danielle bergeron's List: Digital Native

• Egyptian leadership crumbling

  Al Jazeera’s Sherine Tadros reporting from Cairo reports that interim vice president Mohamed El Baradei resigned on Wednesday following the violence because the country’s leadership was not following peaceful options for ending the violence.
• She said the military has now been given "a mandate by cabinet to play an active role in the crackdown, if the situation escalates, and we have seen that the situation has escalated."
• A stand off appears to now be in effect between security forces and Morsi supporters. The Muslim Brotherhood has vowed to remain in the streets, and they stood by their word. More of their supporters are on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and other cities in Egypt, reported in the BBC report.

1 more annotation...

• Little over a year ago, campaigning in Egypt's elections, the Muslim Brotherhood movement's Mohammed Mursi made it clear that should people demonstrate again him, ''I would be the first to resign''. In any case, he said, there would be no demonstrations because, as president, he would faithfully represent the people's will.
• History, in an alarmingly short time, has proved President Mursi dramatically wrong on both counts. The mass protests against Egypt's first democratically elected leader and the 48-hour ultimatum of the country's generals for the president to respond have brought Egypt to a crisis point even more volatile than the protests that ended the autocratic rule of Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Civil war is brewing. On one side there is widespread disenchantment with the Mursi administration's perceived Islamic bias and its failures to tackle Egypt's plummeting economy and rampant corruption and lawlessness. On the other side are the hundreds of thousands of Mursi supporters whose fervour is fired by Islamist as well as democratic principles.
• Dr Mursi's only response has been defiance. ''I am prepared to sacrifice my blood to legitimacy and my homeland,'' he said during a rambling 45-minute address. Legitimacy, however noble a concept, has its limitations in these circumstances. Dr Mursi, whose approval rating, even before the protests, was just 30 per cent, has become irretrievably isolated from his ministers, his party (the cabinet swiftly rejected his response), his milit

  ary and, indeed, his country. His beleaguered government, suffering from seven recent ministerial resignations, is crumbling into the desert sand. So too, it appears, is democracy.
• The armed forces' ultimatum, which expired overnight Melbourne time, will certainly bring change: there can be no ifs or buts. The only question is, what sort of change is implied by the military's reference to ''a road map for the future''? Will this take the form of a coup, a ''soft coup'' similar to the process that ended the Mubarak era, or a more considered democratic transition? The answers, while speculative, appear to favour the gentler approach, which could see the military installing an interim council including civilians and technocrats to run the country until an amended constitution is drafted. Elections would follow in time.
• International reactions have been guarded, particularly from the United States. A White House statement says presciently, ''Democracy is about more than elections. It is also about ensuring that the voices of all Egyptians are heard and represented by their government …'' The only problem with this is ensuring that the government is willing to co-operate. On present indications, given Dr Mursi's intransigence, this is unlikely - at least for as long as Dr Mursi remains as president.
• It is hoped this standoff can be resolved by persuasive, not forceful, means. Peace and harmony, while not easily achievable in the Middle East, remain admirable and essential ambitions.

4 more annotations...

• The role of the internet, social media, mobile phones, and other connection technologies in the Egyptian revolution is a trendy topic. For many who have long argued that these tools will help topple autocratic nation-states, recent events in Egypt seemed to offer long-awaited corroboration. To those less certain of the structural importance of such tools, it was easy to cry foul of the media’s role in hyping the techno-utopian storyline.
• Both arguments carry weight. Technological tools are indeed being used by those pursuing more participatory governance in Egypt. And many have used them to great impact, perhaps most famously the April 6 Youth Movement and Wael Ghonim, the Google executive who was one of the creators of the ‘We Are All Khaled Said’ Facebook group and accompanying YouTube campaign. Both have been much touted in Western media for galvanizing and connecting a new generation of Egyptian activists. Yet it is also true that technology was only marginally, if at all, used by several factions critical to the revolution. Even mobile phones, while near ubiquitous, were little used in campaigns by the labour movement and the judiciary.

• Acknowledging this complex reality, it was critical that we did not focus our research on the use of technology. Doing so would have been unwise: media narratives around technology’s role in the revolution have penetrated deeply into all strata of Egyptian society, colouring participant responses. Thus, we explored technology largely by examining quotidian usage. Questions around everyday information flows and communications patterns led to more natural — and thus, we believe, more accurate — responses about technology, its uses, and its broader social role. The resulting conversations were illuminating, and often surprising.

