The Internet and New Media: a Revolutionary tool?

On the 8^th of April 2012  a post was published here which can be summarised with one sentence: “[…] nowadays New Social Medias play an essential role in the development of revolutions.”

I highly disagree with this view and in the following I would like to make clear why the Internet and Social Media are not (and probably won’t be in the near future) the essential or decisive element in revolutions. The main reason for this is fourfold:

Meaningful symbolism?

1.The Internet is not genuinely democratic!

Cyber-Utopians – as Evgeny Morozov would label them – claim so, however it isn’t. Just as every medium the Internet is a transmission channel, which transfers data from people to other people. This means that it is dependent on its users and its regional and timely context. The indented and the actual uses are not equal. For example although radio played a role liberating former soviet countries, it also played a great role in the Rwandan Genocide promoting hatred and violence. One has to consider that no matter how bad (from a Western point of view) authoritarian rulers are: they always have their supporters. And so although there are examples of the Internet being used to help a revolution or a democratic movement, there are also many examples of the opposite.

In Saudi Arabia for example Internet users are encouraged to search youtube for videos which offend Saudi sensibilities. There was a similar effort in Thailand, brought to live by an MP. At Protecttheking.th users could post links of sites that offended the king and then these sites were blocked. Another example is Iran where the government put photos of protesters online so that citizens who are loyal to the regime can identify them. They basically crowd-sourced the process of putting down a rebellion. In the Arab spring many protesters used Twitter to organise their protest which seemed to work swiftly and effective. However Twitter is a public platform so by organising a Revolution via twitter you are providing your regime with information which they had to torture to gain a decade ago.

The best proof that the Internet is not genuinely democratic is that authoritarian regimes do not fear new media per se. They allow debates about non-political or non-democratic issues like climate change or corruption. They get information what bothers the people they suppress. Therefore by allowing discussion, pretending to listen to the people and sometimes acting, regimes get legitimacy. And if they fear certain websites or initiatives they still can censor the Internet. Most of the time will won’t bother that much because:

2. The Internet is about entertainment not about politics!

People always filter their content and thereby personalize their Internet usage to a degree that they only see what they want to see. Most of the time that’s not political content but tv-series and sports, messages from their family and friends, the newest party-pictures or porn. The Internet is distracting people and confronts them with the familiar. Though “unanticipated encounters involving topics and points of view that people have not sought out and perhaps find irritating, are central to democracy and even to freedom itself” as Cass Sunstein wrote. 

After all we also have to learn from Western Social Media experience. From the 1990s on a lot of people in democracies were highly optimistic about the (direct-)democratic possibilities the internet has to offer. Some imagined a world where everybody was part of the political decision-making process online. What’s left now is mostly resignation. People don’t get involved. There may be more cyber activism in autocracies, however even there most people will use the internet to send harmless mails, watch harmless movies or read harmless thoughts.

Preferences

3. Social Media are not that popular!

At least they are not for a majority of the people in autocracies, due to the countries these autocracies are based in often being less technologically advanced. The number of twitter activists is small, no matter if we are talking about Iran or Moldova. A lot of the Revolutionary supporters on twitter are feel-good-activists from the democratic West. Furthermore most of the supporters in the concerned countries are young, modern, tech-savvy and support Western values. This can lead to a wrong picture of an uprising as it has happened in the Arab spring. In the period of the uprising in Egypt Western Media were highly optimistic that once Mubarak is gone, there will be a western style democracy to replace it. What happened: the people of Egypt chased an anachronistic Western style autocrat out of Heliopolis palace only to vote an Islamic autocrat into office. The Social Media activity of young, modern people created the vision that they and their views of life represent the majority in their country. However once Mubarak was overthrown you can see the deep borders, which divide the protesters from the start.

So who wants to get a false impression will get a false impression and that’s what happens in the Western World. The media loves stories about social media revolution. They are modern and thrilling. Beside the wrong estimation of the usage of Social Media, this view disregards also social and cultural factors and is build on a deterministic picture of technology and media. But having an iPod doesn’t make you a supporter of democratic values.

4. Social Media activism is not binding!

Democratic movements and uprisings demand a great deal of their supporters. It is dangerous, very often even life-threatening to participate. So what are possible reasons to get involved? The idea that just some Social Media posts from strangers will let you protest on the street is naïve. The decisive element was and will be personal tiers with other protesters. 

And your best friends can write you a text message with their mobile phone as well or can just come around. Mouth-to-mouth-propaganda will play an important role for every coming uprising. Especially when regimes start working on their Internet spying it’s the safest way. 

The Tahrir Square after Mubarak resigned 2011

Conclusion

Social Media and the Internet can in some cases be a helpful instrument to bring down regimes; but so can machine guns. And as the latter Social Media and the Internet can be used against protesters. So the outcome of a revolution depends more on the potency or impotence of the regime and the amount and the will of protesters than on the use of Social Media.

In the Western world we have a wrong image of the on-goings in autocracies because we are fond of the idea that our new media technology will change the world to better.

The point is: Wherever you will find a new media revolution you will find a new media counter-revolution. Thanks to thinkers like Morozov this idea is spreading in the World. In relation to that even some of the most famous supporters of the revolutionary effects of New Media already changed or weakened their opinion.