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.