The successful coup in Tunisia and the popular uprising in Egypt in those days back called "Facebook" revolutions, praised the liberating power of technology. It is naive and wrong, critics say. The question of whether the Internet leads to a better world finds itself again in the weeks after the Tunisian people overthrew its dictator and the Egyptian attempts to expel his.
In Tunisia, youth used the Facebook to transmit videos of demonstrations and police violence or to arrange for protest marches. In Egypt, people put a facebook to disseminate reports, rumors and news about the situation in the country. They dined a picture and video, every second, from Cairo, from Suez, of Alexandria, and have been linked by thousands, on the social networks Facebook and Twitter.
In atemraubendem pace they sent more new icons of protest in the world: a man who the police with their batons only opposes. Another that tearing down a portrait of Hosni Mubarak, cheered on by a crowd. Youths who throw stones at policemen on empty streets. Then the regime moved the plug.
It turned off the Internet, on the night Friday, so great was the fear. Never has a country had gone so far. But people did not have to be mobilized. They streamed in that way on the streets. No media is in a crisis situation as quickly convey messages such as Facebook or Twitter. Social networks create the feeling, just to be there, even in Washington, Paris or Berlin.
They create an intensity and immediacy that can not even compete with the television. It must have something to do with this experience that Western commentators have, for years the same question when a nation rebels, as a half years ago in Iran: the question whether the power of the insurgency do not only visible, but perhaps even transport.
Tunisia experienced a "Facebook-revolution" as some wrote, a "Twitter Revolution" and even a "WikiLeaks revolution"? Or was it a riot, for which the time was already ripe, and would have taken place without the Internet? The success of the Tunisian revolution falls into a moment when the euphoria has subsided over the revolutionary potential of the network.
2009, the world still believed that a "Twitter Revolution" to have seen in Iran. Since then, the skeptical voices have become stronger. Can the Internet to promote political change? Furthermore, academics and bloggers debate a long time. Ultimately, it's about an even bigger question: Is the Internet good or bad for freedom in the world? The Internet pioneer Evgeny Morozov invented in April 2009, the term "Twitter Revolution" when he wrote about a popular uprising in Moldova.
Today he is one of the biggest critics of such labels, which are democratic change as the triumph of Western technology. Two years ago he wrote: "If we are the events that take place in Chisinau, now remember, not because of the colors of the flags, but because the technology was used?" ....
In Tunisia, youth used the Facebook to transmit videos of demonstrations and police violence or to arrange for protest marches. In Egypt, people put a facebook to disseminate reports, rumors and news about the situation in the country. They dined a picture and video, every second, from Cairo, from Suez, of Alexandria, and have been linked by thousands, on the social networks Facebook and Twitter.
In atemraubendem pace they sent more new icons of protest in the world: a man who the police with their batons only opposes. Another that tearing down a portrait of Hosni Mubarak, cheered on by a crowd. Youths who throw stones at policemen on empty streets. Then the regime moved the plug.
It turned off the Internet, on the night Friday, so great was the fear. Never has a country had gone so far. But people did not have to be mobilized. They streamed in that way on the streets. No media is in a crisis situation as quickly convey messages such as Facebook or Twitter. Social networks create the feeling, just to be there, even in Washington, Paris or Berlin.
They create an intensity and immediacy that can not even compete with the television. It must have something to do with this experience that Western commentators have, for years the same question when a nation rebels, as a half years ago in Iran: the question whether the power of the insurgency do not only visible, but perhaps even transport.
Tunisia experienced a "Facebook-revolution" as some wrote, a "Twitter Revolution" and even a "WikiLeaks revolution"? Or was it a riot, for which the time was already ripe, and would have taken place without the Internet? The success of the Tunisian revolution falls into a moment when the euphoria has subsided over the revolutionary potential of the network.
2009, the world still believed that a "Twitter Revolution" to have seen in Iran. Since then, the skeptical voices have become stronger. Can the Internet to promote political change? Furthermore, academics and bloggers debate a long time. Ultimately, it's about an even bigger question: Is the Internet good or bad for freedom in the world? The Internet pioneer Evgeny Morozov invented in April 2009, the term "Twitter Revolution" when he wrote about a popular uprising in Moldova.
Today he is one of the biggest critics of such labels, which are democratic change as the triumph of Western technology. Two years ago he wrote: "If we are the events that take place in Chisinau, now remember, not because of the colors of the flags, but because the technology was used?" ....
- Internet in Egypt offline (28/01/2011)
- It's Not The Network But What You Say (01/02/2011)
- Dave Pell: Egypt, Twitter and the Straw Man Revolution (31/01/2011)
- "Egypt: not a social media revolution" and related posts (30/01/2011)
- Mediaite's Rachel Sklar Visits CNBC To Talk Egypt's 'Social Media Revolution' (31/01/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment