"Online Social Networks - Friend or Foe"
Sydney M. Williams
Political instability, in countries with repressive regimes, may be the new reality, a consequence of online social networks that reach millions of households in countries ranging from Iran to Tunisia, from China to Egypt. The thinking being that once the power of a ubiquitous communication network has been unleashed, there is no turning back. Daniel Henninger makes such a case in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “Stability’s End.” But the answer may not be so clear or so simple.
Marko Papic and Sean Noonan, writing in Stratfor, point out that dictatorial regimes can use social media for their own purposes; “The most effective way for the government to use social media is to monitor what protest organizers are telling their adherents either directly over the Internet or by inserting an informant into the group.” Services such as Facebook (500 million users), Twitter (200 million users) and YouTube (50 million users) may also be used to spread misinformation. They point out that authorities have monitored both Republican and Democratic conventions, as well as G-8 and World Trade Organization meetings. In some respects, it seems like verification of George Orwell’s novel, 1984, which was a chilling, fictional precursor of an omnipotent and omniscient government with devastating results to its citizens.
Social networks are the relationships created between people. They have existed since humans bonded in communities. Fraternal organizations are prominent examples. Online social networking sites are similar in purpose, but very different in actuality. Relationships are established between people with a common cause, but who do not necessarily really know one another – or they only know whatever information the member has elected to provide. In that respect, they can be used for nefarious purposes, an example being Philip Markoff, known as the Craigslist killer. Sites like YouTube have the unfortunate consequence of sating the narcistic urge among those (mostly the young) who like to watch themselves. It also provides a venue for extremists of all persuasions, likely abetting the divisiveness we all rue in today’s political world.
Most people in the West cherish the relative stability of the governments we enjoy. Many see the Internet as a means to help destabilize authoritarian regimes. The effect, however, may be to do exactly the opposite, at least over the next few years – to destabilize democratically-elected governments, and to send authoritarian regimes scurrying to shut down the Internet, as China did in July 2009 in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region and as Egypt did for the entire country one day last week. The truth is no one really knows what the consequences will be. As Mr. Henninger writes, “All the new political energy that Shockley’s (William Shockley, the American physicist who co-invented the transistor) tiny transistors unleashed has to go somewhere.” The wealth of information and the ability to communicate almost instantly can be channeled for good or for evil.
Democracies, with their defense of individual liberties, are not efficient, which is one reason they are shunned by people like Mr. Mubarak. (As an aside, according to Bloomberg this morning, Mr. Mubarak lends proof to the misconception that one must work in the private sector to accumulate wealth. Despite a career spent in the army and politics, he has a net worth estimated to be between $30 billion and $70 billion.) Efficiency is a goal of dictatorships and, as long as repression works, the trains run on time. On January 27, the day Egypt shut down the Internet and riots in the streets persisted, President Obama did a YouTube interview. He rightly compared social [online] networking to universal liberties, such as freedom of speech.
While social networking may have played a big role in the recent turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt, it is worth remembering that the most unusual and successful revolution in history was the American – unusual, in that its leaders were the financial and social elite (those that had the most to lose should it fail) and successful, in that two hundred and twenty-two years after the first American president was elected the country retains its position as the economic and military leader of the world.
As a new medium, no one really knows the long term effects of online social networking, but repressing the outlets that allow people to vent never work. Many will do foolish things, acts and words they will later regret, but worse is the regime that allegedly protects people from themselves. Intelligent, inquisitive people everywhere have a thirst for information; it is why totalitarian regimes never last, and it is why muffling the internet will not work over time. Destabilization of these regimes, with all its consequences to the advocates of Realpolitik, is preferable and ultimately inevitable. However, in the short term, the risks are that totalitarian states pervert these networks for their own purposes and that, in the U.S., they further encourage polarization.
Thought of the Day
“Online Social Networks – Friend or Foe?”
February 4, 2011Political instability, in countries with repressive regimes, may be the new reality, a consequence of online social networks that reach millions of households in countries ranging from Iran to Tunisia, from China to Egypt. The thinking being that once the power of a ubiquitous communication network has been unleashed, there is no turning back. Daniel Henninger makes such a case in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “Stability’s End.” But the answer may not be so clear or so simple.
Marko Papic and Sean Noonan, writing in Stratfor, point out that dictatorial regimes can use social media for their own purposes; “The most effective way for the government to use social media is to monitor what protest organizers are telling their adherents either directly over the Internet or by inserting an informant into the group.” Services such as Facebook (500 million users), Twitter (200 million users) and YouTube (50 million users) may also be used to spread misinformation. They point out that authorities have monitored both Republican and Democratic conventions, as well as G-8 and World Trade Organization meetings. In some respects, it seems like verification of George Orwell’s novel, 1984, which was a chilling, fictional precursor of an omnipotent and omniscient government with devastating results to its citizens.
Social networks are the relationships created between people. They have existed since humans bonded in communities. Fraternal organizations are prominent examples. Online social networking sites are similar in purpose, but very different in actuality. Relationships are established between people with a common cause, but who do not necessarily really know one another – or they only know whatever information the member has elected to provide. In that respect, they can be used for nefarious purposes, an example being Philip Markoff, known as the Craigslist killer. Sites like YouTube have the unfortunate consequence of sating the narcistic urge among those (mostly the young) who like to watch themselves. It also provides a venue for extremists of all persuasions, likely abetting the divisiveness we all rue in today’s political world.
Most people in the West cherish the relative stability of the governments we enjoy. Many see the Internet as a means to help destabilize authoritarian regimes. The effect, however, may be to do exactly the opposite, at least over the next few years – to destabilize democratically-elected governments, and to send authoritarian regimes scurrying to shut down the Internet, as China did in July 2009 in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region and as Egypt did for the entire country one day last week. The truth is no one really knows what the consequences will be. As Mr. Henninger writes, “All the new political energy that Shockley’s (William Shockley, the American physicist who co-invented the transistor) tiny transistors unleashed has to go somewhere.” The wealth of information and the ability to communicate almost instantly can be channeled for good or for evil.
Democracies, with their defense of individual liberties, are not efficient, which is one reason they are shunned by people like Mr. Mubarak. (As an aside, according to Bloomberg this morning, Mr. Mubarak lends proof to the misconception that one must work in the private sector to accumulate wealth. Despite a career spent in the army and politics, he has a net worth estimated to be between $30 billion and $70 billion.) Efficiency is a goal of dictatorships and, as long as repression works, the trains run on time. On January 27, the day Egypt shut down the Internet and riots in the streets persisted, President Obama did a YouTube interview. He rightly compared social [online] networking to universal liberties, such as freedom of speech.
While social networking may have played a big role in the recent turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt, it is worth remembering that the most unusual and successful revolution in history was the American – unusual, in that its leaders were the financial and social elite (those that had the most to lose should it fail) and successful, in that two hundred and twenty-two years after the first American president was elected the country retains its position as the economic and military leader of the world.
As a new medium, no one really knows the long term effects of online social networking, but repressing the outlets that allow people to vent never work. Many will do foolish things, acts and words they will later regret, but worse is the regime that allegedly protects people from themselves. Intelligent, inquisitive people everywhere have a thirst for information; it is why totalitarian regimes never last, and it is why muffling the internet will not work over time. Destabilization of these regimes, with all its consequences to the advocates of Realpolitik, is preferable and ultimately inevitable. However, in the short term, the risks are that totalitarian states pervert these networks for their own purposes and that, in the U.S., they further encourage polarization.
Labels: TOTD
posted by Thought of the Day @ 6:19 AM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home