevented him from looking sweaty and embarrassed. The summer

was a non-stop media frenzy perpetuated by the popular media, who had set the agenda squarely

on Watergate and Watergate only. On August 8, 1974, he met with the press for the last time as

president; on August 9, 1974, he resigned-- and his speech was, once again, broadcast on every

major network. In the end, the man who refused to embrace the media was first defeated by it,

later interrogated by it, and ultimately destroyed by it. (McCombs and Shaw, 22.)

Now, perhaps to compare Harper's current unwillingness to engage with the internet is a

needlessly cruel comparison. While the Fair Elections Act has been criticised as being unfair,

"not only because it makes many unfair changes but also because it fails to correct unfair flaws

in the election system," by the political activism group Democracy Watch (Globe & Mail, 7

April 2014) it is by no means illegal. The comparison to Nixon has far less to do with

conceptions of criminality than it does with media reluctance. Harper's unwillingness to engage

with the modern media of the internet-- via online voting-- is not necessarily unethical, but it is

indicative of a wider disassociation from mass culture, particularly youth culture. It has also

caused his regime no end of a hard time when the press (namely, national newspapers and the

CBC) took it upon themselves to "agenda set" a criticism of the upcoming bill; it has been

mentioned in a negative context at least once a week by every major Canadian media outlet since

the bill was introduced in parliament in February 2014. Cynics should note that the timing of

massive cuts to the CBC-- ostensibly for "budget reasons"-- seems to have coincided eerily well

with the network's recent, and increasing, criticisms of the bill. Perhaps it is just coincidence, but

as of the time of writing the Harper government has announced 657 job cuts to the CBC, but has

yet to release the budgetary reports which would justify the cuts, so it is difficult to say.

Regardless: both the CBC and privately owned Canadian media, like the National Post

and the Globe and Mail, have been reporting extensively about the Fair Elections Act for several

de Gara 5

months now; this has incited a great deal of conversation in the public arena about the once-dull

issue of electoral reform. Like McCombs and Shaw mentioned, once the press determines that

something is worth being on the agenda, it becomes subject the public deems worthy of its

attention. After all, if something is on the news, surely it must be worth knowing about? In the

case of the Fair Elections Act, the widespread media coverage has more than piqued the interest

of the Canadian citizenry. According to Google Trends, the data mapping service, "fair elections

act" had a popularity value of 28 out of 100 across Canadian users in February 2014; 64 out of

100 by March 2014; and by April 2014, 100 out of 100. (Google Trends: "Fair Elections Act")

For reference of just how powerfully the Fair Elections Act is resonating in the Canadian media:

"NHL" had a popularity score of 61 in March 2014. (Google Trends: "NHL") In other words,

Canadians are hearing about political concerns on old media and investigating them on the

internet in statistically significant volume. This is a singularly fitting media irony: exclude the

internet from your policies, and your people will use the internet to discover your flawed

policies... And probably write rude things about those policies in the comments section. Perhaps

this is why the internet has retained some of its "Wild West" reputation among governments: the

comment section is one of the only truly unrestricted zones of interaction between media

producers and the general public. Given access to a means of publishing opinions, the average

citizen does not feel compelled to restrain themselves or their vitriolic perspectives.

This is one of the key qualities that makes the internet so problematic for governments as

a form of media. Television broadcasts can be edited for air, and newspapers can have their

content legislated; these are media over which the government has some authority, through

Canadian content laws and public decency laws. As Joshua Meyrowitz mentioned in "The

Almost Invisible Candidate," an essay about media framing as a means of controlling content,

"censorship is very seldom explicit." (Meyrowitz, 95.) Conventional media is an excellent

platform for governments to engage in soft censorship, because the elimination of offensive or

incendiary content can just as easily be chalked up to questions of taste or what attracts

advertisers. A television does not need to state that it will not air explicit or violent content,

necessarily; it can simply claim that its mission statement is to produce content in keeping with

the values of its viewing audience. (When the broadcaster is partially owned by the government,

like the CBC, the lines between "public preference" and "soft censorship" blur even more.)

Assuming that the values of the audience are being reflected sincerely in content: how

might those values be gauged, in a system with "loud" broadcasters and "mute" viewers? Outside

of the occasional letter to the station, the broadcasters do not interact directly with their viewing

public in the same way that internet broadcasters do: which is to say, constantly. Regardless,

while a letter to the station about content being overly incendiary might elicit a response, a letter

claiming that the station is not incendiary enough will likely yield no fruit. As businesses,

standard broadcasters are beholden to the majority, because they control their revenues; as

organs of government, broadcasters are beholden to policy. This combination of factors means

de Gara 6

that television broadcasting in particular operates on quite a limited spectrum of content: it

cannot risk offending its viewers or its sponsors, or risk breaking the laws under which it

operates.

