ARCHIMED EGCT – Ε.Ο.Ε.Σ. – AECT – GECT – European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation

Google, Facebook, Wiki …  are there someone who defends freedom of thought and speech?
[David Crimi]

Around for over a year, the thesis that the internet makes us stupid always emerges with much fanfare. The power is afraid of losing control of the information, but those who defend freedom on the Internet? Who is afraid?
The silly argument that the Internet will make us less intelligent has been around for some time now, and always resurfaces periodically with much fanfare. To give substance to this thesis, was commissioned a pseudo-scientific research (The Big Switch: rewiring the World form Edison to Google by Nicholas Carr), the American magazine Atlantic Monthly has slammed the cover with a clear title: ” Google is making us stupid? “.
The thesis is based on the absurdity to which the Internet would be the enemy of the book (made blatantly false, so that those who have a library which knows formidable competitor and electronic commerce of books, so that the book is the most sold item on the internet) .
This is clearly an argument that someone has paid, so if anyone is willing to pay to circulate such nonsense is a sign of fear on the part of those who control information: in particular the traditional newspapers (not in case the news was very common in newspapers) and television (which gave ample space to the subject). Evidently, they are afraid of losing not only the market, but losing the most important market, is that by which the manipulation of public opinion and thus, through which you control the democratic consensus, in a word: vote.
Internet systems are freeing us from the washing of the mind through television, and today we have a freedom unimaginable, far superior to that of the legendary ’68. However, the generality of people have not shown perception of this.

Facebook, for example, is criticized and shunned as if it were only “a complete waste of time” and this is a phrase so repeated by radical snob and pseudo-intellectual people.  To be clear, it is true in fact that most people use this network to look at the pictures that their colleagues were shot while on vacation somewhere, or to make comments on trivial subjects, but if the meaning of this network was only this, why China and other countries ruled by authoritarian governments should be prohibit it?
The evidence is that internet is emancipating us. Today we can find any answer in minutes, without depending on who manipulates the truth. This is the internet.Immediate response to every question. Not dogma, but comparative reading.Reading that requires more reading. Transition from the domain information when a person decides what the many ought to know (and what not) to a new model of society in which communication is shared and everyone can do the checks, cross checking and communicate with everyone.
TIME writes in the issue dedicated to Zuckerberg as a person of the year (where there are fewer than 22 pages of text and pictures dedicated to FB), that Facebook is changing the model of consensus: “It does not matter if people like to 100,000 x. If Three people close to you like y, y you want to see. ”
Or as he says Julian Assange (Wikileaks), even from the pages of TIME (13/12/2010): “Our organization is trying to make the world a more civil, by taking action against organizations that push in the opposite direction. If you want to talk about law, it is very important to remember that the law is not simply that powerful people want us to believe it. The law is not what it says a general. ”
At this point, the question is: “who defends freedom on the Internet?”

Certainly not the powers. Neither right nor left feel clear statements on this issue. If anything, it pretends to defend the workers, trying to support businesses no longer appropriate to modern production system, such as the automobile industry. But the West should leave these products in emerging countries, the so-called “newcomers” and seek his way forward and new jobs through its Internet and ICT. We read the book by Sachs’ The End of Poverty “, where data in hand, says that the technology is able to feed all the inhabitants of the world (where hunger is a problem of distribution of wealth or, more precisely, exploitation), we read the book Rifkin “Hydrogen Economy”, which states that solar energy, wind and geothermal energy can flow into a system where every small manufacturer internet can put his party and to ensure a balance across the world, no longer need oil or nuclear power, within a decade.
We know that you can do. Had forgotten?  The phrase was – and still it is: “YES, WE CAN.”
No one has the lightness of thinking that everything is simple. At the beginning of last century, it was believed that the technology might free people, liberated. Power has responded by giving space to corporate repressive movements of Nazism and fascism and, when things got tough, did not hesitate to turn citizens into subjects, the subjects in the soldiers, the soldiers cannon fodder. Even Russia, having lost the revolutionary original, did nothing to conceive of a single party on the basis of a dictatorship.
Today things are different? Maybe. But we must not forget the assassination of President Kennedy. And, in a modern, contemporary, need to understand what he had expected in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, “and that is that the systems of dictatorship of the future were not tied to a conventional dictator, who based his power on the use of strength but a soft dictatorship, based on monitoring of the media and the construction of artificial needs. Now, when the economy turned properly, the artificial need was based on consumerism, and now that everything is falling apart, is based on insecurity. The insecurity is not allowing the system to think. And is now the only one, since the years of economic expansion has allowed people to people to grow culturally, to study. In fact, the new modern generation has become a critical skill that, if supported by a modest economic freedom and the new technologies, can not be controlled with conventional instruments.
The vendors of newspapers, broadcasters and operators are beginning to understand that their hour has struck. For this reason, try to denigrate the new culture emerging from the Internet.
Using Google we know everything. Wiki allows us to test our knowledge constantly.Facebook keeps us constantly on the network, allowing anyone at no cost to have an international personality. Open the Golden Dawn finally breaks the monopoly of aristocratic / bourgeois on the meaning and opens the initiation ritual symbolism to anyone interested in understanding it. Wikileaks attacking all forms of secrecy. These forms of ‘Open Society are not necessarily in agreement with each other. Rather, they proceed in parallel with fulfilling the revolution of our time.
Although these lines have a revolutionary character, but not in the conventional sense of the word. No armed struggle. Non-violence. Ahimsa. Satyagraha. In the words of Gandhi. Even revolution is a term of abuse, and should be replaced with EMANCIPATION.

We need to understand that aggression is an aggression to the internet to our freedom. Questionable corporatism (fascism as the residue of which is the order of journalists), to attack those who would muzzle the Internet (such as those fanatics who would bring the administration of a blog to exclusive use and control of a journalist writing to ‘ order), keep your guard against obscurantism, absolutely support the movements that look to an open society, democratic, shared.
Write, report, share are the ways in which to give substance to this new generational wave that requires EMANCIPATION.