Twitter and Revolutions

c/p PULSE Review

The value of social networking and micro-blogging in modern revolutions is being hotly debated. The real core question is whether or not these new services make it easier for citizens to make their will known in the face of a suppressive government. There is a growing body of evidence that these services do have an impact on mass gatherings. These services also ease the dissemination of information, but perhaps not to the extent their advocates claim.

In dealing with Web 2.0, getting the definitions straight is important.  Micro-blogging deals with something like Twitter, where you can post a short blurb on the internet either through SMS (cell phones) or the internet.  The utilization of multiple pathways is very useful in ensuring that a message can get out in adverse environments.  Social networking sites are the ubiquitous Myspace/Facebook/Habbo/Classmates/LinkedIn sites that allow users to feel like they are part of a community.  Both are very effective at disseminating information, often in a viral (self-propagating) manner.

When running a revolution, perhaps the most important center of gravity is the will of the people. Social networks and micro-blogging directly target this nexus.  Social networks provide information that comes at a person’s mind sideways – the information isn’t coming from some talking head, but rather someone who claims to be your friend.  Micro-blogging provides information in the same way, from a man on the street perspective.  This seems to bias our thought process into giving that information more credibility than say, what a news anchor says, especially when the message is being virally repeated.

These tools are also very difficult to block or firewall – even states with draconian network policies cannot fully block access to these sites. People and information want to be free. Even when a state creates blocked lists or attempts to directly monitor content, the citizens still tend to find a way. The only way to stop these tools is to completely shut down the internet and SMS services. These actions are nearly guaranteed to further the cause of the revolutionary and further alienate the people from their government.

Organizing a meeting or rally is not an arbitrary task. Permits must be applied for, streets shut down, porta-potties rented, etc, to ensure an orderly event. In non-permissive environments (e.g. anywhere the government refuses to recognize the right of citizens to peacefully assemble), social networks and micro-blogs make it much easier for organizers to rally people at the same time and place. Social networks facilitate the vetting of individuals, letting people meet in semi-anonymity before they meet in real life. Micro-blogging helps citizens get ahead of their governments by organizing and executing a rally faster than the security apparatus can respond and shut it down. These tools can be used in conjunction to significant effect.

The obvious problem is that these tools reside on networks that the governments tend to control, and can be used by almost anyone, including the government you are trying to thwart. Vetting who is at the other end can be a very hard initial problem. As the network grows, it becomes easier through second and third order relationships (Fred knows Mike who knows Bill, Mike vets Bill to Fred and lets him in the network) to add members with a degree of confidence. With micro-blogs and social networks, there is always the significant risk of compromise. It is not impossible for a security apparatus to figure out the major nodes in the network and compromise them. Basically, the next call for a major rally could come from the Chief of Police, not you fearless resistance leader. That could hand the majority of the hard core network to the security apparatus on a silver platter. That is a risk that must always be recognized.

Now that we understand some of the strengths and weaknesses of these tools, how important are they?  These tools are essentially an electronic version of community meetings and word of mouth.   They can dramatically increase the speed of information transfer and the rapidity with which people chose to act.  With those same attributes, they can also become thoroughly discredited and be seen as nothing beyond static in the ether.   They are, like everything else, what the revolutionaries and government make of them.  Clearly, revolutions have been run without them in the past, and in the worst case, revolutions can still be effective in the most limiting technological environment. But by utilizing these technologies effectively, the will of an unhappy citizenry can be rapidly amplified.

The Realist is an Air Force Academy graduate, holding a master’s degree in Unconventional Warfare from the American Military University, and a co-founder of The PULSE Review.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Social Media vs. Job Boards: The Ultimate Winner (jonggunlee.tistory.com)

Popularity: 1% [?]