Skip navigation

While reading Galloway, I became fascinated especially with the idea he proposed where he defined the internet as a distributed network. Given his established definitions, I found this to be an odd one for the internet this day and age. The free flowing, equal opportunity of the distributed internet no longer feels that way. Since large industries began taking serious plots of space on the internet and the web because a hub for capital, the way in which the user is forced to approach the internet has changed. If we have to purchase any miscellaneous item and are looking for the best price, we have no choice but direct our attention to amazon. When consulting any part of the web, whether it be to find information or even things as personal as our mail, google is always the middleman. Many websites accept a Facebook identification as real justified identity for access. My point is that large websites have changed the way we navigate the web. By making services more accessible, they have made their services invaluable and made the internet unimaginable without them. The more we depend on these services to use the internet, the more they make it impossible to get through the internet without. In this way, I believe the internet has taken a path towards a decentralized hierarchy. The few great internet services control and mediate our processes online. Google watches our motions on the internet and organizes what we find based on our searches, therefore google in a way is mapping our reality on the internet. Smaller, boutique sites, now depend on giants like google and Facebook for any modicum of traffic to come their way.

Galloway’s point on the development of the internet as a military protocol also struck a strange chord in my mind. As a result of these behemoth web companies, the dependence we feel towards their existence to use the net is a direct result of their intent to nurture. If these sites were to just disappear, the way in which we travel the net would be destroyed. Our navigation has become wholly dependent and symbiotic with the google relationship. In this way, the current state of distribution of networks makes us more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable to violent threat as the military would’ve hoped. We’ve created larger, more delicate targets. By this, I refer to the physical medium in which all the net depends on. An often overlooked idea, the so called “cloud” cannot possibly exist without massive rooms of memory drives storing data and information. The article “Underwater Flow” effectively addresses this problem of depending on the physical world for a future in digital media that we take for granted. The accessibility of fiber optics cables directly affects the output of media-based society. The fact that it is so easily available in the United States reflects our passion for it. The case with Fiji also reflects this point that the politics of acquiring physical access to digital media is something that has become far more relevant than when Galloway wrote his piece in the early 2000’s. These warehouses full of data and pipe lines that now connect us to the modern world make us far more vulnerable than the physical cold war targets that the nuke drove us to escape from. We have perhaps become so dependent and immersed into this digital world that we forget about the physical spaces that make them possible.