Commons - Erin

1. I really liked this speech. There is such a direct link between libraries and the education of free people, and Bollier emphasizes the fact that they are key to a productive democracy. He says that libraries “have always embodied some of the most fundamental virtues of Western Civilization. They are dedicated to the freedom to read and learn and share information. They are committed to the free flow of knowledge, which is indispensable in a democracy.”

I particularly like how he suggests the use of “commons” in regards to libraries. I think this idea is so profound because of how simple it is. Taxpayer money supports our system of public libraries, after all. In a true sense, they ARE a part of the common system, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard it put so concisely. The Internet is similar to public libraries in several ways. They are both essentially owned by “the people,” not any one person or company. Both have faced (and ARE facing) their own battles of copyright and sovereignty, and both are held, as Bollier says, “in the commons.” If knowledge, in whatever form, is locked up, “free inquiry and open dialogue will suffer. Democracy will suffer.”

2. When Vaidhyanathan refers to “anarchy in the library” he is referring to the state of disorder and panic that seems to be increasing within our information system because of the lack of control. He fears that harsher control of this increasingly massive realm of information is inevitable, and when such limitations are implemented, the way we “browse, use, reuse, alter, play with, distribute, share, and discuss information” will be threatened. Using these methods are vital for our society’s continued awareness and education. He says that “these are valuable behaviors that help creators and citizens shape their worlds.”

Vaidhyanathan describes two approaches to this rapid increase of available information in our digital and public libraries. On one side, there is a struggle to control the fast-paced output of data and “force information back into its toothpaste tube.” On the other side, is an effort to incorporate some control that still enables us to move information “toward increased freedom of distribution.” There is a fine line to be walked here, and Vaidhyanathan says that “stronger efforts toward control often backfire to create less controllable – and less desirable – conditions.” The outcome of these battles could essentially change our definitions of basics like “liberty, democracy, and human progress.”

The section on the “emergence” of peer-to-peer systems was interesting to me. In reality, people have been utilizing peer-to-peer systems for hundreds of years, in the forms of things like gossip, friends trading records or 8-track tapes, and the practice of most major religions around the world. Give these peer-to-peer systems a technological twist, however, and suddenly there is a need to control these threatening, “anarchistic systems.”

Vaidhyanathan hopes that our society will work through these problems of information control carefully, weighing all of the pros and cons before unjustified action is taken. Such unjustified action could lead to premature limits on democracy as we know it.