It’s Not Twitter or Facebook, It’s the Power of the Network
Just as it was during the recent uprisings in Tunisia, the role of social media in the recent upheaval in Egypt has been the subject of much debate since the unrest began on Thursday. Daily Show host Jon Stewart on Friday poked fun at the idea that Twitter might have played a key part in the demonstrations, and there are many observers who share his skepticism. The real trigger for the uprisings, they argue, is simply the frustration of the oppressed Egyptian people — which is undoubtedly true. But it also seems clear that social media has played a key role in getting the word out, and in helping organizers plan their protests. In the end, it’s not about Twitter or Facebook: it’s about the power of real-time networked communication.
Foreign Policy magazine columnist Evgeny Morozov has argued that Twitter and Facebook should not be credited with playing any kind of critical role in Tunisia, and suggested that doing so is a sign of the “cyber-utopianism” that many social-media advocates suffer from: that is, the belief that the Internet is unambiguously good, or that the use of Twitter or Facebook can somehow magically free a repressed society from its shackles. Morozov, who has written an entire book about this idea called Net Delusion, made the point in his blog post after the Tunisian uprising that while social media might have been used in some way during the events, tools like Twitter and Facebook did not play a crucial role — that is, the revolution would have happened with or without them.
Zeynep Tufekci, a professor of sociology who has also looked at this issue, described in a post following the revolution in Tunisia how professional observers distinguish between what she called “material,” “efficient” and “final” causes — in other words, things that are required in order to produce a certain outcome, and things that are nice to have but are not a requirement. Tufekci argues that social media was a crucial factor in Tunisia, while Jillian York of Global Voices Online believes that social media tools are useful, but not necessary. Ethan Zuckerman, one of the founders of Global Voices Online, has also written about how the uprisings in both Tunisia and in Egypt have more to do with decades of poverty and repressive dictatorships than they do with social media.
But is anyone really arguing that Twitter and Facebook caused the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even the earlier public uprisings in Moldova or Iran for that matter? Maybe cyber-utopians somewhere are doing this, but I haven’t seen or heard of any. The argument I have tried to make is simply that they and other social media tools can be incredibly powerful, both for spreading the word — which can give moral or emotional support to others in a country, as well as generating external support — as well as for organizational purposes, thanks to the power of the network. As Jared Cohen of Google Ideas put it, social media may not be a cause, but it can be a powerful “accelerant.”
Did Twitter or Facebook cause the Tunisian revolt? No. But they did spread the news, and many Tunisian revolutionaries gave them a lot of credit for helping with the process. Did Twitter cause the revolts in Egypt? No. But they did help activists such as WikiLeaks supporter Jacob Appelbaum (known on Twitter as @ioerror) and others as they organized the dialup and satellite phone connections that created an ad-hoc Internet after Egypt turned the real one off — which, of course, it did in large part to try and prevent demonstrators from using Internet-based tools to foment unrest. As Cory Doctorow noted in his review of Evgeny Morozov’s book, even if Twitter and Facebook are just used to replace the process of stapling pieces of paper to telephone poles and sending out hundreds of emails, they are still a huge benefit to social activism of all kinds.
But open-network advocate Dave Winer made the key point: it’s the Internet that is the really powerful tool here, not any of the specific services such as Twitter and Facebook that run on top of it, which Winer compares to brands like NBC. They have power because lots of people use them, and — in the case of Twitter — because they have open protocols so that apps can still access the network even when the company’s website is taken down by repressive governments (athough they didn’t mention Egypt or Tunisia by name, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone and general counsel Alexander Macgillivray wrote a post about the company’s desire to “keep the information flowing).
In the end, the real weapon is the power of networked communication itself. In previous revolutions it was the fax, or the pamphlet, or the cellphone — now it is SMS and Twitter and Facebook. Obviously none of these things cause revolutions, but to ignore or downplay their growing importance is also a mistake.
