The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourThe Internet and International Politics

The Internet has not undermined statesThe Internet has not undermined states But it has made life more complex for themBut it has made life more complex for them What have its effects been on the What have its effects been on the

international system of politics?international system of politics? Some argue that it has resulted in major Some argue that it has resulted in major

changes, some in minor changes.changes, some in minor changes.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourPolitical scientists and international relations

State Sovereignty and Westphalian systemState Sovereignty and Westphalian system Sharp division between international and Sharp division between international and

domestic politics.domestic politics. States the main actors in international States the main actors in international

politicspolitics Autonomous within their own realms.Autonomous within their own realms.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourInternet and International Politics

How does the Internet affect this?How does the Internet affect this? Some argue that its effects are marginalSome argue that its effects are marginal

International politics are still as they wereInternational politics are still as they were Big states dominate, while small states and non-Big states dominate, while small states and non-

state actors lose outstate actors lose out Others argue that there are major changesOthers argue that there are major changes

States relate to each other in different waysStates relate to each other in different ways Non-state actors suddenly have new options.Non-state actors suddenly have new options.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourDebates over the Internet and IR

In this class, we will examine the debateIn this class, we will examine the debate Not as easy to arrive at simple conclusions Not as easy to arrive at simple conclusions

as in the debate between cyberlibertarians as in the debate between cyberlibertarians and othersand others

Arguments to be made on both sidesArguments to be made on both sides Prof. Farrell’s view – a mixture (and Prof. Farrell’s view – a mixture (and

extension) of both viewpoints.extension) of both viewpoints.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourInternational Relations: Refresher

International relations has traditionally focused on International relations has traditionally focused on politics politics betweenbetween states rather than politics states rather than politics withinwithin states.states.

The realm of international politics is seen as being The realm of international politics is seen as being fundamentally different from domestic politicsfundamentally different from domestic politics No overarching government in the international No overarching government in the international

system – there is no world government. Instead, system – there is no world government. Instead, there is “anarchy.”there is “anarchy.”

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourThe Westphalian System

International Relations Scholars usually International Relations Scholars usually assume that states are assume that states are sovereignsovereign..

This is the keystone of the Westphalian This is the keystone of the Westphalian system of international politics – what IR system of international politics – what IR scholars have traditionally claimed prevails.scholars have traditionally claimed prevails.

Westphalian system a product of the Westphalian system a product of the religious wars of the early modern period religious wars of the early modern period (16(16thth century) in Western Europe. century) in Western Europe. Cuius regio, eius religioCuius regio, eius religio

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourPrinciples of Westphalia

Non-intervention – states don’t intervene in each Non-intervention – states don’t intervene in each other’s internal affairs. The key attribute of other’s internal affairs. The key attribute of sovereigntysovereignty

Lack of hierarchy in international affairs – no Lack of hierarchy in international affairs – no over-arching authority whom states have to obey.over-arching authority whom states have to obey.

Territoriality – i.e. political system defined by Territoriality – i.e. political system defined by clear borders between territories.clear borders between territories.

Each population only has one ruler (very different Each population only has one ruler (very different from mediaeval Europe).from mediaeval Europe).

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourStates and the International System

Under the Westphalian system, states seen as the Under the Westphalian system, states seen as the only legitimate or genuinely powerful actors in only legitimate or genuinely powerful actors in international politics.international politics.

International politics is mostly about force or the International politics is mostly about force or the threat of force.threat of force.

Only states have armies.Only states have armies. Other actors seen as mostly irrelevant because Other actors seen as mostly irrelevant because

they don’t have access to military power.they don’t have access to military power. Cannons were seen as the Cannons were seen as the ultima ratio regemultima ratio regem (the (the

final argument of kings).final argument of kings).

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourDividing national and international politics

Westphalian system has a clear division between Westphalian system has a clear division between domestic politics and international system.domestic politics and international system.

International politics is what states do among each International politics is what states do among each other.other.

Domestic politics is what takes place within Domestic politics is what takes place within national borders.national borders.

Not much interaction between the two Not much interaction between the two (international system isn’t driven by domestic (international system isn’t driven by domestic events).events).

