IMAGINE that you've captured a video or took a picture of an incident of repression by members of security force or anyone else. You upload it on YouTube or Facebook and post the link on Twitter. If the video or the picture is worth watching, your friends or followers would 'like' it, comment on it and share it with their friends. The process of sharing would go on network after network. What could happen? Your uploaded local or personal content could become truly global within a few days.
This is what happened when the Egyptian police beat and killed Khaled Mohamed Saeed. After the death of this young businessman in June 2010, a Facebook group titled 'We Are All Khaled Saeed' was created. Gradually, this group became one important platform to criticise the repression of the Egyptian government. Subsequently, it managed to gather 400000 members. The group called for a protest on 25 January and we all know what happened next. Later, it was revealed that Wael Ghonim, the Middle East and North African marketing manager at Google, had created the group. Another important contribution to the social media platform came from the April 6 movement led by Aasma Mahfouz.
These types of incidents were not seen before. They clearly indicate a new force in politics—the social media. Yes, the use of propaganda during war and peace is not new. We saw waves of information war between socialist and capitalist blocks during the cold war. It is still happening in the media to serve particular national or group interest. In this regard, the power of the Jewish lobby often comes to discussion.
But, what is different here is the message coming from the bottom. You can control a media house but you cannot control hundreds of thousands of minds meeting and sharing on Facebook or Twitter. The scenes and words from the protest events are being spread all over the world within seconds even before being the reported of any TV channel.
One Egyptian activist tweeted during the protests, 'We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.' A video clip uploaded on YouTube, shot from the balcony of a flat in Cairo, showed protesters out in the streets and a man standing in front of a water cannon, daring it to move. Such dramatic scenes transmitted all over the world through social media attracted the attention of the global community.
According to Al Jazeera, 'New media, from WikiLeaks to Facebook, Twitter to YouTube, is persistently challenging the traditional flow of information, and cyber disobedience is exposing powerful governments. Websites are now being treated like hostile territories; whistleblowers and leakers as terrorists, and hackers as insurgents.' An analysis at DAWN regarding the protesters writes, 'In fact they are fighting their war with phones, not guns. WikiLeaks, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook replace firearms and missiles. Viral spreads across the world are winning sympathies of the people and the governments for the revolutionists. 'Techno-realism' has become an affordable and effective tool as measures of the dictatorial regimes to suppress communication via web meets failure.'
We should not forget one thing. These social media outlets are not catalysts for revolution; they are just means or tools. People have real grievances due to unemployment, government repression, lack of social services, etc. Social media have become an excellent non-violent weapon to fight to attain the demands.
The internet in general and the social media in particular have become a force against governments, especially where freedom to expression is not permitted. Even the preacher of the freedom of expression, the US government, was exposed bare in front of the world through WikiLeaks. Governments do not sit idle either. During protests, all Facebook accounts in Tunisia were hacked and in Egypt the internet was shut down in most parts of the country. Apprehensive of the danger of this new weapon, Chinese, Iranian and other many governments practice harsh control over the internet.
The Chinese government hired a group called '50 Cent Party' for writing pro-government comments in blogs and online forums. The Russian government is trying to hire bloggers. US state department has a Digital Outreach Team which is responsible for spreading US propaganda and fighting anti-US sentiments. It mainly works in the Arabic, Persian and Urdu blogosphere. Recently, the US military signed a contract with California-based company Ntrepid to develop a software which would allow manipulating conversations in social media sites.
Recent incidents brought to focus the issue of 'Internet Kill Switch.' If it is technologically possible for governments to shut down the internet single-handedly, the democratic pro-poor appeal of the new media will be scaled down. Governments may switch off the whole internet system in the name of cyber security. It may be a very important future electoral and legislative issue.
Let's finish with a bitter fact. According to a new survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, one in five American divorces involves the social networking site Facebook. A UK law firm last year showed that 20 per cent of its divorce petitioners blamed Facebook flings. Reverend Cedric Millier in a New Jersey church urged the people to close Facebook accounts as it helps create illegal relations. Later he was forced to take leave of absence when it was revealed that he himself had been involved with non-Facebook illegal sexual relationships. The social media has left impact on many parts of our life. It has created a virtual world where old school friends from different hemispheres may engage in gossiping. There is much debate regarding its social and psychological outcome on users. Like many other things in our life, social media is a tool which may bring peace or problem; it is the human consciousness which will ultimately choose from the diversity of options.
Source: New Age
No comments:
Post a Comment