Facebook and Changes in Politics

Facebook is growing exponentially. It started with the intention that it would function as a website to connect college kids with each other, it grew in the number of users to connect high school students, then older generations, and finally as a means to stay in touch with everyone in the world. Facebook has become a way of communicating that Mark Zuckerberg would have never imagined. I am interested in researching the different uses of Facebook and how it has evolved to become such a powerful means of communication. Facebook has recently been in the news lately and has been a key component in political decisions especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I want to find out why the government reacts the way they do to the use of Facebook. Even though the government fears Facebook and its power, I believe Facebook has evolved in a positive way to create widespread change and influence. Despite the potential hazards of Facebook, I think the website is more beneficial than harmful. I think in terms of a revolt or revolution Facebook is one of the best options in organizing mass groups of supporters. I want to answer the questions: How has Facebook emerged? Why has Facebook become so popular and so widely used to organize mass demonstrations? How has the use of Facebook led to changes in politics? Would there be the same political outcomes without Facebook? Why does the government fear Facebook? The hurdles I have faced thus far are finding evidence on current events as there are only limited news articles. I am having trouble finding ones that give me a full detailed story (I can find brief articles, but I am looking for in depth reports) of the accounts that took place in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Based on my research thus far Facebook has emerged to become the leader and key component in influencing changes in politics, but outside the United States the government is looking to put a stop to the usage.

Annotated Bibliography

Couts, Andrew ."Egypt’s ‘Facebook Generation’ Pressures Mubarak to Step Down."

Technology News, Product Reviews, Software Downloads, Digital Trends. 11

Feb. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2011. http://digitaltrends.com/social-media

A campaign to influence Mubarak to step down was started by one man through Facebook. Even when Egypt shut down the Internet, people found ways to share with the rest of the world what was happening through phoning into Google to post their tweets and sending in videos of the violence to upload. This article discusses how a revolution was started through Facebook. Facebook was able to influence the political system by organizing mass groups of people. I am interested for my project to look at the ways in which Facebook can have an impact on the government and how change is now a mass movement through the Internet because our world is more connected by technology.

Dalsgaard, Steffen. “Facework on Facebook: The Presentation of Self in Virtual Life and

Its Role in the US Elections.” Anthropology Today 24 (2008): 8-12. Jstor. Web.

13 March 2011.http://www.jstor.org/stable/20179963

This article discusses how Facebook allows us to present ourselves as individuals. It also examines how political power can be gained from the use of Facebook especially in the campaign with President Obama. His popularity and number of supporters grew through his use of advertising on the Internet and using websites like Facebook. I am interested to look at the latter part of this article and compare and contrast the use of Facebook by Presidents to gain political power the use of Facebook by people in a country to gain power to change politics, as it seems the user of Facebook is the one that creates change.

Deibert, Ronald, and Rafal Rohozinski. “Liberation versus Control.” Journal of

Democracy: Project Muse Volume 21, 4 (2010). Web 13 March 2011.

http://z3950.muse.jhu.edu/journals/

This article argues that the use of the Internet lies between a technology of liberation and a technology of control and is more complex than associating it with one title. The Internet can create boundless opportunities, but also contains us. It argues that human thinking can use technology in ways the creator never intended. For my project I want to look at the uses of the Internet, especially Facebook and how it has shaped the society we have become in terms of defining what type of technology the Internet is. 

"Facebook Revolt Descends Upon Saudi Arabia." One India News, 11 Mar. 2011. Web.

14 Mar. 2011. http://news.oneindia.in

      This article mentions a situation in Saudi Arabia similar to the one in Egypt. It provides another example of protestors organizing through Facebook to create political change. Facebook has become one of the most powerful means of communication and this page created by protestors got 30,000 followers in Saudi Arabia and proves to be the easiest way to rally the population. In this case, government officials used firearms to break up the protest. I want to use different examples of revolts in my project and examine the way in which the government chooses to react.

Kirkpatrick, David. The Facebook Effect: the Inside Story of the Company that is

Connecting the World. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.

Kirkpatrick provides an account of the history of Facebook. He examines how it started back in a dorm room to how it has grown to be one of the most popular and widely used websites. For my project I am interested in how a nineteen year old Harvard student was able to create a website so powerful. I want to incorporate the history and development of Facebook as background knowledge for my project.