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourThe Internet and International Politics

What does the Internet have to do with all of this?What does the Internet have to do with all of this? Some (Kobrin) argue that the Internet has Some (Kobrin) argue that the Internet has

fundamental implications for the international fundamental implications for the international (Westphalian) system.(Westphalian) system.

Others (Goldsmith and Yu) argue that politics in Others (Goldsmith and Yu) argue that politics in the international realm is still going on as before; the international realm is still going on as before; i.e. states dominate.i.e. states dominate.

Others still (Farrell) focus on new emerging state-Others still (Farrell) focus on new emerging state-private actor relations of authority, or on strange private actor relations of authority, or on strange new forms of governance (Mueller).new forms of governance (Mueller).

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourBack to the future?

Kobrin’s argument – we are getting back to Kobrin’s argument – we are getting back to something a little like the system that existed in something a little like the system that existed in Europe Europe beforebefore Westphalia. Westphalia.

i.e. to something like the old Holy Roman Empire.i.e. to something like the old Holy Roman Empire. No empire as suchNo empire as such

But more complicated political relationships But more complicated political relationships and allegiancesand allegiances

New role for non-state actors in international New role for non-state actors in international politics.politics.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourSubverting Westphalia

Internet, in Kobrin’s view is key to this – it Internet, in Kobrin’s view is key to this – it subverts the basic principles of Westphalia.subverts the basic principles of Westphalia.

(1) The Internet breaks down the distinction (1) The Internet breaks down the distinction between international and national politics.between international and national politics.

(2) The Internet subverts the principle of (2) The Internet subverts the principle of territoriality.territoriality.

(3) The Internet creates new possibilities for (3) The Internet creates new possibilities for non-state actors in international politics.non-state actors in international politics.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourThe Internet and the International Realm

The Internet breaks down the relationship The Internet breaks down the relationship between domestic and international politics.between domestic and international politics.

What is domestic and what is international What is domestic and what is international in the Internet? No real way to say.in the Internet? No real way to say.

Internet means that domestic and Internet means that domestic and international policy get confused.international policy get confused. Domestic policy choices have Domestic policy choices have

international implications and vice-versainternational implications and vice-versa

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourTerritoriality and the Internet

Territoriality gets subverted by Internet.Territoriality gets subverted by Internet. Political choices made by one state may have Political choices made by one state may have

serious implications outside its borders.serious implications outside its borders. If one state permits gambling operations, or If one state permits gambling operations, or

pornography vendors to set up websites on its pornography vendors to set up websites on its territory, then citizens of other countries will be territory, then citizens of other countries will be able to access these websites able to access these websites even if they are even if they are illegal in those other countriesillegal in those other countries..

As discussed last week, some limits to this – but it As discussed last week, some limits to this – but it still poses new problems.still poses new problems.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourOrganizing private actors

Internet allows new possibilities to non-Internet allows new possibilities to non-state actors.state actors.

Can use the Internet to organize more easily Can use the Internet to organize more easily and thus affect international politics.and thus affect international politics.

Internet allows them to communicate more Internet allows them to communicate more easily, and to re-organize rapidly, without easily, and to re-organize rapidly, without any hierarchical command structure.any hierarchical command structure.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourImplications for Westphalia

Kobrin (and others) thus argue that the Internet is Kobrin (and others) thus argue that the Internet is making international politics much more making international politics much more complicated.complicated.

May lead to major changes.May lead to major changes. Political allegiances of individuals may shift as Political allegiances of individuals may shift as

power shifts.power shifts. New concepts of citizenship may be needed.New concepts of citizenship may be needed. (Or, alternatively, we might see a return to the (Or, alternatively, we might see a return to the

Dark Ages).Dark Ages).

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourThe Empire Strikes Back?

Might be a return to old imperial system Might be a return to old imperial system where individuals had multiple and where individuals had multiple and complex loyalties.complex loyalties.

New political spaces created that would New political spaces created that would transcend national boundaries.transcend national boundaries.

Need for something to replace old system – Need for something to replace old system – which isn’t tackling global problems which isn’t tackling global problems anyway.anyway.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourOr business as usual?

