There has been a recent outcry of protest and revolt in Egypt and much of the protest and rioting is all thanks to new media (hence the government block on the internet). According to CNN (and a multitude of other credible sources), there is a facebook page that is devoted to the planning and support of the protest that took place on January 25 and has nearly 100,000 members. The foundation for the protests in Egypt is the internet, facebook, twitter, and other forms of new media (cell networks, blogging). Twitter even provided some help to the victims of the protest, "One tweeter advised people how to wash tear gas from their faces, and warned people to avoid wearing contact lenses during the protests. "Spit, blow your nose, rinse out your mouth, gargle. Do eyewash from inside to outside with your head tilted to side," the tweet said" (CNN article).
While I don't want to venture too deep into the topic of "new media in developing countries" just yet, this theme of building community via the internet and social networking is one that did not originate in foreign countries. In fact, we see examples of this every single day -- just look at your events calendar on facebook, meetup, or an evite you get via email. People create these events on facebook (birthday parties, forums, potluck dinners, holiday parties, etc.) and people show up, in-person to these events.
Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, opens up his book with a story about a stolen Sidekick cellphone. In May of 2006, Ivanna left her phone in the backseat of a cab, just like thousands of other New Yorkers that year, and went through the harrowing process of getting it back. Unfortunately for Ivanna, her process was not any easier, and perhaps even harder, than any one else's. Upon calling her cellphone provider, she discovered that the phone was found and actually was being used by a young girl named Sasha. When Ivanna reached out to Sasha to get the phone back, Sasha was less than willing and made up a story about how she got the phone. Unwilling to put up with the lies and acting on his frustration, Ivanna's boyfriend, Evan, created a basic website explaining the story, posting accounts of what had happened, and even pictures of Sasha, retrieved from her Myspace page.
After being live for a few days, Evan started to receive hundreds of emails, at times he even got 10 emails a minute, "from people asking about the phone, offering encouragement, or volunteering to help" (Shirky, 3). You'd think there would be a happy ending next -- but such was not the case. As the support grew stronger, Evan's site began to attract media attention from CNN and other news outlets, yet Sasha was not showing any signs of returning the phone to Ivanna. Eventually the phone did get returned, but only after the NYPD was "forced" to change the case from a "lost" to "stolen" phone.
The remarkable theme of the story is the community that developed online and resulted in in-person action. If it were not for Evan's website and the surprising number of hits, forum participants, and media attention that it received, Ivanna's phone would still be "lost." Just like the facebook page for the protest in Egypt, any online community can spark non-mediated results.
In an interview with a reporter, Sasha's mother told the reporter "I never in my life thought a phone was gonna cause me so many problems" (Shirky, 6). Shirky goes on to explain how it's not the phone that caused the problem in the first place, but in fact it was Sasha who withheld the phone and did not return it, even when she knew who it truly belonged to. This is a clear example of technological vs. social determinism (and an interesting one at that). The fact that the phone was the center of the problem, meaning that it was the stolen DEVICE, does not mean that the phone itself is the root of the problem. Let's go back in time 50 years or so. We don't have cell phones or the internet and if you started a conversation about "Twitter" with someone they would probably suggest you undergo psychiatric evaluation. If Sasha found a book under a tree and kept it for herself even after she saw posters around town advertising a "lost book," would Sasha's mother react the same way? What if the book was a cup of water? A shoe? A piece of cake? A hair clip? A car tire? You can place the blame on whatever you want--but the truth is that the immoral act by Sasha would be the same and take on the saem consequences in every situation, whether it was a phone or a shoe. People like to place a lot of blame and attention (both negative and positive) on new media, specifically when there is a large incident like the protests in Egypt or Evan's website making headlines.
So what does this all mean?
In her introduction to Alone Together, Sherry Turkle suggests that the internet and social media connects us "when we wish" and gives us the ability to "disengage at will" (Turkle, 13). She goes on to say that while Skype is in fact a revolutionary way of connecting to each other, people are likely to multitask and check emails or facebook, etc. while they are having the video-chat with a loved one -- presenting the idea of "alone together." This idea of being "alone together" is valid -- I've sat in many classrooms where all of the students are looking at anything other than their notes and the professor ends up teaching to about 3% of the students (I make up part of that percentage :). That's a prime example of being "alone together." However, perhaps those students who are "alone" are actually "together" with other people on the net. In the case of Sasha, maybe they were checking in on the status of the stolen phone and offering support on the forums. Perhaps, if they are Egyptian, they were helping to organize the protest for January 25. To offer my own (somewhat radical) argument: In any "normal," non-mediated situation involving a large group of people, there will always be people who are not really "there." Sure it's not as easy to mentally check-out by checking your email or facebook, but who really cares? If you don't want to be there and you're not finding yourself fulfilled, you should be doing something else (assuming this is an out-of-school type of situation; i.e. a party, or a conversation).
Why should we live life forced to participate in social interactions that we don't want to? It's not paying taxes and it's not going to work -- it's a social interaction. If social media and the internet expands our ability to interact with people who talk about things we want to hear and give us the type of feedback we want to receive, why shouldn't we take advantage of this and rally an online community? Barack Obama might not have been elected into office if it weren't for the help of the power of social media (and...perhaps what he stands for) and the protests in Egypt might not be getting as much media attention as it is if it weren't for social media (that's actually almost 100% certain given the circumstance of the Egyptian gov't banning the internet). Perhaps what this all means is that we have a new definition of community to add to the list, one that involves, and inherently relies on, the internet and social media to start, and go on to thrive, and that's OK. Change is unavoidable and destined to occur so why try and fight it? You don't fight having to go to the bathroom when you have to, right? It's just a part of your life. And so is change.