   

• Social Networking

   

  So what did we find? Unsurprisingly, social networking is a prominent force in certain layers of Egyptian society. It is a common source for news and information for those under 35, middle-class and above, who use it to stay abreast of latest topics of discussion among their social network. Facebook is by far the most popular platform, outstripping Twitter which is confined to a relatively small collection of internationally-oriented users. Indeed, many Facebook users see the site as more of a publishing platform than a space for online socializing. These groups are using Facebook to create fully formed publishing cycles and advocacy campaigns, with limited to no use of external websites. This is an interesting example where efficiency over complexity is leading users to leapfrog the traditional technology adoption cycle.
• Perhaps the most interesting application of new media we encountered was this use of Facebook as an advocacy and press management tool by certain opposition groups. One leading organizer with the Democratic Front Party described how they turned to Facebook as a spin machine whenever the government provided an opportunity: “When the security forces broke in our front door on January 26, we immediately put up a Facebook group to collect popular anger and let the media know.” This strategy is effective because traditional media such as newspapers and broadcast news shows often report on the size and vociferousness of these groups as a proxy for expressing their own political views. In terms of sophistication, this cross-media strategy compares to those used by Western advocacy groups, but it was certainly not one adopted by most organizers.

• Technological tools have also become culturally important as myths about their impact continue to grow. Use of technology has always been aspirational — it all boils down to access and power — but this has become far more pronounced in present-day Egypt. Even those who haven’t used Facebook or Twitter are eager to sing their praises or to feign personal familiarity. Parents who peer over the shoulders of their web-surfing children boast about their own ‘Facebook usage’. Even those who admit to never having seen Facebook mumble something or other about internet access costs or the net cafe being too far away before eagerly pressing forward about how their best friend’s use of Facebook is really sufficient for expressing both their political wills. And the pulp literature and pop clothing emblazoned with ‘Facebook,’ now common in Cairo, remind us that technology has the ability to impact a people’s consciousness as much as their physical realities.

   

• Mobile Phones

   

  Mobile phones may have played the role of the most tangible technology in the revolution. At a basic level, text messages and voice calls enabled the Egyptian people to coordinate, to stay informed, and to communicate amongst themselves and to the outside world. That is, until the government began interfering with internet and mobile networks beginning on January 25. What began as the blocking of Twitter and Facebook became the complete shutdown of both services. Fully functional mobile services were not restored until February 3.
• But beyond immediate communications, the near-ubiquitous mobile phone also provided protesters the opportunity to document the events that were unfolding. As tools for crafting the revolution’s narrative, mobile phones gave protesters a sense of ownership over the events. Their videos and photos will also be used to shape the story that will live on. From our conversations, this increased the perceived value of participating. As one youth activist in Cairo explained: “It was our revolution because we made it happen. And it will stay our revolution because we will be the ones writing its history.” (And, one assumes, their place in it.)
• Projects such as #18DaysInEgypt, a documentary in development, illustrates this philosophy. This film about the Egyptian revolution will be “shot entirely by those who experienced the events [on-the-ground]”, done by crowdsourcing media content from tech-enabled protesters. A fascinating concept, bu we must not forget those who will be left out of such an interpretation of history. Tech-related access barriers aside, as of March 17, roughly three weeks after the project site launched, only its About section was available in Arabic. The other two key sections — news updates and team bios — were English-only, revealing the project’s biases and intended audiences. This strategy has met with the desired success, as it’s been covered by the regular parade of international media outlets.
• As with any information channel, mobile was also used by various government entities. The Egyptian military began blasting mass text messages as early as 8:17pm local time on February 10, 2011 — less than 22 hours before Mubarak’s resignation was announced. The first message: “The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is currently in a meeting to study the current situation and will speak to the people very soon.” (A curious observation: though the SMS messages themselves are in Arabic, their sender is only identified by its chosen English designation ‘ArmedForces’ as many mobile operating systems do not support Arabic script for contact names. But that is a separate conversation.) Since that first message, the military leadership has been sending mass SMS to its citizens every two to five days to update them on its view of events. As of publication, the last SMS sent by the military was on March 7, and was directed at those who had raided State Security buildings days earlier and removed sensitive materials. The message: “To all the responsible people, please hand in any National Security papers you may have to ensure we can take appropriate action on the information.”

• The limitations of technology

   

  In discussing all the possibility technology holds, we must also consider its limitations. Ultimately, technology’s impact is only as strong as the weakest links in the human system that uses it. Indeed, digital tools are seldom trusted in Egypt, and for good reason. Long accustomed to state surveillance, most citizens — from youth activists to factory workers — expect the same to be true online and on their phones, and recognize that monitoring is especially likely on digital networks. Thus, while services such as Facebook could be used in advocacy activities such as recruitment campaigns, they could not be trusted for sensitive organizing. Most senior organizers we spoke with still ran their core activities in a very analog, cell-based fashion. Top strategies were set by leadership committees that gathered regularly in hubs like Cairo. Upon returning to their communities, these leaders would distribute handwritten organizing documents to collaborators. Using such tactics, one group was able to slowly but confidently disseminate a confidential organizing strategy to a network of 8,000 activists nationwide.
• The success and importance of these ‘old-fashioned’ techniques show the limits of technology in facilitating Egypt’s revolution. But trying to distinguish these tools from offline connections in Egyptian society is impossible. An incredibly social people, the amount of knowledge transfer that occurs in cafes, on street corners, and from roadside newspaper vendors is immense. It is this primary layer of offline interaction that provides much of the fodder for connections happening online.
• To democratize the fruits of technology, tools must be tailored for wider accessibility. Adapting online tools for use via SMS is one possibility that could serve populations that lack computer acccess. Basic text messaging remains among the most inclusive technologies. If online services make greater use of this channel, the share of Egyptians able to use them will expand correspondingly. In the meantime, for excluded populations, technology will continue to impact them only a proximate manner and through exposure to other, technologically enabled parties.

• Likewise, until and unless sound solutions to serious security concerns are created, savvy activists will continue to conduct their most sensitive organizing offline. While Egypt’s new Interior Minister Mansour el-Essawy has promised an end to online surveillance, the ubiquity of the practice, even in Western countries, gives little hope that his pledge will be honoured.

   
• Speaking holistically, it is misguided to suggest that technology was the driving motivator in regime change. Technology played a defined and concrete role in the revolution, but its contributions were complementary rather than core. Technology facilitated and encouraged connections and organizing that would have happened anyway. The forces for reform in Egyptian society have deep roots, and they would have ultimately utilized other methods to achieve their goals even if technology wasn’t available. What is likely, and many observers will probably argue, is that access to technology did speed the pace with which reform was possible by lowering the costs of recruitment and organizing.
• These tools will continue to penetrate deeper into Egyptian society, but it will likely be several years before many of today’s relatively unconnected demographics begin using them directly. Literacy, both textual and technological, will need to improve, to say nothing of the socioeconomic factors currently limiting access. Such changes take time. However this gradual pace of change shouldn’t trouble observers inspired by the possibilities technology offers.

• As an amplifier of human intent, technology will only be as only as effective as the offline social networks it is built upon, and only as good as human intent is able to direct it. Deeper sociological change, from education reform to political restructuring, will be necessary before technology can increase it’s role in shaping the future of Egyptian society.

15 more annotations...

• In the embryonic, ever evolving era of social media — when milestones come by the day, if not by the second — June 8, 2010, has secured a rightful place in history. That was the day Wael Ghonim, a 29-year-old Google marketing executive, was browsing Facebook in his home in Dubai and found a startling image: a photo­graph of a bloodied and disfigured face, its jaw broken, a young life taken away. That life, he soon learned, had belonged to Khaled Mohamed Said, a 28-year-old from Alexandria who had been beaten to death by the Egyptian police.
• At once angered and animated, the Egyptian-­born Ghonim went online and created a Facebook page. “Today they killed Khaled,” he wrote. “If I don’t act for his sake, tomorrow they will kill me.” It took a few moments for Ghonim to settle on a name for the page, one that would fit the character of an increasingly personalized and politically galvanizing Internet. He finally decided on “Kullena Khaled Said” — “We Are All Khaled Said.”
• “Khaled Said was a young man just like me, and what happened to him could have happened to me,” Ghonim writes in “Revolution 2.0,” his fast-paced and engrossing new memoir of political awakening. “All young Egyptians had long been oppressed, enjoying no rights in our own homeland.”
• Ghonim’s memoir is a welcome and cleareyed addition to a growing list of volumes that have aimed (but often failed) to meaningfully analyze social media’s impact. It’s a book about social media for people who don’t think they care about social media. It will also serve as a touchstone for future testimonials about a strengthening borderless digital movement that is set to continually disrupt powerful institutions, be they corporate enterprises or political regimes.
• An accidental activist, Ghonim tapped into a shared frustration that became immediately evident online. Two minutes after he started his Facebook page, 300 people had joined it. Three months later, that number had grown to more than 250,000. What bubbled up online inevitably spilled onto the streets, starting with a series of “Silent Stands” that culminated in a massive and historic rally at Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo. “We Are All Khaled Said” helped ignite an uprising that led to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak and the dissolution of the ruling National Democratic Party. In turn, Ghonim — who was arrested during the height of the protests — reluctantly became one of the leading voices of the Arab Spring.
• Ghonim’s writing voice is spare and measured, and marked by the same earnest humility he has displayed in media appearances. During the interview he gave on Egyptian television after his release from detention, when he broke down crying as a photo montage of young Egyptians killed in the protests played across the screen, he was quick to point out that “the real heroes” of the revolution were those who had been martyred. He resists being labeled an icon. He insists he represents just one story and says his online activism should be seen only in the context of “hundreds of other pages, Facebook accounts and Twitter profiles” dedicated to covering and organizing the Arab Spring.