However, some arguments that the Internet’s However, some arguments that the Internet’s effects on state power are modest at best effects on state power are modest at best (Goldsmith and Wu).(Goldsmith and Wu).

No evidence of a major shift in the international No evidence of a major shift in the international system.system.

States are still the dominant actors in international States are still the dominant actors in international politics.politics.

And according to Goldsmith and Wu, this is a And according to Goldsmith and Wu, this is a good thing ...good thing ...

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourG&W’s claims: Sovereignty not under threat

State power not being undermined by State power not being undermined by Internet (last week’s lecture).Internet (last week’s lecture).

States are making the key choices over how States are making the key choices over how the Internet should be governed, just as in the Internet should be governed, just as in other policy areas.other policy areas.

Are firmly in control of their fates – not Are firmly in control of their fates – not about to be squashed by a technological about to be squashed by a technological juggernaut.juggernaut.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourG&W’s claims: States and private actors

Argument that private actors can use the Internet Argument that private actors can use the Internet to elude states doesn’t hold up.to elude states doesn’t hold up.

States (as discussed already and to be discussed States (as discussed already and to be discussed in more detail in the Chinese case) have many in more detail in the Chinese case) have many options if they want to stop people from using options if they want to stop people from using Internet illicitly.Internet illicitly.

The Internet isn’t one vast, undifferentiated The Internet isn’t one vast, undifferentiated space.space.

Instead, it has cultural and legal and technological Instead, it has cultural and legal and technological barriers that divide it.barriers that divide it.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourG&W – Cultural Barriers

Cultural barriers – people don’t necessarily Cultural barriers – people don’t necessarily wantwant to cross borders. to cross borders.

Internet users in Tokyo will typically want Internet users in Tokyo will typically want local news in Japanese, in Seattle, local local news in Japanese, in Seattle, local news in English, in Paris, local news in news in English, in Paris, local news in French etc.French etc.

So they may not want to venture too far So they may not want to venture too far beyond their national boundaries on a beyond their national boundaries on a regular basis.regular basis.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourG&W – Legal Barriers

Legal Barriers - Different countries have different laws.Legal Barriers - Different countries have different laws. They also tend often to respect each others’ laws They also tend often to respect each others’ laws

(principle of comity, rules governing choice of law etc).(principle of comity, rules governing choice of law etc). They also tend to press private actors to obey their law They also tend to press private actors to obey their law

(rather than the law of another country) if it’s in a matter (rather than the law of another country) if it’s in a matter that directly affects their citizens.that directly affects their citizens.

This might be irrelevant if countries or individuals This might be irrelevant if countries or individuals couldn’t detect where Internet users were located.couldn’t detect where Internet users were located.

But it’s possible to figure this out, with a bit of technical But it’s possible to figure this out, with a bit of technical wizardry.wizardry.

Result: Different national laws can co-exist, as they do Result: Different national laws can co-exist, as they do in the regular legal system.in the regular legal system.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture 4G&W: Technical Barriers

To be discussed in later class.To be discussed in later class. Various means that states can use to block Various means that states can use to block

people from accessing outside content, people from accessing outside content, including IP-blocking, content filtering etc.including IP-blocking, content filtering etc.

Usually possible for sophisticated users to Usually possible for sophisticated users to bypass these restrictions.bypass these restrictions.

But everyday users may find this more But everyday users may find this more difficult.difficult.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourImplications of Goldsmith and Wu’s

argument The international system is more or less as The international system is more or less as

it always was.it always was. States dominate.States dominate. Non-state actors have a minor role, if anyNon-state actors have a minor role, if any A major change in the basis of international A major change in the basis of international

politics (of the sort that Kobrin proposes) is politics (of the sort that Kobrin proposes) is extremely unlikely.extremely unlikely.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourEvaluating arguments – Farrell’s Take

Both arguments have some plausible Both arguments have some plausible elements.elements.

Internet has only just arrived – it will be a Internet has only just arrived – it will be a long time before we can really arrive at firm long time before we can really arrive at firm judgements about what it means.judgements about what it means.

But there are weaknesses to both arguments But there are weaknesses to both arguments – and a possible third alternative.– and a possible third alternative.