York, Jillian. " The Dangers of Social Media Revolt - Opinion - Al Jazeera English ."

AJE - Al Jazeera English. 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 14 Mar. 2011. http://english.aljazeera.net

This article mentions the repercussions people face when using Facebook to start a revolt. There are potential risks such as the government being able to hack into your account and government spying, but in general the benefits of using Facebook to organize something like a protest are more important to consider than the potential risks. I am interested to see the government reacts to the widespread use of Facebook and how fearful they are of what Facebook enables a group of people or even one person to accomplish. For my project I want to examine the ways in which governments are acting to stop the spread of Facebook and also consider the potential risks involved in using Facebook.

While I was reading the “Unabomber’s Manifesto”, I was reminded of Second Skin. For example I would now describe gaming as a surrogate activity. Gaming is described as an activity that, “adequately satisfies no matter how much effort one makes” (17).  Why do people game for eight hours a day, rather than spend time with their children or with their spouses? The answer is because they are never satisfied. The development of technology as Kaczynski points out makes us feel that we need to have a goal and that we need to find a way to spend our time. Our time is spent in surrogate activities instead of how it we used to spend countless hours for instance on the farm trying to sustain our food supply. Our new goals are not necessary to sustain our life; they are fillers to distract us from things like the natural world. And while I engage in surrogate activities, I do not believe it is considered, “demeaning to fulfill one’s need for the power process through surrogate activities or through identification with an organization, rather then through pursuit of real goals” (26). Kaczynski goes on to discuss that surrogate activities define who we are instead of what really matters in life. People say they are gamers and I would say I am a lacrosse player, but this Kaczynski argues is because we have become over socialized. Our constant need to stay in touch with everyone around us makes us less of an individual and less autonomous. Our desire to identify with a larger organization partly clenches our need for power and/or goals (24). Surrogate activities and identifying with a big group act as a power process. Kaczynski argues that we used to fulfill the power process without these types of things because we could act autonomously. I disagree with Kaczynski and think that surrogate activities are useful. While I agree they make us over socialized and take us away from the natural world and maybe even real goals, I think surrogate activities provide us with healthy opportunities to make friends, discover things we are talented at, and are used as outlets from stress. I think that surrogate activities should be used in modernization as spending eight hours a day is too excessive, but I think these “non-real goals” are actually beneficial to our lives. For example if my surrogate activity is running and my goal is to be able to run a half marathon, I would spend countless hours outside in the summer working toward my goal. I believe this time spent outside (with the natural world) and fitness regime is beneficial. While Kaczynski thinks surrogate activities disrupt the power process, I think the benefits of certain activities outweigh the harmfulness of them. We might not be completely autonomous as Kaczynski would like, but we do discover our talents and potential through these activities. I would advocate for a healthy balance of surrogate activities and spending time alone to work on our problem of over socialization. Gamers should keep on gaming as long as it is in moderation. 

Birkert's Critique

In class today we were asked to raise our hands if we spent one hour a week away from technology, reflecting on ourselves, and not one person raised their hand. This really did not surprise me, but I did wonder what it means in terms of my life. My friends and I cannot remember the Spanish- American War or willing spend our time reading Virginia Wolf, but we seem to have ample time to spend on Facebook and/or Twitter. There seems to be a regress from knowledge and literature as technology has come to consume our lives. Birkert argues, “Why do we think communication is so blasted important? I'm almost tempted to say that we would do better with less communication, the more so if communication becomes a kind of stand in for facing oneself inwardly.” Talking with others means we don’t have to focus on ourselves, staying in touch others means we find out so much information on the lives of others without focusing on ourselves. None of my friends, myself included feel comfortable sitting at dhall alone or going to a movie alone. We feel a need to be in constant company or at least in constant communication with each other. We don’t want to be known as an outcast, but we also genuinely like the company of others.  While we are always in the presence of technology and in communication with one another, “We have less time to read the works of Emerson if we are always online talking with friends. We have become more obsessed with the present and future and don’t have time to look at the past and gain wisdom.”  Birkert’s biggest critique is our lack of self-perception. He claims that my friends and I are moving toward a world of shallowness and while I know the importance of technology I do agree with him. I feel embarrassed that I cannot remember important dates in history, and instead seem to know people’s Facebook statuses. We are even shallow in our online language like saying ttyl, u, and gr8 online. Our relationship with technology is consuming and we seem to be missing out on the history of our country, our self-perception, and the wisdom we would have gained from spending an hour a week away from technology and our friends. While I am not going to stop using my computer, I am going to try to spend a little time each week away from technology and my friends in order to gain a little self-perception.

