Even as protesters were still cheering the downfall of the government in Tunisia on Friday, the debate had already begun over what role social media had played in the event. Was it the first real Twitter revolution? The correct answer is probably yes and no.


As it did during the recent shootings in Arizona, the Twitter network provided a ringside seat for another major news event on Friday — the overthrow of a corrupt government in the African nation of Tunisia, after weeks of protests over repression and economic upheaval. And even as the country’s ruler was being hustled onto a plane, the debate began over whether Twitter had played even more of a role in the revolution than just reporting on it as it happened: was this the first real Twitter revolution? The correct answer is probably yes and no. Did it help protesters, and thus the end goal of overthrowing the government? Undoubtedly. Was it solely responsible for that happening? Hardly.

Among those arguing the question — on Twitter, of course — were foreign affairs commentator Evgeny Morozov, who writes for Foreign Policy magazine, along with Jillian York of Harvard’s Berkman Center for the Internet and Society, Ethan Zuckerman — who founded Global Voices Online while he was a fellow at the Berkman Center (and has written his own post about Twitter’s role in Tunisia) — as well as media theorist Clay Shirky and sociologist Zeynep Tufekci from the University of Maryland. After some debate on the issue, Shirky (responding to Morozov) said that “no one claims social media makes people angry enough to act [but] it helps angry people coordinate their actions.” The Foreign Policy writer, meanwhile, responded by arguing in a blog post that Twitter did not play a strong role in the events in Tunisia on Friday:

Would this revolution have happened if there were no Facebook and Twitter? I think this is a key question to ask. If the answer is “yes,” then the contribution that the Internet has made was minor; there is no way around it.

Jillian York also cautioned against attributing too much of what happened to social media, saying: “Don’t get all techno-utopian. Twitter’s great for spreading news, but this revolution happened offline” (she later amended her comment, however, saying that she definitely believed social media played a role in the day’s events). Tufekci, meanwhile, wondered why there had to be such a dividing line between offline vs. online activity, asking: “I don’t get this was it online or offline dichotomy. The online world is part of the world. It has a role.” She added that trying to answer the question of whether it was a Twitter revolution was “like asking was the French Revolution a printing press revolution?”

There’s no question that Twitter definitely helped to spread the information about what was happening in Tunisia, as demonstrated by the tweets and videos and other media collected by Andy Carvin at National Public Radio while the events unfolded. And at least one Tunisian revolutionary, who runs a website called Free Tunisia, told a Huffington Post blogger that social media such as Twitter — along with cellphones, text messaging and various websites — was crucial to the flow of information and helped protesters gather and plan their demonstrations. Said Bechir Blagui:

They called it the jasmine revolt, Sidi Bouzid revolt, Tunisian revolt… but there is only one name that does justice to what is happening in the homeland: Social media revolution.

The role of social media in activism is something that has been debated a lot over the past year or so, in part because of a piece Malcolm Gladwell wrote poo-poohing the idea that tools like Twitter and Facebook could ever have much to do with real activism. Shirky responded to this argument — at least somewhat — in a piece he wrote on the topic for Foreign Affairs magazine recently, arguing that social media and other modern communication networks may not directly lead to revolution, but they sure help.

The reality is that Twitter is an information-distribution network, not that different from the telephone or email or text messaging, except that it is real-time and massively distributed — in the sense that a message posted by a Tunisian blogger can be re-published thousands of times and transmitted halfway around the world in the blink of an eye. That is a very powerful thing, in part because the more rapidly the news is distributed, the more it can create a sense of momentum, helping a revolution to “go viral,” as marketing types like to say. Tufekci noted that Twitter can “strengthen communities prior to unrest by allowing a parallel public(ish) sphere that is harder to censor.”

So was what happened in Tunisia a Twitter revolution? Not any more than what happened in Poland in 1989 was a telephone revolution. But the reality of modern media is that Twitter and Facebook and other social-media tools can be incredibly useful for spreading the news about revolutions — because it gives everyone a voice, as founder Ev Williams has pointed out — and that can help them expand and ultimately achieve some kind of effect. Whether that means the world will see more revolutions, or simply revolutions that happen more quickly or are better reported, remains to be seen.

Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):

Post and thumbnail photo courtesy of Flickr user Steve Jurvetson

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Mathieu Nouzareth Friday, January 14, 2011

    I think a good question would have been whether or not this was a Wikileak revolution.

  2. Wikileaks and Twitter only sparked what was a tinder-can of unrest. The economic situation (and lack of compassion/action to remedy) is what undid Mr. Ben Ali.

    Now the question remains, who’s filling the power vacuum?

    1. That’s a great point, Roofus — and a good question.

  3. Of course twitter contributed to the expedition of the overthrow. But it was only one contributing factor. In the past the intelligence of the populace was restrained by a lack of current information which is usually controlled by those in power. This is just an example of the transparency available to anybody with access to the world via the internet. The days of propaganda by use of controlled media are quickly becoming a thing of the past. People have true access to current events on the ground instantly. This provides the general population with a pulse on the truth. No longer do we rely on what we are told by those who are able to twist truths to their benefit. This media revolution has reached worldwide proportions and now has the ability to change our world for the better. Twitter is only one avenue and is a true contributor to the break through against world wide ignorance.

  4. USA Observer in Atlanta Friday, January 14, 2011

    Is the media the principle fuel for revolution? Or will?

    1. I think will is the engine — social media can help provide the fuel (or the tires, or something).

  5. I think too much is being attributed to Twitter, yes Twitter helped get the word out and that’s how I knew what was happening in Sidibouzid about three days in, at that point very little was being written about it and until the last two days #sidibouzid never became a trending topic unlike the situation with Iran. And if it was such a Twitter revolution then why did the bulk of the mainstream Western press only start writing about it some 3 weeks later? Lastly there’s a lot of chaos and violence still going on in Tunis right now, masked militia men are looting property and police are beating innocent citizens. I don’t think we can speak of the ‘Tunisian Revolution’ as a revolution that ‘brought down the government’ because much of the old govt and the military are still in power and the ‘revolution’ is not even over yet.

  6. I believe the key question is whether Tunisians were consciously aware of Twitter.
    Did they take note of the world’s attention during
    the Iran elections? Did they assume a mass of tweets would
    flow as they did from and about Haiti?

    If a significant number of people on the ground felt empowered by the assumption that they, others around them, and we in turn would have a full view of events, then yes, I believe we need to acknowledge a tremendous impact through social media (by which I mean Twitter).

    That’s IF they had any sense of connection.
    To fertilize my perspective for your contemplation,
    (since I’m a known Twitter fan),
    consider the hesitation of North Koreans.
    Now contrast that with peoples who have risen up,
    and “tweeted” it.

  7. That would be a great revolution if Ben Ali had an account on Twitter. I don’t see any revolution on this, people just use what’s available to them. No?

  8. I think twitter and social networking definitely had a hand in ‘greasing the wheel’. I expect to see more of the sort in places like Lebanon and the middle east. The tide has turned and censorship is a real stickler for those who have tasted truth.

    1. In Lebanon? Exactly which Lebanese dictator is ripe for overthrow?

      1. Greasing the wheel for a mass movement by the people. Not particularly a dictator overthrow but more of a facilitation of popular movements against ignorance and oppression. Whoever it may that is trying to control by promoting ignorance and misinformation.

  9. Twitterers were the observers. But wiki, and the net broadly has probably got the cia and fbi into info overload. They cant keep tabs on everyone so they didnt get to scotch this with a jail sentence/accident/plane crash/skirmish. They are overwhelmed,!

    1. ” They [CIA, FBI...] cant keep tabs on everyone…”

      Heck Mark, Google can keep tabs on everyone for them: All they need is a subpeona.

  10. I hope this happens in philippines too, Government is so corrupt and needs total makeover (deep through the pores). The problem now is the culture. I still doubt that philippines has the chance on this though social media here is starting to bloom

Comments have been disabled for this post