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.

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

“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.

(Report comment)

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.

(Report comment)

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.

(Report comment)

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.

(Report comment)

My understanding is that for most of human history, certain forms of knowledge (and therefore power) have rested with an elite. Shamans, priests, royalty, and then other people rich enough to afford an education. Mass media – radio, newspapers, TV – changed this, allowing many more people to access knowledge about the world, beyond their own realm of experience. But most of this information was filtered through an existing power structure – an institution which may or may not have been influenced by vested interests. Regardless, it was still a top-down model: the privileged disseminating information to the less privileged.

The Internet, and especially blogging, micro-blogging and social media, have changed this. Now, in theory, anyone can post information (including images and video) that can be consumed by anyone else. The monopoly on information (and power?) has been broken. There is a lot more information, not just “official” versions, and it’s accessible by a lot more people. People can connect, form communities, and organise, no longer restricted by geography. This must surely be a good thing.

As Julie points, out, there are problems. Much of the world do not have meaningful access to the Internet, and all that entails. Fair enough. This is simply a problem of resources, and it is getting better. I think it’s true to say that many people who would traditionally have been marginalised, now have a voice. To pick an example that Matador has covered so well recently (and leaving aside the Iranian “election”), would we know so much about what is happening in Peru at the moment, if we were restricted to hearing only the voices of mainstream media?

The biggest problem, perhaps, is that there is now so much information, that we no longer know what to believe. How can we evaluate this deluge of information? We must realise that EVERYONE has a vested interest of some sort. Matt Taibbi, in his book “The Great Derangement, points out that this can be a huge issue: people no longer have a common frame of reference for debating the world’s issues, since they no longer believe their own media. Whilst the Internet allows more marginalised, dissenting and alternative voices to be heard, it also allows more lunacy to be propagated.

Finally, do we risk becoming so caught up in this wave of information from all around the world, that we are paralysed? I find it ironic that we have again been shown to be consumers: except now, many of us are avidly consuming information rather than, say, the latest mobile phone or trainers. What do we do with our new-found knowledge?

The increased freedom of information and freedom of association that the Internet facilitates does have the potential to change the world. It breaks down ivory towers, removes the excuse of ignorance, and gives (some of, at least) the dispossessed a voice. It disseminates the best (and worst) of our different world views to all corners of the globe. However, this only becomes significant if the institutional power structures that rule the world are accountable to the majority population. Are they, really? And are there enough engaged people in the countries that wield the most power, or are most people still using the web to browse for porn, and Twitter to tell people what they had for breakfast?

Quite frankly, I haven’t got a clue whether any of this will make a difference, or how we can effectively translate movements from the digital in to the physical world. All I know is that without the Internet, I wouldn’t have been able to share my semi-informed views with you. I hope that is a good thing.

(Report comment)