Examine 4 brief case studies.Examine 4 brief case studies.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourExample 1

WTO protestorsWTO protestors

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture Four

“ “Battle for Seattle” and subsequent rounds of Battle for Seattle” and subsequent rounds of protest in Genoa saw new use of Internet by protest in Genoa saw new use of Internet by protestors.protestors.

On the one hand, little to no central organization On the one hand, little to no central organization (lots of different groups and people who just (lots of different groups and people who just showed up).showed up).

On the other hand, highly effective coordination.On the other hand, highly effective coordination. Succeeded in getting some politicians to listen to Succeeded in getting some politicians to listen to

their opinions.their opinions.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourBut…

WTO protestors never presented a serious challenge to the WTO protestors never presented a serious challenge to the power of states.power of states.

Indeed, without state actors to address their demands to, Indeed, without state actors to address their demands to, they would have been completely powerless to effect they would have been completely powerless to effect change.change.

In a certain sense, they affirmed the power of states as In a certain sense, they affirmed the power of states as much as they challenged them.much as they challenged them.

States can block them from assembling.States can block them from assembling. Result: unclear whether states or private actors are Result: unclear whether states or private actors are

prevailing in this area.prevailing in this area.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourExample 2: Blogs in Iran

Blogs present another interesting example.Blogs present another interesting example. Iranian blogs played an important role in Iranian blogs played an important role in

hosting democratic debate.hosting democratic debate. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians blog – Hundreds of thousands of Iranians blog –

unlike many countries in its region, it didn’t unlike many countries in its region, it didn’t impose strong Internet censorship until very impose strong Internet censorship until very recently.recently.

However, it did censor the press heavily, However, it did censor the press heavily, with the result that many journalists became with the result that many journalists became bloggers.bloggers.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourBlogs in Iran Today

However, blogs and web pages have seen much However, blogs and web pages have seen much heavier censorship in the last two years.heavier censorship in the last two years.

The figure responsible in the Iranian government The figure responsible in the Iranian government boasted that 10 million websites were being boasted that 10 million websites were being censored.censored.

Possible to circumvent these barriers – but it’s not Possible to circumvent these barriers – but it’s not clear that many people bother.clear that many people bother.

Suggests that in this area states are winning.Suggests that in this area states are winning.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture Four Example 3: Online Terrorism

Terrorist organizations have made extensive Terrorist organizations have made extensive use of the WWW.use of the WWW. Original fears of attacks on US servers etc Original fears of attacks on US servers etc

have proved unfounded up until now.have proved unfounded up until now. But the Internet is a potent recruiting tool.But the Internet is a potent recruiting tool.

Terrorist organizations use websites, videos, Terrorist organizations use websites, videos, podcasts to get their message across and podcasts to get their message across and avoid censorship.avoid censorship.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourCombatting Online Terrorism

Hard for states to stamp out terrorist websites Hard for states to stamp out terrorist websites without massive censorship effort.without massive censorship effort.

Often are only available through private access Often are only available through private access and encrypted.and encrypted.

Use security vulnerabilities to host themselves on Use security vulnerabilities to host themselves on other people’s servers.other people’s servers. Including Arkansas State Highway Dept Including Arkansas State Highway Dept

computers.computers. Or use newsgroups at Yahoo, Google etc.Or use newsgroups at Yahoo, Google etc.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourExample 4: The Yahoo! case

The Yahoo! case (described in Goldsmith and Wu The Yahoo! case (described in Goldsmith and Wu reading).reading).

Yahoo! auctions allowed people to buy and sell Yahoo! auctions allowed people to buy and sell Nazi paraphernalia.Nazi paraphernalia.

This is illegal in France – so activists took Yahoo! This is illegal in France – so activists took Yahoo! to court in France.to court in France.

The French court ruled that Yahoo! had to ensure The French court ruled that Yahoo! had to ensure that French people didn’t have access to Nazi that French people didn’t have access to Nazi materials.materials.

Yahoo! protested – but effectively complied.Yahoo! protested – but effectively complied.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourYahoo! and international politics

This shows how Internet regulation This shows how Internet regulation increasingly involves not only negotiation increasingly involves not only negotiation between states – but bargaining between between states – but bargaining between states and private actors.states and private actors.

