I struggled to relate Garrett Hardin’s examples of the Tragedy of the Commons to the example of the Internet, because under Hardin’s explanation, the resources that are shared or competed over in the commons have finite parameters (e.g., a pasture, earth, etc.). Cyberspace, on the other hand, is endless. There is no limit on the amount of information that can exist on the World Wide Web. There is no cap on the number emails an individual is allowed to send. For this reason, many of the major issues facing the Internet do lean on technical solutions (bandwidth, pop-up blockers, security software).

It is true that with the gargantuan amount of information offered to us on the Web, we have a more difficult time finding exactly what it is we want to find. In this sense, we have to deal with the “pollution” that may come our way. But again, the useless information we have to sift through to reach our goal does not devour the useful information on the Internet; there is space for all. In addition, technological solutions such as Google and other Web aggregators have helped users better reach their goal, not moral judgements that regulate what is acceptable and what is not.

Let’s pretend that only a finite amount information could exist on the Internet. In this scenario, perhaps there is a case to be made for regulating what type of information would be allowed. The information “polluters” would be silenced in order make room for those who best know how to maximize use of the Internet, just as the “idiots” who can inherit millions in property and power would have to give up their inheritance to those who are more fit to be custodians of that property, as seen in Hardin’s example. Of course, the next question that must be asked (and the question I asked when reading Hardin) is “What defines an idiot?” In our hypothetical Internet, is it the advertisers? Publishers of pornography? Those with different religious views to your own? Dissenters of those in control of the Internet? As you can see, things can get sticky (and scary) pretty quick.
——————————————-
1. If you were in charge of World Wide Web, how would you go about deciding what to control or regulate?
2. How does government regulation help provide more freedom on the Internet?
3. How would you react to an Internet service that offers information specific to your interests—much like channels on cable—that you would pay extra for?