• And he’s right. But his individual story resonates on two levels: it epitomizes the coming-of-age of a young Middle Eastern generation that has grown up in the digital era, as well as the transformation of an apolitical man from comfortable executive to prominent activist.

• The Middle East is home to roughly 100 million people ages 15 to 29. Many are educated but unemployed. Though only a fraction of Egyptians have Internet access, Ghonim writes, the number of Web users in the country increased to 13.6 million in 2008 from 1.5 million in 2004. Through blogs, Twitter and Facebook, the Web has become a haven for a young, educated class yearning to express its worries and anxieties.

• Technology, of course, is not a panacea. Facebook does not a revolution make. In Egypt’s case, it was simply a place for venting the outrage resulting from years of repression, economic instability and individual frustration. Ghonim writes that in 2011, out of Egypt’s more than 80 million people, some 48 million were poor and 2.5 million lived in extreme poverty. “More than three million young Egyptians are unemployed,” he says.

     

7 more annotations...

• Beyond the euphoria and uncertainties of the moment, the revolt in Egypt has sparked a debate about how much technology and information matter in a revolutionary context. Some commentators, particularly in TV coverage, have claimed that Twitter, Facebook, and blogs largely drove events in Egypt. This has provoked a strong intellectual backlash—an argument that more traditional forces are what truly deserve credit, from Bouazizi’s suicide in Tunisia to the economic woes of the middle class in Egypt.

   

• It is time to approach the debate in a more level-headed way, because it is not one in which one side is clearly right and the other wrong. Indeed, it is important to place Egypt in the context of the broad, complex, evolving information revolution that is currently transforming world politics. It is a revolution the implications of which we can’t yet fully grasp, but one that is fundamentally transforming the nature of power in the twenty-first century.

   

   
• Two important power shifts are occurring in this century, as I argue in my book The Future of Power: power transition and power diffusion. Power transition—from dominant states to others—is a familiar historical process, but power diffusion is more novel and, today, more difficult to manage. The problem for all states in today’s global information age is that more things are happening outside the control of even the most powerful governments. Conventional wisdom has always held that the government with the largest military prevails, but, in an information age, it may be the state (or non-states) with the best story that wins. As Egypt shows, soft power becomes a more important part of the mix.
• Governments have always worried about the flow and control of information, and the current period is not the first to be strongly affected by dramatic changes in information technology. Gutenberg’s press was important to the origins of the Protestant Reformation. Today, however, a much larger part of the population both within and among countries has access to the power that comes from information.
• The current revolution is based on rapid technological advances that have dramatically decreased the cost of creating, finding and transmitting information. Computing power doubled every 18 months for 30 years, and, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, it cost one-thousandth of what it did in the early 1970s. (If the price of automobiles had fallen as quickly as the price of semiconductors, a car today would cost five dollars.) As recently as the 1980s, phone calls over copper wire could carry only one page of information per second; tod
• ay, a thin strand of optical fiber can transmit 90,000 volumes in a second. In 1980, a gigabyte of storage occupied a room; now, 200 gigabytes of storage fits in your shirt pocket.
• Even more crucial has been the enormous drop in the cost of transmitting information, as it reduces the barriers to entry. As computing power has become cheaper and computers have shrunk to the size of smart phones and other portable devices, their decentralizing effects have been dramatic. Power over information is much more widely distributed today than even a few decades ago. Witness the ability of Egyptian (and Tunisian) demonstrators to work around their governments’ efforts to shut down access to the internet, text messaging, and television.
• What this means is that world politics is no longer the sole province of governments. Individuals and private organizations, ranging from Wikileaks to corporations to NGOs to terrorists to spontaneous societal movements, are all empowered to play direct roles. The spread of information means that power will be more widely distributed, and informal networks will undercut the monopoly of traditional bureaucracy. The speed of Internet time means all governments have less control of their agendas. Political leaders enjoy fewer degrees of freedom before they must respond to events, and then must communicate not only with other governments but with civil societies as well. Consider the difficulties the Obama administration had trying to fine tune its responses to Egypt.
• But it would be a mistake to “over-learn” the lessons Egypt has taught about information, technology, and power. While, in principle, the information revolution could reduce the power of large states and enhance the power of small states and non-state actors, politics and power are more complex than such technological determinism implies. In the middle of the twentieth century, people feared that the new computers and communications would create the central governmental control dramatized in George Orwell’s 1984, and, indeed, authoritarian governments like China, Saudi Arabia, and others have used new technologies to try to control information. Ironically for cyber-utopians, the electronic trails created by social networks like Twitter and Facebook sometimes make the job of the secret police easier. After their initial embarrassment by Twitter in 2009, the Iranian government was able to suppress the green movement in 2010. And, while the “great fire-wall of China” is far from perfect, the government has managed thus far to cope with information flows among the 450 million internet users in the country.

• In other words, some aspects of the information revolution help the small, but some help the already large and powerful. Size still matters. While a hacker and a government can both create information and exploit the internet, it matters for many purposes that large governments can deploy tens of thousands of trained people and have vast computing power to crack codes or intrude into other organizations. Even though it is now cheap to disseminate existing information, the collection and production of new information often requires major investment, and, in many competitive situations, new information matters most. Intelligence collection is a good example, and the elaborate Stuxnet worm that disabled Iranian nuclear centrifuges seems to have been a product of governments.

   

  Yet, while governments and large states still have larger resources, thanks to the new power diffusion, the stage on which these entities play is more crowded with information-empowered private actors. How will this all play out? Who will win, and who will lose? As recent events in Egypt and elsewhere have shown, we are only just beginning to comprehend the effects of the information revolution on power in this century.

8 more annotations...

• Egypt's revolution in 2011 proved two incredibly important things for Egyptian youth.
• First, that the combined power of the crowd can accomplish anything. Second, that it takes critical networks of communication and collaboration to activate that crowd.
• While the revolution eventually led to the collapse of a 30-year old regime, it has also had a lesser-chronicled impact - becoming a catalyst for a growing movement of technology start-ups booming across the country.
• Egypt's swelling mass of young, educated, and enlightened graduates are now working on changing the future of a nation byte by byte, not just brick by brick.

• And embracing the principles of the revolution, many of their start-ups are using this idea of collaboration, and the power of the crowd, to make it happen.

   
• Local networking 

  For at least one start-up, the story begins amongst millions of protestors in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

   
• "The government had just cut off all internet and communication networks around the nation," recalls Mohammad Omara, who has spent years designing semiconductor chips for companies around the globe.

• The ability to rapidly spread information, a backbone of the revolution, was in jeopardy.

   

• "I started thinking of a solution to get people connected," he says.

   

• His answer? Bluetooth - a technology available in nearly all phones, PCs, and other devices that wirelessly exchanges data over short distances.

   
• "With wi-fi, you need to have a router somewhere, and log in," he says. "With Bluetooth, I can direct pair my mobile with you anywhere and start communicating."

• The challenge of using Bluetooth to connect the crowd was two-fold.

   

  The range is limited to just 10-20 metres - and it's typically designed for

• peer-to-peer connections (two devices directly communicating with each other).

   

       Call me: Mr Omara's Bluetooth application will let users make free calls on the platform 

   

• He needed to find a way to both extend that to cover Tahrir Square - 75,000 square metres - and build a network.

   
• Two years on, and XoneBee, Mr Omara's start-up, has done just that - an intelligent algorithm and application which lets Bluetooth devices 'relay' a call without decoding it.

• It can be purchased as a $5 stand-alone device, extending coverage up to 300 square metres, or programmed directly into Bluetooth-enabled phones.

   
• XoneBee is also working on an app that will allow users to make free calls using the network. The service could be used to replace local area networks like internal office phones and walkie-talkies, and even has military uses.
• It may also help fix the expensive problem of network overloading, such as in extremely crowded places.

• Almost 3-4% of all mobile phone calls are made by people who are geographically close to each other - at different ends of Tahrir Square, for example, says Mr Omara.

   
• If phones have his Bluetooth algorithm installed (coupled with wi-fi and other networks) these calls could be made on a local area network, saving telecoms companies billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, says Mr Omara excitedly.

• XoneBee is just one example of this new culture of entrepreneurship emerging from Egypt.

   

• The tide of optimism triggered by the revolution has transformed into a tidal wave of talented and tech-savvy engineers and programmers, determined to put Cairo on the map as a technology hub.

   
• "We have one of the greatest collections of engineering and mobile development talent in the world," says Ahmed Alfi, chief executive of Sawari Ventures.
• "What's been missing is what goes around the engineer - product, marketing, business people," he says.
• Not anymore. Egypt's young engineers now have access to a highly collaborative ecosystem of co-working hubs, accelerators, incubators, mentoring and networking to support them, transforming their ideas to marketable products.
• Founded by a pair of 22-year-old Cairo University graduates, Instabug is another collaboration-driven start-up.
• Developers need feedback on their apps, but it's often a pain for users to report bugs. Few will actually send an email, or leave a comment on a social media page.
• With one line of code, and in less than a minute, Instabug's bug reporting feature can be added to any application - a feedback form activated by simply shaking the phone.
• "When you're angry at an app, what's the first thing you think of doing?" asks co-founder Moataz Soliman.
• "You shake it!" he replies. "It's a completely natural reaction!"

28 more annotations...

• CAIRO — The revolution in Egypt is unfinished business. While new online tools are used to strengthen civil society, activists are still struggling with the digital divide when it comes to mobilizing masses against the army and the remains of the old administration.
• On a Saturday evening in Cairo, a digital campaign against military trials for civilians is on. Activists are posting comments on the Facebook site of the Egyptian Armed Forces, whose Supreme Council — the SCAF — holds power in Egypt. SCAF took over after President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in the revolution in February.
• Human rights groups claim that 10,000 civilian Egyptians have faced military trials since the uprisings began — which is more than during the Mubarak regime.

1 more annotation...

• 2. Kick-started by social media.

   

• Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing manager administered the We are all Khaled Said Facebook page that — amongst others such as the January 25 Facebook page — were the initial tools that enabled and enhanced the January 25 demonstration. Soon Twitter followed Facebook, with the #Jan25 hashtag spreading virally online.

   

• The January 25th revolution in Egypt was an incredible achievement by its people and a truly inspiring example of the power of peaceful protest. Yet the work towards an effective transition to democratic government within Egypt has just begun. Meanwhile a debate continues to rage in the blogosphere as to the exact role played by social media
• While commentators such as Brian Solis and myself have argued against the off-hand dismissal of social media by Malcolm Gladwell, Evgeny Morozov and Will Heaven, Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen made the sobering point that it’s silly to argue the issue in absolutist terms. Rosen argues “Factors are not causes,” and insists that social media was neither fully responsible for the revolution in Egypt nor irrelevant, and that social transformation is far more complex involving a high degree of mystery.
• With sobriety and complexity in mind, I want to take a closer look at the specific role that social media played in terms of scaling awareness and support among anti-government protesters that ultimately resulted in the resignation of President Mubarak.
• The role of social media is critical because it helps to spread cognitive dissonance by connecting thought leaders and activists to ordinary citizens rapidly expanding the network of people who become willing to take action. Brian Solis describes this process as creating the necessary “density” of connections, writing “If unity is the effect, density is the cause.” Similarly, Stowe Boyd writes:
• “Ideas spread more rapidly in densely connected social networks. So tools that increase the density of social connection are instrumental to the changes that spread. […] And, more importantly, increased density of information flow (the number of times that people hear things) and of the emotional density (as individuals experience others’ perceptions about events, or ‘social contextualization’) leads to an increased likelihood of radicalization: when people decide to join the revolution instead of watching it.”
• So how was such density achieved in Egypt and what impact will it have beyond its borders? Let’s consider this question in three dimensions – vertically, horizontally and in the compounding effect social media generates from one country to another.

4 more annotations...

• There’s been some backlash in the last few days against the idea that either Tunisia or Egypt were brought on by Twitter or a “Facebook Revolution.” And certainly, it takes a lot more than the 21st century version of a communication system to persuade people to take to the streets and risk harm, imprisonment, or death.
• But that doesn’t mean social media didn’t play a role. It did. Given the magnitude of grievances in each country, revolt would almost certainly have come eventually. But social media simply made it come faster. It did so by playing a role in three main dynamics:
• Organizing protests

• Before Egypt shut off the Internet and mobile phones, before it even started blocking Twitter and Facebook, those tools were used to coordinate and spread the word about the demonstrations that were scheduled for January 25. Without these mass organizing tools, it’s likely that fewer people would have known about the protests, or summoned the kind of courage that’s made possible by knowing you’re not the only one sticking your neck out. Without them, fewer people might have shown up, and the Egyptian authorities might have more easily dispatched them. Chances are, we'd be waking up to today with last Tuesday’s skirmishes nothing more than a fading headline from a week long gone.

2 more annotations...

• The revolution that occurred in Egypt in 2011 highlights how technology can influence the mobilization of a population as well as execute a successful civil uprising. In order to better understand how the Egyptian revolution occurred, it is important to consider the players that were involved as well as what factors contributed to the political, economic, and social situations in modern Egypt. In this way, it is then possible to understand the role that social media plays in shaping a political uprising
• The group that was directly responsible for causing the uprising has been dubbed “the Global Generation” by Adeel A. Shah, and Sheheryar T. Sardar.¹ This generation consists “of those born after 1980, representing roughly 52% of the world’s population.” Furthermore, they reported that, “according to Pew Research, ninety-three percent of the teenagers in America routinely go online, as do 93 percent of young adults.” This lifestyle strongly contrasts with the previous generation’s usage and view of technology. Growing up in the digital age can allow individuals in various geographic locations to experience the same events virtually in real time. In addition, those that are internet savvy can access vast amounts of information almost instantly and, in turn, depend on that ability for daily functioning. Shah and Sardar concluded, “this Global Generation not only communicates across borders, it emotes across borders, creating deeper connections and striving to understand who would otherwise be the ‘other’.”
• In Egypt, it was this generation that was faced with a particularly gloomy future. In 2006 for example, Dina Shehata noted that “young people with a secondary education or more represented 95 percent of the unemployed in their age group.”² This Global Generation became increasingly agitated, as they had to apply for positions for which they were over-qualified and often were turned away because of their advanced degrees. The global economic crisis in 2008 only exacerbated domestic Egyptian woes; there was economic stagnation coupled with high inflation rates.

• The proliferation of social media use by the Global Generation legitimized the medium as an effective journalism tool. People using those technologies as a platform to report on events and ideas did not need to worry about traditional fact-checking structures. Instead, if someone published an article online, peers could comment on the legitimacy of the facts by quickly cross-referencing anything in question with a search on Google. In many ways social media can be a more reliable source of information; those in the Global Generation believe that articles that are written and shared among friends and friends-of-friends seem more personal and reliable than a corporation pushing the same message. The speed in which information is disseminated or “goes viral” does not depend on elitist structures. Further, since each person can contribute to the online community, there naturally emerges no one leader whose voice can dominate. Overall, the medium allows for users who previously only consumed traditional media the opportunity to participate and interact.

    
• Dr. Shehata concluded that “Mubarak’s downfall was the result of three factors: increasing corruption and economic exclusion, the alienation of the youth, and the 2010 elections and divisions among the Egyptian elite over questions of succession.” The Egyptian revolution can be defined by a series of mounting protests that started some ten years prior to the protest that eventually made Mubarak step down from power.

• Facebook Activism Before 2011

    

  In the early 2000s, workers and educated professionals took to the streets to protest labor laws but they never pushed political issues until 2006, when movements began to stress the need for the removal of President Mubarak. The Kefaya movement was made up of apolitical youth who organized protests in an attempt to overturn Mubarak’s presidency. Dina Shehata stated that the activists from this movement formed the “April 6 Movement in solidarity with textile workers… [ and ] attracted 70,000 members on Facebook.” This protest was notable because of the large number of its Facebook followers, as well as the strike that took place being uploaded to YouTube, which in turn allowed for a global audience to be exposed to the events.

• In 2010, parliamentary elections appeared to be heavily orchestrated in Mubarak’s favor so that no oppositional groups were going to be represented. Much of the country was against this plan. The Muslim Brotherhood, which unified citizens with social and political frustrations through Islam, was particularly upset due to its lack of political representation. Additionally, other groups like the Kefaya movement, which was made up mostly of Egyptian youth, also increased its demonstrations against the Mubarak regime.

    

  The Tunisian Example
• A week before the revolution, Asmaa Mahfouz, a recent college graduate and Egyptian activist posted a video on her Facebook page stressing the need to protest the Mubarak regime. The video was then re-posted many times by other individuals on Facebook and it was then eventually put on YouTube where it received even wider exposure. The significance of this video was that it “went viral” and helped to garner world attention about the events that were unfolding. The video is notable for its lack of production value and for showcasing a bold emotional monologue by a girl urging others to join her at Tahrir Square. These qualities helped to legitimize the video among its viewers. Once on the Facebook network, friends shared the video with other friends and it started to move through the social web. Those who could visit Facebook to communicate socially with friends could now be exposed to this video and gain knowledge about the event. This in turn spurred discussions and debates that would otherwise not have happened if they had just been watching a televised broadcast of the video. Also, those who were not apt to turn on the network news or read a newspaper were still exposed to this political video while viewing their Facebook page.