Yahoo! was worried that France would Yahoo! was worried that France would impose fines.impose fines.

Effectively ended up imposing France’s Effectively ended up imposing France’s preferences – even on customers who didn’t preferences – even on customers who didn’t live in France.live in France.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourStates v. private actors in international system

These cases provide mixed results – no universal These cases provide mixed results – no universal support either for claim that states are able to do support either for claim that states are able to do whatever they want (Goldsmith and Wu) or that whatever they want (Goldsmith and Wu) or that new forms of governance are appearing (Kobrin).new forms of governance are appearing (Kobrin).

Instead, each approach does well in explaining Instead, each approach does well in explaining some cases, and not so well in explaining others.some cases, and not so well in explaining others.

Is there a way of reconciling these arguments?Is there a way of reconciling these arguments?

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourReconciling the two

Farrell’s take – these problems can partly be resolved Farrell’s take – these problems can partly be resolved through a careful examination of what is happening.through a careful examination of what is happening.

States often continue to drive international politics.States often continue to drive international politics. But as the border between international and national But as the border between international and national

politics becomes more blurred, they find their policies politics becomes more blurred, they find their policies clashing more often.clashing more often.

In these circumstances, states’ effective ability to carry out In these circumstances, states’ effective ability to carry out policy will often depend on their ability to influence policy will often depend on their ability to influence private actors.private actors.

Where states have appropriate levers, they can control Where states have appropriate levers, they can control private actors’ choices.private actors’ choices.

Where not, they can’t.Where not, they can’t.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourStates and private actors

Reidenberg (an optional reading) points to how Reidenberg (an optional reading) points to how states are increasingly using private actors to states are increasingly using private actors to achieve their policy goals.achieve their policy goals.

They can use private actors as intermediates or They can use private actors as intermediates or proxies to achieve goals that they cannot achieve proxies to achieve goals that they cannot achieve directly.directly.

Leads to a new – and interesting – form of Leads to a new – and interesting – form of international politics as states struggle for international politics as states struggle for influence over private actors.influence over private actors.

Easier for states to influence big actors with assets Easier for states to influence big actors with assets under their control than small actors whose assets under their control than small actors whose assets they can’t easily touch.they can’t easily touch.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourNew politics

What does this mean? Some important What does this mean? Some important implications flow from this.implications flow from this.

(1) That states’ ability to get what they want in (1) That states’ ability to get what they want in Internet regulation will often depend on their Internet regulation will often depend on their ability to influence private actors.ability to influence private actors.

(2) That where states disagree, those states with (2) That where states disagree, those states with more influence over the relevant private actors more influence over the relevant private actors will tend to win. will tend to win.

(3) That some actors will be more vulnerable than (3) That some actors will be more vulnerable than others to states’ influence.others to states’ influence.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourImplications for the US

This has some interesting implications for the US.This has some interesting implications for the US. On the face of it, the US should be the most powerful On the face of it, the US should be the most powerful

player – it has the biggest markets.player – it has the biggest markets. But very often it has deliberately given up the sticks But very often it has deliberately given up the sticks

that it could use to force private actors to do its bidding.that it could use to force private actors to do its bidding. Why?Why?

Influence of e-commerce firms and of libertarians on Influence of e-commerce firms and of libertarians on early debates over Internet and law.early debates over Internet and law.

Both pushed strongly for self-regulation rather than Both pushed strongly for self-regulation rather than traditional law.traditional law.

The Politics of the Internet – Week Four Results

In areas where US In areas where US hashas introduced strong laws that introduced strong laws that provide real sticks to use against private actors, it provide real sticks to use against private actors, it has usually been pretty successful in influencing has usually been pretty successful in influencing international debates.international debates. Security questions (passenger traffic data)Security questions (passenger traffic data)

In areas where it has gone for self regulation In areas where it has gone for self regulation instead, it has been a lot weaker.instead, it has been a lot weaker. Freedom of speech on the InternetFreedom of speech on the Internet

The Politics of the Internet – Week Four Passenger Data

US had a big fight with Europe (which is perhaps US had a big fight with Europe (which is perhaps about to erupt again, over privacy and airline about to erupt again, over privacy and airline passenger datapassenger data

US wanted access to data on passengers flying US wanted access to data on passengers flying from Europe for security reasons.from Europe for security reasons. Passed a law post September 11 requiring Passed a law post September 11 requiring

airlines to provide this dataairlines to provide this data European privacy law forbade this.European privacy law forbade this. Question – would the airlines obey US or Question – would the airlines obey US or

European law?European law?