Our Ability to Cry (Project 2 Revisions)

The invention of the computer, a transformational invention, has lead to the creation of an entirely new world we now refer to as Cyberspace. In The Master Switch, Tim Wu states that the computer’s, “general purpose would be to augment human intelligence and help humans negotiate life’s complexities” (Wu, 171). While the computer has allowed for new opportunities, large corporations, because of their dominance over the Internet and the world of Cyberspace, alter the way in which we can use our computer. These mega corporations have so much control over the Internet that they have become more powerful than the Internet users. William Gibson, author of Neuromancer, imagined a world where console cowboys and gentleman losers controlled the Internet. Unfortunately, the future actually lies in the hands of the mega corporations, as demonstrated by the history of the cycle and our inability to separate from our own human qualities such as crying.  

The cycle demonstrates the idea that, throughout history, new technologies have emerged by the individual inventor but then taken over by mega corporations. Wu defines the cycle as, “the oscillation of information industries between open and closed systems” (Wu, 6). Larger companies with more power and money are in control of the ideas of individuals. Individuals have to either sell their idea to a large company, so they can market the product, or they can try to challenge the companies. Either way the mega corporations dictate what the individual can do. One example of this corporate dominance is the battle of the Mesa Telephone Company versus the Bell Company. Edmund Burch, a farmer living in the country, decided to wire his own telephone network (Wu, 309). Because of his isolated location Bell would not build a telephone network in his area. Burch’s idea grew and he began to build more wires where Bell would not. His group gained a lot of power and became known as the Independents, rivaling the largest telephone company in existence (Wu, 309). However, their success was short lived, and eventually Mesa and the Independents gave up and sold out to the mighty Bell Company (Wu, 53). Despite the idea that, “markets are born free," in reality, "no sooner are they born than some would-be emperor is forging chains” (Wu, 310). Burch’s idea was free, but he soon had to succumb to Bell because an infant company can rarely rival an emperor and claim victory.

            The cycle and dominance by a larger power also holds true in the invention of the FM radio. It was a conflict of interests between the individual inventor, Edwin Armstrong, and the most powerful man in American Broadcasting, David Sarnoff. Armstrong invented FM radio and decided to present the idea to Sarnoff. Sarnoff thought the FM technology would be a revolution, not something he wanted, as he believed AM radio should remain in control and the invention of television should be promoted (Wu, 129).  Sarnoff convinced the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to restrict FM broadcasting to one, narrow band. These restrictions placed on FM technology, “shows that perhaps the most effective way to gain power over the future is to dictate popular assumptions” (Wu, 130). The government and people in powerful positions and companies can control new technologies and how we are allowed to use them.  Since Sarnoff was the king of American Broadcasting, he was able to be the sole decider of the introduction of a new technology. He determined that AM technology should remain the source of radio and the television should entice the public, thereby convincing the public of his beliefs and in turn shaped the future.   The examples found in the Master Switch demonstrate how the cycle keeps repeating; large corporations always overtake the subordinate inventors. The cycle will hold true in the future because there will always be a desire for a company to eliminate competition. The mega corporations will grow in power by controlling Cyberspace and dictating how we are permitted to use it. I think the aspiration to be the best, to make the most money, and to wield the most control is the driving force behind today’s inventions.  I believe that the mega corporations will continue to tower over the individual, as they will not succumb to citizens taking over their world of business. These mega corporations regulate innovation and, while that can mean we are not introduced to all new innovations, it does leave the world less chaotic. Individuals competing against other individuals in Cyberspace would result in the type of atmosphere described in Neuromancer. Gibson’s future was portrayed as dark and sinister, where as Wu’s, while slightly less depressing, was at least a stable environment.  The cycle is predictable, and I think the future will be more similar to what we know, rather than a switch in power. History demonstrates the continuation of the cycle and there is little hope for deviation.

