I attempted to reply to this column by Doc Searls, Linux for Suits - The World Live Web, but the reply appears to have disappeared into the net ether, so I’ll try to restate it here. Searls outlines his conception of a “live web” in the article’s concluding paragraphs. To me, this idea sounds very much like Wiliam Gibson’s vision of a “consensual hallucination” (which is not necessarily a pejorative term — any human constructed social framework could be called a ‘hallucination’ of sorts), for which he coined the term “cyberspace.” I also wish(ed) to point to the concrete need for a juridical construction of a civil society in cyberspace, which I think parallels Searls’ calls for what he terms “identity,” as well as the “right” to “network neutral” access to the internet. I tend to frame these issues, following after Gibson’s realization that the franchise of civil society will move largely into cyberspace, in juridical and civil terms first, and technological terms only incidentally.

First, Searls’ concept of a live web, then my discussion of Gibson’s idea.

Searls:

Is it possible that “live” will join “free” and “open” in our pantheon of adjectives? Possibly. Whether or not it does, I’d like to thank my son Allen for being the first to utter “World Live Web”, providing me with a perspective I never knew I lacked, until I heard it.

His original vision of the World Live Web was a literal one: a Web where anybody could contact anybody else and ask or answer a question in real time. When he first encountered the Web, as a researcher, he saw it as something fundamentally deficient at supporting the most human forms of interaction: the kind where one person increased the knowledge of another directly.

We’ve moved a long way in the live direction since Allen first introduced me to the concept. VoIP alone is a huge live category. Mobile Web progress will all happen along its live branch.

Where it goes exactly is anybody’s guess. All we can say for sure is it’s headed toward the sky.

My discussion (that I attempted to post in reply to Searls’ column):

The “World Live Web” sounds like the conception that William Gibson had of the then germinal internet. He foresaw that it would become a space into which the entire politico/socio franchise of society would move. In Neuromancer, Gibson coined a term for this new “place:” cyberspace.

And quite unlike the many Pollyanna-esque visions of the web that have followed, Gibson’s was dystopian. In the tradition of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, the net can serve as the a tool of “universal surveillance,” to use Michel Foucault’s description of the “dark side of the enlightenment.” It needn’t necessarily be so, but that is up to us, the hopefully vigilant citzenry.

To wit, patents must not be overly broad, and must not apply to ideas (as Thomas Jefferson argued), copyright must guarantee the right of individuals to benefit from their ingenuity within reason (and for a reasonable length of time, not a corporate lifetime, but rather a human person’s lifetime). Citizens must have a right to access civil spaces to express political opinion — whethor those spaces be cyber’d, shopping mall’d, or public square’d. Yes, that means that Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, or whomever, cannot block port 25 or forbid the use of servers. Access to the internet will be instrumental to civil liberty in the future, as were postal service and free libraries in the past