World Citizen
Facebook, Twitter and the Protests of 2011.
By Frida Ghitis | 15 Dec 2011.
The most striking image from last weekend's demonstrations in Moscow against the regime of former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is that of protesters holding up iPads and iPhones over their heads, broadcasting the momentous events live over the Internet. The sight of young Russians, bundled up against the Moscow cold, speaking out for democracy via social media brings to mind the wave of political protests that have defined 2011 -- from the Arab uprisings in the Middle East, to the Occupy movement in developed economies, and now in Russia. And it raises the question of just how vital a role the Internet and social media played in making possible this year's protests, including the ones that toppled entrenched dictatorships in Arab countries.
Could the historic turmoil of 2011 have happened without the Internet?
Not long ago, revolutionary leaders knew that in order to succeed, they needed to gain access to the principal television or radio station, ideally by capturing it, and use it to spread their message. Back then, if an uprising erupted but was not broadcast by the major media outlets, it risked passing through history unnoticed, not unlike a tree falling unheard in the woods. Today, no revolution is complete without a new set of electronic elements: an active Facebook page, complete with thousands of "friends"; a fast-trending hashtag (#) on Twitter, succinctly describing the movement and frequently updating developments; and scores of deft Twitter users with large numbers of followers.
Clearly, these elements have come to characterize the new wave of social protests. But across the centuries, uprisings -- including the French, Russian and American revolutions -- have occurred without the benefit of electronic communications.
Moreover, the tyrannies of the Arab world had created simmering resentments that were bound to boil over, Internet or not.
And yet, there is no question that modern media played a key role in igniting the protests and keeping them alive until they reached a self-sustaining critical mass. The Internet made history happen faster.
It is no accident that what came to be known as the Arab Spring first succeeded in Tunisia, one of the countries with the highest rate of Internet access in North Africa. The lightning-fast overthrow of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali subsequently inspired young, wired Egyptians. And it was indeed the "Twitterati" and the Facebook-savvy who started building support online for that new chapter in the Arab revolution.
The West quickly branded the Egyptian uprising, with its physical epicenter in Cairo's Tahrir Square, as the "Facebook revolution.” Organizers started building up to their historic Jan. 25 protest with the Twitter hashtag, #Jan25. And the Facebook page "We Are All Khaled Said," honoring the Alexandria man beaten to death by police, helped galvanize the movement. That page was started by Wael Ghonim, notably a Google executive, who became one of the leaders of the pro-democracy movement.
But a closer look at Egypt suggests that the Internet was neither sufficient nor indispensable for revolution. The average Egyptian earns about $200 per month, not enough to own a smart phone with a generous data plan. In fact, three in four Egyptians do not have access to the Internet. One in four is illiterate, and widespread poverty -- while adding the fuel of resentment to the revolution -- means that few have iPhones and computers.
That disconnect between Egypt's demographic reality and the image presented in the media of a populace united at the vanguard of a cutting-edge high-tech revolution goes a long way in explaining the outcome of the country’s recent elections. The young liberals who started the uprising through social media performed dismally in the vote. The winners were traditionalists from the Muslim Brotherhood, and second place went to Salafis, who seek to emulate the 7th-century lifestyle and morals of the Prophet Muhammad and his contemporaries.
Social media in the hands of young, modern, liberal activists played a pivotal role in creating the protests. It was the equivalent a bucketful of gasoline thrown on softly glowing embers, but the vast field waiting to be ignited was already there, ready to catch on fire.
The success of the revolution in Tunisia, widely reported in the traditional media and satellite TV networks such as Al Jazeera, helped spread the word that success against dictatorship was possible. Once the people lost their fear, they poured into Tahrir Square. The revolution was handed over to throngs of Egyptians who had never even heard of Twitter or Facebook, but who nonetheless helped carry out a revolution in the old style.
Western audiences familiar with Facebook remained enthralled with the social media narrative, a compelling, intriguing twist that made the story fascinating to 21st-century audiences.
It was a similar situation in other Arab countries. In Yemen, more than 90 percent of the population has no access to the Internet. Organizers, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakel Karman, set up Facebook pages and tweeted, but the masses did not need to go online to join the protests.
