Can we say now that we are watching an early stage of “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority” ?
.
“I’m always a little reticent to draw lessons from things still unfolding, but it seems pretty clear that … this is it. The big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the Chicago demonstrations of 1968 where they chanted ‘the whole world is watching.’ Really, that wasn’t true then. But this time it’s true … and people throughout the world are not only listening but responding. They’re engaging with individual participants, they’re passing on their messages to their friends, and they’re even providing detailed instructions to enable web proxies allowing Internet access that the authorities can’t immediately censor. That kind of participation is really extraordinary.
Traditional media operates as source of information not as a means of coordination. It can’t do more than make us sympathize.
Twitter makes us empathize. It makes us part of it. Even if it’s just retweeting, you’re aiding the goal that dissidents have always sought: the awareness that the outside world is paying attention.
..
For emphasis, Thomas Friedman in today’s NY Times:
.
What is fascinating to me is the degree to which in Iran today — and in Lebanon — the more secular forces of moderation have used technologies like Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, blogging and text-messaging as their virtual mosque, as the place they can now gather, mobilize, plan, inform and energize their supporters, outside the grip of the state.
For the first time, the moderates, who were always stranded between authoritarian regimes that had all the powers of the state and Islamists who had all the powers of the mosque, now have their own place to come together and project power: the network. The Times reported that Moussavi’s fan group on Facebook alone has grown to more than 50,000 members. That’s surely more than any mosque could hold — which is why the government is now trying to block these sites.
.
Powered by Qumana
Totally agree with your observation that its too early to draw conclusive lessons but its fascinating to witness the process . . . The technology that we take for granted and that would have astounded our great grandparents generation is giving voice to individuals and groups that historically were cutoff from international communications.
Will enhanced communication capability ultimately shift the balance of power or bring about an era of transparency? Stay tuned, its sure to be an exiting ride.
Thanks for stopping by, Bob. It is appreciated.
Re: your “Will enhanced communication capability ultimately shift the balance of power or bring about an era of transparency? “
Of course, the exploration of that question is what the concept of wirearchy is all about. If knowledge is power, then ….
In traditional hierarchy, those at the top held / hoarded all the strategic, need-to-know information and knowledge. Arguably, intoday’s conditions, something large is (maybe changing, shifting .. though the hierarchical institutions of our society have many means for (trying to) control that information and knowledge, or spin it (another form of effective “control”.
Stay tuned, indeed !
Seems like the arrogance level just goes up and up here — not even links when borrowing the thoughts of others.
It kind of pollutes the good that might be present, doesn’t it, and draws into question as much here does, whether you are talking about something a society might actually share, or the tiny closed world of web pundits?
For those who’d like to appreciate the sources and the context:
http://blog.ted.com/2009/06/qa_with_clay_sh.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17friedman.html
rl