Myths of Facebook, Twitter ‘revolutions’

FACEBOOK, THE social media network, is claimed to have more than 500 million subscribers worldwide. I am not one of that vast army of camp followers.

In the history of antiquity, camp followers consisted of the entourage of marauding  military  expeditions, including  soldiers, cooks, court  jesters to ill-humored generals,  squires looking after the horses, and of course, women who provided all sorts of services to  the troops.

I consider Facebook a huge pool of information into which a person surrenders his/her privacy as a consenting adult to microscopic examination by voyeurs, or blackmail  operators. Despite assurances of security of information and  protection of  privacy of the clients, there is nothing sure about leakage of information stored in confidence or about its secrecy “wall” not being hacked by  predatory Internet eavesdroppers.

Initially dubbed as a social network in which people cemented (they also call it  “bonding”) their relationships with friends, old and new,  or renewed old ties  by getting in touch with one another in a supposedly harmless and relaxed  “interactive” way, it has expanded its scope.  I wonder if most people know whether they are getting a fair deal in this swap—that is the facility provided the social media for networking in exchange for opening themselves to the invasion of  their privacy through their photos, telephone numbers, addresses, bank account numbers, their friends or friends of their friends, the books they read, their favorite movies, their favorite bars and restaurants, resort havens, their favorite sports and music, their birthdays, their  occupations, religions, schools, social club membership, their credit card numbers, and stock exchange  brokers.  This information pool is a bonanza for whistle blowers, military and police  intelligence agents, tax collectors and muckrakers, making it easy for them to operate.  It is a mine field of information for espionage by agents of aspiring dictators.

Most of the information collected by government today consists of tax returns, statements of assets of liabilities (SAL, for officials),  VAT  invoices, and census statistics,  but social media do more than this. They  have spread their dragnet to trawl personal information (for what purpose, it’s hard to say) to gratify people’s need to enhance their private relationships  regarding matters that have little to do with the  promotion of public interest?

Of late, social media have developed into monsters of transmission of political intelligence for the overthrow of dictatorships in the Middle East—a task and  function not originally envisaged by their founders—with results beyond their wildest expectations. Social media have bitten more than they can chew, and now they have an identity problem and their  role as a catalyst of political and social change is seriously being examined.

The extent to which social media contributed  to the toppling of the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt is a matter  of debate, according to Agence France Presse. Their role in what is now called The Age of Digital Revolution has become contentious. There is danger that the role would be overmagnified at the expense of underrating the importance of other elements, including the factor of youth  unrest and public revulsion at brutal human rights suppression.

AFP reported that in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, graphic pictures  and raw video  of harsh crackdowns by the security forces on crowds of protestors have earned international condemnation of their governments and further fueled  popular anger in the streets. Such footage has been  uploaded  in  Facebook, Twitter, Flicker, YouTube and other sites.

“The biggest factor in the unfolding events, to me, appears to be the emergent power of young people, compounded by how urbanized they  are,” said Micah Sifry, co-founder of politics and technology  blog techPresident. “Could it be that what we’re witnessing  is the political  coming of age of Generation TXT?”

Wael Ghonim, the Google executive cyber activist who emerged as a leader of the anti-government protests in Egypt, said social media “played  a crucial role” in the events that led to  Hosni Mubarak’s ouster. “Without Facebook, without Twitter, without Google,  without YouTube, this would have  never happened,”  Ghonim said. “If there were no social networks it  would have never been sparked.”

Ghonim, who started the Facebook page “We Are All Khaled Said,” is credited with helping mobilize the demonstrators in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Khaled Said was the young Egyptian who was beaten to death by the police—a brutality believed to have triggered the protest movement in January.

Alec Ross, US Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton’s senior adviser for innovation, did not go as far as Ghonim  in giving credit to social media. Ross said social media  played  an  “important role” in  the events in Egypt and Tunisia but emphasized that  “technology did not create the dissent  movements there.” He said: “It did not make the dissent movements successful—people did  (a point well put). They were not Facebook revolutions or Twitter revolutions.   Technology  served as an accelerant. A movement that historically would have taken months or years was compressed into far shorter time cycles.”

Truly revolutions do not happen without angry  people in the streets. Technology is merely the mechanism through which people  express their wrath.  There are no heroes from the ranks of Facebook and Twitter.

In the meantime, Facebook has to make up its mind whether it is a political power broker or just a  facilitator of  social intercourse. It is beginning to muddle its information mix.