The Internets Own Boy
The Internet’s Own Boy: Reflections On Knowledge, Access and Control
6 October 2026
A Reflective Response to The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story Of Aaron Swartz, with reference to Lawrence Lessig and Shoshana Zuboff.
This documentary about the prodigy Aaron Swartz was remarkable but tragic. It served as a reminder of the limits placed upon citizens by their respective governments; in this case, the U.S. government. The documentary approached the story with grace and restraint, whilst still telling Aaron's story with so much conviction that the viewer naturally gravitates towards a more dominant emotional register of despair and injustice. I think the reason so many people connected with his story, despite not being tech prodigies themselves, is due to the unquenchable fire within us all, as humans, to make a change and do something in this world which truly matters. Aaron was able to manifest that desire into reality and was subsequently ruined for it; but in that moment of success, the world shifted. He had made a difference, and he made it known that it was possible for that fire inside us all to become something material. However, his political aspirations intimidated those in positions of power, regardless of how humble and good-intentioned they were. This begs the question: why? Why did the government do everything in its power to stamp him out of existence and stop him in his tracks? Why was he treated like a dangerous criminal for trying to make public records accessible and spread knowledge? Surely there is nothing inherently criminal about bringing public access to the public domain?¹
This led me to Lessig’s argument that “the burden of justification should fall on him who would defend systems of control.”² I found myself considering why systems of control are inherently justified simply because they are already established. In Aaron’s case, it seems that the question should not only be why he challenged the system, but why the system existed in such a fragile way that made his actions so threatening in the first place.
This also connected with Shoshana Zuboff’s discussion of the idea that “if it’s free, then you are the product,” which she argues is itself misleading. Rather than simply being the product, Zuboff argues that we are the source of the behavioural surplus extracted by surveillance capitalism.³ It left me wondering: what does it mean for information to be free, and who benefits from that freedom? It seems there is a ceiling for public information in the U.S. and for public intervention on archaic systems, and questioning these is a dangerous feat. Aaron possessed the ability to extrapolate his processes, both scientifically and technically, to make major changes on a systemic level.⁴