In Western countries, the Occupy movement had the benefit of wealthier and more-wired societies. The first and arguably the most successful of the social protests was organized by 25-year-old Daphne Leef of Tel Aviv. When she discovered she was to lose her apartment and could not afford the rent for a new one, she posted an invitation on Facebook for her friends to join her in a protest by pitching a tent on swanky Rothschild Boulevard. Before long, Leef managed to mobilize some 430,000 Israelis, an astonishing 7 percent of the country's population, in a call for affordable housing. Not coincidentally, Israel has one of the highest rates of Internet access in the world.
Occupy Wall Street and scores of other "occupy" protests in rich countries leveraged the Internet to organize similar demonstrations against income inequality.
The protests in a time of economic distress inspired sympathetic demonstrations in other places, including Russia.
When, following Putin’s announcement of his plans to become president again, his party was accused of flagrantly cheating in parliamentary elections, young people knew exactly how to go about organizing a protest. Government supporters tried to block Internet access, but it was clear that kind of heavy-handed approach, already tried by dictatorships in Egypt and elsewhere, was bound to fail.
The Internet gave the protests of 2011 their unique character. Twitter and Facebook were not indispensable, but they became a powerful tool to build a new type of political demonstration. Social media galvanized protesters, accelerating the process of building a movement and increasing the pressure they placed on governments. Uprisings can happen without the Internet. And the ones we saw this year would have eventually taken place on their own. But the new media made them unfold at breathtaking speed and added the undivided attention of a riveted global audience to the process, forcing regimes to act with a measure of restraint or face the consequences.
Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen, appears every Thursday
Could the historic turmoil of 2011 have happened without the Internet?
Not long ago, revolutionary leaders knew that in order to succeed, they needed to gain access to the principal television or radio station, ideally by capturing it, and use it to spread their message. Back then, if an uprising erupted but was not broadcast by the major media outlets, it risked passing through history unnoticed, not unlike a tree falling unheard in the woods. Today, no revolution is complete without a new set of electronic elements: an active Facebook page, complete with thousands of "friends"; a fast-trending hashtag (#) on Twitter, succinctly describing the movement and frequently updating developments; and scores of deft Twitter users with large numbers of followers.
Clearly, these elements have come to characterize the new wave of social protests. But across the centuries, uprisings -- including the French, Russian and American revolutions -- have occurred without the benefit of electronic communications.
Moreover, the tyrannies of the Arab world had created simmering resentments that were bound to boil over, Internet or not.
And yet, there is no question that modern media played a key role in igniting the protests and keeping them alive until they reached a self-sustaining critical mass. The Internet made history happen faster.
It is no accident that what came to be known as the Arab Spring first succeeded in Tunisia, one of the countries with the highest rate of Internet access in North Africa. The lightning-fast overthrow of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali subsequently inspired young, wired Egyptians. And it was indeed the "Twitterati" and the Facebook-savvy who started building support online for that new chapter in the Arab revolution.
The West quickly branded the Egyptian uprising, with its physical epicenter in Cairo's Tahrir Square, as the "Facebook revolution.” Organizers started building up to their historic Jan. 25 protest with the Twitter hashtag, #Jan25. And the Facebook page "We Are All Khaled Said," honoring the Alexandria man beaten to death by police, helped galvanize the movement. That page was started by Wael Ghonim, notably a Google executive, who became one of the leaders of the pro-democracy movement.
But a closer look at Egypt suggests that the Internet was neither sufficient nor indispensable for revolution. The average Egyptian earns about $200 per month, not enough to own a smart phone with a generous data plan. In fact, three in four Egyptians do not have access to the Internet. One in four is illiterate, and widespread poverty -- while adding the fuel of resentment to the revolution -- means that few have iPhones and computers.
That disconnect between Egypt's demographic reality and the image presented in the media of a populace united at the vanguard of a cutting-edge high-tech revolution goes a long way in explaining the outcome of the country’s recent elections. The young liberals who started the uprising through social media performed dismally in the vote. The winners were traditionalists from the Muslim Brotherhood, and second place went to Salafis, who seek to emulate the 7th-century lifestyle and morals of the Prophet Muhammad and his contemporaries.
Social media in the hands of young, modern, liberal activists played a pivotal role in creating the protests. It was the equivalent a bucketful of gasoline thrown on softly glowing embers, but the vast field waiting to be ignited was already there, ready to catch on fire.
The success of the revolution in Tunisia, widely reported in the traditional media and satellite TV networks such as Al Jazeera, helped spread the word that success against dictatorship was possible. Once the people lost their fear, they poured into Tahrir Square. The revolution was handed over to throngs of Egyptians who had never even heard of Twitter or Facebook, but who nonetheless helped carry out a revolution in the old style.
