So apparently Facebook isn't quite as establishment-reinforcing as previously thought. Egyptian radicals, spurred by Tunisia's successful social-media-intermediated uprising, have started using Facebook and Twitter to coordinate their own protests as well.
Not that it's really about social media. I don't think that's fair to the people who are risking their lives on the streets of Tunis and Cairo. I also still maintain that Malcolm Gladwell had a point when he talked about how low-effort e-protesting just isn't going to accomplish much. What's different here is that it's serving as a complement to real, out-in-the-street protest, instead of as a substitute.
There's still no substitute for getting your hands dirty. You still have to get out there and make some noise. You still need to march in the street, carry those signs, wield the megaphone, and everything else that comes with struggling for change. You also still have to engage in the simple, repetitive, low-key but absolutely vital political work of doorknocking, phone canvassing, leaflet dropping and the like. And, yes, you still need to actually mail your governmental representatives, since that carries far more weight than email does.
But social networking tools do have a place as a means of bringing people together, getting them organized, and channeling their passions in a productive direction. It's not as sexy as supposed "twitter revolutions". Even so, it's still important and necessary.
I'm your great, great Blogfather, and I'm going to show you how things really works. Look grateful.
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tunisian Protests Spread to Egypt
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Time Magazine's Cowardly Choice
Time's readers make the obvious choice for person of the year: Julian Assange. Time, instead, selects the Facebook guy. Who would have been a notable choice for 2009, mind you, when Facebook really hit its stride, but is only notable this year for having been the subject of a movie that he despises and believes is inaccurate.
But look at the symbolism of this. Time is utterly conventional, and absolutely dependent on government leaks. (Just like every other news source these days.) Everybody with any sense knows that Assange should have got the nod. Like him or hate him, he was a HUGE newsmaker over the past year. But the Time editors know that the government would absolutely lose their shit if Assange got the nod. They don't want him to be painted as a villain, they just want him and his organization to go the hell away. They want him tossed down the memory hole as soon as possible.
So, instead, we get Zuckerberg and his scary privacy-demolishing machine. One that, according to persistant rumors, has ties to American intelligence organizations. I don't know whether that's true or not—though certainly the stories about the hard-right early funding sources for Facebook are creepy—but it's undoubtedly true that Facebook collects a LOT of information about you and the sorts of things you like, and I have no doubt that the U.S. government would find that a useful resource, if they have access to it.
Certainly, this bit in their user agreement is creepy as hell:
So Time makes the safe, cowardly, government-friendly choice. The one that emphasizes taking secrets from the people, instead of sharing secrets with the people. Rather a bizarre position for journalists to take. Assuming that they're still really journalists in the first place. A hard assumption to make in 2010, and it's just getting harder.
Edit: Or, as a brilliant Twitter put it:
But look at the symbolism of this. Time is utterly conventional, and absolutely dependent on government leaks. (Just like every other news source these days.) Everybody with any sense knows that Assange should have got the nod. Like him or hate him, he was a HUGE newsmaker over the past year. But the Time editors know that the government would absolutely lose their shit if Assange got the nod. They don't want him to be painted as a villain, they just want him and his organization to go the hell away. They want him tossed down the memory hole as soon as possible.
So, instead, we get Zuckerberg and his scary privacy-demolishing machine. One that, according to persistant rumors, has ties to American intelligence organizations. I don't know whether that's true or not—though certainly the stories about the hard-right early funding sources for Facebook are creepy—but it's undoubtedly true that Facebook collects a LOT of information about you and the sorts of things you like, and I have no doubt that the U.S. government would find that a useful resource, if they have access to it.
Certainly, this bit in their user agreement is creepy as hell:
We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile.But no matter what the truth of that is, the fact remains that Facebook is just about the opposite thing to a challenge to the established order. If anything, by being a single privacy-hating corporation that is trying to supplant the rest of the Internet and dictate what you can and cannot do on the Internet, it's big business and big government's wet dream.
So Time makes the safe, cowardly, government-friendly choice. The one that emphasizes taking secrets from the people, instead of sharing secrets with the people. Rather a bizarre position for journalists to take. Assuming that they're still really journalists in the first place. A hard assumption to make in 2010, and it's just getting harder.
Edit: Or, as a brilliant Twitter put it:
Mark Zuckerberg wants it utterly closed. Julian Assange wants it utterly open. #time chose Zuckerberg man of the year, its readers Assange.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)