If the internet is the Wild West, then television is the publically funded park with a fence

and a guard: you're free to come in and use the facilities, provided that you refrain from spitting,

littering, playing your radio too loudly, or otherwise disrupting the peace. There is nothing

inherently wrong with this orderly approach to media. "Soft censorship" sounds more malignant

than it is; framing the news media to keep a public well-informed, instead of panicked or in the

dark, is a public service which can only be delivered with a deft hand. However: the inherently

controllable nature of conventional media (using public spectrum, assigned by the CRTC) makes

it a force much more amenable to government influence, and therefore appealing as a resource to

government. The internet cannot be controlled in a similar manner, because of the potentially

infinite number of user-publishers online compared with the limited number of professional

publishers in traditional media.

For more authoritarian states, removing "unsavoury" content is as simple as blocking IP

addresses and installing firewalls, like the legendary "Great Firewall of China." Democratic

states have a much more difficult road ahead if they intend to block Both the United States and

the United Kingdom have recently made efforts to legislate internet content production; both

countries were heavily criticized. In the American case, two bills (Stop Online Piracy Act and

PROTECT IP Act) were proposed in 2011. Ostensibly, they were to protect copyright holders

from torrenting and other forms of internet reproduction without payment, but internet users

perceived the bills as an opportunity to restrict internet freedom. From the day that the bills were

first presented in the Senate, May 21, 2011, thousands of users took to forums, social media, and

other sites to protest the bills. However, because the government did not have direct potential for

feedback from their citizens-- they were not accustomed to such a powerful resistance to a

proposed bill, especially one which was not considered to be controversial-- they were "shocked

and appalled" at the aggressive online protests sparked in opposition to the bills (Weisman, New

York Times: 20 December 2012.) Google, Wikipedia, and 7,000 other websites halted service on

January 12, 2012 to draw attention to the bill; their protest was viewed by 162 million

independent users. This blowback was so profound that it prompted the Senate to withdraw the

bills (Weisman, New York Times: 20 December 2012) The internet was a beast which could not

be confined by legislation; when the government attempted to legislate IP addresses and

copyright, they were struck down by the millions of users and micro-publishers of content. As

mentioned, the internet is inherently political; because it is so fundamentally decentralized and

without leaders, its users resist control by centralized authority of any kind.

The British case of recent bills to restrict the internet is interesting, because it actually

passed and was made into law. In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron partnered with four of

the United Kingdom's top internet providers-- which service more than 20 million Britons-- to

de Gara 7

install mandatory internet filters on all newly registered ISPs. On the grounds of "protecting

children from pornography and other adult content" (Nominet: Registrar), the filters block any

and all pornography, as well as other material deemed objectionable: drugs, violence, and so on.

If a user-- over the age of 18-- wants to be able to view these "objectionable" materials, they are

required to make a phone call to their service provider. Yes, that's right: British internet users

have to call and ask permission from the an ISP employee affiliated with the government before

they are able to watch porn. While adult film aficionados were probably distressed about this

development, so were many individuals concerned about civil liberties in general; the latter were

understandably more vocal about their views in the public sphere.

Within three weeks of the filter's onset, major flaws were detected in its design. Because

the program was based on keywords deemed "objectionable," many innocent websites were

blocked: bullying support groups for teens, information about birth control and abortion access,

celebrity gossip websites, class resources deemed to be "cheating websites," etc. One service

provider, BT, drew the ire of LGBT people across the UK and abroad when it was discovered

that one of their blocking categories was "Gay and Lesbian lifestyle." (Jivanda, The Independent:

20 December 2013) Ruth Hunt, head of the Stonewall Charity, held particular concerns that it

might be detrimental to the well-being of queer youth:

The Internet is a vital gateway for many young people, especially lesbian, gay and bisexual young

people. Anything that prevents them from accessing vital support poses a threat to their

wellbeing. We hope organisations like BT will make every effort to ensure that everyone can

access much needed information.(Source 17)

In response, BT released a statement saying that they had not intended to offend anyone,

and would instead replace the terms "Gay and Lesbian lifestyle" with "sexual orientation."

Unsurprisingly, this did not calm the controversy surrounding the filter. Indeed, in late 2013 and

early 2014, many groups claimed that the ISP filters were unfairly restricting youth access to

crucial information. One notable complaint: "sex" filters were blocking information about the

transmission of HIV/AIDS, and how to protect oneself from it. (Jivanda, The Independent: 20

December 2013.) Evidently, Cameron's safe internet rapidly proved itself to be anything but.

The irony of all the commotion was that, inevitably, the filtering system which had taken

years to design and roll out proved incredibly easy to crack. In November 2013, an anonymous

user-- who self-describes as a "recent Computer Science graduate"-- launched a Google Chrome

extension called "Go Away Cameron!", a free download which completely bypasses the filters.

