You’d be hard pressed to find someone more passionate than I am about the power of the Internet and technology to communicate, connect, and mobilize people for social change. But am I overestimating the potential of our 21st century tools?
Computer users in Rwanda. Photo: Colleen Taugher
“Gordon Brown claims Rwanda would never have happened if Twitter had been around….”
That was the first tweet I read when I checked my Twitter feed this morning.
“Bold claim,” I thought, before taking my first sip of coffee.
“Utterly ridiculous statement,” I said out loud as I took a gulp and thought about it some more.
*
The tweet, posted by @krishgm, a host for London’s Channel 4 news, referenced an article in The Guardian in which British PM Gordon Brown said the following:
“…the internet era [is] “more tumultuous than any previous economic or social revolution. For centuries, individuals have been learning how to live with their next-door neighbours…. Now, uniquely, we’re having to learn to live with people who we don’t know.
“People have now got the ability to speak to each other across continents, to join with each other in communities that are not based simply on territory, streets, but networks; and you’ve got the possibility of people building alliances right across the world. That flow of information means that foreign policy can never be the same again.
“You cannot have Rwanda again because information would come out far more quickly about what is actually going on and the public opinion would grow to the point where action would need to be taken.
“Foreign policy can no longer be the province of just a few elites.”
*
I agree about the power to “speak across continents,” to form communities and networks that aren’t based on geography, but on common concerns. And that’s why I’m an ardent proponent of Internet technologies as a critical tool of social change.
But to think that the 1994 genocide in Rwanda or the thousands of other atrocities happening in the world right this second could have been prevented or could be controlled simply by exposing them and pressuring governments to take action is an argument I find both terribly naive and untenable.
Brown’s comment reflects a certain elitism that overlooks the fact that millions of people in the world have limited or no access at all to Twitter, Facebook, blogs, or even a basic Internet connection. The people most likely to be affected directly by atrocities can’t tweet about them to the rest of the world– they don’t own the means to do so.
Even those who have access, notes the Digital Divide, tend to be using platforms and tools that are “low-quality and merely ‘localized’ versions of products and services intended for the rich.”
So how are we to reallyinterpret the true significance of technology as a tool for social change? Weigh in with your opinions in the comments below.
Community Connection:
Don’t know what Twitter is? Get some background information here.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Female indigenous wrestler challenges barriers in Bolivia (3 comments)
- Photo Essay: The Coolest Tree Houses in the World (15 comments)
- 19 Reasons to Feel Hopeful about the World (7 comments)
Related Posts
7 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
The Rand Corporation (that fun D.C. thinktank) has been on this topic since ‘99. They note the Zapatistas in Mexico as an example of internet being used to create international pressure.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1382/index.html
But I think the real internet activists are those that are enable the technologies to circumvent government control of the Internet. In Iran, all communications ultimately go through the single, government-owned company (DCI) to reach “the World”. They can, in essence, stop the entire nation from getting to facebook.com, twitter.com, etc. But activists who work to set up proxies nullify the government’s control. “They” (foreign Hacktivists) been doing this in China for so long, that the Chinese government has become something of a counter-cyber-terrorism expert.
But I think Mr. Rowlands up there nailed it on the head–5,000 twitter updates, coming from what are clearly A) students and B) Mousavi supporters devalues information. I have yet to hear a revolutionary “Twit” come from one of the millions of polled Ahmadinejad supporters. Isn’t that the quintessential definition of bias? Are we supposed to support revolution based on one side of the story? 5,000 different authors, 4,999 might be speaking absolute truth, but the fact that we know 1 of them is a complete bullsh*tter nullifies the voice of the rest.
This is why we turn to the mainstream media; a person “on the ground” is a natural bullsh*t filter.
I think we’re actually seeing the death of the internet as a effective tool for activism. The same ubiquity that will forever make it a component to effective demonstrations is also going to water it down to the point of absurdity. Furthermore, governments and large organizations are getting greater control of the medium–it’s no longer an “underground”. Social activism on the internet is right up top, along with grandma’s vacation photos and our Amazon.com order.