Related GigaOM Pro content (sub req’d):
- Why Google Should Fear the Social Web
- Lessons From Twitter: How to Play Nice With Ecosystem Partners
- What We Can Learn From the Guardian’s Open Platform
Post and thumbnail courtesy of Flickr user Ahmad Kavousian
Interesting post. Communication (and even more real-time communication) is key in any form of revolt/up-rising. When dictatorships want to take control of a country the two things they focus on are 1) the army and 2) the communication infrastructure. It is only natural that what was true for TV and Radio is true for the internet and the multiple forms of communications it enables. Communication is what transforms a simple up-rising into a long term/powerful movement.
Beyond the real-time aspect of the internet, it’s global reach is also an important dimension. A single picture or video can create a significant emotional impact (and sometimes a distortion) and affect the branding of a country/government. Countries are increasingly very sensitive to this. They use to be able to control the message. The no longer can.
Well said, Edwin.
Social & News Media derived from uprisings create a wider audience which in effect generates more drama, fixation and energy. All the focus fuels the fire. Until it fizzles out and the true impact, if any, can be assessed. Though very real and significant to those directly involved, it is News “Entertainment” to many. That’s how it is packaged and delivered. Attention is monetizated.
These Uprisings are expressive but at some point, the mundane tasks of government reform need to take over. Screaming, shaking trucks, settings fires, looting and marching… don’t amount to much and can only persist for a short period before people are too jaded and inconvenienced to continue. Sadly, the attention on the stories subside when the noise and smoke fade away. Ripples. And “They” know it.
for the spelling sensitive…..
monetizated = monetized
;-)
Definitely agree, Edwin. Thanks for the comment.
It is not Google or Bing, it is power of the internet!
Yes it is two mints in one!
You need both the hammer and the nail.
You need both the social discontent to fuel revolutionary change and the a communication medium by which to collaborate that collective social action.
Ubiquitous real-time communication technologies, as Mcluhan might say, both accelerates and extends the power of such collaborative action by accelerating the time frame and by extending it’s geographical reach and impact.
Indeed the social discontent is the nail but the real-time communication technologies give that collaborative revolutionary action hammer a lot more tour-de-force to drive home the change.
I agree. I sense the skeptics here are making a kind of straw man argument here. The idea that Twitter or Facebook could “cause” people to risk life and limb to defy their government is non-sensical – these are just tools. No thinking person is making that argument. But are these powerful tools that are shaping these movements and enabling them to spread more quickly and efficiently? Yes.
It’s not just the Internet, that was turned off and the Egyptians still did a good job of protesting. Al Jazera TV has done an amazing job too, and I think mobile comms has been waaay overlooked by ‘netheads.
I agree that Al-Jazeera and mobile networks have also been powerful tools, Alan — it’s not about saying one is better than the other.
Recently I’ve been researching previous major political revolutions – the French, Russian (both 1917 and 1987), Weimar etc – and the role of comms. My overwhelming sense so far is that while the comms are a “nice to have”, they are secondary to the other factors. In fact, the biggest common factor I can see seems to be young males sensing they don’t have a future. And the young use the technology of the day to communicate their ideals, which is IMHO where the correlation comes in.
In other words, the revolution is going to happen, whether the comms technology is horseback or broadband.
Without underlying social problems, social networking cannot start anything. Social networking is but a tool and nothing more alas it is making sharing information (true or false) and organizing that much easier.
I was one of the thousands of people out on the streets in December ’89 in a desperate bid to depose Ceausescu. The pain was greater than the fear of repression… No Twitter back then, but somehow everyone knew.
I don’t know, Mathew. I think we’re up against something we don’t understand very well. You write:
“But is anyone really arguing that Twitter and Facebook caused the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt, or even the earlier public uprisings in Moldova or Iran for that matter? Maybe cyber-utopians somewhere are doing this, but I haven’t seen or heard of any.”
Notice that you don’t get many answers when you ask that question. I wrote to Spencer Ackerman of Wired (whom I know a little) asking the same thing about…
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/social-media-oppression/
and I didn’t get any answer. (I defy you to figure out who’s being corrected when the Wired writer says, “The dozen or more protesters that self-immolated in Egypt didn’t do it for the tweets.” LIke we thought they did?)
There is something about arguing against the cyber-utopian (or the Twitter-topples-dictators) thesis that satisfies writers and readers, regardless of whether anyone buys the thesis, and there is something about that thesis that convinces writers and readers that it’s widely bought, despite the embarrassing difficulty of finding actual buyers. That’s why the posts come without links and quotes. The authors somehow know they don’t need them. Conventions of the genre are that here you get to say, “It’s More Than Twitter!” without showing that anyone said it was only Twitter.
