[P2P-F] update to zeynep's views on the role of social media in uprisings, the 'dictators dilemma'

[Michel Bauwens]

http://technosociology.org/?p=286

In another blog, Zeynep examines the internet's potential from the regime's
point of view, i.e. the 'dictator's dilemma':

"1- The capacities of the Internet that are most threatening to
authoritarian
regimes are not necessarily those pertaining to spreading of censored
information but rather its ability to support the formation of a
counter-public
that is outside the control of the state. In other words, it is not that
people
are waiting for that key piece of information to start their revolt–and that
information just happens to be behind the wall of censorship–but that they
are
isolated, unsure of the power of the regime, unsure of their position and
potential.
2- Dissent is not just about knowing what you think but about the formation
of a
public. A public is not just about what you know. Publics form through
knowing
that other people know what you know–and also knowing that they know what
you
know. (This point was developed through a Twitter discussion with Dave
Parry).
Yes, all those parts of the Web that are ridiculed by some of the critics of
Internet’s potential–the LOLcats, Facebook, the three million baby pictures,
the
slapstick, talking about the weather, the food and the trials and
tribulations
of life–are exactly the backbone of community, and ultimately the creation
of
public(s).
3- Thus, social media can be the most threatening part of the Internet to an
authoritarian regime through its capacity to create a public(ish) sphere
that is
integrated into everyday life of millions of people and is outside the
direct
control of the state partly because it is so widespread and partly because
it is
not solely focused on politics. How do you censor five million Facebook
accounts
in real time except to shut them all down?
4- The capacity to selectively filter the Internet is inversely proportional
to
the scale and strength of the dissent. In other words, regimes which employ
widespread legitimacy may be able to continue to selectively filter the
Internet. However, this is going to break down as dissent and unhappiness
spreads. As anyone who has been to a country with selective filtering knows,
most everyone (who is motivated enough) knows how to get around the censors.
For
example, in Turkey, YouTube occasionally gets blocked because of material
that
some courts have deemed as offensive to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founding
father of Turkey. I have yet to meet anyone in Turkey who did not know how
to
get to YouTube through proxies.
5- Thus, the effect of selective filtering is not to keep out information
out of
the hands of a determined public, but to allow the majority of ordinary
people
to continue to be able to operate without confronting information that might
create cognitive dissonance between their existing support for the regime
and
the fact that they, along with many others, also have issues. Meanwhile, the
elites go about business as if there was no censorship as they all know how
to
use work-arounds. This creates a safety-valve as it is quite likely that it
is
portions of the elite groups that would be most hindered by the censorship
and
most unhappy with it. (In fact, I have not seen any evidence that China is
trying to actively and strongly shut down the work-arounds.)
6- Social media is not going to create dissent where there is none. The
apparent
strength of the regime in China should not be understood solely through its
success in censorship. (And this is the kind of Net-centrism Morozov warns
against but that I think he sometimes falls into himself). China has
undergone
one of the most amazing transformations in human history. Whatever else you
may
say about the brutality of the regime, there is a reason for its continuing
legitimacy in the eyes of most of its people. I believe that the Chinese
people
are no less interested in freedom and autonomy than any other people on the
planet but I can also understand why they have, for the most part, appear to
have support for the status-quo even as they continue to have further
aspirations and desires.
7- Finally, during times of strong upheaval, as in Egypt, dictator’s dilemma
roars. The ability to ensure that their struggle and their efforts are not
buried in a deep pit of censorship, the ability to continue to have an
honest
conversation, the ability to know that others know what one knows all
combine to
create a cycle furthering dissent and upheaval. Citizen-journalism matters
most
in these scenarios as there cannot be reporters everywhere something is
happening; however, wherever something is happening there are people with
cell
phone cameras. Combined with Al-Jazeera re-broadcasting the fruits of
people-powered journalism, it all comes down to how much force the
authoritarian
state is willing and able to deploy – which in turn, depends on the
willingness
of the security apparatus. Here, too, social media matters because, like
everyone else, they too are watching the footage on Al-Jazeera. Their choice
is
made more stark by the fact that they know that history will judge them by
their
actions–actions which will likely be recorded, broadcast and be viewed by
their
citizens, their neighbors and their children and grandchildren."






-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110203/69a124d2/attachment.htm