How to serve social media .. authoritarian governments?
Translation: Ahmed al-Zubaidi
This assumption is reasonable - there are already many ways in which these new technologies help activists are denominated. Perhaps it 's the most obvious, is the possibility that contribute to social media to reduce the cost of communicating with large numbers of protesters, as Twitter did during the protests in Ukraine in 2014, as well as the other platforms, such as YouTube, can help in the dissemination of lessons in how do protests effectively, which helps to protest the organizational capacity building movements. When banning human populations, can sites like Facebook to create new platforms for communication and exchange of information, be difficult to shut off.
Optimists also argue that the Internet creates a space for dialogue in the midst of conflict, and provides policy options for the general public and the elites in spite of government censorship. Of course, the Internet allows for activists to express their views, which is important especially when the mainstream media are controlled by the government.
But in spite of this optimism, what it is sometimes called "liberation technology known as " did not make the pro-democracy movements in fact, more effective. True , we have seen an increase in the popular movements since the spread of digital communications more than ever before. But we should note that nonviolent resistance methods have been found long before the invention of the Internet. Gandhi has been used by the leader on a large scale in the thirties and forties of the last century , in fact, it has become a non - violent resistance , in fact less successful comparison, years before the invention of the Internet. While succeeded nearly 70 percent of the civil resistance campaigns during the nineties of the twentieth century, the only 30 percent of them have succeeded since 2010.fma the reason behind it?
There are a few possible causes. First , as some researchers suggesting Alsaasph in the field of science that governments are simply the means of social communication to better use of the activists. Despite previous promises not to disclose the identity of Internet users, the government control of the Internet has made privacy a thing of the past. Russian government, for example, successfully infiltrated into contacts between activists in an attempt to pre - empt their movements and crush even the smallest scale protests. Such practices are common in democratic countries dramatically. In the United States, the National Security Agency 's program of eavesdropping without warrants, and the cooperation of Yahoo with the US government in compiling information for its users, and that it was probably just the beginning. Recent reports indicate that local police departments in the United States that monitor social media to gather data on the population. While the governments in the past deliberately to devote significant resources to detect dissidents and opponents, the digital climate prevailing today encourages people to declare with pride about their political beliefs, social and religious identities - and this data enables the government authorities of being targeted more effectively. Of course, there are ways to protect the privacy of users, but few of these techniques will stand up in front versed discount.
Second, the use of the popular movements of the means of social communication reduces the opportunities for direct communication. Activists on Facebook and other sites are interested in a particular issue for a short period of time, but they often fail to rally the broad participation in the struggle against governments. Building confidence in the marginalized communities of the oppressed Aubin takes time and effort, and requires an active social activity, this face - to - face communication requires routinely over a long period of time. When you fill out these movements without people to get this confidence and internal unity, they may be more likely to be stopped because of the pressure. As well as the success in bringing about real change requires more dedication and sacrifice.
Third , can the means of social communication have an effect hinders the work of activists by enabling the armed actors or government by threatening or even orchestrating direct violence against them. For example, in the midst of the Libyan uprising in 2011, use the regime of Moamer Kadhafi cell phone network in the country, to send text messages ordered people to go to work. The warning chilling!
The stresses that the government watched - and that failure to comply with its orders will have serious consequences. Researchers in political science. He said that the increase in the number of mobile phones in Africa has been linked with an increase in violence.
On the contrary, if the activists are using social media to talk about the violence they suffered at the hands of security forces, it may be a reason for the reluctance of the protesters participating in the demonstrations the next day. Can and therefore such reports lead to unintended consequences. Instead of assembling the angry crowds, it may lead to a lack of involvement of many people who do not want to risk, and leave the actors activists face risks alone.
This leads in the end to the last obstacle: the misinformation that can spread in social media faster than the spread of information Moabedh.o reports by computer hackers from Russia to influence the recent American elections are a good example of this. And aggravated deception because of the tendency of people to choose news sources that confirm previous beliefs. The increase in the social media sites that bring about further division among the people rather than unite them behind a common cause.
Even those who are bona fide spend its information from reliable sources of news can be to cause unintentionally in a number of problems. It can be to see the tyrant fall through the means of social communication to encourage opponents in a neighboring country to do the movements of protest. And in fact, may try to prematurely "using" tactics and methods they see it used successfully in other places but it does not fit their situation - resulting in serious consequences . And a quick look at what happened in Libya or Syria allow us to know the seriousness of this effect. It was easy for activists in those countries watch the events of the Arab Spring that was unfolding in Tunisia and Egypt to conclude then that if the masses of people gathered in public squares, they also could topple Btgah their home countries within days. This conclusion neglected mobilization that preceded the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions for many years and have made the Libyans and Syrians in an exaggerated trust in the ability of Antfadathm spontaneity that succeed without the use of violence.
for Foreign Policy magazine