Tens of thousands continue to take to the streets of Cairo, Egypt in an effort to end President Hosni Mubarak's 30-year authoritarian rule. Elsewhere in the world, there are people who are disproportionately more concerned with the average Egyptian's ability to communicate with them than with what drove the average Egyptian to the streets in the first place.
These people have moved the issues of Egypt's unemployment, high food prices, and government corruption to the back burner. They are instead focusing on how to get the Internet back up and running in Egypt—and to what end? So the average Egyptian can communicate with citizens of the world who will in turn come a-runnin'? No, it's so those outside Egypt can resume feeling good about themselves by virtue of feeling bad for Egyptian citizens when they read their Twitter posts and see their Facebook uploads.
This is tantamount to walking up to a burning home and instead of heeding the residents' cries for help, hurling cell phones at them so they can call you and talk about the experience.
It's okay to say, "I feel helpless in the face of what these people are now enduring on top of their unemployment, high food prices, and government corruption." It is not okay to hide this feeling behind a self-righteous campaign wielded from one's device of choice and say, "Their most important tool is communication—with us!" No, they're already communicating with the man who hasn't addressed their issues. That's not you, Desktop Dan.
Egyptian citizens have already been robbed of their most important tools by their own government. Unless you have a job, affordable food, or an honest government leader hiding in your pocket, you're of no use to anyone in Egypt—or any other citizen of a destabilized nation.
Despite growing enthusiasm for remote-control revolutions, they are ineffective and unproductive. At best, communications will do little more than send a lot of people scurrying to the Internet to find out the correct spelling of the country in question and make others in the world aware of what's happening—assuming the communication is in a language you personally can understand.
The monolingual militia need remember that while many Egyptians (and other citizens in need around the world) do speak English, the bulk of any communication coming directly from an Egyptian citizen is going to be in Arabic. You could swing a lot of dead cats 'round the States before hitting anyone who understands Arabic.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - a l
so...umm how do you expect us to communicate with the people on ground? how come the Egyptians themselves are calling for virutual support so to get to corporate news medias attention? i guess their call to have their internet back on is for no reason at all. we should just rely on the TV than for information. this article needs a reality check!
2 - a l
its about building momentum and keeping their struggle alive outside of Egypt.
"Dear US & Co., we refuse to remain pawns in your hegemonic chess game. Get ready for a New Middle East. Sincerely, The Arabs
3 - Cindy
Diana,
Apparently in your lack of direct communication with protesters you aren't aware of what they want. They need to communicate with each other. Communication is everything to humans. It is how they assemble, arrive at strategy and make their positions known.
"Their most important tool is communicationâ€"with us!"
With us? Says who, you? That's certainly not something I said or implied.
You presume twitter and facebook are all about sharing pics and texts? That seems to say more about your limited perception and experience than anything else.
Why do you think a dictator would cut the people's communication off. Do you think such effort was done to keep them from playing Farmville?
Connection to the world at large and support is necessary as well as means of internally coordination revolts. I am surprised at your lack of insight.
4 - Cindy
At best, communications will do little more than send a lot of people scurrying to the Internet to find out the correct spelling of the country in question and make others in the world aware of what's happeningâ€"assuming the communication is in a language you personally can understand.
You aren't aware of google translate? You don't realize that we can now communicate with people all over the world easily?
And what's wrong with people knowing what's happening in the world? Should the better be watching The Young and the Restless? If that were the best thing (and I disagree it is) that would be a fine thing.
Why so much venom?
5 - Cindy
I find it hard to imagine you have never translated a news piece from a foreign language. I talk to people all over the world--in Arabic, in Farsi, etc.
Before exposing 'myths', I advise one to actually do even the merest smidgeon of investigation and gain some experience with the actuality, on the ground, one is claiming to debunk from one's ivory tower.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Diana -
The digital revolution isn't a be-all, end-all solution for poverty...but the internet IS the biggest threat to dictatorships around the globe - and the dictators know it! For example:
- Remember the unrest in Iran in 2009? It would not have been possible on such a grand scale had the word not been spread by internet...and the Ahmedinejad government knew it. That was why they tried (with limited success) to shut down the internet in Iran - which led to Twitter flexing its muscles and establishing itself as a legitimate political tool.
- Not long afterward came the moderates' victory over Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether or not it was due to the so-called 'Obama effect', the victory would have been highly unlikely if the majority of moderates in the general populace had not had access to the free flow of information in the internet.