("Go Away Cameron!": About Us) In the end, Cameron's internet filter had only served to anger

minorities, deprive citizens of health information, and predominantly block totally innocuous

websites... And within minutes, one could eliminate the filter and only be left with the political

resentment. David Cameron is not up currently for re-election, but his approval ratings with

de Gara 8

Britons under 30 are at an all time low as of February 2014. (Jivanda, The Independent: 20

December 2013)

Putting aside the broader issue of failed bills to control the internet across the world,

"Rick's Rant" seems to situate the Canadian problem on the opposite side of its international

allies: the other countries mentioned want to control the internet as a tool of government

authority, while Canada's government is steadfastly ignoring the potential for the internet to be a

powerful pro-democracy tool. Unlike the British and American bills, the Fair Elections Act is not

an attempt to control the internet; indeed, its controversy comes from an apparent dismissal of

the internet (and by extension, its most dependent demographics) rather than any sort of attempt

at legislation. This is why allowing online voting could be a potentially successful use of the

internet, rather than a failed restriction of the internet. It recognizes the power of this new media

as a political resource to be tapped, rather than a flood to be quelled or stopped. Indeed, if

Canada were to institute online voting while its closest allies cope with the fallout of mistrusting

the internet and its users, it would single this country out as a first among digital equals.

Unfortunately, the absence of online voting, along with clearly deliberate attempts at voter

suppression for non-youth demographics, mean that this massive reform to Canadian electoral

policy will make Canada worse off than it was before: both democratically and in the ever-

expanding digital-political sphere. This bill maintains the status quo in all the wrong areas

(steadfast refusal to include online voting) and institutes change in all the wrong areas, too (voter

suppression, elimination of the vouching system.) What could be a great step forward is,

seemingly, a pathetic shuffle backward-- away from technology, away from freedom of

democracy. Rick is not the only Canadian who believes this bill is worth ranting about.

Politically, Harper's decision not to include online voting in the massive reform bill is

arguably proof that he is out of touch with his country's young people, or simply does not care

about them. It is also indicative of a Nixon-esque approach to emergent media: "if I don't

acknowledge the realities of the current media environment, then they cannot hurt me." But

between one sweaty debate and one life-ruining scandal, the "parables of Nixon" teach that

dismissing media or ignoring its power will only end badly for political leaders. Harper's

omission of online voting is less like Watergate and more like refusing make-up; it is not a

crime, but it is a massive, embarrassing misjudgement of media's power of influence, particularly

with young voters. For a government which has already been shamed for muzzling climate

scientists and writing blank cheques to its erstwhile party members, adding another

embarrassment to the track record is the last thing anyone needs... Especially with an election

approaching in 2015.

Is the Harper government likely to revise its bill to include online voting, in order to

better represent the needs and desires of its young citizens? Given the resistance which has been

raised during the first reading to amending element of the bill, it seems unlikely. What is less

clear is if Canada's political future will effectively utilize the resource of the most political of all

forms of media: the internet.

de Gara 9

Bibliography

Bill C-23. An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential

amendments to certain Acts. 1st reading, 41st Parl., Second Session. [Ottawa]: Library of

Parliament, 2009. Parliament of Canada. Web. 10 April 2014.

"Bypass UK's porn filter." Go away Cameron. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.

(http://goawaycameron.co.uk/).

"CIRCLE Youth Turnout: At Least 49%, 22-23 Million Under-30 Voted." CIRCLE RSS. N.p.,

30 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. (http://www.civicyouth.org/youth-turnout-at-least-

49-22-23-million-under-30-voted/).

"Canadian Internet Use Survey, 2012."Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. N.p., 22 Aug.

2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/131126/dq131126d-

eng.htm).

Conacher, Doug . "The 'Fair Elections Act' is wrong, but not for the reasons you may think." The

Globe and Mail. N.p., 7 Apr. 2014. Web. 11 Apr. 2014.

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-fair-elections-act-is-wrong-but-not-

for-the-reasons-you-may-think/article17855817/).

Globe & Mail. "Fair Elections Act: Slow it down, Mr. Poilievre." Globe & Mail Editorial. N.p.,

9 Mar. 2014. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. (http://www.democracy.arts.ubc.ca/files/2014/03/Fair-

Elections-Act-Slow-it-down-Mr.-Poilievre-The-Globe-and-Mail.pdf).

"Google Trends - Web Search Interest - Fair Elections Act." Google Trends. N.p., 11 Apr. 2014.

Web. 14 Apr. 2014.

(http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=fair%20elections%20act&geo=CA&cmpt=date;

fig 1).

"Google Trends - Web Search Interest - NHL." Google Trends. N.p., 11 Apr. 2014. Web. 14

Apr. 2014. (http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=NHL=CA&cmpt=date; fig 1).

"Internet Voting in Estonia." Vibariigi Valimiskomisjon. Government of Estonia, 8 Aug. 2013.

Web. 9 Apr. 2014. (http://vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/).

http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/http://www.bibme.org/