By Bruce Sterling for Webstock. Xymphora's comment on Sterling's article is correct; "Bruce Sterling on Assange is worth reading but it isn't anything near as good as it ought to be."
Sterling makes some terrific observations regarding the rapidly morphing monolith in progress Julian Assange, the process of diplomacy, hacker mentality, the real difficulty in his future prosecution, and some other thought provoking perspectives(Like the incompatible notions of transparency and discretion. Sounds simple enough, right? Think about how both are equally valued in our political system. WikiLeaks has forced, sometime in the future, debate about which we value more, or how to more efficiently compromise both these principles to the maximum displeasure of most citizens..) that will effect policy, politics, and technology from here on out.
My problem with Sterling's work is seemingly at first tangential (And can be partially overlooked due to how many word perfect summations he offers), but still, it bothers me. He dismisses Bradley Manning's motivations and technical ability fairly casually, as he has met many other hackers from similar backgrounds(Sterling is from that community, too), applying a general cyber/geek personality (consumed with boredom and a bit unstable) overview to Manning, but I disagree. While his assessment of Assange feels right(Based on everything I've personally seen..), Sterling seems too jaded to acknowledge Manning as "True Believer," (as opposed to simply bored..)and and fundamentally misunderstands why Manning did what he did.(As an aside, it's not hard to find reference to Manning's consistent-since-childhood, unique, moral resolute-ness, which is why Sterling's misfire is so baffling: With a little research, a completely different portrait of Manning appears, less desperate, less awkward, more concerned with the essence(s) of Right and Wrong (I also find it interesting he's a Sagittarius..) than Sterling bothers to admit or convey. Probably Sterling is not familiar with this type(as they probably few in number in his circles of association), he cannot contend with the idea that Bradley Manning believed (as True Believers would be liable to believe) leaking these cables was the morally correct thing to do. While Sterling understands Assange, Manning and his motives eludes him.
This is not necessarily important to Sterling's narrative, which ultimately describes Julian Assange as: Ray Croc, McDonald's-izing the process of mass distribution of information/leaks, the human embodiment of the Internet, the global diplomatic homewrecker who has forever altered how our State Department proceeds and is seen, and how, despite his cynical expectations, Assange's actions could have a perverting, un-intended consequences effect on the U.S. and global populace regarding State to State interaction. Sterling's understanding of (and empathy for) Assange, clearly stated:
I don’t say these cruel things about Julian Assange because I feel distant from him, but, on the contrary, because I feel close to him. I don’t doubt the two of us would have a lot to talk about. I know hordes of men like him; it’s just that they are programmers, mathematicians, potheads and science fiction fans instead of fiercely committed guys who aspire to topple the international order and replace it with subversive wikipedians.
..
Well… every once in a while, a situation that’s one-in-a-thousand is met by a guy who is one in a million. It may be that Assange is, somehow, up to this situation. Maybe he’s gonna grow in stature by the massive trouble he has caused. Saints, martyrs, dissidents and freaks are always wild-cards, but sometimes they’re the only ones who can clear the general air. Sometimes they become the catalyst for historical events that somehow had to happen. They don’t have to be nice guys; that’s not the point. Julian Assange did this; he direly wanted it to happen. He planned it in nitpicky, obsessive detail. Here it is; a planetary hack.
I don’t have a lot of cheery hope to offer about his all-too-compelling gesture, but I dare to hope he’s everything he thinks he is, and much, much, more.
I have problems with Sterling's assessment because he assigns the future power of the entire WikiLeaks phenomenon to Assange and a cynical legion of hackers just like him, and therefore can't see or factor the serendipitous power of other True Believers, how they will(and have) react(ed), and how the other Bradley Manning's of this unfolding event will influence the global direction of what these two very different men have wrought.
What- Will happen- Next?
Posts
1 hour ago
No comments:
Post a Comment