We think we understand this pattern when we call it a “straw man” argument. Actually, we’re just giving it a name that sounds familiar. It makes us feel better but doesn’t illuminate a thing.
We should recognize the following. Demand for widely bought-into cyber-utopian claims that can be corrected in this way is far greater than the supply. We can keep shouting, “there’s no supply!” (or, as you put it, “is anyone really arguing that…”) but the demand doesn’t go away. Lots of people paying attention to events sense this demand. So they speak into it. But where does the demand come from? I wish I knew.
I blame Mythbusters — everyone wants to out-skeptic everyone else :-)
Jay – maybe technological determinists are being more cautious this time, but last year during the Iran protests there were many broad pronouncements about how social media will invariably lead to social change and political freedom. From an piece I wrote last year:
Influential blogger Andrew Sullivan has declared the events in Iraq “The Twitter Revolution.”1 Likewise, his Atlantic colleague Marc Ambinder writes, “The Revolution Will Be Twittered.” 2 Technopundit Clay Shirky says, “it seems pretty clear that . . . this is it. This is the big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.”3
Sources and full article at http://flowtv.org/2009/06/tweeting-the-dialectic-of-technological-determinism%C2%A0%C2%A0ted-friedman%C2%A0%C2%A0georgia-state-university-atlanta%C2%A0%C2%A0/
– Ted Friedman
Jay, this “stuck discourse” (your apt phrase) of anti-cyber-utopian argument fell into this groove all the way back in the mid-’90s. The very first wave of Internet/Web anti-hype, spearheaded by Cliff Stoll et all, first dug this trench, and the arguments have barreled down it ever since. One consistent characteristic of this discourse, as Mathew points out, is the absence of actual citable cyber-utopian statements or adherents (the missing-person straw men). Another is the wilful misreading of statements that “the Net changes things” to mean “the Net makes everything better.”
and what IS the network in “networked communications” and why is it so powerful?
it is the out-picturing in the 3d world of a developing mind beginning to cognize and express its innate connection to collective consciousness.
in short, it is natural, a function of the nature of reality.
it will grow. and grow.
Again, http://t.co/uuDf1J5
One might just as easily dismiss the notion that Thomas Paine fomented the American Revolution.
While I agree that real-time communications with a world-wide reach can help give “power to the people”, I sure hope that is what the case is in Egypt. Unfortunately, I think the Mubarak dictatorial regime will be replaced by an islamic extremist dictatorship that will definitely not give power to the people. That is at least a possibility. So while social media can be great for creating a flash mob in a mall or in a country, it does not necessarily mean the end result will be freedom for the people.
That’s a good point, Doug — these kinds of events, with or without Twitter and Facebook, don’t guarantee that such revolutions will be successful by any means.
“Unfortunately, I think the Mubarak dictatorial regime will be replaced by an islamic extremist dictatorship that will definitely not give power to the people.”
- This is not going to happen, and anyway betrays a total lack of understanding of what is happening in Egypt. The only way that democracy will be thwarted is if the US unconditionally backs Suleiman (who has strong ties to CIA and Pentagon). The only reason democracy has been stifled for so long is because of US support for thugs like Mobarak (1.3 billion/yr military aid). It would have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. The US State Dept doesn’t want democracy any more than radical Islamists do, they want USEFUL regimes which will cooperate.
Jay Rosen is right, this whole debate is sterile. Nobody has ever stated that social media is RESPONSIBLE for any revolutions, the problem is journalists and US technocrats looking for easy-to-memorize slogans for sound bites and newspaper headlines. Media are only tools, impetus for revolution comes from people, nobody is disputing that. The right questions to ask is who has access to and control over the tools, and who knows how to use them better in terms of surveillance and encryption – governments or citizens? Asking whether or not Twitter/Facebook are “responsible” for revolutions is asking a meaningless question. In the end it always come down to who has the guns, and how much citizens are willing to sacrifice to bring change.