The continuation of mega corporations that will be more powerful than the users of the technological devices is based on the idea of open and closed systems. Lessig, author of  “Open Code and Open Societies” explains the open society of the Internet mentioned in Neuromancer as, “A space built on a commons… where the resource of the net was left open for innovation; all could draw upon its riches; no one could close another out” (Lessig, 14). An open society allows for new innovation, an explanation for why Gibson presented so many innovative technologies in his book. In a closed society, innovation will still take place, but it does not reach the potential it could in an open society. Although open now, the cycle explains that in the future the Internet will become a closed system run by mega corporations. Individuals are limited in their innovation and in their potential by the control of the mega corporations because the closed system pushes its regulation on the openly designed Internet. Thus negating the comments of John Barlow, author of “The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace,” who opposes a closed system, argues, “We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts. We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before” (Barlow, 2). Barlow is addressing mega corporations and expressing his desires to be free in Cyberspace without any type of regulation. He wants to live in a society similar to what Gibson imagined and become a console cowboy.

             Gibson and Barlow both describe a future where the players have the most power and larger corporations fall at the wayside. Console cowboys and gentlemen losers have power and intelligence, something that I believe we possess now. However, it is their mindset and ability to separate themselves from normal human qualities that allows them to gain power and enforce an open system in Cyberspace. I think that to become as powerful as Molly, a tough character in Neormancer, we will need to adopt her way of life. We will need blades to come out of our fingertips and glasses that stop our tear ducts (a sign of weakness); in essence, we will have to become inhuman to overtake the mega corporations (Gibson, 122). This is why the cycle will continue; we still want the connection to the natural world and to the characteristics that make us human, like our personality and our ability to cry. I doubt that the vast majority of individuals will consider it acceptable to jack into a matrix, let alone alter themselves to survive and become more powerful in cyberspace. I believe we still want separation between Cyberspace and the natural world. While Cyberspace does consume some people, the majority still enjoys what the natural world has to offer, like human-to-human contact and conversations. I think more people will become addicted to alternative virtual worlds in the future, but I believe these gamers will be outnumbered by people still fully living in the natural world, people that value the outdoors, a real family, a real education and the pursuit of a degree and job. If we were to live in virtual words our need for education would become obsolete, no one would have time to pay attention to watch the world news or even read a book. I do not think the majority of people could give up these luxuries to immerse themselves in an alternative world, where nothing is actually real. 

            Interestingly, Gibson does not mention any “regular humans” in his projection of the future, ones that enjoy the outdoors or getting an education. I think this is because to finally break the cycle of mega corporations we will have to cut our ties to humanity and our need for the natural world. We will have to become cold and heartless to be as powerful as the large companies in control of technology now. Molly states, “Except sometimes I do hurt people. I guess it’s just the way I’m wired” (Gibson, 25).  Gibson projects that humans will become wired; we will mesh flesh with technology. In contrast, Wu’s idea of the future describes the mega corporations in control of the wires of the Internet and Cyberspace. A closed society will exist with changes in technology being tightly restricted, but we will still have our human like qualities and characteristics instead of living in an open society where we become almost inhuman. Cyberspace and the introduction of consensual hallucination would mean a whole new world where the dynamic of our society would change. Change is not bad, just like the introduction of cellular technology in cyberspace has allowed for more opportunities. However the future looks different than what Gibson presents.

            Based on the history of the cycle, and our inability to disconnect from the natural world to become less human, I believe that mega corporations will always be more powerful than the users of the technology. We would regress to an era where cowboys, men on horses, would be powerful on the open range. Today, the open range has been replaced by a closed system. In the future, under mega corporations’ control, more people will be addicted and consumed by virtual worlds as their desire to extend their existence into cyberspace grows. This will occur because cyberspace equals opportunities regardless of your profession or image and allows each person involved in a virtual world to maximize their potential. In the future I believe, as the mega corporations become more powerful and leave less room for individuals to become successful and innovative, individuals will try to find alternatives through gaming. While I believe Wu accurately predicts our future, I think that the some of these new found abilities of becoming successful in cyberspace are ways in which individuals will gain some power, just not to the extent of those of mega corporations. 

Works Cited

Barlow, John Perry. A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.

San Francisco, CA: Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1996. Web.

https://projects.eff.org/%7Ebarlow/Declaration-Final.html

Gibson, William. Neuromancer . New York: Ace Books, 1984. Print.

