Facebook & Twitter labeled as 'Revolution'

Now, previously we've talked about Facebook and Twitter as a source of free flow of information, a platform for building relationships, an avenue of work and leisure and whatnot. Today, Facebook and Twitter are being categorized with another function altogether - a revolutionary hotspot.

Now, let's understand what this term means:

An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. - Dictionary.com

According to Evgeny Morozov's 'Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go', I feel in some ways it is written in such a way that provokes cynicism and anger. I do have to give the man some credits for being to able to defend his stand that revolutions happened due to these social platforms.

Let's summarize the 3 main points of Morozov: 1) A spontaneous uprising because of Facebook, 2) Facebook helps to spread democracy & 3) Unbalanced view of the protest leaders (Wael Ghonim to be specific).


To be precise, what I've gotten from the author is that these social platforms are the cause of revolutions and it's not because it's coincidental, but rather it does contribute to the main purpose of revolutions. In his words, "emphasizing the liberating role of the tools and downplaying the role of human agency". Also, he claims that democracy and the intention of revolution started off by these social media as well. It is through Facebook and Twitter that he claims gathered an army of lobbyists for protests. Finally, he felt that leaders of such protests are the ones who are exaggerating the technology role to the public pertinent to the uprisings around the world.

What's your take?


Well, these are some of the people's view:

New technologies are not the cause of the recent revolutions. Of course, they are, as you say, tools. But 20 years ago an uprising like Egypt's could have been quarantined and quashed by the regime in days, and the rulers would have been free to dictate the story to the press after the event. As Mubarak found, this is impossible to do when you have thousands of phones, cameras and laptops on the ground beaming every detail to the wider world. - OZKT29B

Mass communication tools will of course facilitate any kind of movement, be it pro- or anti-establishment. - R042

If revolutions are based on Facebook or Twitter then I doubt many will succeed. What they do provide is instant communication: they are the pamphlets of their time. Certainly without the printing press and pamphleteers, I doubt revolutions would have been possible in the past. But what revolutions need most is people power, oh and as Libya is demonstrating, gun power. - Ray Noble

Now these are just some about the point of views of others whom I agree on. To say that these social functions are to be blamed for all the protests and rallies in the world - Arab Spring for instance - is not entirely true. Here's what I think, the social tools are merely social + tools. A communicative channel and outsource of the people. A place where people go, not to create a ruckus of revolutionary ideas, but a place where people gather as one and express themselves out. And with that and that only.


Think of it this way, the message and the medium are two different things. The message is conjured by a group of brave, bold individuals which then plan out their moves and then spread out to people who are affected by a particular issue and wish to voice out. The message is spread out through these social platforms. That's why I reflect that Facebook and Twitter is not the main cause of revolutions but it is the communication role of a revolution protest. (I still feel that 'revolution' is such a heavy word.)

As we've learnt in Week 9's reading that if one is not into politics, then he would still not be into politics despite it being brought online as a trend. So when it comes to revolutions, I feel that if only you're interested and would like to take some action, then you'll join the herd. But if you're disinterested, then you'll just walk away. This goes to the point that revolutions are successful because of the man power, the united citizens. And again, to stress the point that Facebook and Twitter are just the communication channels.


Do I make sense? I hope I really do because this is quite a tricky but simple issue. 

Put it in another way, remember when Mr. Faizal asked us, "What do you think? Do you think Bersih 2.0 would happen if there's no Facebook or Twitter?" Well, not sure if this was his exact words but somewhere along the lines, I suppose. I remember clearly answering, "Of course, they do play a role. The rally would still go on without Facebook or Twitter, only that it will be in a smaller scale." Small scale VS Big scale. The talks is all about the amount of awareness among people. It's about whether an idea was well spread among the mass public.


I feel as if am going round and round in circles! Yikes! To recap, Facebook and Twitter, IMHO, is merely a communicative tool. 


I feel so spirited typing this out! Hope my points were clear enough! 


What do you think? Are Facebook and Twitter the culprits? Share a feedback! (;