• Revolution Without Leaders

    

  It is interesting to note that in traditional political movements, there is one individual who rises up to become a leader; in the Egyptian Revolution, this pattern was not the case. This change was in part due to the Mubarak regime’s being likely to assassinate any such individual. The very nature of this movement was that of being leaderless. Also, many past movements were defined by cultural groups, or centered on one leader’s ideas. The internet allowed many individuals the opportunity to participate in the political and social movements and create change. The revolution that occurred in Egypt was not because of an international force or an oppositional political party but came from the grassroots mobilization of dissatisfied youth. With the Global Generation, the social media, including the internet, video conferencing, and even commerce, allowed for a disintegration of past cultural differences in order for individuals to work as a collective.
• During the revolution, the traditional media structures, especially in the West, either labeled the unfolding events a “Twitter Revolution” or a democratic revolution showing that the people in the Middle East wanted to adopt the Western democratic process. But the individuals in Egypt did not simply want to adopt a governmental model similar to the United States; instead, they wanted the ability to pursue their own goals, aspirations, and happiness. The Mubarak regime, with its economic woes did not give the youth any opportunity to fulfill their hopes. During the protests, groups that normally did not align with one another, namely those of differing religions and political affiliations, networked and became unified; it was this unity that made Mubarak leave power. The military’s inaction also helped bolster the protests and showed he was fighting a losing battle.
• On February 1st, 2011, President Mubarak said that he would step down from power in September. The day afterward, though, security forces and hired thugs shot at the protestors. Dina Shehata wrote that “eleven were shot and killed in Tahrir alone” and this event in turn provided another rallying point for the protestors. It was not until February 11, 2011, that President Mubarak stepped down from power and handed over control to the military. The revolution succeeded in eliminating the Mubarak family and the business elite that surrounded his family. Currently, the High Council of the Armed forces rules Egypt and much of the bureaucracy remains.

• Nationalism And High-Tech

    

  There are many ideas that one can take away from the revolution. In terms of Egypt and the Middle East, though, it is important to realize how their desire for democracy contrasts with a Western conception of democracy. The West is characterized as having religion separate from government. Nationalism helped to bolster the political identity of the state. In the Middle East, which is dominated by Islam, religion and politics are intertwined. The spread of democracy, as facilitated by the Internet, therefore does not imply the spreading of Western values. The freedom to connect with others and the imagined community can liberate those under an authoritarian regime. Though there are many theories about how a revolution can occur, this modern revolution demonstrates that through the use of technology, individuals can be empowered with their own voices.
• The uprising in Egypt showed how technology is changing our conception of nationalism. The Egyptian revolution revealed that the social networking media not only played a large role in the revolution itself, but also demonstrated their own power. Information gained from online sources helped raise awareness and knowledge about the government’s actions. It also gave a voice to those who previously lacked one. Those who do not have digital technology now are at a great disadvantage.
• The Egyptian Revolution proves that the Internet can strengthen national identities, which in turn can unify people in new ways. Persons who communicate through the social media take on a virtual identity that is an extension of their reality-based identity. The medium allows individuals to unify around ideas without revealing their own location. This, in effect, de-territorializes one’s conception of what a nation is; nationalism becomes decentralized. The youth who participated in the Egyptian revolution came to realize that there were many who shared their own problems and aspirations.
• As the leaderless revolution in Egypt demonstrated, there no longer needs to be a centralized power discourse to generate national sentiment. The Egyptian revolution was born from decentralized grass-roots mobilization. This kind of nationalism is generated from many individuals, who in turn can spread their ideas throughout social networks. Anyone who has the hardware and the connection can participate; the actual use of the website that hosts these social networks is free of charg
• What is incredible about the revolution in Egypt is that the virtual happenings online—the Facebook groups and the user-generated blogs, videos, and Tweets—were translated from the cyber-world into reality. These events prove that the medium is not an abstract activity that contrasts with the reality-based self. Instead, events that are happening online are blending with reality. In all sorts of ways, the Internet is a democratic tool. People using social media no longer need to reside in a specific nation to be a part of a movement. The interactions online are among people with diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds that make up the Global Generation and previous generations. Egyptian youths, by using social media, created their own discourse as to what Egypt should represent. This shows that nationalism remains a pervasive concept to the globalized world, but it now has more dimensions. The social media are promoting ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity within nations.
• At the same time social networks on the Internet have given individuals a new surge of power. They rightly feel a new ability to participate in political, economic, and social affairs that their governments may have previously blocked. This puts governments under increasing threat. Indeed, in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Libya, governments have been threatened or overthrown.

15 more annotations...