Doctorow and Dave Parry have written very thoughtful essays on this.
http://profoundheterogeneity.com/2011/01/deluded-that-the-internet-transforms-power-structures/
@Rob: I don’t disagree with your points about what could thwart democracy in Egypt and I certainly am pulling for that outcome and an end to Mubarak and all like him, but there IS a possibility that in the end this could end up an islamic extremist state. All I was saying is the possibility existed. May main point was that social media technology does not guarantee total freedom as an outcome. I read the article you linked to and it seems to agree with my point. I would recommend others read it.
Even if the upcoming power in Egypt will remain secular (which is a possibility) the corruption will be even more rampant than it is right now as the new power and subsequent governments will fill their pockets as fast as they come into power. The legal system will not be subdued by force like it is now but bought with hard cash (which is probably worse) and no media scandals will make it go away.
Just look at the emerging Eastern European democracies. In more than 20 years after the Berlin Wall fell there’s little progress showing and the steps taken towards having corruption eradicated and a legal system that actually works are timid at best.
Twitter and facebook are only used to alert the slacktivists so that they can change their profile pic appropriately. Tons of americans will think they helped by retweeting. Just like 10 years ago they helped by putting a yellow ribbon magnet on their car.
The real communication between important people in this revolution is done through phone calls and sms, and email and IM. Services that are reliable (twitter isn’t) and trustworthy(facebook isn’t).
Tech journalists are the worst part in this. Every day they have to make facebook and twitter seem important and meaningful so that they can get page views.
http://t.co/uuDf1J5
You are correct. In fact, I would contend that one reason reporters ( I am not speaking of tech reporters covering that angle, but the reporter covering the political event) that cover uprisings like this love twitter and facebook, is that they are lazy and social media allows them to get quotes and soudbytes without having to get out there and do the “man on the street” type interviews. These cable news networks also love it because they get tons of quotes and soundbytes without having to send more reporters into the field. It provides “breaking news” infotainment without spending much money.
Facebook and Twitter? For anyone to limit the effect of the Internet to two applications doesn’t understand the evolution of the Internet and the many applications and services available. There was IRQ, ICQ, Messenger, PowWow, and a myriad of programs that enabled people to correspond and chat. Hotmail, Gmail and many email applications and then there are the blogs, web sites and straight FTP capabilities.
Media now inhabits the net from all broadcast sources and News media. Facebook and Twitter are social networking darlings right now but are by no means the end-all and be-all of communications. Skype allows face to face contact and phones now carry many of the same applications and capabilities.
We are past the Industrial revolution and now in the Communications Evolution. The biggest threat to civilization’s progress is the control of the internet by organizations to enable the control of information. Fox News and Rupert Murdock are the epitome of information control.
The internet service providers are working hard to control the internet and if they succeed our world would collapse into ignorance of the views those in our country and the world.
What would you do if the internet was not accessible to everyone young or old – rich or poor. Those who are afraid of the net or refuse to take advantage of it’s utility are ok in my book but those who do rely on the internet to make their lives easier and more fruitful must understand the Internet is more that two social networks.
~Protect the Net~
I think identi.ca is a much more suitable tool for spreading such news, because of it’s distributed nature (unlike Twitter). After the Wikileaks case, we all learned that ISPs may be too obedient to government pressures, so a distributed system is a must.
Facebook has one important advantage: the big number of non-technical users. Beyond that, its notoriously security and privacy issues makes it more of a pro-government tool (via secret services) than a pro-revolutionary one.
@Pviel @Rǎzvan
http://blog.twitter.com/2011/01/tweets-must-flow.html
As an Iranian who has followed post-election events, I think that these social media play a key role. We can say that there are two sides of it. One would be before events which is informing people who have problem to get neutral information and bypass governmental filtering.
The second side is the one which make a lot of noise in the west.
I would suggest to western countries that they should provide satellite internet to those countries where access to uncensored internet is not possible.
That’s a great idea, Ali — thanks for the comment.
”In the past to execute a conspiracy you needed to go underground, today you go to social media.”
I think this is a bit overstated though. While no one is attributing absolute determinism to Twitter and social media, the amount of coverage of the role of Twitter and Facebook when compared to the amount of coverage given to the years-in-the-making social conditions responsible for the event itself is disproportionate. The typical failure of institutional mass media outlets is the same failure we see here. Context for the events is vastly overshadowed by the latest bells and whistles that catch the American people’s attention. We WANT to talk about the technology that ties us to the events in Egypt, but we really NEED to listen to the historical factors responsible for bringing us to this point.
I think the online network such as Twitter or Facebook or mobile phones did play a role in the Egyptian protests, but later on as the crowds managed to get together by such online connections, the real life actions and connections began to take effect without too much help of the online tools. Anyway, the government has tried to shut down Internet and mobile phone lines to deter the protesters connection online.
My post is so simple and naive in comparison but the thread of truth is the same, identical in fact. I’d be honored if you’d let me post this here if for no other reason than to share my support with you as loudly as I know how. Thank you for your powerful words. http://bit.ly/h5UuEj
Wasn’t television a key factor in helping Kennedy beat Nixon during that now famous first televised debate? It would seem to me that Twitter or Facebook can have similar impact in shaping history…
Thank GOD someone is finally making some sense. I didn’t even read the entire article but just the fact someone finally said it wasn’t PRODUCT A or PRODUCT B it was the PROCESS. Talking about Facebook or Twitter as if they are causative factors in such matters is like claiming Mountain Bell versus AT&T (or another phone carrier) was the cause of a war because the telephone enabled people to talk without being face to face. Or that the specific breed of carrier pigeon was the cause (or the resolver) of the American civil way. Communication HAPPENS one way or another, the tool is indifferent and irrelevant to the process, the subject matter and root causes – the tools are just participants in the process of the communication (network).
Talk about overblown egos and self absorption those associated with social media can get a little out of hand. If they would only spend as much energy looking at solving the true underlying problems /causes of civil unrest — instead of beating their chest about being the most vocal and involved participant – we’d have a more peaceful world to live in.
The midnight ride of Paul Revere = real time communication. “One if by land, two if by sea.” Every revolution needs real time communication. Only the tools have changed.
It’s impossible to hide from the truth now. Egypt now…other countries will follow.
Social media and the Internet have helped amplify the aspirations of the Egyptian people, because the rest of the world has echoed their concerns and multiplied it even more.
Today’s internet culture, has created a loud voice of the people.
My belief is that we will see these kind of revolutions being triggered in other parts of the world as well, where no uprisings have been seen till date.
They are huge in social activism, aren’t they? It’s actually somewhat annoying. People trying to sound all political and active just because they retweeted or shared something on FB.
It’s Monday. Forgive me.
I’d like to hear my old professors who taught protest and rebellion now that technology has changed the speed of social networking, dissent included. Great post.
Congrats on FP
Agreed,
They (OL social media) surely didn’t cause this inferno of revolt, but they were primer, fuel, and fodder to the present flame.
I just hope for the people’s sake, and the government’s alike, that things work out, get better, and change.
Thanks for the keen insight
~J
people have always revolted…i cant stand when people make the argument that twitter/facebook cause crap like this. BUT, you do make a great point, they are certainly playing a distinct role.
Some are suggesting that the people’s rage is a tool in the hands of the new electronic and digital corporate state. Its various channels, eddies and pools, regardless of type, can be directed toward all sorts of mischief and profit. Left or right, the angry throngs on both sides can be managed and directed. They can be sent chasing various injustices, denouncing evil characters on Wall Street, Times Square bombers, BP executives, or whatever, worked up into slobbering outrage over Sarah Palin, and thus kept divided and working against each other for the benefit of last gasp capitalism.
It could also just be politics has driven the Egyptian populace to the brink of insanity. Or over it in this case.
Lot’s of things to discuss that’s obvious.
Congrats on being freshly pressed! Great blog!
http://www.countoncross.com
The motivation already existed; social media just made it easier to form a cohesive movement.
The internet is the infrastructure and thus the potential to connect and communicate. Any medium, i.e. software service like twitter or facebook, that is easy, fun, inexpensive, and has vast networking capability, will facilitate communication of all kinds, including revolutionary movements.
twitter is just a modern day telephone/megaphone thats all…like every other aspect of human life, technology pops in to make it more convebient. So did Twitter contribute to the uprising – no more than the makers of a rolled up newspapaer used as a megaphone did in the past. No. The people contributed to what seems to be a righteous uprising.
I am a non-religious apolitical commenter…I hope everyone finds the peace they need to become and be treated as humans.
interesting post. reminds me of an article in the New Yorker a couple of months ago that stressed the importance of real social contact. social media are indeed mere accalerators. networks can not organize anything, they are a tool for organization or contact. very interesting! I have just committed myself of a challenge of not logging in to facebook from Feb.1st until the 21st of June. I want to know if I can be without it and how that influences my life. You can follow my experience on my blog, welcome to read it. Back to the subject. It is also very interesting to see how (Dutch) media already protrayed the uprising a revolution and how travel agents bring back the tourists, some of them had not even noticed the dramatic revolts but only seen it on their tv’s in the hotels. One begins to wonder what is really happening and to what extent..
I think FB, twitter and the rest should chill on taking credit for sooo many things, but not wanting to admit to anything negative…just a thought. I know computers, the net and social media does help get ideas out & about but social unrest has been around forever and will continue even if computer technology failed or disappeared…
to argue, that media do not necessarily cause anything to happen, but are a constituent element in social processes, is certainly valid. to argue the opposite is perhaps silly, but not untrue (otherwise there would not be an entire field of ‘media effects’ studies reaching back a 100 years or so).
both arguments are in fact part of the same discourse: that of media. in other words: our lives and lived experience get meaning in/through media, and that age-old process has been accelerating exponentially with the World Wide Web, social media, and mobile connectivity.
in media we can now not only see the rich, famous and ruling live – we can see each other and our selves live.
question is, how do we take responsibility for this new visibility?
for now we can see our fellow human beings struggle, suffer, and stand up nonetheless. in real-time.
the social media networks are just situational catalysts the main force behind this paradigm shift,among Arab league nations, is the will of the people craving for change so the locked down of IT services in EGYPT cant stultify this zephyr of change sweeping through that nation
I guess that social-media have the power to spread a message real effective and quick. Still, you need key influencers and people who feel the urge of callin on a riot to get things started. For them to use any type of social-media makes the message go quicker then a note would. Giving them a lot of power on spreading a message, but do not influence the message itself. It would be way to much honor to say they were the reason the upheaval started. That is sololy the result of years of surpressing and all.
i’m totally agree, that it’s a power of network… and don’t forget to stay in touch with http://fahmisme.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/egypt-dan-jan25-revolusi-di-mesir/
“In the end, it’s not about Twitter or Facebook: it’s about the power of real-time networked communication.”
And that power resides in any leaders who have followers. The new power is “subscribers”. Economic and/or political. Just a thought.
Social media provides exposure. It’s not dressed up. It’s not detached. It kind of levels the playing field. It becomes more than a movement by a mob. It’s like putting a face on a cause. We’re more willing to get involved and take ownership and I think human beings are less likely to do something truly atrocious when they know they’re being watched.
Good post. Nice reading.
I agree with most of them that twitter or Facebook need not have been instrumental in this uprising but internet as a whole certainly has been. If not for internet, we would not have been discussing this issue on WordPress!!
Talking about the local media, well I really dont know how powerful the media is in Egypt. One thing I can say of the India media is that, before Independence, media played a very important for the country’s independence. A very good tool for communication and there were a few brave media houses. Post independence, one of the main goals of the media houses has been to make money.
One of the main reasons for the uprising in Egypt is the Jasmine revolution. This news spread from one county to another quite fast, thanks to internet and media. If Egypt’s revolutions is successful, it could be Yemen, Algeria and Jordan soon.
Well said. It’s a network of people that start the social network online. Social media helped spread the word, but it was a common idea that was started with the people first.
Good point, and good post! I also used social media to connect with others regarding the happenings in Egypt, and got some sweet pictures while I was at it. Check out pictures of Saturday’s Chicago Rally here: http://kristenncl.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/chicago-rallies-for-egypt/
Nice Too Read. I’m young but I still kind of follow all that stuff.
Little by little, we draw closer and closer, “www”.
One thing you didn’tmention is that the Net is neutral. Just as revolutionaries used it to organize, so the anti-revolutionaries and those in power use it to find out who, what, where when and why — which can sometimes have disastrous consequences.
First of all I want to apologize for my lousy English. I am from Colombia and we lived the power of networks (in this specific case facebook) on 2008.
After 50 years of death, kidnapping, bombs, soldier kids, drug dealing and more, 12 million Colombians raised and marched against FARC as a symbol of union agains war and violence. In only 3 days the organizers managed to get more than 10,000 people. After a few weeks there were organizers in most of the most important cities in the country trying to get more and more people. The phenomenon became intenational and those colombians who were in america or europe also participated, no matter the time difference. It was AMAZING.
Look for “un millon de voces contra las FARC” at google images. You’ll be amazed too. Facebook is like a hero here in Colombia after that.
I am wondering how many people opened Tweeter accounts for the revolutionary purposes only and will close them once the revolution is over.
internet can be more powerful than other wepaon…
nuff said…
Very true. Even if they were fully disconnected, the protest would have been made like it has.
I agree with you strongly for what you said. I’m a Sudanese and now a days we are using the same weapons such as txt, Facebook and Twitter and some other traditional means in order to break out the word to all Sudanese people inside and outside the country. Actually we have started our revolution and you will be heared about sooner but really we are facing a difficult situation to overcome…
Clay Shirky mentioned in his Foreign Affairs essay that it was the shared environment e.g. social unrest or what not, that gave rise to protests, while social media served as tools (previously it was the Xerox machines, faxes, and Luther’s 95 theses – printing press).
You mentioned the Net with its over-built broadband that enables the physical and people connection, but I saw this as coming-out party of Twitter and Facebook, who overnight, became household must-haves, like the Beatles albums to 60′s Russians.
I cannot judge whether social media or the Internet had a major impact here. However:
It is wrong to pick out Facebook and similar Internet-based tools as the enablers over the Internet as a whole. Facebook adds no real capabilities to the Internet and if there was a need for tools to e.g. inform the people or coordinate actions, this would not be a problem even without Facebook. I would go as far as saying that the technologies present twenty to thirty years ago, like email and newsgroups, would have been sufficient for these tasks, given an Internet of the current size.
(Which is not to say that Facebook cannot make a difference in detail, e.g. by making it easier for people with limited technical skills to use various capabilities of the Internet.)
Interesting article! I agree that Twitter and Facebook have become accelerants in bringing up social activism to a wider audience.
Times are changing and technology has done a lot of good in supporting worthwhile causes.
“The only thing that’s needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”-Lao Tzu
Cheers,
Adrian
http://seekersportal.wordpress.com
Social media and the interconnectivity it provides has certainly affected the progress of culture across the globe. If not for the simple utility of sharing information, but the greater benefit of seeing further beyond “borders” and into the everyday lives of everyone.
Edwin makes a great point, citing “realtime communication” as one of the major contributing factors.
Totally agree with you. Before Facebook, Twitter and Blogs – social networking still existed in the form of IRC and Forums. But it was a bit complicated for non net-savvy netizens to explore and participate. The recent forms of social networking has made it more easier and everyone …i mean everyone even grandad’s and grandmoms are participating.
well you cant ever blame a network like facebook or twitter because they are just a way of communicationg its the people them selves because with out the people the network just would not work
Sometimes a go I came accross a very intersting dissertation that talked abot the impact of the internet on saudi female and how it transfprm them and the society in general
the title: The Impat of the Internet on Saudi EFL female by phd Salem Al-Salem
google it its worth reading for it explains how individuals tranformed when exposed to new knowledge ideas
For anyone who’s interested, I’ve posted my own article on the similar ways in which communications technology and social networks played a part in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, which I experienced directly, and the protests in Egypt.
http://www.digitaltonto.com/2011/social-media-and-revolution/
True Dat!!!
A bit late on this comment, but I just wanted to add that the supporting role that technology can play in these sorts of processes isn’t inviolate. These new systems provide, for example, national security/interest organizations with a modern method of engaging objectives. I’m not sure why there isn’t more attention on this issue, but I’d argue that if the US doesn’t have an office in place focused on social networking systems, Leon Panetta needs to be fired.
I agree
http://flickrcomments.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/tunisia/