New Media and Our Modern Society: Repeating Patterns of Social Response

When we change the way we communicate, we change society. The tools that a society uses to create and maintain itself are as central to human life as a hive is to bee life. (Clay Shirky)
                                                                                                                    

It’s a typical Monday afternoon in New York City and a bevy of suit-clad businessmen and women saunter into a conference room. Most of them are on their Blackberrys checking for any emails that may have come in since they left their desk forty-five seconds ago, some are making small talk, and others just staring into space. There’s a tech-savvy individual in the front of the room setting up a projector and hooking up a laptop, and suddenly a live image of the room goes on the screen. The sound of a Skype-phone ring is heard and in mere seconds the screen is now split with the image of a conference room of their west coast office, filled with similar, more-tan business types. They all exchange proper “hello’s” and “how are you’s” and the bicoastal meeting commences. Thanks to cloud-based server technology, they can share files between each other, in an instant, without having to even email them. The Senior Vice President in the New York offices prompts for the IT person to play a new TV commercial their agency just produced and both offices watch simultaneously. One person in the room tweets, “Another Monday, Another Meeting” and shortly after her friend tweets back, “Tacos for lunch?” They choose not to text because Twitter is more exclusive to their social circle, more networked, and simply more fun than a text message. The meeting continues rather productively and because they can all see each other, a sense of community develops among them even though they’ve never actually met. They can see the clothes the west coast team are wearing, their facial expressions, and nods of approval. The meeting concludes and everyone returns to their desks to continue their day checking emails, writing spreadsheets, preparing PowerPoint presentations, and perhaps using social media to document their (almost) every move.

Ten years ago this scenario might have seemed possible, but out of reach, and the meeting would have been conducted with a speakerphone in the middle of the conference room. Twenty-five years ago this idea would have provoked a laugh from whom ever proposed it and the meeting still would have been done via telephone. Today, new media technologies facilitate the ability to communicate in extraordinary ways. However, not everyone accepts and embraces new media technologies as easily and welcoming as others. Sometimes it’s a generational gap, other times political, and other times just fear. But there is no denying that when new media technologies are introduced into existing social contexts, they are received with repeating patterns of social response. In that same New York City conference room, there were also a few individuals who were less than impressed with the videoconferencing and would have preferred they travel cross-country for the big meeting. Some miss “the old days” when the ability to have bicoastal offices wasn’t possible due to restrictions in communication. Some people were excited for the new technology usage and felt that their company was progressive for utilizing such. One woman felt offended that the company was using Skype, the same video chat program one of her daughter’s friends was approached by a pedophile on. The social response to new media reflects people just as much as technologies and we see a cycle develop in our society.

Perhaps one of the reasons that we see these repeating patterns of social response is due to the basic principles of human nature. An example of such is control; our lives are all about control. We set an alarm to sound when we want to wake up, we check the train times for the exact time we need to be at work, we program our Digital Video Recorders (DVR) to record our favorite television programs, and we tell our friends when we’ll meet them out for drinks on a Friday night. Governments are especially all about control. They keep top-secret files and photos under wraps, attend annual G8 summits, collect a set percentage of taxes, utilize an approval process of checks and balances that has been instated for decades, and some, if not most governments, censor the free-flow of information. The “control” we seek in our lives is the constant in the equation of life and the only things to worry about are the unforeseen variables. Before the introduction of new media technologies of the past decade or so, variables in our lives might have consisted of a telephone ring, a car crash, a rogue government official, or an unsuspected change in weather patterns – just to name a few. These variables trouble us and we try hard to accommodate for these variables by planning for them. We leave a little bit earlier just in case the train is late, we proofread emails to make sure they’re error-free, and we set a second alarm as a backup in the morning. As humans, we are programmed to fear change and fear the unknown. Although new media technologies provide us with exciting new possibilities and opportunities, they also provide a unique fear that is present in every single rational human being: the fear of losing control.

Initially, social media were introduced and embraced by a niche of young, progressive individuals less than 25 years of age. Today, social media and new communication technologies are integrated into our every day lives, including news media, commerce and marketing, and even in the government (both in the United States and internationally). In November, 2010 Julian Assange, the man behind the news leak and whistle-blowing website, Wikileaks, released Iraq and Afghan war documents that contained classified information pertaining to the American involvement in these wars. Wikileaks is an interesting case; on one level it provides a free-flow of information and promotes democracy, while on another there are American policymakers who promote censoring and restricting Wikileaks, going against our nation’s first amendment constitutional rights. Before internet and the possibility for a Wiki-leak to occur in the first place, the government could control the “free-flow” of information and shut down any party attempting to spread classified documents and information more closely. New media technologies decrease the amount of control the government has on these types of leaks, and that loss of control instills a fear in our government. We see a reaction to these fears in the punishment of Julian Assange, the attempt to shutdown the Wikileaks site altogether, and American policymakers hypocritically “disparaging China and Iran for similar impulses” (Morozov, 241).

Evgeny Morozov takes an interesting stand on the internet and free-flow of information:

If it turns out that the internet does help to stifle dissent, amplify existing inequalities in terms of access to the media, undermine representative democracy, promote mob mentality, erode privacy, and make us less informed, it is not at all obvious how exactly the promotion of so called internet freedom is also supposed to assist in the promotion of democracy. (Morozov, 241)

For those who are against the government’s attempt to censor Wikileaks and stop this type of free flow of information from Julian Assange, Morozov provides the notion that perhaps centering this argument from a position of pro-democracy is not exactly valid. I would argue that the government’s instinct to censor Wikileaks and other whistle-blowing websites is fueled by fear of the loss of control and ultimately, change in the way sensitive, classified information and dissent is controlled. Democracy is the free-flow of information, but is the free-flow of information technically promoting Democracy?