↵ -
Nick and Jacob-
I really appreciate the time and thought you invested in your responses. You both raise critical points in this complex, nuanced issue, and I’m proud that Matador can be a platform for exploring these types of concerns with intelligent people who bring the insights of their lives and travels into these conversations.
↵ -
Great points made above, and I’d like to add my own.
I would argue that the most effective solution that the Internet will bring to conflict-laden areas is not international pressure, but rather an abundance of information that over a relatively short amount of time could change the cultural and economic landscape for the better.
Please note, I don’t mean that it would Westernize rural areas of Africa. That’s not the goal here. The goal is to make all the world’s information available to everyone in the world so that they may do with it what they will. At first, this information might be used to perpetuate the conflicts, but over time the information will open up new doors to even the poorest of shanty-town dwellers. Just think of all the hidden Einsteins in the world that are, at this very moment, shrouded by poverty. Now think if these people had access to the largest and fastest information distribution technology in the history of mankind. It’s not a big stretch of the imagination to think that such people would be able to come up with local solutions speedily.
What’s more, an educated populace is generally a more contented and productive populace. Give knowledge to the people and they will arbitrate themselves, bringing trade where there was war and bringing health, culture and technology where before there was only disease, fear and oppression.
Maybe its quixotic of me to think this might be the solution, but really, what’s the worst that could happen if the world suddenly had, say, a plugged-in Africa? I think we’d all benefit from their ideas and they from ours.
↵ -
What an absurd statement! The world didn’t need Twitter to tell us what was happening in Rwanda — everybody KNEW, Gordon Brown (in whatever political role he held then) included. The problem was, there was no will among the international community to try to stop it (and it would have been quite a difficult proposition even if there had been the will).
“You cannot have Rwanda again” – what an irresponsible thing to say. “Don’t worry, folks, we’re safe from genocide. We’ve evolved beyond that.” ?!?
I’m sorry. You all are having a thoughtful conversation about the broader issue, and I just can’t get past the comment that sparked it. Wow. Wow, wow.
↵ -
Colin and Eva- Thanks for chiming in, and Eva- no apologies necessary. You introduced an important idea into the conversation: there are certain situations we don’t know about, and those that we DO know about and deliberately choose not to involve ourselves in.
↵ -
Great discussion everybody! I can’t get enough Matador! Picking up on a point that Nick Rowlands made at the top that while “the Internet allows more marginalised, dissenting and alternative voices to be heard, it also allows more lunacy to be propagated,” it’s useful to remember that like any medium, it can and will be used to further social good and connect to others as well as consolidate power, divide communities, and do harm. Much of it may simply be neutral.
If I recall correctly, the killings in Rwanda were heavily promoted by folks and government agents on the radio. Whatever Gordon Brown may think, I suspect that Twitter could have just as easily encouraged more violence. Add doctored photos and videos that spread virally and you can propogandize fairly easily. Technology is a tool that can be used for many purposes. Radio and TV spread the word of Nazis and MLK, Jr. alike. Internet is no different and there is no way around it. That just means we have to do what has always been done: try to find the best ways to translate information into organization and agitation for positive social change.
Jacob Bielanski makes the astute observation that “governments and large organizations are getting greater control of the medium.” Just as with TV and Radio, giants emerge, governments grab hold and filter, hate-speechists get spotlight, etc. The power of new media is in it’s decentralization. I agree with him “that real internet activists are those that enable the technologies to circumvent government control of the Internet”
But I still think there is a general truth to the cliche that “information is power,” though we still have to figure out the best ways to utilize that information. Colin makes the case for some ways in which it can be done globally. I’m not as cynical as Mr. Bielanski with regard to the ubiquity of internet info leading to the demise of online activism. I’m not enough of a tech futurist to predict what is next, but I suspect that it just might be getting started.
↵