Western audiences familiar with Facebook remained enthralled with the social media narrative, a compelling, intriguing twist that made the story fascinating to 21st-century audiences.
It was a similar situation in other Arab countries. In Yemen, more than 90 percent of the population has no access to the Internet. Organizers, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Tawakel Karman, set up Facebook pages and tweeted, but the masses did not need to go online to join the protests.
In Western countries, the Occupy movement had the benefit of wealthier and more-wired societies. The first and arguably the most successful of the social protests was organized by 25-year-old Daphne Leef of Tel Aviv. When she discovered she was to lose her apartment and could not afford the rent for a new one, she posted an invitation on Facebook for her friends to join her in a protest by pitching a tent on swanky Rothschild Boulevard. Before long, Leef managed to mobilize some 430,000 Israelis, an astonishing 7 percent of the country's population, in a call for affordable housing. Not coincidentally, Israel has one of the highest rates of Internet access in the world.
Occupy Wall Street and scores of other "occupy" protests in rich countries leveraged the Internet to organize similar demonstrations against income inequality.
The protests in a time of economic distress inspired sympathetic demonstrations in other places, including Russia.
When, following Putin’s announcement of his plans to become president again, his party was accused of flagrantly cheating in parliamentary elections, young people knew exactly how to go about organizing a protest. Government supporters tried to block Internet access, but it was clear that kind of heavy-handed approach, already tried by dictatorships in Egypt and elsewhere, was bound to fail.
The Internet gave the protests of 2011 their unique character. Twitter and Facebook were not indispensable, but they became a powerful tool to build a new type of political demonstration. Social media galvanized protesters, accelerating the process of building a movement and increasing the pressure they placed on governments. Uprisings can happen without the Internet. And the ones we saw this year would have eventually taken place on their own. But the new media made them unfold at breathtaking speed and added the undivided attention of a riveted global audience to the process, forcing regimes to act with a measure of restraint or face the consequences.
Frida Ghitis is an independent commentator on world affairs and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Her weekly column, World Citizen, appears every Thursday
1 comentario:
U.S. military, Taliban use Twitter to wage war
By Ernesto Londoño.
KABUL —The Twitter war began in earnest Sept. 14, in the midst of a sustained attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and the adjacent headquarters of the U.S.-led international military force.
Until then, NATO officials had kept close tabs on the messages posted on two accounts linked to the Taliban’s media arm — but had refrained from engaging or acknowledging them.
“How much longer will terrorists put innocent Afghans in harm’s way,” @isafmedia demanded of the Taliban spokesman on the second day of the embassy attack, in which militants lobbed rockets and sprayed gunfire from a building under construction.
“I dnt knw. U hve bn pttng thm n ‘harm’s way’ fr da pst 10 yrs. Razd whole vilgs n mrkts. n stil hv da nrve to tlk bout ‘harm’s way,’ ” responded Abdulqahar Balkhi, one of the Taliban’s Twitter warriors, who uses the handle @ABalkhi.
The running spat appears to be the sole open line of communication between Americans and the Taliban after exploratory peace talks collapsed this year. U.S. military officials say the dramatic assault on the diplomatic compound convinced them that they needed to seize the propaganda initiative — and that in Twitter, they had a tool at hand that could shape the narrative much more quickly than news releases or responses to individual queries.
“That was the day ISAF turned the page from being passive,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Badura, a military spokesman, explaining how @isafmedia evolved after the attack. “It used to be a tool to regurgitate the company line. We’ve turned it into what it can be.”
It’s hard to say who is winning the war of words. If the number of followers is the benchmark, @isafmedia is far ahead. Over the past year, the number of users following the coalition has swelled from 736 to nearly 18,000. The two Taliban accounts — @alemarahweb, which mainly links to news releases and official statements, and the more pugnacious @ABalkhi — have just over 9,000 combined.
Many terrorist organizations maintain sophisticated Web sites and aggressive social media operations, despite widely suspected efforts by Western intelligence agencies to hack into and deactivate their online sites.
U.S. officials have grown increasingly concerned about extremists’ stepped-up activity on social media sites, citing cases in which Americans have been recruited online by terrorists overseas. The House Homeland Security subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence convened a hearing this month on how jihadists were using social media.
Fuente: Washington Post, 19 Dic 11.
Publicar un comentario