The following is an edited version of response I posted on Project Maya:

I think that there is a danger in over emphasising the role of economics (particularly in a neo-liberal sense) with regards to the internet. Not that it isn’t important and not that it doesn’t play a huge role but just that I think this hegemony (of neo-liberal economics) is partly to blame for the passive use of the internet.

I think the biggest hurdle for a full engagement of the internet in OECD countries is cultural (or hegemonic). I don’t think it is unrelated that 80% of Australian’s identify as middle class – obviously they aren’t, it is just a tool of the neo-liberal economic order. The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn’t exist. It’s the same thing. People are taught to believe they are passive observers of the cyber world – or perhaps more importantly news/information.

So the corporate world tells us to be dumb, to just accept what is given to them. Sure, read it online, but don’t do anything about it. It is also noteworthy that there are a huge number of organisations combating this – sadly though, there is little from Australia.

I also think that the other side of this equation is that, with all the influence on ‘non-academic/specialist’ input people are still really intimidated about contributing. In the end it is those who are very knowledgeable who are contributing to these open forums and those who are non-specialist are copping it for being uninformed. I’m not saying that those setting up these forums are shitting on the average commentator to prove their superiority – they are genuinely encouraging of debate but their enthusiasm is intimidating for many.

As a trivial example, the most common thing people say to me about my blog is that ‘It’s just too smart for me, I can’t keep up’. Now, as you know, I have a gargantuan intellect. However I genuinely want people to comment and I’m not going to have a go at the minute details of their argument. Academia gives you the ability to argue the finer points, this is intimidating for many. The anonymity of the internet also means that it’s really easy to be abusive and contemptuous of others without a fear of reprisal – I think this is for someone with a psychology background.

So I think the challenge is to create an inviting space where people are free to contribute and people aren’t shot down because of minute details in their argument. For people to feel that their opinion is valid enough to publish it. I think there are issues of consciousness here as well which are really interesting – we’ve still got lessons to learn from Karl.

Finally – massive respect to the band width. Dial up should be illegal and every household in Australia should have at least a 512 kb connection. Which makes me think. Is the public ownership of Telstra an issue of democracy, or more specifically, democratic access. If we sell Telstra then the bush has no chance of having even remotely decent internet connections in the near future. If the internet is a fantastic vehicle for democracy (and it is providing the user becomes more active) then access to that facility needs to be enabled.

Makes you think about the third of the world that doesn’t even have access to a phone – I think they’ve a little while to go until they get broadband.