- iPhone 5S, filtered photos of a dual LED flash and a larger battery
- Safety tips for maintaining security of email
- Sony introduced the portable charger CP-A2LS and CP-ELS
- Skype 4.2 for iOS enables application by Microsoft account
- Leaked the first images of the iPad 5, which will go into production this summer
It is often agree that there is in the world, two types of dictatorship: the tyrant and populist. Despite using different strategies, both have the same goal: to remain in power for the longest period of time possible.
Tyrannical dictatorships often use violence to punish anyone who raise voice publicly against it. So almost simplistic, this management model is based on the collective fear and almost always ignores the popular will.These are situations in which force ends up being the main weapon against freedom of information.
Populist dictatorships, in turn, are based on the principle that just topple actions highly visible and get the necessary support at the polls for leaders to renew their powers at each election. Here, it is not about freedom of information fight, but to manipulate it, planting false news, tampering with official rates and doing a whole society believe that she lives in a different reality from witnessed with their own eyes.
When the media are few and controlled, either of these two models has a chance of survival. But as the Internet has become part of the lives of billions, the very belief in some form of control of information in the long term becomes naive.
The third dictatorship
With the advancement in the Information Age, popular uprisings have already toppled modern bloodthirsty tyrants in the Arab countries and have started to draw the limits of populism in mega public protests like those that occurred last month in Argentina. “Freedom of information will save the world”, cry daily posts through social networks.
But deceives himself who assumes that the world is heading for an unprecedented society ruled by harmony and total freedom. The collapse of two models of dictatorship means only the failure of these models, and not the concept of dictatorship as a whole. This is invariably tied to the innermost desire of every living thing: the master of their peers.
The difference is that now a new format is on the way, based on the excess – and not on scarcity – of information.
As you know, today’s content about absolutely everything – from debates about micro villages inside Pakistan the details of the latest findings in genetics.
But is not that the man has suddenly developed a desire to communicate, of course. The Information Age prevails in our time just because the technology has evolved to the point of generating systems that can filter and organize that knowledge.
And in the end, who wins more with this new era, in which new content is created, posted and shared on fractions of a second? The answer becomes obvious: the two main “virtual road” by which information travels, Google and Facebook. It is they, not politicians skilled drivers trillionaires budgets, the new dictators of our time.
The two owners of the world
every day, about 3 billion searches are made by Google, which already adds more than 1 billion unique users making suggestions of their robots the local primary access.
When it becomes relationship, Facebook and its more than 800 million users (about 45% of all Internet users in the world) come into play. Through this network, over 140 billion photos were shared to date and 734 million comments are posted daily.
Publish and share became the two main engines of the new society.
But, not wanting to belittle the many benefits that the Information Age has brought to humanity as a whole, there is a problem that can not be denied: his tragicomic fragility of socio-political.
If an entire global community is managed by information that are present thanks to only two companies, then what would the world be without them?
Not only is it a global society entirely hostage to two companies, but of an entire culture of dependency and blindness indisputable about it.
Where does this lead us? Difficult to answer – but it is certain that our future, ironically, has never been far from our own control as in times when the information is so close to our hands.