The Quick vs the Strong: Commentary on Cory Doctorow’s Walkaway

by Bruce Schneier on April 26, 2017

Technological advances change the world. That’s partly because of what they are, but even more because of the social changes they enable. New technologies upend power balances. They give groups new capabilities, increased effectiveness, and new defenses. The Internet decades have been a never-ending series of these upendings. We’ve seen existing industries fall and new industries rise. We’ve seen governments become more powerful in some areas and less in others. We’ve seen the rise of a new form of governance: a multi-stakeholder model where skilled individuals can have more power than multinational corporations or major governments.

Among the many power struggles, there is one type I want to particularly highlight: the battles between the nimble individuals who start using a new technology first, and the slower organizations that come along later.

In general, the unempowered are the first to benefit from new technologies: hackers, dissidents, marginalized groups, criminals, and so on. When they first encountered the Internet, it was transformative. Suddenly, they had access to technologies for dissemination, coordination, organization, and action—things that were impossibly hard before. This can be incredibly empowering. In the early decades of the Internet, we saw it in the rise of Usenet discussion forums and special-interest mailing lists, in how the Internet routed around censorship, and how Internet governance bypassed traditional government and corporate models. More recently, we saw it in the SOPA/PIPA debate of 2011–12, the Gezi protests in Turkey and the various “color” revolutions, and the rising use of crowdfunding. These technologies can invert power dynamics, even in the presence of government surveillance and censorship.

But that’s just half the story. Technology magnifies power in general, but the rates of adoption are different. Criminals, dissidents, the unorganized—all outliers—are more agile. They can make use of new technologies faster, and can magnify their collective power because of it. But when the already-powerful big institutions finally figured out how to use the Internet, they had more raw power to magnify.

This is true for both governments and corporations. We now know that governments all over the world are militarizing the Internet, using it for surveillance, censorship, and propaganda. Large corporations are using it to control what we can do and see, and the rise of winner-take-all distribution systems only exacerbates this.

This is the fundamental tension at the heart of the Internet, and information-based technology in general. The unempowered are more efficient at leveraging new technology, while the powerful have more raw power to leverage. These two trends lead to a battle between the quick and the strong: the quick who can make use of new power faster, and the strong who can make use of that same power more effectively.

This battle is playing out today in many different areas of information technology. You can see it in the security vs. surveillance battles between criminals and the FBI, or dissidents and the Chinese government. You can see it in the battles between content pirates and various media organizations. You can see it where social-media giants and Internet-commerce giants battle against new upstarts. You can see it in politics, where the newer Internet-aware organizations fight with the older, more established, political organizations. You can even see it in warfare, where a small cadre of military can keep a country under perpetual bombardment—using drones—with no risk to the attackers.

This battle is fundamental to Cory Doctorow’s new novel Walkaway. Our heroes represent the quick: those who have checked out of traditional society, and thrive because easy access to 3D printers enables them to eschew traditional notions of property. Their enemy is the strong: the traditional government institutions that exert their power mostly because they can. This battle rages through most of the book, as the quick embrace ever-new technologies and the strong struggle to catch up.

It’s easy to root for the quick, both in Doctorow’s book and in the real world. And while I’m not going to give away Doctorow’s ending—and I don’t know enough to predict how it will play out in the real world—right now, trends favor the strong.

Centralized infrastructure favors traditional power, and the Internet is becoming more centralized. This is true both at the endpoints, where companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon control much of how we interact with information. It’s also true in the middle, where companies like Comcast increasingly control how information gets to us. It’s true in countries like Russia and China that increasingly legislate their own national agenda onto their pieces of the Internet. And it’s even true in countries like the US and the UK, that increasingly legislate more government surveillance capabilities.

At the 1996 World Economic Forum, cyber-libertarian John Perry Barlow issued his “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,” telling the assembled world leaders and titans of Industry: “You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have true reason to fear.” Many of us believed him a scant 20 years ago, but today those words ring hollow.

