Taming the Web, Are We?
Taming the Web, Are We? is a news article by Javed Anwer published in the Economic Times on 13 May 2012. The article examines the mounting pressure on the open web from both governments and technology companies in the years following the Arab Spring, and quotes Sunil Abraham on why the post-2011 political climate had accelerated state efforts to control online expression.
Contents
Article Details
- 📰 Published in:
- Economic Times
- 📅 Date:
- 13 May 2012
- 👤 Author:
- Javed Anwer
- 📄 Type:
- News Article
- 🔗 Publication Link:
- Not available online
Full Text
Two decades after its advent changed our lives, the world wide web - as we know it - faces a grave threat. Not from governments alone, but also from tech companies seeking to play gatekeepers.
The /b/ section at www.4chan.org is so extreme in nature that even web veterans squirm at the thought of going through it. Anyone can post virtually any picture here. Anonymously. It doesn't matter if the pictures are obscene, graphic or gory.
Yet, 4Chan, which was started by a 15-year-old in 2003, is an integral part of the world wide web. The large community at 4Chan mirrors the virtual world - lawless and anarchic in the traditional sense, highly innovative, funny and sometimes disturbing. Barry Newstead, chief global development officer of Wikimedia that manages Wikipedia, puts it succinctly. "The internet has been giving ordinary people the voice and the ability to contribute content and ideas and opinions. Sometimes we use it to create pictures of funny cats and sometimes it's the world's largest encyclopedia," he says.
Until recently, it seems governments just noticed the funny cats. They left the web to its own devices. At the same time, the egalitarian ethos on which the web was founded - Tim Berners-Lee developed it and gave it away for free - kept real-world barriers, which corporations and people often put around their environment, away from it. In 2012, it looks like the honeymoon is over.
'Civilizing' the Net
Perhaps the problem is that, for all its perceived flaws, the internet has worked wonderfully well. "Too well," says Jeff Jarvis, author of 'Public Parts' , a book on internet culture. It has allowed people to create Google, Facebook, Hotmail, WikiLeaks, Wikipedia and thousands of other websites and services that have changed lives. Last year Jarvis was in Paris, participating in e-G 8 called by then French president Nicholas Sarkozy. He heard the Frenchman's plans to "civilize" the web. "Nobody should forget governments are the only legitimate representatives of the will of the people in our democracies," said Sarkozy.
His sentiments are shared by politicians across the world, including in India. Just three days ago, Congress MP Shantaram Naik, aghast at the "filthy" comments on a website, said in the Rajya Sabha that the internet needs to be "purified" . Different politicians and governments have different reasons. But regulation is growing. In the last few years, governments across the world have proposed or enacted laws (see box) that aim to "civilize" the web.
Why the urgency? Is the internet broken? Jarvis says it is not. "The net is operating no differently today than it was a decade ago. But we see so many efforts to fix it - to regulate it under the cloak of privacy, piracy, decency, security, and even civility," he says. "I believe legacy institutions, including governments, are waking up to the extent of the net's disruptive force... they are trying to control the net and govern the change it causes."
Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, says that in the last two years governments have doubled their efforts to control the web. "During the revolutions in Arab countries last year, protesters mobilized themselves through Twitter and Facebook. Then there are Wikileaks and Anonymous. This has made governments and politicians jittery," says Abraham.
Context and Background
This article was published in May 2012, at a moment when Indian internet policy had become particularly contested. The months prior had seen the government issue notices to Facebook and Google over user content, Congress MP Kapil Sibal’s proposals to pre-screen social media posts, and the arrest of individuals for online speech under Section 66A of the IT Act. Anwer frames these domestic developments within a wider global pattern, drawing on voices from the US, France, and India to argue that governments were collectively waking up to the disruptive potential of the open web.
Sunil Abraham’s remarks situate these developments within the immediate global context of 2011. He points to the Arab Spring uprisings, where Twitter and Facebook were used for mobilisation, as well as to the activities of WikiLeaks and Anonymous, as factors that had made governments more wary of the political implications of an open and unregulated web. His comments reflect a broader concern among policymakers that digital platforms were enabling new forms of coordination and dissent that were difficult to monitor or control.
📄 This page was created on 17 March 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .