The social media revolution must die

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

It is stupid to refer to events in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere as the Twitter Revolution, the Facebook Revolution, and so on. What we call things, the names we use to identify them, has incredible symbolic power, and I, for one, refuse to associate corporate brands with struggles for human dignity. I agree with Jillian York when she says:

“… I am glad that Tunisians were able to utilize social media to bring attention to their plight. But I will not dishonor the memory of Mohamed Bouazizi–or the 65 others that died on the streets for their cause–by dubbing this anything but a human revolution.” source: http://jilliancyork.com/2011/01/14/not-twitter-not-wikileaks-a-human-revolution/

Granted, as Joss Hands points out (http://plutopress.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/twitter-revolution/), there appears to be more skepticism than support for the idea that tools like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are primarily responsible for igniting the uprisings in question. But that hasn’t stopped the internet intelligentsia from engaging in lengthy arguments about the role that technology is playing in these historic developments. One camp, comprised of people like Clay Shirky (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67038/clay-shirky/the-political-power-of-social-media), seem to make allowances for what Cory Doctorow (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/25/net-activism-delusion) calls the “internet’s special power to connect and liberate.” On the other side, authors like Ethan Zuckerman (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/14/the_first_twitter_revolution?page=0,0), Malcolm Gladwell (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell) and Evgeny Morozov (http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/14/first_thoughts_on_tunisia_and_the_role_of_the_internet)have proposed that while digital media can play a role in organizing social movements, it cannot be counted on to build lasting alliances, or even protect net activists once authorities start using the same tools to crack down on dissent.

why does the image of a revolution enabled by social media continue to grab headlines and spark the interest of Western audiences, and what are the dangers of employing such imagery? My fear is that the hype about a Twitter/Facebook/YouTube revolution performs two functions: first, it depoliticizes our understanding of the conflicts, and second, it whitewashes the role of capitalism in suppressing democracy.

To elaborate, the discourse of a social media revolution is a form of self-focused empathy in which we imagine the other (in this case, a Muslim other) to be nothing more than a projection of our own desires, a depoliticized instant in our own becoming. What a strong affirmation of ourselves it is to believe that people engaged in a desperate struggle for human dignity are using the same Web 2.0 products we are using! That we are able to form this empathy largely on the basis of consumerism demonstrates the extent to which we have bought into the notion that democracy is a by-product of media products for self-expression, and that the corporations that create such media products would never side with governments against their own people.

It is time to abandon this fantasy, and to realize that although the internet’s original architecture encouraged openness, it is becoming increasingly privatized and centralized. While it is true that an internet controlled by a handful of media conglomerates can still be used to promote democracy, we need to reconsider the role that social media corporations like Facebook and Twitter will play in these struggles.

The clearest way to understand this role is to simply look at the past and current role that corporations have played in “facilitating” democracy elsewhere. Consider the above image of the tear gas canister fired against Egyptians demanding democracy. The can is labeled Made in U.S.A.

But surely it would be a gross calumny to suggest that ICT are on the same level as tear gas, right? Well, perhaps not. Today, our exports encompass not only weapons of war and riot control used to keep in power corrupt leaders, but tools of internet surveillance like Narusinsight, produced by a subsidiary of Boeing and used by the Egyptian government to track down and “disappear” dissidents.

Even without citing examples of specific Web companies that have aided governments in the surveillance and persecution of their citizens (Jillian York documents some of these examples), my point is simply that the emerging market structure of the internet is threatening its potential to be used by people as a tool for democracy. The more monopolies (a market structure characterized by a single seller) control access and infrastructure, and the more monopsonies (a market structure characterized by a single buyer) control aggregation and distribution of user-generated content, the easier it is going to be for authorities to pull the plug, as just happened in Egypt.

I’m reminded of the first so-called Internet Revolution. Almost a hundred years after the original Mexican Revolution, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation launched an uprising in southern Mexico to try to address some of the injustices that the first revolution didn’t fix, and that remain unsolved to this day. But back in 1994, Subcomandante Marcos and the rest of the EZLN didn’t have Facebook profiles, or use Twitter to communicate or organize. Maybe their movement would have been more effective if they had. Or maybe it managed to stay alive because of the decentralized nature of the networks the EZLN and their supporters used.

My point is this: as digital networks grow and become more centralized and privatized, they increase opportunities for participation, but they also increase inequality, and make it easier for authorities to control them.


/// Sums up my sentiments exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

How is it any different than revolutions being empowered by word-of-mouth, pamphlets, or any other form of communication?

These social sites have allowed for great things to happen; why hate?

Also, if you want to keep the Internet as free and open as possible, you should be a member of this site.

 

^^^ yo, you need a facebook page for that shit, bro!

 

Person on internet forum(a form of social media) doesn't realize irony in calling for an end to social media.

Also ignores the impact of media on revolutions for the past several centuries.

Lacks any serious critical thinking skills.

 

I don't agree certain protests were a "Facebook Revolution" or a "Twitter Revolution"...
I don't, ultimately, think they will be remembered as such.
Perhaps an "Internet revolution"...due to the fact the internet was used to mobilise, inform and communicate.
Nobody can deny the impact the Internet has had.
Did certain social networks help? Yes.
Did they mobilise a few million people? No.
Do certain sections of the protests, in say Egypt, agree their protest was a "Social media revolution" "Facebook Revolution" or a "Twitter Revolution" , Yes.
Do all sections believe that to be true? No.
Does the mainstream media find it sexy/easier to say it is? Yes.
What's the truth? I have no idea.
I just find it rather vulgar (using specific brand names) even if it is more true than false.

I guess the major separation of opinion is if you think Facebook et al are good or bad, regardless if they are connected to any revolution.

Plus the notion...

"The can is labeled Made in U.S.A. "

Egyptians who are part of the street demonstrations told ABC News that the evidence of the U.S.-made tear gas sends a powerful signal.
"The way I see it the U.S. administration supports dictators," said Aly Eltayeb, 26, who has participated in the protests since Tuesday.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/egypt-protest-police-us-made-tear-gas-demonstrators/story?id=12785598

Egyptian Police use American made tear-gas = US support for Dictators?
It's a bit stupid, imho.
The irony is, those same stupid people probably think their revolution was a "Facebook Revolution"...the dummies.

 

i first thought it was a can of soda, which might be labeled the same way

for now, i suppose - maybe some day our soda will say 'made in china' leaving only our tear gas as a fully american export . . .