The Politics of the Internet – Week Four Strength of US

In this case, US managed to prevail over In this case, US managed to prevail over Europeans.Europeans.

Airlines made it clear to the Europeans that Airlines made it clear to the Europeans that they would comply with US law, not they would comply with US law, not European law.European law. Faced much more serious penaltiesFaced much more serious penalties

Europeans had little choice but to negotiate Europeans had little choice but to negotiate an agreement on terms highly favourable to an agreement on terms highly favourable to the USthe US

Freedom of Speech

But in freedom of speech, US has opted But in freedom of speech, US has opted primarily for a self-regulatory approach.primarily for a self-regulatory approach. Because of attraction to self-regulation.Because of attraction to self-regulation. Also difficulties of regulating speech Also difficulties of regulating speech

thanks to First Amendment.thanks to First Amendment. This has meant that the US has had This has meant that the US has had

difficulties in encouraging spread of its difficulties in encouraging spread of its values worldwide.values worldwide.

The Politics of the Internet – Week Four Weakness of US

US government has made it clear that it believes US government has made it clear that it believes freedom of speech is in its broad commercial, freedom of speech is in its broad commercial, political and security interests.political and security interests. (albeit with a little bit of hypocrisy as is typical (albeit with a little bit of hypocrisy as is typical

of states acting in their own interests)of states acting in their own interests) But has few positive incentives to offer to Yahoo!, But has few positive incentives to offer to Yahoo!,

Google etc, nor much in the way of negative ones Google etc, nor much in the way of negative ones either.either.

Result – these firms tend to defer to authoritarian Result – these firms tend to defer to authoritarian regimes as best fits their commercial self-interest.regimes as best fits their commercial self-interest.

The Politics of the Internet – Week FourPolitical Choices

Finally, as Mueller suggests (assigned reading), this means Finally, as Mueller suggests (assigned reading), this means that the future governance of the Internet that the future governance of the Internet isn’t isn’t necessarily necessarily the inevitable result of state power, as Goldsmith and Wu the inevitable result of state power, as Goldsmith and Wu seem to suggest.seem to suggest.

Instead, it’s at least in part the result of political choices.Instead, it’s at least in part the result of political choices. Goldsmith and Wu’s ideal world has some problems, even Goldsmith and Wu’s ideal world has some problems, even

if it allows diverse choices across states.if it allows diverse choices across states. Would we be better off having an uniform regime in at Would we be better off having an uniform regime in at

least some areas of policy?least some areas of policy?

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourWhat we have learned

International politics – traditional views.International politics – traditional views. Westphalian system of state sovereigntyWestphalian system of state sovereignty Sharp distinction between domestic and international Sharp distinction between domestic and international

levels of politics.levels of politics. Two different view of how the Internet affects this.Two different view of how the Internet affects this.

(1) All will change – Internet has profound (1) All will change – Internet has profound consequences for international system.consequences for international system.

(2) All stays the same – States are in control of the (2) All stays the same – States are in control of the process – no change to international politics.process – no change to international politics.

(3) Farrell’s approach –states are still in control, but (3) Farrell’s approach –states are still in control, but they often need to work through private actors.they often need to work through private actors.

The Politics of the Internet – Lecture FourNext week’s readings.

What are the forces that people say are What are the forces that people say are changing electoral politics (Wired reading)changing electoral politics (Wired reading)

What are the limits to these forces (Johnson, What are the limits to these forces (Johnson, Schmitt)Schmitt)

What is the role of blogs both in politics What is the role of blogs both in politics and the media (Drezner and Farrell) and the media (Drezner and Farrell) Nb – you only need to skim the statistics Nb – you only need to skim the statistics

section in the Drezner and Farrell article.section in the Drezner and Farrell article.