First, he feels we have been persuaded to regard the Internet as something singular which, if handled in the right way, will provide a great leap forward as far as technological progress and our capacities as individual and collective agents are concerned. His irritation at the suggestion is quite palpable, not least in his insistence throughout the latest text of placing ‘the Internet’ in scare quotes. The problem as he sees it is that we have become accustomed to seeing ‘the Internet’ as if it was a glowing force for good. The truth, he argues, is that there is no such thing as the Internet, but rather a whole series of platforms, innovations, networks, and programs multiplying, intensifying, and proliferating without the sense of control or direction that something singular entails.

Why does this matter?

It matters because if we insist on the singularity of the Internet then we fall into the ‘delusion’ that ‘it’ must be good, or alternatively that it must be evil or bad. This is what he calls ‘Internet-centrism’, or the belief that the Internet embodies some telos that impels its development in a certain direction, whether it be towards greater democracy, greater freedom, or increased capacity to do things which the gurus believe to be useful; whether it be to sell more goodies, or defeat authoritarian regimes. The idea is deluded because it fundamentally misunderstands that the Internet is not one thing, but rather a multiplicity of things. There is no ‘point’ to the Internet, no core, no centre. In short, ‘the Internet’ doesn’t exist. What we have rather are tools – and tools can be used for good and evil. It is us, the humans, who ultimately decide to what ends these tools are put.

‘For Evgeny Morozov the prognosis is at best mixed and at worst pretty awful’

Morozov’s second theme runs on from the first. This is that the emergence of the Internet has given second wind to what Jean-François Lyotard famously termed ‘metanarratives’, or, more simply, ideologies. Morozov is a keen chronicler of these new ideologies. As well as Internet-centrism, he has in his sights ‘cyber utopianism’, ‘solutionism’, and technological determinism, among many other ‘isms’ analysed and dissected here.

Morozov Evgeny

What unfolds over the course of the two books is Morozov’s fear of the disavowed utopian dimension of contemporary thinking about the Internet. In this regard, Morozov treads heavily in the footsteps of figures such as Karl Popper, who famously analysed the perils of ‘utopian social engineering’ and ‘aesthetic’ schemes of social improvement. Popper, writing in the 1940s, had in mind ideologies like communism and Nazism, but the key point was that ‘isms’ are not only delusional, they have catastrophic effects when political movements come to power seeking to implement them. In the contemporary case, no ‘movements’ are needed, only an acceptance of the idea that the Internet is a redeeming force for technological and human progress. If there is a core argument in these texts, it is that this is a dangerous fallacy. It is dangerous because it is ‘deluded’ about the object under question (‘the Internet’). It also empties politics and the public sphere of ethics, morality, and choice. We find ourselves on a kind of ideological crusade, as opposed to that ‘conversation’ over the nature of the Good that should be at the heart of democratic life.

‘The problem as he sees it is that we have become accustomed to seeing ‘‘the Internet’’ as if it was a glowing force for good’

There is much to admire in Morozov’s work, and he has surely done us all a favour in making the argument over the virtues of the Internet appear more balanced. Nonetheless, there is a danger of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater in his attempt to get us to see the errors in putting too much faith in the redeeming qualities of the digital revolution. To the idea, for example, that the Internet is diminishing, not increasing, our capacities as citizens needs to be brought in the importance of phenomena such as WikiLeaks and the revelations of Edward Snowden – neither of which are discussed at any length here. We could also talk about the extraordinary upsurge of citizen protests in places such as Spain and Hong Kong, by the proliferation of new political parties, many catalysed by the availability of new ICT tools and platforms. We could be talking about the power of citizen journalism and the manner in which injustices, beatings, and brutality by authorities can be confronted. Morozov discusses some of these, briefly, with passing interest; but if anything he is contemptuous of the new citizen activism, and the emergence of ‘monitory democracy’, ‘post-representative democracy’ generally. His focus is much more attuned to the perils of the ‘crowd’, not the enablement of new forms of democratic power in an environment of mistrust of ‘pollies’.

This latter point illustrates the core of Morozov’s concerns and the nature of his critique of the digital revolution. He views the coming of the ‘crowd’ in much the same light as Nietzsche, Oakeshott, Berlin, and others quoted approvingly in the text viewed the coming of the ‘mob’. Too much clamour; too much noise – too little decorum and respect for authority. Too much TripAdvisor and Google; not enough Guide Michelin and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Like his intellectual heroes, he would rather be left with a small group of the far-sighted and like-minded (the aristos perhaps) than surrounded by the cant and chatter of ‘Everyone’ to paraphrase his bête noire, Clay Shirky. The political message here is quite well hidden in the detail of the book, but clear nonetheless: democracy is too precious to be left with an excitable demos only a click away from the epigones of populist irrationalism. It should rather be left in the safe hands of those blessed with sober and considered judgement – presumably like Morozov himself. Ultimately, To Save Everything, Click Here comes across as rather cross and impatient, a lecture from an uncle, rather than a contribution to a debate. It is about these times, but not of these times. Indeed, its core message is as timeless as that in Plato’s Republic: fear the demos, don’t feed it.