IN THE FACEBOOK AQUARIUM
73
ing, authoritarians states like China, Burma, or North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria, or Belarus. 64 The emergence of structure like WikiLeaks is simply inconceivable in modern authoritarian regimes, for the simple reason that these regimes exercise an increasingly effective control on network infrastructures and access to networks. Even if something like WikiLeaks were to occur in these societies, authoritarian governments have many options to manipulate public opinion and rid themselves dissidents without dirtying their hands. The work of Evgeny Morozov describes these methods of manipulation in detail. In Russia, one of the countries most tolerant of piracy, in a manner that is anti-Western and antiAmerican in particular, young consultants of the regime influence the opinions of the public with great skill. Russian government propaganda often users the exact same manipulative techniques as American spin doctors: blogging, newspaper articles, entire social networks devoted to proregime stances, and to vilifying dissidents – with verbal intimidation often preceding physical aggression. In China we have the 'Fifty Cents Party', a moniker referring to the money allegedly paid for each post supporting the government. Armies of pro-government bloggers busy themselves with tweaking Wikipedia entries, and boosting traffic and pro-regime background noise, drowning out the already feeble opposition voices in the process. Saudi Arab princes regularly hire IT experts to monitor the net for information harmful to the regime, which should be refuted, discredited or obscured. Within the 'international community', states behave exactly like individuals when it comes to their digital profiles: they do their best to identify embarrassing behavior among their peers, while trying to hide their own and glorifying their own achievements without any critical perspective. It is both absurd to suppose that populism and greater transparency can really support democratic debate. Authoritarian and democratic regimes both benefit from transparency; but only when applied to their own citizens. The one who manages their information the best wins. Let us return to the WikiLeaks affair. The choice to publish the classified documents on the war in Afghanistan on July 25th 2010, in five major newspapers (The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais) displays the signs of a confused and contradictory strategy. By publishing the leaks in this sensationalistic way, WikiLeaks are largely following the logic of the tabloid and the Society of the Spectacle. Dispatches were continually released for several months until the end of September 2010, when WikiLeaks' German spokesperson, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, left the organization, or was expelled, due to a personal disagreements with Julian Assange. The latter is now subject to an arrest warrant on for a double charge of sexual assault in Sweden, and which was converted, as per the Schengen agreements, to a European arrest warrant in November 2010. The allegations of rape do not shed a very favorable light on the already controversial figure of Julian Assange, but it is important to note the entire debacle was part of a media spectacle. By delving a little deeper into the matter, we can understand the issue in its full complexity. According to Swedish law, consensual sex without protection may afterwards be interpreted as sexual assault if one of the parties asks for a test for sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and the other party refuses. Since Julian Assange so far refused to submit to a medical checkup, the accusation has been upheld. But refusing to submit to a blood test is different type of issue altogether
64 Geert Lovink and Patrice Riemens, 'Twelve Theses on WikiLeaks,' Eurozine Magazine, July 2010, http:// www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-12-07-lovinkriemens-en.html.Â