Another political hack presenting his political convictions as scholarly research. If you can spot something aside from broad generalizations and unfounded speculation in his 12 minutes on stage, please let me know what I missed.

Here’s my take:

Mr. Morozov’s discussion of government tactics is but a veiled attempt to confound authoritarian measures and popular support for regimes that he deems undemocratic. For example, he fears ceding control of the Russian cyberspace to the 70% of Russians who support the Putin government. It is a legitimate worry, and I’m kind of disappointed that he didn’t come out and say it, choosing, rather, to paint vague and unconvincing arguments about governments infiltrating social media networks.

His general sentiment is most clearly revealed in the closing words when he says that rather than hoping for meaningful political engagement from the “iPod generation,” one ought to find “ways to empower intellectuals, dissidents, NGOs, and other members of civil society.” It is this narrow definition of civil society that I take issue with. I don’t share his cynical view of the average person’s inability to engage effectively in public discourse. His attitude is typical of a post-communist breed of “democrats.” It is an attitude of paternalism: “You, the average citizen, cannot possibly formulate a rational belief based on facts, so leave it to us, the intellectuals and professional dissidents, to show you the light.”

To be sure, I think there are legitimate question to be asked about how public opinion is formed online and the effectiveness of the Internet in promoting positive political engagement. However, Mr. Morozov has no interest in exploring these questions, preferring to mask his disappointment with the way that discourse has developed thus far, with erroneous accusations of government meddling and unfounded allegations that online debate is somehow inherently flawed.

The real dilemma underlying Morozov’s worries is a modern version of de Tocqueville’s idea of “tyranny of the majority.” Of course, Morozov’s ostensible (and political) support for democracy would never allow him to openly entertain the notion that an open society in Belarus and Russia are not impeded solely by the Lukashenko and Putin governments, let alone that more openness may actually lead to undesired outcomes.

In any case, I am intrigued by this notion of “tyranny of the majority” on the Internet and its effects on open discourse. There is clearly a lot to wrestle with here, and I’ll try to post more of my thoughts on the topic in the future.