One of the things that struck me when I was looking at the Al-Queda Media Nexus article by Daniel Kimmage was a screenshot of the "Al-Ikhlas jihadist forum" (page 4). The reason it stood out was because it looked, at least by the picture that it use phpBB, an open source, free software package for creating message boards that's distributed over the internet. Now even though the phpBB website advertises its software under the friendly tagline, "Creating Communities," I doubt that facilitating branches of Al-Queda was what they had in mind.
The internet has given an incredibly powerful open arena for 'free' free speech whose effect and range could only previously be achieved with pirate radio, and by word of mouth before that. Moreso, the software is incredibly easy to pick up and use, given the right motivation; phpBB is one of the more common types of software used for internet forums. If you've ever been a member of any internet discussion forums in the last 10 years, there's a good chance it was run on phpBB. Terrorists or would be terrorists are also getting fairly creative in adapting forums for 'free' free speech in ways that are confidential and almost untraceable. For example, the five American Muslims who were arrested in Pakistan last year kept in contact with their handler through a free Yahoo email account. Rather than sending emails to each other though, all six of them had access to the same account and would leave messages in "saved drafts" of email messages. As nothing was actually being sent, there was nothing that could be intercepted.
What is the cost of free open-source, and 'free' free speech? Simply from a benefit analysis, there's no argument; the vast majority of people using this software are not doing it with hostile aims or to communicate aggressive ideas. Still, in an age when a great deal of people depend on the internet and new media for information, the news and political affirmation, it does conceivably allow for an effective counter to the US' public diplomacy and political spin machines, and a valuable coordination and communication avenue for terrorism.
You raise a good point about the cost of “free” free expression and its potential for use as a mechanism for terrorism, Sam. Your post brings to mind Ronfeldt and Arquilla’s article about “The Promise of Noopolitik,” in which the authors articulate that non-state actors such as Al Qaeda are using new media to mobilize and increase their soft power (thereby practicing noopolitik) more effectively than state actors, such as the US government. Military might no longer defines who is right; the battle over how to disseminate ideas, whose ideas will resonate more, and how ideas can move people to act has become nearly as tangible as traditional warfare. As stated by Risse-Kappen, “ideas do not float freely;” they are embedded within a particular social, cultural, and political context that shapes their core and their dissemination. Therefore, as the battle of ideas is being waged, whoever is able to most effectively promulgate their views is ultimately who wins the war.
ReplyDelete