I’m wired, therefore I exist
But has your existence started to belong to others?
By Santiago Zabala Published 29 July 2012
Today if you are not often wired, you do not exist. Like radio and television in other times, the internet has become not only an indispensable tool but also a vital component of our life. It has become so useful, significant, and meaningful for variety of administrative, cultural, and political reasons that a life without it seems unimaginable in the twenty-first century. But the ownership of this interactive life is troubled: when you start seeing interesting advertising on your Gmail banner, personalised ads aimed just at you, your existence has begun to belong to others.
At last count, there are now 2,267,233,742 users of the internet, that is, 32.7 per cent of the world population. While these numbers refer primarily to North America, Asia, and Europe, in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East its use is growing rapidly. However, there is a big difference between being online and being wired. This is not a simple semantic difference, but rather an existential distinction that determines our roles, tasks, and possibilities in the world today. Without suggesting a return to twentieth century existentialism (which arose as a reaction against scientific systems threatening humans beings uniqueness) philosophy must stress the vital danger that being wired can pose for our lives.
Not everyone who is online is also wired. The latter refers to those capable to finding a date or a job through social networks such as LinkedIn, downloading the latest episodes of True Blood, or purchasing self-designed Nike shoes; the former avoid these services. Using the internet just for an email account and cheap airline tickets does not make you technologically incompetent, but rather concerned for your existential distinctiveness, that is, autonomy.
For the wired West the danger of the internet does not lie in going crazy from too many hours spent online, although this is becoming more common, but rather in considering a wired existence transparent, free, and vital for your life rather than an active threat. Although being wired assures you an identity on the web, that is, a position in the new wired world, it also frames your existence within the possibilities and limitations of the web. This is why Tim Berners-Lee, a founder of the web, recently pointed out how the “more you enter, the more you become locked in. Your social networking site becomes a central platform—a closed silo of content, and one that does not give you full control over your information in it.”
An autonomous life in the twenty-first century will depend on the distances we manage to maintain from the politics of control. This politics was employed by the Soviet Union and is used in contemporary North Korea. These two regimes use technology to manufacture and control the existence of their citizens in order to impose certain beliefs and restrict others. Today, the West seems to be under a similar regime without a central government; that is, it is imposed by technology. Whether they offer exciting social existence on the web or release private data to governments, our existence is in the hands of programmers such as Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey; after all, wars are now beginning to be fought also through the web with catastrophic consequences.
If being wired seems the only possibility for existence today it’s because only those who have an IP address or Facebook account are recognisable; in other words, only the wired have identities. But the existential issue of wired does not inhere in the fact of being monitored, which is inevitable even offline today, but rather in the existential unfairness of our interactions on the web. We sacrifice not only the personal information we submit when we join a network or make a purchase but also part of our being, that is, our autonomy. In this relation our existence is involved as a consequence rather than an option. Having said this, the difference between online and wired users of the web does not have to do with their level of education or social status but rather with each group’s interest in being an autonomous interpreter free from technological constraints.
The ability of an information consumer to read “between the lines” has been indispensable since the first generation to read newspapers in the sixtheenth century. Today, though, the web requires an even greater effort considering the amount of information and the possibility of interaction at our disposal. The better our ability to interpret autonomously, the better our chances to live a distinct life, but who is capable of overcoming the web’s existential consequences? The online moderate or the wired enthusiast?
While there is no quick answer to this question, the existential issues it raises are becoming as crucial as they were at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Like the worker in Chaplin’s Modern Times, who ends entangled in the machinery that has conditioned his existence, we must avoid seeing our preferences, interests, and views only in the banner advertisements constantly waved in our eyes.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


3 comments
Utter drivel. This is just an incoherent rehashing of the alarmist technophobic claim that the socialization of the web has been tantamount to welcoming a robber baron's Trojan Horse into our private lives. Zuckerberg and his ilk are anything but harmless and altruistic, but the idea that their primary victim is personal autonomy is off the mark. If anything, the great crime of a large wired populace is that illiterate jackassery and galaxies of bad photos proliferate unchecked. The uncurated, infinite nature of modern web content is driving the value of ALL content ever closer to 0; witness the decline of Print, Music, and Film.
True, each of us leaves a trail of breadcrumbs behind as we go about our business online, and expensive algorithms hungrily devour these traces and compute them using the dark alchemy of Big Data. But there are numerous browser extensions to guard against and mitigate this sort of data-harvesting. The author's argument seems to hinge on the belief that ad-blocking software either doesn't exist or is beyond the capabilities of all but the wired elite to implement. Fortunately, this isn't the case.
Can you still preserve your privacy? There isn't one monolithic definition of privacy, but for simplicity's sake let's say it means the ability to control who knows what about you. To a great extent this remains possible, but the deeper you go into the socialized web, the more numerous your traces, and the more multifarious and diffuse your virtual identity becomes. At some point, it becomes hard to remember what you wrote or did where, and if privacy presumes the ready ability to gather up all the scattered strands of your life into one master narrative that you and you alone control, then the difficulty of doing so rises in direct proportion to how many online identities you maintain. But privacy has never been an easy thing for socially active people to control; if you know two people who know each other, there's never been a way to ensure that what you tell Person A in confidence will never reach the ears of Person B. Saying that this struggle for control is a byproduct of new social media is an irresponsible false dichotomy.
More worrying is that when you sign up for virtually any social networking site, you surrender all claims to ownership over content produced on and uploaded to that site. But does that mean that Facebook controls you? If you deactivate your account having forfeited control of every word and picture ever posted, do you cease to exist? Are you somehow materially less yourself? Of course not. People are endlessly productive, and in this case, it's fortunate that most of our output is vapid, narcissistic, and otherwise difficult to monetize readily. So what, exactly, are thoughtful people so worried about? If you value your content, your person, and your brand, there are still laws in place to protect these things. You can start by posting things to websites whose domains you lease on servers whose hosting fees you pay out of pocket. The consequence, of course, is that you'll reach a narrower audience. But isn't that the point?
We do indeed live in a brave new world, but who owns the self is up to each self. Seeing an ad for discount brand-name shoes beside an email that contains the word "shoes" does not mean that your life is no longer your own, and if you believe this, then you've already determined that you lack the intellectual vigor to stand up to the brute force of machine intelligence. You are, in other words, obsolete.
I'll admit to feeling more confused than enlightened by this post, e.g., the relationship between "self designed" Nike sneakers and downloading true blood (legal? Illegal?) is opaque to me.
Just to pick a specific nit: how many people have a specific IP address? I personally have about five domains, but no static IP. In my situation it's not worth the extra cost. Do you mean to refer to something other than "IP address"? If so, I'm not sure what that would be, given the context.
fgujrtyr