But if history is any guide, these things are cyclic. In another 20 years, even newer technologies—both the ones Doctorow focuses on and the ones no one can predict—could easily tip the balance back in favor of the quick. Whether that will result in more of a utopia or a dystopia depends partly on these technologies, but even more on the social changes resulting from these technologies. I’m short-term pessimistic but long-term optimistic.

Bruce Schneier is the author of Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World, and a cryptographer and public intellectual.



Paul 04.26.17 at 12:42 pm

Should one always root for the quick over the strong? As long as there are externalities, we can’t equate individual freedom with the common good. But in a post-scarcity world, are there externalities any more? Well, nothing made of plastic is any longer a scarce resource, that’s for certain. But beauty, talent, charm…?

I fear the might of the strong, but I’m not sure I fear the nimbleness of the quick any less.


Frank Ch. Eigler 04.26.17 at 1:14 pm

I find the title of this piece misleading, given that it only mentions the Doctorow’s book in passing in two or three sentences, and offers zero judgement on it.


Neville Morley 04.26.17 at 1:15 pm

Echoing Paul; especially in the later part of Walkaway, it was difficult to avoid thinking of the Fast Folk in Ken MacLeod’s Fall Revolution series – definitely nimble innovators, not at all to be trusted.


William Timberman 04.26.17 at 3:20 pm

Ah, the wonders of the Internet. While reading Doctorow’s interview in Ars Technica this morning, I encountered this:

I just finished reading a whole ton of essays that a group of academics wrote about Walkaway for the Perfect Timber blog, which is doing a symposium.

Cory has not only adumbrated the future for us, he’s straightened our crooked timber as well. More power to ‘im.


Ian 04.26.17 at 3:23 pm

The political world today seems to be being Trolloped – in the sense that morally rigid politics are being presented as the exercise of peoples power.
See Parton, James. Caricature and Other Comic Art in All Times and Many Lands. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877. Available at
Search for ‘universal degredation’ for a slightly more detailed description of flexibility being displayed inflexibly as a means of maintaining/gaining power.
Are yesterdays hero’s (the quick) truly happy assisting todays tyrants (the strong)?


clew 04.26.17 at 9:15 pm

Seconding Paul, with the addendum that post-scarcity seems impossible to me. Haven’t read _Walkaway_ yet, though.


Greg 04.27.17 at 8:45 am

I haven’t read the book yet but I come to it without seeing a clear distinction between centralized (strong) and networked (quick) power. Through division of labour and delegation, centralized bureaucracies have always been more networked than people like to admit (new generation of orgs are substantially self-organizing, decentralized and responsive to minute changes in their environment); and tactics of resistance have been well-developed. Conversely networks involve a greater degree of centralization and control than people like to admit, and conformity is everywhere. In certain important ways a network is just a hierarchy that fell on its side and leaked all over the place.

The issues of privacy, surveillance and control of information are often raised because the presumption is that as individuals in the network society we are nimble, free, equal and empowered in ways that we were not before, and that heavy-handed centralized power is trying to curb these new freedoms. Yes, but: decentralized, networked power can also be clumsy, heavy-handed and impersonal, and it reproduces and entrenches existing constraints and inequalities.

What I tend to see is not a sharpening of the division between central authority and networked freedom, but both of them bleeding into each other. Maybe Walkaway will change my mind.


F. Foundling 04.30.17 at 11:56 pm

>In general, the unempowered are the first to benefit from new technologies: … More recently, we saw it in the … the various “color” revolutions. … These technologies can invert power dynamics, even in the presence of government surveillance and censorship.

As for the various ‘colour revolutions’, it would be unfair not to give some of the credit to those slightly old-fashioned yet still highly admirable ‘big institutions’ – governmental organisations such as the NED, USAID, IRI etc., who employed the time-honoured method of pouring tax dollars into them – as well as the worthy Mr. Soros’ foundation. Venerable bureaucratic and corporate organisations can still do some useful work even in this hypermodern Digital Age of ours, you know.

Comments on this entry are closed.