How To Create Your Own Wrestling Name

Again, revolutions through the Internet?

from NZZ online, 8 2. 2011

politics by other means

Can social media promoting democracy?

Since the coups in Tunisia and Egypt is an intense discussion of whether social media can promote democracy. There is no clear answer to this question, however.

By Nico Luchsinger

«Niemand ist ein Held in dieser Revolution; denn alle sind Helden.» Damit begann Wael Ghonim vor einigen Tagen eine Rede in Kairo über den Umsturz, der dort zum Sturz des Regimes von Präsident Hosni Mubarak geführt hatte. Ghonim schien dabei zu ignorieren, dass zwischen seiner Aussage und seiner Präsenz auf der Bühne ein gewisser Widerspruch bestand: Denn Ghonim selbst, ein Marketing-Manager bei Google, der wegen seinen Online-Aktivitäten zwölf Tage lang von der ägyptischen Polizei festgehalten worden war, wurde zur Galionsfigur des Umsturzes. Dennoch waren sich die Medien, zumal die westlichen, am Tage nach Mubaraks Rücktritt einig: Der Erfolg des wochenlangen Protestes was not due to a charismatic leader - this was the "Facebook revolution." In the mantra-like repetition of this term is revealed his double meaning is meant not only was allegedly triggered by Facebook and other online platforms, political upheaval, but also cited by Facebook "revolution" in digital communication.

detailed discussions

The events in Tunisia and Egypt can inflame the debate about the political influence of social media in full. But the seemingly simple question - promotes the Internet is democracy or not? - Is complex and full of pitfalls. severed as the Egyptian regime in response to the protests all Internet access in the country, laid the two sides on their way. The fact that a regime is genötig feel to block its citizens access to the system shows the danger that constitute the Internet for authoritarian regimes, arguing that one. That the protests lost nothing in power, as the Egyptian lines were suddenly dead prove, but that the Internet play a crucial role, replied the other.

this case, not the two sides of the debate as far apart: In a online discussion of the British magazine The Economist on presented one of the participants, John Palfrey, discovered something surprising that he and his opponent in terms of content contrary only in details. And yet we come to very different conclusions. "Palfrey's not really satisfactory explanation for this was that he was holding an optimist.

His opponent in the online discussion, Evgeny Morozov , described Palfrey as "Internet centrist". Morozov used the term in his brief before the uprisings in the Middle East published book, "The Net Delusion," in which he argues that the democratic hopes that the West is in the Internet is not just excessive, but downright dangerous.

of breasts and policy

Free access to information to citizens of a country do not automatically politically active, Morozov argued. Either the simple and risk-free online activism would - as a matter has to support on Facebook - displace the actual offline activism simple. Or people would simply use the media access to entertainment and diversion. A study Morozov quoted extensively, claims to have found that access to Western television, the inhabitants of the GDR was less active politically. And in Russia, where Internet access is hardly limited, but would be good reason to resist the political leadership, would the network breasts discussed more intensively than politics.

Morozov often sarcastic criticism in this regard is not convincing. The comparison with the television just ignore the power of participatory social media platforms, which is in the political environment is so important. And the theory of repression can be at least on the current state of knowledge is not maintained, wie der Forscher Henrik Serup Christensen in einer Meta-Studie schreibt : «Es besteht eine - wenn auch schwache - Verbindung zwischen politischer Aktivität im Netz und offline.» Oder, um es mit Stephen Poole vom «Guardian» weniger akademisch auszudrücken : «Man kann durchaus an Brüsten und Politik gleichzeitig interessiert sein.»

 

Das neue Samizdat?

Schwieriger zu kontern ist Morozovs zweites zentrales Argument: Dass nämlich digitale Kommunikation für autoritäre Herrscher mindestens so nützlich ist wie für ihre Opponents. Not only can a regime, such as limiting in Egypt or in China the use of the Internet, social media platforms can be used for propaganda. Morozov points out that Russian President Medvedev runs a popular blog where people can leave comments, and that Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has a popular account on Twitter.

Even Clay Shirky, one of the apologists of the digital revolution, Morozov is largely right on this point. But Shirkys argument is more subtle: a direct link between short-term political change and social media platforms He wants in an article in "Foreign Affairs" not construct . But over time, so Shirky, social media may well exert influence. Not because they could not be released directly to upheavals. Rather, the media theorist Shirky writes, because these platforms are not only the dissemination of information, but also the discussion and thus help the formation of opinions. Social media have the potential to carry the emergence of a "common political consciousness."

Shirky This makes the crucial point of the debate: social media - and the power generally - not just as tools for the acceleration political change are considered. Twitter is no diplomacy by other means, and Facebook is not the samizdat of our time. Social media platforms have the potential to change, communication and collaboration essential. But a positive political impact they will have only if proper conditions are met.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Nota .

My God, what a blah. The network itself does nothing. It depends on the people who make it and what of it. And the fact that they know that and do not mind dancing around the network such as around the golden calf.
JE