- Tunisia has perhaps the most well-developed internet system in North Africa...and guess who they just installed as a government minister since they kicked out their dictator? A dissident blogger.
- This past first week of November was election season, not only for America, but also for Myanmar. Their national internet system was mysteriously shut down for the entire week previous to the election (they claimed it was due to some kind of 'attack'), and miraculously came back on line the day after the election!
- North Korea.
- The Great Firewall of China. Do I really need to elaborate on this one?
Do you see what I mean, Diana? The internet isn't a panacea for poverty...but it IS the biggest threat that totalitarianism has ever faced - ever! - and the dictators know it, as you can see by the examples I presented above!
One last thing - the Chinese are the smartest about how they're controlling their citizens' access to the internet. They don't prevent said access...but they control the content accessible and assign people to search for those posting articles critical of China. I clearly remember a year or two ago when we had an article posted on BC critical of China...and suddenly we had a small infestation of trolls! All of a sudden there were several Chinese apologists trying to explain away the situation...and their use of grammar made it obvious as to who and what they were.
Will China be successful in the long run? I don't know...but I think the odds are against them.
7 - Cindy
"First - in the name of all Tunesien people - I want to thank Anonymous. Anonymous were the only ones to help us. Anonymous has blocked all governmental websites [of Tunesia] because they [the Tunesien government] have blocked? our internet access so we may not get information. Thank you Anonymous! We want to let you know that you have found new allies and that there are many more people living in oppresion.
And that you have won us to aid you in this fight against all dictators thay still remain in this world...."
video
8 - Glenn Contrarian
When it comes to 'Anonymous', is anyone else here familiar with "Ghost in the Shell - Standalone Complex"? Talk about life imitating art....
9 - Cindy
Tom Twitter, Fred Facebook and thousands of their closest untrained friends are not going to change anything or make anyone's life better no matter what post they read or uploaded picture or video they see. That power, in the United States, rests with the Executive Branch and USCentCom (United States Central Command).
Yes, I can see that based on Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton's comments.
No power to the people for you, eh Diana? Somewhere in Egypt there is another Diana saying the same thing about her government and how it is the only legitimate path to effect (affect?) change.
10 - El Bicho
Nice to see you back around, but you are wrong about this. Maybe you are following/friends with the wrong people but all this information brings people together and makes them better informed, such as when they have to vote for the leader of the Executive Branch.
Your solutions don't off much solution from where I sit. What good does it do being part of the State Department when the people of that country don't like the leader we are allied with? How is the Treasury Department helping in Egypt right now?
11 - roger nowosielski
You guys are being unfair to Diana. She makes very valid points. Of course she underplays the importance of the social media revolution in affecting today's world events, but she does so in her journalistic fervor: in short, she couldn't make the kind of points she wants to make, and with equal emphasis, while extolling the virtues of modern technology and uses to which it can be put.
Diane certainly is not going to deny the whole range of positive developments that have come about as a result of the social media revolution - WikiLeaks being one example. It's equally certain she wouldn't deny that the people of Egypt would definitely benefit from, indeed welcome, moral support from the simple fact the we in the West are following these developments closely. It's asinine to accuse her of such ignorance. So yes, she makes a number of valid points while conveniently downplaying the kind of things what are so important to you all.
So come on, people, let's get a grip and not be unduly impressed with our self-importance. You owe her an apology.
12 - Cindy
Roger,
You must be doing one of your benefit-of-the doubt despite the writing on the wall thingies. It is clear what she said.
She said that the United States Gov't and its military are the legitimate vehicles to effect change in other countries. I'd have to disagree, unless overthrowing democratically elected gov'ts and installing or propping up dictatorships is the sort of change one is looking to make. Then the US is definitely your vehicle.
13 - roger nowosielski
I'm being honest, Cindy. I didn't pay much attention to that dimension of her article, didn't thing it was central to her making her point.
Do you think I ought to re-read it?
14 - Cindy
Roger,
It was her entire point.
She showed up with a brusk comment on my article about the Tor relay. Then she marched off, in apparent irritation, to write her piece. (In it is a link to my article and an insinuation that I think that chatting with people on twitter and facebook is more important than their problems on the ground.)
Yes, please do reread it.
15 - Cindy
And also read al's posts 1 & 2, which are in line with reality.
16 - roger nowosielski
Alright, I'm going to try to be fair. As to whether this article was a direct rebuttal to yours, generated by possible feelings of animosity, that I cannot tell. Diana is the one to respond.