Government control is only a small portion of the notion of repeating patterns of the social response to new media technologies and fear of losing control. John Durham Peters, author of “Speaking Into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication,” outlines the true meaning and history of communication and adds to the argument as to why new media communication is received by similar patterns of social discourse, criticism, and acceptance. One branch of meaning, as Peters describes, “involves the transfer or transmission…the sense of physical transfer, such as the communication of heat, light, magnetism, or gifts, that is the root of the notion of communication as the transfer of physical entities such as ideas, thoughts, or meanings” (Peters, 8). However, it is important to note that communication in this sense is not necessarily two-way, nor does it require reciprocation. For example a facebook status update, a published newspaper article, or a Public Service Announcement are all forms of a one-way transfer, but still considered to be communication “even if no response is possible or desired” (Peters, 8). Additionally, a handshake or hug is another type of physical transfer and also a way of communication, insofar as a facebook wall-post or tweet is also. Society accepts these new ideas of communication because we see resemblance to the former methods. Picking up a phone and having a conversation can now be achieved in a different fashion via social media and new technology but still follows Peters’ basic notion of communication.

A second branch of meaning according to Peters is “communication as exchange, that is, as transfer times two” (Peters, 8). Peters describes this notion as an exchange with some type of “reciprocity” and can be as simple as the exchange of telegrams or as complex as the delivery of an email. “Here communication does not mean simply talk; it refers to a special kind of talk distinguished by intimacy and disclosure” (Peters, 8). This two-way level of communication is what fosters relationships and emotionally wrought discourse. The idea of two-way communication is archaic and has always been the cornerstone of all types of communication. Contrasted with the former notion of communication, the one-way transfer, reciprocity is universally recognized – you smile at someone and they smile back. Peters also posits the idea of communion and forms a definition of communication as “contact between interiorities” (Peters, 8-9). To take this a step further, words such as “communication,” “community,” “common,” and “connection” all describe a sense of interchange and the transfer of thoughts and ideas in some fashion and can be seen in repeating patterns throughout the history of communication technologies. Most recently, we’ve seen this idea of community and networks truly take form within the realm of new media technologies.

Actions speak louder than words and actions and words heard from a group speak louder than those from an individual. There is nothing inherently new about group action or a community; these ideas have been around since the beginning of humanity and communication. However, with the introduction of new media technologies, the way of doing such has changed dramatically (on the surface) and the social response to such has been argued from both positive and negative standpoints. Peters discussed one-way and two-way communication, but additionally, group formation is a type of multi-communication. Traditionally, groups form by way of a commonality; those who share similar interests, desires, or causes will group together to share ideas and discourse with each other and find strength in numbers. In the recent protests and revolutions in the Middle East, specifically Egypt, social media took center stage as the catalyst for the formation of these large groups. Although some argue that facebook and social media technologies are the sole reason for successful revolution, that idea is inherently technologically determinist and puts the emphasis on technology and the medium and away from human power. However, scholars like Clay Shirky would argue from a social determinist position that social media accelerates these revolutions, but social media is by no means the only reason for their success.

Throughout history we’ve seen new props thrown into an old story. (Jackaway). The “stage” for the revolutions in Egypt and the Middle East were always set – a revolution was bound to happen regardless of the tools used to facilitate it. The props for the revolution included facebook, twitter, and mobile devices and we know this for sure because the Egpytian government actually turned off the internet in what is known as a “Kill Switch.” Why did the Egyptian government take this course of action? Because they knew how people were forming, they knew how powerful social media is in forming groups and communities, and they knew that the power of a large, passionate group of individuals is unbeatable. The Egyptian government also had a fear of loosing control, just like any person or government does, and the nature of new media technologies and social media is not to contain and censor, but rather to share and promote the free-flow of information. But was this the first time in history the world has ever seen a revolution? Was the uprising in Egypt, accelerated by social media, the first time people demanded democracy and governmental reform? Absolutely not. These revolutions are a part of a pattern in society, a facet of human nature. When we don’t like something, we find the courage to stand up for ourselves; social media doesn’t necessarily contribute to that principle. Social media was merely a tool, an advanced tool, which was used in a particular fashion to accelerate a cause – just like we’ve witnessed again and again throughout history.

So then what does all of this mean? Referring to Shirky’s idea of a bee hive, “though the bee hive is not part of any individual bee, it is part of the colony, both shaped by and shaping the lives of its inhabitants” (Shirky, 17). We as a society embrace or deny new technologies, the “hive,” and witness them integrate into our society, the “colony.” However the technologies do not shape us entirely, nor does society entirely shape the new technologies. Instead there is a unique two-way communication between technology and humans; a learning process, in which our society critically responds to new media technologies based on a set of principles and values that are important to us individually. These local characteristics and values are what ultimately form our approval or disapproval for new technologies and they can include religion, politics, sexual identity, philosophy, or historical background. Furthermore, these local characteristics of the individual are then backed by universal aspects of human nature such as excitement and acceptance towards the new technologies, extreme adverse/fear of change (technophobia), or the fight or flight principle. Throughout history we see patterns of this approval process continuously repeating every time a new technology is introduced; with the printing press, with television, and now with new media technologies. However, in our modern society, you would have a hard time finding people who are completely against television, completely against the internet, or completely against the telephone -- but that’s because these technologies are already integrated into our society and endured the same process of social response as new media communication.

The social response to new media reflects people as much as technologies; one cannot be without the other. As Morozov highlights, “new technologies are tools without handles” (Morozov, 31) and the handles are useless without the human touch to guide them. These basic principles can be argued now with new media technologies, years ago with old media technologies, and will still be relevant and used to argue the introduction of future technologies. Human nature will never change; it may become more advanced and experienced, but unlike any machine or robot, the human mind develops and learns by means of emotion and interaction with society. At some point in time, there will be people who are opposed to future communication technologies, whatever they may be, and will argue that the old (now new) technologies of social media and internet communications are still almighty, powerful, and underappreciated by younger generations. This idea brings home the point that like the argument of control being the only constant in our lives stated earlier, human nature and human beings are the only constant in our universe. We know that humans will (seemingly) continue to exist and human beings will continue to develop new technologies. It is undeniable that these new technologies will be responded to differently by the critical mass, but that’s the notion of human nature. We see repeating patterns of social response because we are human and human nature is our constant; every human acts in accordance with human nature.

Works Cited 

Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: the Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2011. Print.

Peters, John Durham. Speaking into the Air: a History of the Idea of Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. Print.

Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: the Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.

Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.

Initial Thoughts for the Final Paper...

This week I wanted to focus on the final paper and have this blog post serve as a start to an outline and fusion of the ideas we discussed this semester as they are related to my thesis:

"Due to the nature of new media technologies in our modern society, it is possible to sell anything; whether it is an idea, product, or political agenda, the boundless source of information, ability to communicate in a synchronous manner, and connectivity of mobile devices made possible by new media have aided in doing so"

I don't love the syntax and formatting of my thesis, but it's a work in progress. We started off the semester talking about Social vs Technological determinism and McLuhan's famous phrase, "The medium is the message. ...It is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action." According to McLuhan's stance on technological determinism, the ability to sell on the internet and through new media devices is made possible because of those devices and the nature of which they are used. McLuhan might argue that the ability to "sell anything" on the internet is harder now than it was when there was no such thing as a computer or digital media. Now the consumer has the ability to seek truth and contrasting arguments for anything. If an ad for an automobile pops up on your computer screen boasting 36mpg, the consumer can perform an internet search and find out the truth from consumer reviews, the FCC, and even learn the logistics of how a car works and what it takes to have that high of a mileage per gallon (for the more tech savvy individuals, obviously).

This is important because while yes, the auto company might be able to sell that car differently, via a popup ad, facebook page, promoted tweet on twitter, blog about it, make an interactive driving game with branded cars for the iPad for -- the consumer is still paramount because they have more options to reasearch the product, discern truth from embellishment, and make an overall educated decision about it. According to McLuhan the technology makes for these changes and not the human. On the other hand, a social determinist would argue that it is still the human who is in control of the new technology. The human is just uses the resources provided more effectively and actually makes for more competition in the market. Long gone are the days where a billboard ad boasting a price for a pair of shoes and that being the end all be all. Now a consumer can type in the name of shoes to Google and be shown all of the options available on the internet with the lowest price they can buy it for.  The customer has more power because of how they use internet, technology and machines.

Another example of consumerism and new media is the price scanner app that is widely available on most of the popular smart phones and is one of the most downloaded apps of all time. The concept is you hold your phone up to the barcode of any product in a store (a DVD, box of pasta) and the app scans it and provides you with all of the price options available on the internet and local retailers. I am definitely one to go into a store and find a product I like, scan the barcode and then go buy it for 10-20% cheaper (sometimes even more) online or elsewhere. The key here is that the technology is being used to make educated shopping decisions by the consumer.

So now with this knowledge of how we use our mobil devices, how we use the internet to shop, and how we perceive recommendations from our friends on facebook -- companies have caught on and started to sell to us differently. No longer is a banner ad as effective as a facebook post with a friend saying "check out these awesome shoes I just bought!" However, we have to ask why is that person posting about those shoes? what did that shoe company do to provoke the consumer to post their shoe on facebook? perhaps there was a contest that said anyone who mentions our shoes will be entered in a contest to win a pair, perhaps the friend who posted saw a promoted and paid for tweet on twitter that came right to the top of their feed but was camouflaged enough to appear and feel real, as if it were there friend posting about it. The communities that are built on facebook are unique in that they are built on a level of trust and commonality. People flock to fan pages of Coca-Cola because they love the brand, the product and what it stands for. Coca-Cola is now their "friend" and no longer are they just an out of sight corporate hound. Coca-Cola has the ability to become "translucent" and talk with their customer as a opposed to "shouting" at them through ads and other commercial advertising.

While Coca-Cola having a fanpage and assimilating into our newsfeed on facebook feels very new media and fresh -- it's actually something we have seen before. Think about magazines and those advertisements that are meant to look like articles and only until you read that fine print "PAID ADVERTISEMENT" at the bottom are you aware that it is what it is. Even in TV commercials, instead of being a plain, dry advertisement, most ad agencies tune into the senses, effectively humor, and mask their ad as entertainment. If the ad is successful, it may even become viral on the internet and be watching millions upon millions of times because it's funny, while also selling the product (i.e. superbowl ads)

Last week we starting talking about emotional vs logical appeal in marketing and I wanted to read more about this. I thought about how it would apply to facebook and online marketing and what kind of appeal certain products have on the consumer when they are hidden in the newsfeed amongst our "friends." Just thinking off the top of my mind, I would say that  majority of online advertising appeals to the the emotional aspect rather than logical on facebook, twitter, and YouTube. Right away I would argue that the advertising is predominantly emotional because so much of social media is emotional. One friend is "in a relationship," another is furious with her parents, another is loving a movie trailer, another is playing a farm game -- everything we do on facebook and twitter is wrought with emotion so seeing an ad in the form of a post on facebook would need to tap into that emotional sense in order to feel real.

Emotional & Logial Appeal article:
http://www.orwig.net/articles/rational_emotl/rational_emotl.html

To Be Continued...

China and Social Networking

Social Networking in China? You better believe it. We know that China has strict firewalls and severely limits the free flow of information online. Compared to the United States, the internet in China is like a caged animal; it has the potential to become a huge global competitor, but within it's constrained walls, it can only grow so much. However, that growth is not to be underestimated -- it's housed in quite a large cage after all and the billions of people who inhabit China are hungry for a little online mingling of their own.

There are four major social networks in China. Renren, an almost carbon copy of facebook but with some key differences, Qzone, the nickname based social network, Pengyou and Kaixin, the two small social networks with less than 100 million active users. There's even a Chinese equivalent to the micro-blogging service, Twitter, called Sina Weibo. I found it interesting that there is such a large amount of competition in China for the social networks. And yes, I'm calling five competitors "large" because compared to the United States, where we loose competitors in major markets fairly quickly and always have one or two dominating (see the media conglomerates, the social networks, and now even the cell phone service providers with the recent merger between AT&T and T-Mobile), five social networks with hundreds of millions of users is true competition. Perhaps the reasoning behind the high number of networks is because they all serve a different demographic and need. See the below chart for a clear break down of such:

It is interesting to note that renren was actually started by a few University of Delaware students who developed this version of facebook for China. I was fascinated to learn just how closely related the social network renren is to our well-known facebook. Renren actually takes all of it's cues from facebook and includes familiar features such as "liking," "poking," the infamous relationship status, "the wall," just to name a few. However there are some differences. One I found particularly interesting is that if a company wants to have a fanpage on renren, they need to pay upwards of $90,000 for one. $90,000. And well known American companies like Nike have agreed to pay up.

It's no secret that China heavily controls the internet, but just how much is it? According to this 2005 article from the Guardian, there are over 30,000 Internet police who troll social networks, blogs, online chat rooms, text messages -- you name it -- for any disseminating language against the government, hints at organizing a political revolution, and basically anything they feel poses a threat to the powers at throne.

In 1996, China's Central government released a new set of regulations for computer information over the internet. The first, perhaps most remarkable regulation states: “No units or individuals are allowed to establish direct international connection by themselves.” (Item 6) “All direct linkage with the Internet must go through ChinaNet, GBNet, CERNET orCSTNET. A license is required for anyone to provide Internet access to users.” (Item 8) The second regulation was the Ordinance for Security Protection of Computer Information Systems. It was issued on 18 February 1994 by the State Council to give the responsibility of Internet security protection to the Ministry of Public Security, which is entitled to “supervise, inspect and guide the security protection work”, and to “investigate and prosecute illegal criminal cases." The government also backed up these new regulations with saying that "in order to strengthen the security and the protection of computer information networks and of the internet, and to preserve the social order and social stability, these regulations have been established..."

There is a laundry list of "DO NOT's" under section five of the New Internet Regulations, stating that "no unit or individual may use the internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the state, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities."Let's just talk about what China is afraid of: (1) harming national security -- like the recent and ongoing and future revolutions we are witnessing in the Middle East, (2) harming the interests of the state -- like when Obama took to his facebook page to talk about Don't Ask Don't Tell and received a bevy of mixed replies, could this then be harming the interests of the state? (3) harming the legal rights of citizens -- I'm not even going to touch this one because I'm not quite sure what the legal rights for Chinese citizens even are, and finally (4) taking part in criminal activity -- like the thousands of craigslist hoaxes that go on yearly, like the internet scam sites that we've heard about on the nightly news, and even WikiLeaks could be considered criminal activity.

Wikileaks is interesting to look at here because it's the exact type of uprising from the people that China is working so hard to prevent. Notably, the reaction of our government to Wikileaks is eerily in line with the New Internet Regulations of China; it's almost like they took cues from it.

So then, yes, there are four or five major social networks in China, but they are heavily monitored while appearing to mimic the "freedom" of facebook and twitter in the United States (even though we know they are not that free to begin with). I know I don't really think twice about what I post on facebook besides maintaining my own moral values and staying aware of what others may or may not take offense to, but I can't imagine a reality in which the internet is not a free-flowing portal of information as it, for the most part, is in the United States and many other countries around the World.

There is obviously a plethora of information about the censoring in China and this post only scrapes the top of a large heap of material. More to come on this fascinating topic...

Reflections on the Mirror of the Media

Reflections on the Mirror of the Media

Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.

Fordham University

17 March 2011

Human beings are remarkably predictable. Throughout history, we have, again and again marveled – or trembled -- at our own technological innovations, certain that this time , at last, we’ve come up with the ultimate solution to our problems, or have finally ushered in our inevitable downfall. We either cheer or run in fear. And, we usually do both, in an age-old yin/yang dance of utopian and dystopian discourse that can be heard with the invention of each new channel of communication.

Evgeny Morozov’s sobering observations, in The Net Delusion , on the dark side of digital communication, are an important wake-up call for those of us prone to techno-romanticism and cyber-utopianism. Of course, he’s right. It makes perfect sense that centralized, authoritarian governments can take full advantage of the internet for their purposes, just as would-be revolutionaries can use it for theirs. It is naïve, and indeed foolish, for those of us who imagine ourselves to be on the side of freedom to think that these technologies can only be used to liberate. Binary code knows no political philosophy.

Computers do not have a bias towards or against particular forms of government. Giving everyone a user name and a social network account does not mean that democracy – or capitalism—will automatically follow. Indeed, the case could be made that if anything, networked communication might tend towards a sort of ‘hive-mind’, a Borg-like collective consciousness as envisioned in Star Trek, a state of cyber-sharing in which there is no privacy, everyone’s location is known at all times, and all information is pooled for the ‘good of the whole’. In that case, China, with its emphasis on the priority of the group over the individual, may in the end find that the interconnectedness of the internet is ultimately quite compatible with their political philosophy. What better way to reach the entire nation with what we, in the West would see as ‘Chinese propaganda’?

It is, obviously, disappointing, for those with technophilic tendencies, to have to recognize, as Morozov so effectively argues, that social media and the internet can be used by dictators in chilling ways for frightening purposes. Upon any serious consideration, this becomes immediately obvious. The interesting question is: why would we imagine it could be otherwise? Why do so many, in the West, almost automatically expect that communication technologies are inherently liberating? There is, in fact, abundant evidence to the contrary.

History makes it clear that new communication technologies can be used for ill as well as for good. Even more troublesome, what one nation might see as an oppressive use of media might be seen by another nation as good common sense. Propaganda can just as easily be produced by democratic, capitalist governments as dictatorial ones, and indeed, one could argue (and many have) that one of the main functions of mass mediated culture both within America, and exported around the world, is to promote ‘our way of life’. It is no secret that the United States government has long made use of the (once new) technology of broadcasting to help spread democratic ideals around the world. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, funded by the U.S. Congress, established during the Cold War, and still in operation in many nations, is seen by many as a liberating force, a positive use of communication technologies to aid in the cause of freedom.

As Americans, we like to imagine such uses of radio – or indeed Facebook or Twitter -- as benign, or helpful ‘intervention’. According to this view, propaganda is what ‘the bad guys’ do. We disseminate information. They brainwash their people. But imagine our reaction if China or Iran set up a broadcasting system aimed at the U.S. to help ‘liberate’ Americans from our capitalist, secular ‘oppression’? Why is it that when ‘we’ use communication technologies towards ‘our’ own ends, we see it as a liberating, but if ‘the other side’ takes advantage of the reach of new media, we tend to see it as manipulative and repressive? Why is it that very same government (ours) that claims to be in favor of a ‘free and open internet’ was not more grateful to Julian Assange for his use of Wikileaks, to help create an even MORE open flow of information on the internet? Freedom of speech, it seems, is ever a relative concept, as are the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ uses of communication technologies.

In the now classic text , Four Theories of the Press, (Siebert, et al, 1956), the basic argument is as follows: Governments around the world use the media in ways that are consistent with, and an extension of, the basic assumptions and goals of their national political philosophy. This, of course, makes perfect sense. Given the power and reach of the tools of mass – and now social – media, those in power would want to see these channels used to support the aims of the nation. It has long been thus. The first book published on the new printing press, in the 1450’s, was a Bible. At that time, the Church and State were joined, and so it was only fitting for the leaders of Germany to use the remarkable device of mass printing to disseminate the faith. Ever since then, governments and religious institutions around the world have employed the available tools of communication to help reinforce their power. One approach is to censor any dissenting voices. Another is to use the media to help shape the worldview of the public. This can take the form of propaganda, or it can take another form, one that at first seems more benign.

In his discussion of the current nature of the internet in Russia , Mozorov observes that “simply opening up the information gates will not erode modern authoritarian regmines, in part because they have learned to function in an environment marked by the abundance of information.” (Mozorov, chapter two, emphasis added). It seems that the Kremlin has learned much from studying American media. Apparently, a popular internet television program currently produced by Russia.ru (supported by the Russian government) is a program with the catchy title of “The Tits Show”, which features a “horny and slightly overweight young man, traveling around Moscow nightclubs in search of perfect breasts’”. Not surprisingly, the show has an enthusiastic following.

In the 19^th century, Karl Marx warned of the role of religion as a ‘opiate’ to the masses. In the 20^th century, neo-Marxist scholars theorized that commercial media, in the US and in Capitalist nations around the world, serve to keep the ‘workers of the world’ narcotized on dreams of salvation through consumerism. In the 21^st century, it seems, the latest drug of choice is digital distraction. One of the least expensive (and least violent) ways to prevent political uprising is to keep the population amused – with ‘bread and circuses’, or in this case, with tits and vodka. No need to blanket the nation with formal political propaganda. Just feed them eye candy. Combine that with news stories framed in a manner that serves the interests of the nation, and an educational system that discourages individual thinking, and you’ve got an easy way to keep people tranquil.

In addition, the reality is that many people are not driven by dreams of revolution. As disappointing as it may be for the cyber-utopians among us, according to Mozorov, “the most popular internet searches on Russian search engines are not for “what is Democracy” or “how to protect human rights”, but for “What is love?” and “How to lose weight” (Mozorov chapter three). Working toward political and economic transformation is hard work, and political blogs are not light reading. Why do we expect that people in other countries are busy blogging their way towards freedom when so many of us fail to do the same? Clearly, millions of Americans have access to Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, but we often seem far more interested in sharing silly cat videos, tweeting our whereabouts, and gaping at at celebrity meltdowns than in examining the role of the US in perpetuating various forms of oppression around the world, or rising in revolution against the excesses of Wall Street.

So we return to the question: Why do so many academics, journalists and policy makers in the West, almost automatically expect that communication technologies are inherently liberating? Why is Washington passionately pursuing a new doctrine of ‘internet freedom’? Why do we hear so much talk of the “Twitter Revolutions” sweeping the Middle East? Why do we love telling the story that all we need is the right technological solution to social problems?

The world faces many challenges. Solving them will take hard work and much cooperation. In listening to predictable, repeating patterns of technophilic rhetoric that so often accompanies the arrival of new media, it seems that we are waiting for the solutions to be delivered to us from the outside. Whether we expect we will be delivered by a Diety, or transformed by technology, we have, for so long, seen the answers as coming from without, not from within. Perhaps we project our most inspired yearnings and longings onto the machines… imaging that they can save us from ourselves. We peer into the mirror of the media, hoping to find in their screens a reflection of our highest selves. But like any good looking glass, the media reflect all sides of human nature, as we are, not just our brightest visions of who we could be. Communication technologies don’t have an inherent bias to liberate or oppress. The hard truth is that the media are neither good nor bad. It’s all there, because it’s all in us. In the end, the media can be no more or no less than we are. We are the handles of our tools. How we use them is our choice.

All of Our Eggs in the Cyber Basket

"Although virtually limitless in their power, our technologies are tools without handles." Langdon Winner

The revolutions we are witnessing happen in the middle east undeniably use modern technology and social networking as a tool for their upheaval. Dr. Jackaway talks about the word revolution and the various connotations, one on a political level and another on a social and societal level of change and shift in technology. However, perhaps now we see a new definition of revolution, one that directly relates to these "online revolutions" that are so widely talked about now in the middle east; a type of revolution that is congruently societal, social (media) and political. But notice that I didn't just say "social" or "political" or "societal;" it is important to see that the revolutions currently in Libya, Iran in 2009, and in Egypt in January 2011 are all the result of a mixture of these factors, a "perfect storm" of technology, people, and the tactics employed.

Evgeny Morozov, author of "The Net Delusion" talks about cyber-utopianism, "a naive belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rets on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the downside" (xiii). There are those who attribute the majority of the success in the revolutions in the middle east on the internet and are inherently technological determinists or as Morozov might say, "cyber utopianists." Morozov seems to be implying that we may be so wrapped up in the glitz and trend of the internet and social media that we turn a blind eye to some of the negative truth it also holds. While I won't delve into those "negative truths" (the opposition to revolutionaries, cyber crime, pornography), it is interesting to note that they do exist and they are also exist because of the internet.

In the 2009 Iran protests, US State Department officials sent an email to the powers behind Twitter asking them to reschedule previously scheduled maintenance on their site so as not to disrupt the Iranian protests (Morozov, 9). Here we have an example of western government, intervening with private business ventures and "requesting" that they sustain their services and perform maintenance at a later date. Although Twitter did comply, they made it clear in an open letter that it was based off their own discretion and not the result of the impeding powers of our government. What would have happened if Twitter did perform their maintenance in the height of the protests? How would the US government have responded? Would the protests in Iran just stop? What if hackers got into facebook during the Egypt protests and revolution and shut down their infamous facebook page? Would Mubarak still be in power? Would the streets around Tahrir Square be docile and typical? We all have the tendency to place an extreme amount of power and authority in social media and new internet technologies (I'm guilty of it myself) and we become disillusioned with the reality and causality of revolution.

Langdon Winner presents the antithesis of what our informed and critical public seems to believe. The US State Department sees Twitter as a revolutionary powerhouse when, as Morozov reports, there were less than 20,000 Twitter accounts registered in Iran during the 2009 elections, making up less that .30% of the entire population; that's less than HALF a percent. Were these Twitter accounts truly the driving forces of the revolution? As Morozov posits, no, it wasn't nor could it have been.

When I started reading "The Net Delusion" I wasn't sure how I felt toward Morozov's ideas and strong views about the internet and authoritarian governments. I was a little turned off by his verbiage and one-sided arguments about cyber-utopianism (although impeccably astute). However, as I continued through the introduction and first chapter, his argument opened up my mind to the reality of how our society, government and western world view new media technologies. Perhaps we are too caught up with the trendy nature of social media, our smart phones, and the internet. Does social media really play such a large role in the revolutions in the middle east? Would there still be people who show up to our birthday parties if they weren't publicized on facebook? It almost seems a little naive to think that the internet is now the godfather of revolution and non-mediated organization. The internet is in fact a tool, but as Jackaway analogised, merely having a gym membership will not get us in shape or buff, we need to do the physical work involved and more importantly, show up; the internet is there for our use, but it is the person, humanity, that decides how they will use it and for what.

We see tweets about revolution make the news, showing us that there is a political discussion occuring online. Tweets like those from oxfordgirl, a popular twitter user brought to our attention by Morozov who describes herself as: "I am writer, journalist and I dabble in politics. Yes I am a girl, I was born in Iran and the avatar is Colonel Mohammad Taghi Pessian, a great Iranian Hero."

As Morozov implies, oxfordgirl did an excellent job of providing up-to-the-minute information about the revolutions in Iran, but she played no role in the actual revolutions themselves. Perhaps "we" (the media) are too caught up in what is said on Twitter and Facebook versus what actually occurs. It almost seems unorthodox to make statements like Twitter is the vehicle for the revolutions in Iran and Facebook in Egypt. Do we have hard evidence for such causality? Although I may be playing devil's advocate here, I am interested in further study of this. Our news media has a great influence on society and puts a lot of thoughts into our heads. If CNN were to show a tweet from oxfordgirl on the news, some may think she is headlining the social revolution, secretly delegating revolutionary plans and tactics when she is merely an information hub with a large following. 

Again, Jackaway makes a valid point about these devices for causality (smartphones, social media), saying that if there truly is such an inherent power within these devices, then we should be focusing our attention to the distribution of such in all people in oppressed nations. But we all know that's not happening. We have a dichotomy; on one side our government and society places a colossal power on new media technology and social networking, saying that facebook and twitter are necessary tools for revolution in the middle east, while on the other side there is little action to support that claim. 

Perhaps we have gotten ahead of ourselves with new media (I am kicking myself writing this). Yes, the internet and social media are here to stay, but are we treating them appropriately? The more credit and power we place on and give to technology the more we take away from people, society, and human nature. Why, in a western society that thrives on democracy and free-speech, do we place so much power in technology and new media? We are almost going backwards, while tricking ourselves into thinking we are moving forwards and towards "the future." Will then, "the future" consist of holograms of ourselves crafted on facebook and twitter fighting in Tahrir Square? Those who are technologically determinant are inevitably (and perhaps subconsciously) making the argument that the human race has no power nor ability to convene and organize for great things on their own, when in fact it was humans who created the technology in the first place! To really see the true nature of what is happening, we need to take a step back from technology, remove ourselves from the digital realm of communication, and only then will we be able to understand that is the the people who make things happen, not the technology. 

New Media, Revolutions, and the Search for Causality

Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Communication and Media Studies

Fordham University

Was it the new technologies or was it the brave revolutionaries? Was it the synchronous interconnectivity, or the young tech savvy organizers? Is it the power of the tool or spirit of those who use it? Will the ‘Facebook and Twitter effect’ continue to spread across the Middle East? Will the successful use of networked communication to organize political resistance in the Arab world inspire similar uprisings against repressive governments worldwide? Will authoritarian political systems increasingly resort to 'turning off' the internet to instantaneously shut down dissent ? Are these new developments in communication to be hailed or feared?

These and many other questions are currently being explored in a seemingly endless stream of discussion taking place in meetings, in classrooms, in a myriad of forms on-line, in blogs, in youtube videos, on talk radio and television news, in magazine essays, newspaper op ed pieces, and even in the pages of those ancient communication devices…. books. We are in the midst of an international conversation about the role of communication technologies as catalysts for change. It’s a conversation that we seem to have each time a new medium achieves widespread adoption. There were similar discussions about the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the television....It’s a conversation about technology and causality. It’s a conversation about change. It’s a conversation about human nature. It’s a conversation about revolution and the factors necessary to bring about true transformation.

The word, revolution, describes a powerful and significant change. On a political level, the term is generally reserved for a dramatic overthrow of one governmental system in favor of another. On a social or philosophical level, revolution is also used to describe “a dramatic and wide-ranging change in the way something works or is organized, or in people’s ideas “ (New Oxford American Dictionary). Whether we welcome or fear revolution, of course, is directly related to whether we feel that the world should work towards or should guard against change.

We humans have a curious relationship to change. We hunger for, and fear it, often at the same time. Often, whether we welcome change or work to fight against it depends a great deal on our views about the present. As Adam Gopnik observes in the New Yorker, If all you have is a hammer, the saying goes, everything looks like a nail; and, if you think the world is broken, every machine looks like the hammer that broke it. When we are opposed to the current arrangement of things, of course, we tend to side with revolutionaries, and see the tools they wield as welcome aids in a worthy cause. On the other hand, when we want to preserve things as they are (such as “our way of life” ) or wish to return to the ways of the past, then we fear the revolutionaries and their tools look like weapons.

We are interested in questions of causality as part of our endless quest for control. If we long for change, then we want to figure out how to ‘cause’ it. So, for example, if new communication technologies can be used to help cause political revolution, then: let’s give smart phones to people in oppressed nations everywhere. If, on the other hand, we want to prevent upheaval and chaos: let's approve the use of an 'internet kill switch', if necessary, to preserve order and stability.

The search for a clear cut and well define ‘cause’ of revolution is tantalizing. If we can only identify the ‘independent variable’, we like to imagine, then we can control the rate and pace of change. We can help to bring about change, or try to block it. The thing about real revolutions, true transformations -- whether on the deeply personal level or on the most public, political level, is that they don’t happen overnight. Real, lasting change, true revolution, takes deep commitment. The people involved must have passion, will, commitment, drive and perseverance. Under the right conditions, with enough key interlocking variables in place, social media may indeed be helpful in galvanizing political protest. Much like an joining a gym or buying an exercise bike might help someone kick start a diet, the technologies of synchronous networked communication may provide momentum. But the gym membership doesn't do the heavy lifting, and the bike doesn't peddle itself.

In the end, sparking a revolution may turn out to have been the easy part. Keeping the change going, especially when people are trying to overthrow years of patriarchal, authoritarian theocracy, for example, will take hard work and much dedication. There will, inevitably, be push back. People who have long held power don’t usually go quietly. The people of the Middle East, and in developing nations around the world, are going to need more than just Twitter accounts and Facebook pages to find their way to their own version of popular sovereignty (if that is, in fact what they want). In the end, thoughts are bigger than the things that deliver them. Although aspiring revolutionaries in developing nations may find it helpful to have access to the new tools of social media, they are likely to discover that in order to achieve lasting change in their nations, they’ll need other things as well, including: a clear political and philosophical perspective, a practical plan, sustained passion, the right timing, and most likely, a great deal of patience.

GLJ, 2/27/11

The Social Tools for a Revolution

2011 has had a tumultuous start for some parts of the Middle East. We've seen a sort of domino effect of revolutions occurring in Tunisia, and then Egypt, Iran, Bahrain & most recently, Libya. Interestingly, many argue that the "backbone" of these revolutions has been social media powerhouse tools like facebook and twitter. However, there is a dichotomy here: some say that facebook and twitter are not the sole reason for revolution, arguing that it's not just facebook and twitter but the power of real-time networked communication, and others say that the fearless bravery of the revolutionaries is what accounts for the success of the revolution. However, no matter what side you see truth in, it is undeniably true that social media is playing a major role in these revolutions and notes a interesting developing relationship between social media (or real-time networked communication tools), the government, and revolutionary leaders.

"It couldn't have been done without Facebook & Twitter"

That's been the argument from many of the fearless and modest revolutionaries in Egypt over the past several weeks. According to a CNN report, many of the revolutionaries in Egypt give credit to facebook, stating that it was the "crucial element" for the success of the revolution. This has been the tone of most Egyptian revolutionaries and citizens. While they don't deny the power of people, they have seemingly named facebook as their sole reason for achieving action, justice, and the mass number of people who became involved in this cause.  

After reading so much about these revolutionary events, I've noticed a pattern on the point of views on the situation. Those who were directly involved in the revolution in Egypt (the revolutionary leaders and the people of Egypt) seem to play the role of a martyr, not giving themselves much credit beyond showing up, while the brains behind the social tools they used, like facebook and twitter, argue that their platforms are not the reason for this uprising and that it was the bravery of the people that truly fueled the cause. So where do we see truth and what does this all mean? Is this a customary and polite argument to the tune of "thank you -- no, thank you -- no, please, thank YOU" or is there really a split between what is truly believed to be root of the success of this revolution? 

Real-Time Networked Communication

"It seems clear that social media has played a key role in getting the word out, and in helping organizers plan their protests. In the end, it’s not about Twitter or Facebook: it’s about the power of real-time networked communication." -Matthew Ingram

Perhaps facebook and twitter did place extreme momentum in the revolutions we've seen in Egypt, however, what if we de-brand the situation and look at the root of the technolog? What the internet has done, and is still making in advancements in, is closing the gap between asynchronous and synchronous communication within the realm of new media technologies. We remember when email started; it was an asynchronous technology that allowed us for the first time ever to submit messages to each other (across the country) digitally. When this technology was first introduced, and for the first decade and a half or so of email's presence, it was primarily asynchronous and we didn't see any social stands enacted of timely replies until the introduction of smart phones, laptops, and other mobile communication devices. Moving past email -- social media, instantaneous messaging services like BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), which provides perhaps the most synchronous chat experience, letting the users know when each person has read the message, is currently typing the message, and has sent the message, twitter, and advancements in already established technologies (like the real-time search on Google), have changed the playing field dramatically and established a new standard for synchronous, real-time networked communication technology.

Text messages. Facebook wall posts. Tweets. Blog posts. Real-time search. The ability to communicate on a synchronous level while being mobile has given the ordinary person extraordinary power and the ability to assemble, disseminate information, and take action as if they were secret CIA agents. Like magazines, newspapers, billboards, and television news programs, social networking is essentially about spreading information and coordinating action (It’s Not Twitter or Facebook, It’s the Power of the Network). Take away the idea that "social networking" means a laptop and a facebook account and pretend it's 1950. Social networking takes on a whole other meaning, the authentic meaning. Social networking is merely the action of people talking, sharing information, and as Ingram states, assembling & coordinating action -- whether online or off. So then take away the idea of facebook when we say social networking, and insert the idea of real-time networked communication technology -- that, for many, is where the power lies in these revolutions we've seen over the past few months.

Social Media, the Government & Revolutionary Leaders

If the aforementioned is true, than the internet and real-time networking via the internet is a major, if not vital, element in the revolutions in the middle east. On January 27, 2011, the Egyptian government, namely Hosni Mubarak, responded by turning off the internet. An action that is seemingly as simple as flipping a switch turned the nation upside and fueled protest two-fold. Christopher Mims notes in his article in MIT's Technology Review that

"What makes communication and community building so powerful on the Internet is its public nature -- everyone who is similarly disaffected can find common cause. But for precisely the same reason, the Internet can make it apparent to authorities who should be locked up first; indeed, simple network analysis of the sort regularly conducted by academics could even grant oppressive regimes deep insight into who are the leaders, or the most influential communicators, for nascent movements."

The government knows that people are assembling and plotting via social tools (and the mere nature and ability of the internet) and sees them as an incredible threat. We now see, in the most recent revolutionary efforts in Libya, revolutionaries again pouring into the streets to fight for democracy. Libya, most likely taking cues from its neighbors, has shut down the internet for two full days as of today, in order to stop protestors from overthrowing the long time Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. It is interesting to note that governments in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and the other countries we've seen revolutionary efforts in, did not say that weapons are illegal, did not say that violence is now illegal, but they instead directly shut-down the internet, which has proven to be perhaps the most dangerous weapon of them all. 

We must remember that facebook, twitter and real-time communication technologies are tools and like traditional tools, can be used in a number of different fashions, whether helpful or not, proactive or not, or used to assemble or not. It is clear that the inherent power of social media and the internet has truly been released and shown how effective they truly can be. The revolutionaries in Egypt will tell you that facebook caused Mubarak to step down and facebook c-level managers will tell you it was the bravery of the fearless leaders. We are witnessing the future of new media technologies and real-time communication right now and for the first time in history, we see the drastic and monumental effect they can have within a non-mediated cyberspace.