By now you've heard how the State Department called up the Twitter guys and asked them to postpone scheduled maintenance to a time when it was less likely to interrupt Iranians’ use of Twitter. (I can see this going into the Twitter archives of history)..
And after several more days of post-election demonstrations, the web is afire with stories of how this uprising is different. Clay Shirky in a recent Q&A with TED, marveled how this is the Twitter revolution. “...This is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.” Sure Moldova is nothing compared to this: hundreds of thousands and the spark of rigged elections. This is a legit revolt spurred on by social media in many shades of spring green. Jack Shafer of Slate is less zealous, pointing out that when it comes to understanding the upheaval in Iran, Twitter is more “noise than signal”. Still others, like Morozov and Burton, have warned against the unintended consequences of the accelerated pace of long-distance activism and cyberwarfare without fully felt consequences.
The last revolution took a year to foment..But is this really any different than the long and sustained movements of the past? It is difficult to make broad assessments of how social media has changed or affected the events in Iran, events that with or without Twitter would surely have happened. For one thing, outright displays of consolidation of power are often met by opposing forces, and nothing congeals a population like denial of our rights to representation. No, whether the uprising would have happened is not the question after all, Tiananmen happened via fax machine and then there’s the chapattis from long ago. And today, largely, it’s whispers in the street that tell of meeting places..No, the question is how has social media like Twitter changed the parameters of a revolt that was bound to happen and more so, how is it changing “us”?
To be sure, social media tools and communication strategies have blurred the lines between spectator and participant; citizen and soldier. Most of us are now practicing some form of virtual engagement and humanitarianism, but often without knowing or feeling the outcomes and consequences on the other side. And this week, instructions were circulated largely through social media on how ordinary citizens could take action and “attack” Iranian government websites cyberspatially. Not only could we sit in the comfort of our own spaces and launch denial of service attacks against another government’s sites, many of us did so until we found out that this was actually affecting the ability of Iranians to gain web access during critical times..
Since much of this is being made up as we go, some crucial questions arise. As cyber war and the post-modern battlefield are an increasing reality, how are we as citizens to act? DoS is the same tactic that was used in Estonia. Can we use these tactics and then turn around and demand that civilians be protected against these tactics in times of war? Are we agreeing to wage guerilla warfare if we participate in Denial of Service attacks against a repressive regime? Or should these be considered non-hostile acts if they are perpetrated by civilians?
One thing is clear, extraordinary situations that cause us to question what is free or less free, push people to use every available tool that is around. Like all social media, the power of twitter lies in its decentralized nature and potential to organize mass groups who can then perform very individualized action on a very large, interconnected stage. If the cause and the issues fueling it are not there, the tools alone will not suffice...Or will they?
Through social media we are both shrinking and distilling personal-level action while expanding the reach of those actions..It is not inconceivable that the very nature of the debate changes when large numbers of “us” get involved in this way..The humanitarian aide community has long struggled with questions of the effects of their actions and mere presence changing the situtation in conflict areas, no matter how neutral the stance. As civic action grows in cyberspace, we need to turn similar lenses on ourselves and see what our actions or non-actions may bear.
But back to my original question, does utilizing social media such as Twitter change who we are, what we think and ultimately, what we do? Perhaps now, more than any time before, we are becoming true world citizens. And if so, how much are we basing our place in this world by what comes across our social media filters?
♦
DiggIt! ♦
Add to del.icio.us ♦
Add to Technorati Faves
Posts
