Anarchy is radical democracy. But it is not the best form of democracy. But as a set of tools, anarchy can be an essential antidote to tyranny.

Bill Thompson:

In his essay Siva Vaidhyanathan works hard to establish the cultural and political significance of the growing number of peer-to-peer (P2P) networking tools that have come into general use on the Internet. He sees an opposition between the two political positions of anarchy and oligarchy, an opposition which extends from the real world onto the Net, and outlines a dialectic between the positions which derives from the widespread adoption of P2P. This, he contends, is 'remaking our information ecosystem' and altering the world.

Unfortunately, while I think his core thesis is both interesting and defensible, the approach he has chosen simply does not support it adequately, and the central argument is both weak and technologically flawed. While the view that 'anarchistic' communication technologies are particularly important where there is no 'rich, healthy public sphere' - we should encourage email, blogging and chat in Myanmar, Iran and Afghanistan - has much to recommend it, Siva's essay would fail to convince a sceptic even if it entertains those who already agree with him.

....There is a choice to be made, although it is not about whether or not we have a governed and regulated Internet.

It is about whether the network is open or closed, whether it is run by the corporations in their interests or by democratically accountable governments in the interests of us all. An open society is neither unregulated nor anarchistic, but relies on state-backed guarantees of freedom in markets, property rights, freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom from intrusive surveillance or loss of privacy. If we want an open network then those guarantees have to extend to the technology which provides and sustains the network, and they can only be extended by the state.

There is definitely a need for 'healthy public discussion' here, but this essay does not contribute much to it in its present form. Freenet is not a realistic solution - democratic control of a trusted network and accountable systems is the answer, not a techno-anarchism that can only fail to hold against the corporations.

In the end, Siva's thesis is entertaining but simplistic: putting the US government and the People's Republic of China on the same side in some claimed 'infowar' may sound radical but is really just misleading. And the idea that 'anarchistic' communication is a tool to undermine closed societies smacks of the worst sort of US interventionism. Is Saudi Arabia to be hacked because the social norms there make looking at photographs of women in bikinis impermissible? Should UK anti-war websites be undermined because they do not support the US imperial worldview?

See also this P2P debate between Freenet inventor Ian Clarke and Matt Oppenheim, RIAA's senior vice president of business and legal affairs.