Also, on second reading, I disagree with Diana's idea of a solution - in this case working through US-sponsored agencies, official or unofficial. In this respect, I must say she overreached, failing to recognize or at least own up to the fact that in part at least, it was none other than US foreign policy in the Middle East that largely responsible for the present state of affairs. So yes, this part in my estimation is misguided.
Which still leaves us with the question as to what is the central point of the article, (a) a valid critique that all to often we take the path of least resistance in order to feel good about ourselves, patting ourselves on the back all the while that we're thus discharging our obligation to the suffering humanity, or (b) Diana's recommendation that the most effective means of helping the distressed peoples is via joining US-sponsored agencies and initiatives (with with I vehemently disagree)? What's not in question, however, is that the latter definitely detracts from the intended force of the former, rendering it, shall I say? moot.
So perhaps it's best for Diana to step forward and clarify her meaning. Until then, I'll try to keep an open mind.
17 - El Bicho
"I disagree with Diana's idea of a solution"
Like the rest of us who only needed one reading to come to that conclusion. Do you owe Diana an apology as well?
18 - roger nowosielski
Don't be silly. I didn't dump on her. As to you, and the rest of you, who need only one reading, what can I say except that you're a bright fella.
19 - Alan Kurtz
Trenchant and courageous blog, Diana. Naturally it exposed you to defensive counterattacks from BC's vaunted armchair anarchists, which is par for the course. They are nothing if not predictable.
Thanks also for your link to Malcolm Gladwell's outstanding New Yorker article, "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted." As Gladwell observes, "The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. … But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism."
Such media succeed, writes Gladwell, "not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice." After all, not asking too much is "the only way you can get someone you don't really know to do something on your behalf."
20 - Boeke
Alan,
I haven't been following this thread, but your comment 19 got me thinking along this line: yes, the dissident tweeters can hide behind the internet and their anonymity, but that's not really much different from oppressors who hide behind secret police and contrived legalities. But, so what? Neither oppression nor revolution requires or rewards bravery and martyrdom.
One could say that the anonymous internet dissenters have at last achieved equilibrium with oppressors: each has a barricade to hide behind, whereas previously the oppressor had an advantage.
There's little evidence that bravery counts for much in a revolution. Usually the bold die early. And soon people are tired of them anyway and turn against them for showboating.
21 - roger nowosielski
But Alan is the epitome of bravery, Boeke - on the net. He is, to use Diana's apt phrase, the "Desktop Dan."
Don't ever take it away from him!
22 - Alan Kurtz
Another of Roger's spiteful ad hominem attacks. What's that, 1,074,693? I admit I've lost count.
23 - Ruvy
It isn't the west that needs to know, it is the guy in the street who pays for Orange Big Talk or some such other thing so that he can keep in touch. And most of this communication goes on in Arabic, Farsi, Turkish & Hebrew. You English speakers get locked out of a lot of it with your utter ignorance - except those of you who can tolerate Google Translate.
Diana's article misses the mark, and Cindy's comments hit the mark.
24 - Alan Kurtz
To me, after reading their articles and many of their commentaries, it's clear that BC's armchair anarchists despise the U.S. Government and favor its overthrow by any means necessary, up to and including violence. Yet they refuse to come out and say so in plain language, preferring to gussy it up in secondhand philosophy. Why the dissimulation?
I think it's because they'd rather sit back and watch other people, such as the Egyptians at the moment, take all the risks of actually overthrowing one's government. There's a word for this: cowardice.
25 - Ruvy
Alan, I don't really spend my time reading the articles of Blogcritics armchair revolutionaries except where they seem especially lucid or informative. And I don't worry myself over their motives too much either.
I DO see the need for a serious régime change (read revolution) here in Israel - though I'm not too sure how to pull it off. I'm left with the unpleasant prospect of waiting for HizbAllah's missiles to destroy the Zionist régime for me, and that really bothers me. But when all the government goons have most of the guns, that seems to be the only solution. This is not cowardice - just logic in the face of overwhelming force.
Lots of the commenters and writers here at BC want to see a major régime change in your country, other than the armchair revolutionaries and anarchism defenders. And they call for it - like Mr. Hirschhorn and his unending calls for a 5th Amendment constitutional convention - or Dave Nalle, promoting some kind of internal reform of the GOP (good luck on that, Dave!).
But I do appreciate your concise descriptions of anarchy in action in Egypt. They are the best arguments against the belabored screeds defending anarchy, anarchists and anarchism that appear on this site.