Lessig, Lawrence. “Open Code and Open Society.” Lessig Unpublished Work, 1 June 2000. Web. 25

February 2011. Web.  http://www.lessig.org/content/unpublished/

Wu, Tim. The Master Switch. New York: Knopf, 2010. Print.

After watching the movie “Second Skin,” I was in disbelief. Here were gamers so involved in these virtual worlds that their lives outside the game were almost nonexistence. I was personally shocked by the one man whose wife had twins and yet he only slightly cut back on his hours playing World of Warcraft instead of giving up gaming to help out more often and/or spend time with his children. These gamers go to their nine to five job and then dive right into their virtual world. It is to the point that they are so consumed by the game that they use their vacation days to play World of Warcraft. Their friendships and relationships are only real in their gaming world. Natural world friendships are almost nonexistence. I understand the desire to game, to have equal opportunities and have the chance to be becoming the best at something. Starting off in a game the playing field level it doesn’t matter if you have a disability or if you are overweight or if you are shy, everyone has the opportunity to become a master of the game, but what I wondered after watching “Second Skin” was how this gaming addiction could be monitored and/or regulated. Gaming addiction can be deadly. It can ruin people’s relationships, friendships, and jobs in the natural world, but at the same time it can be a place where people find their significant other or a group of friends to fit in with. However, gaming addictions are just like alcoholism and drug addictions. Drugs are illegal and there are laws about consuming alcohol, but our society has no regulation on how often people game. Gaming addictions are just as dangerous as drugs, but the question is how could gaming be regulated? I am unsure how gaming should be restricted, but mostly because I see the value in gaming and at the same time I see the negative consequences. The other issue besides the pros and cons is the logistics of restricting gamers. How can the government limit the number of hours someone plays a game? 

I have never played an online game before, so I have trouble relating to Julian Dibbell in his book, Play Money. I have difficulty understanding the type of people that basically live in a virtual world and thrive in Second Life. Corbett author of the article “Portrait of an Artist as an Avatar” describes Second Life as, “It being all just a digital swirl, a series of scripted animations and graphically sculptured landscapes that can seem hypervivid and at the same time totally surreal” (1). I have never even played video games for more than twenty minutes because growing up my brother would never let me play. As I get older the interest to play virtual games is slowly disappearing, as I do not have an abundant amount of free time anymore to play or dip into a virtual world. I know that people fall in love, build houses and make money online in these virtual worlds, but yet I have trouble understanding it because I don’t know what it is like to have such a disconnect from the real world. I think that living in a “digital swirl” would be confusing distinguishing between when your real life basically becomes your virtual life. I have trouble believing that the person you meet in a virtual world is someone you want to marry and the money you make online is a real business venture. I think Second Life is like a drug in a way, so addicting and consuming that the decisions you make in the virtual do not always make sense like getting married to a total stranger. Living a virtual world means you can be whoever you want to be regardless of stereotypes. You can invent a whole new life equipped with a new body, house, significant other, and income. I realize that this new technology has literally changed some people’s way of life and wonder how long it will be or if it will become the accepted norm to lead a completely separate life online, separate from the natural world. A future of disconnect scares me a little as I yet to experience the benefits of living in a virtual world, but I look forward to learning how Dibbell is able to survive by trading online goods and creating an entirely new job for himself in Second Life. 

Console Cowboys versus Megacorporations

The Internet was created with the vision that the, “general purpose of the machine would be to augment human intelligence and help humans negotiate life’s complexities” (Wu, 171). While this vision has come true, large corporations alter the way in which we use the Internet and the world of Cyberspace. These mega corporations have so much control over the Internet that they are seen as more powerful than the Internet users. While Gibson imagined a world with console cowboys and gentleman losers having more control, the future actually lies in the hands of the mega corporations based on history, the cycle, our inability to separate from our human qualities.

