‘Facebook and Twitter have become tools for political freedom’ (20 February 2011, Sunday / Julia Ley, İstanbul)

(**I would like to share this article. This article taken from: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&newsId=236101&link=236101) Recent events in Egypt have shown that social media networks like Facebook and Twitter have become invaluable assets to repressed people’s struggle for greater political freedom and human rights, digital media expert Dennis Anderson has said.

The 18-day-long mass protests in Egypt that eventually brought about the demise of President Hosni Mubarak’s three-decade-old regime had been meticulously organized by a group of web-wise political activists who relied on social networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter to mobilize mass support and coordinate the protests. “New information technologies and Web 2.0. tools play an increasingly important role in political change. Egypt is only the most recent example of this development,” said Anderson. When asked why social media has been so prevalent in the recent uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, Anderson pointed to the opportunities these new technologies offer young people to express their frustration. “If you look at the current population in these countries, most of them are young people and do not have jobs. Yet, they all grew up using mobile phones and the Internet. Really, it is only a matter of time for them to use these technologies to voice their dissent.” Unsurprisingly, governments are not unaware of the revolutionary potential carried by social networking platforms and the like. And in fact, prohibiting social media and communication technologies has become an important tool for choking political opposition. In Egypt, too, political leaders have sought to disperse the protests by censoring relevant pages and at times shutting down Internet and mobile services altogether. However, such measures often remain ineffective due to the agility of the online community, which tends to always be one step ahead of its persecutors. “Cutting off satellite signals, phone lines and television is yesterday,” Anderson explained. “Today, many young people are unhappy with their authoritarian rulers. There is still time for some governments to reform. But they will have to address the needs of the young population.” Yet, the impact of social media on the social and political development of a country may not always be a beneficial one. Some experts have cautioned that the rapid spread of new technologies could aggravate social inequality by widening the gap between those who have access to these technologies and those who don’t. Anderson regards such fears of a growing “digital divide” unfounded. “Most social media requires basic technology and services over the Internet. However, this is different from buying expensive software or hardware. So, really it’s less and less about the physical issue when it comes to access. If someone wants access to the Internet, there are ways. In fact social media is actually helping to break down the traditional class divisions that exist in many societies,” he said. By providing an anonymous space for networking and a free exchange of ideas in environments that are often culturally or politically oppressive, the Internet has allowed people to overcome the barriers of class, age, religion and sex that hinder their personal development in the real world. “The young generation who grew up with digital technologies is less restricted by the social and cultural divisions that their parents grew up with. New media technologies are making this planet smaller; they let people realize the old socio-economic divides are obstacles to progress. On Facebook, you can be friends with anyone without any social stigma.” But despite the increased freedoms which new media has to offer, there still remain a number of problems that will have to be overcome. “One challenge is how to deal with the knowledge gap,” Anderson explains. Even if access is no longer a problem, an individual’s ability to benefit from technological advances will vary depending on his or her educational level. “Today, information is considered a commodity, which means people expect to get paid for information. In fact, knowledge has become a good that we trade. Think of financial analysis, for example. Naturally, this requires an extremely well trained workforce which developing countries lack. So, today, if you cannot afford knowledge, you are locked out of the system.” Another problem is that new technologies offer little to no means of controlling the quality of the information provided. Thus, while information may have become much more widely available, such benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of misinformation. “With so many new forms of media and technology available, there can sometimes be an overload. Important information may be overlooked or discarded due to the sheer volume of information available,” Anderson admits. Also, increased competition from individuals and nonprofit organizations providing information for free means that traditional media outlets, such as print newspapers, now find themselves under “tremendous pressure to get the news out there first.” All these factors may contribute to the decline of quality. To counter this trend, Anderson suggests that “we will need to invest into better training for those who want to pursue a career in journalism.” For print journalists, however, the threat may be more existential than that. The vast availability of information for little or no money means that print journalism is faced with serious competition. In fact, sales figures of print newspapers have been declining for years. Anderson agrees that the onslaught of Facebook, Twitter, etc., has not been of benefit to everyone. “The proliferation of digital media can be looked at as a vibrant change that could create even greater ways for people to communicate and to share information. Or it can be seen as the end of communication as we know it today,” he says. What ultimately matters, however, is how traditional businesses will deal with the new forms of media: “As far as I see, digital media is here to stay and will continue to change how we produce information, get information, consume information and share information. The providers of traditional forms of communication will have to adopt rather than hope that something will come along to keep their businesses afloat.” In his view, the change has already happened. While important problems like the issue of quality or questions of user security and personal privacy are yet to be solved, it is clear that there is no turning back from the information age. For Anderson, the consequences of this development are obvious. Ultimately, the providers of traditional forms of communication will have to adapt, or they will go out of business. “It’s time to change quickly,” he says.