Wu defines the cycle as, “the oscillation of information industries between open and closed systems” (Wu, 6). It demonstrates the idea that throughout history new technologies have emerged by the lone inventor and are later taken over by mega corporations. Larger companies with more power and money always suppress individuals with innovative ideas. One example of this is the Mesa Telephone Company versus the Bell Company. Edmund Burch, a farmer, decided to wire his own telephone network because of his isolated location Bell would not build one. Burch’s idea grew and he began to build more wires where Bell would not. His group gained a lot of power and became known as the Independents, the ones that were rivalry the largest telephone company that existed. However their success was short run eventually Mesa and the Independents gave up and sold out to the mighty Bell Company (Wu, 53). Despite the idea that, “markets are born free no sooner are they born than some would-be emperor is forging chains” (Wu, 310). The bigger corporation always seems to win. This idea of the cycle and dominance by a larger power also holds true in the story in the invention of the FM radio. It was a battle between the lone inventor, Edwin Armstrong and the most powerful man in American Broadcasting, David Sarnoff. Sarnoff thought FM technology would be a revolution, not something he wanted (he thought AM radio should stay in control and the invention of television should be promoted).  Sarnoff convinced the FCC to restrict FM broadcasting to one narrow band. These restrictions placed on FM technology,  “shows, as we shall see, that perhaps the most effective way to gain power over the future is to dictate popular assumptions” (Wu, 130). The government and powerful people and/or large companies can control new technology and how society uses it.  These examples found in the Master Switch demonstrate how history and the cycle keep repeating; large corporations always overtake the subordinate inventors. This will hold true in the future because there will always be a desire for a company to eliminate competition. The mega corporations will grow in power by controlling Cyberspace and dictating how we are permitted to use it. The future looks to be one where people like Vail and Sarnoff will continue to dominate the world of technology. It has been proven that the cycle repeats and there is little hope for deviation.

The continuation that mega corporations will be more powerful than the users of the certain technological devices is based on the idea of the open and closed system. The mega corporations are implementing a closed system, but the Internet being an open system is far from the truth. John Barlow argues, “We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before” (Barlow, 2).  This would be idealistic, however history demonstrates that the future will not be open. Gibson, along with Barlow, describes a future where the players have the most power and larger corporations fall at the wayside. I think that to become as powerful as Molly we will need to adopt her way of life. We will need blades to come out of our fingertips and glasses that stop of tear ducts (a sign of weakness), in essence we will have to become inhuman to overtake the mega corporations. In our future, we still want the connection to humanity and the natural world and to the characteristics that make us human like our personality and ability to cry out of eyes. I doubt that it will be accepted to even jack into a matrix let alone alter ourselves to survive and become more powerful in cyberspace. Gibson does not mention any “regular humans” in his projection of the future. I think this is because to fully take over the mega corporations we will have to cut our ties to humanity and our need for the natural world. We have to become cold and a little heartless to be as powerful as the large companies that are in control of technology now. Molly states, “Except sometimes I do hurt people sometimes. I guess it’s just the way I’m wired” (Gibson, 25).  Gibson projects that in the future humans will end up being wired; we will mesh flesh with technology. In Wu’s idea of the future the mega corporations will be in control of the wires of the Internet and Cyberspace. It will not be a change in humanity as Gibson presents, but a change and tighter restriction of technology. It also highlights the difference between and open and closed society.  Lessig explains the open society of the internet mentioned in Neuromancer, “A space built on a commons, where because most early code governing the net was open code, and where because of the architectural principle of end- to-end, the network owner could not control how the net would be used – the resource of the net was left open for innovation; all could draw upon its riches; no one could close another out” (14). This open society does allow for new innovation, an explanation for why Gibson presented so many innovated technologies in his book. In a closed society, innovation will still take place, but it does not reach the potential it could in an open society. The cycle explains that in the future the Internet will become a closed system run by mega corporations. Citizens are limited in their innovation and in their potential by the control of the mega corporations. Console cowboys and gentlemen losers have power and intelligence, something that I believe we possess now, but their mindset and ability to separate themselves from normal human qualities make them the catalyst to gaining power and enforcing an open system of Cyberspace.

Cyberspace and the introduction of consensual hallucination would mean a whole new world where our dynamic of society would change. Change is not bad, just like the introduction of cellular technology cyberspace would allow for more opportunities. However the future looks different than what Gibson presents. Based on history, the continuation of the cycle, and our inability to disconnect from the natural world to become less human I believe that mega corporations will be more powerful than the users of the technology. We would regress to an era where cowboys, men on horses, would be powerful on the open range. Today, the open range has been replaced by a closed system and this is likely to continue in the future.