True much? I'll let you decide yourself.
Ever since the Friendster, Facebook, MySpace et cetera are on business, it somehow made is as if it's a must for everyone to have at least "an account". (There are people with more than an account, I don't know how that works but somehow it just turned out this way). But, that is not the problem. What we concern here is the adherence thought of the cyber-utopians. They pointed out that these digital tools are now the platform to summon up a revolution. Do you think the same?
To a certain extent, I do agree that it is the platform to summon a revolution. Take Facebook as the example. Majority of the citizen has a Facebook account, and if there were a revolution to be raised, Facebook is definitively targeted by the activist. Reason is simple. We, are not fully practicing freedom of speech. Most of our printed media (Newspaper) and TV channels are govern by the authorities. Do you think there is even a slight chance the activist can "advertise" on the newspaper/TV channels?
For example, if the revolution has something to do with The Star, and the activist were to "advertise" on the Star to gather the members, what will happened? I think The Star won't be that dumb to even post it on the newspaper to help the activist to recruit member so that they can raise a revolution don't they? Isn't it ironic if the hot issue of the day on The Star mainpaper be "Member recruiting for The Star's revolution!!"?
So, it's clear enough that the only way to reach the other members are social networking sites. However, that doesn't mean anything. Like what Morozov mentioned in his article,
" This is not to suggest that neither of these communications devices played a role in these decades-old uprisings - but it is to note that the people directly involved may not have the most dispassionate appraisals of how these watershed events occurred."You posted something online, doesn't mean people sees it.
People sees it doesn't mean they are interested in it.
People interested in it doesn't mean they will take any actions.
Besides, internet is the only platform with freedom of speech. Anyone and post anything on it. Take it serious or not, it's all depends on the reader. If someone said something like "Oh my god, so-and-so race is just so stuck up" and the next day, a protest raised, does it means that the person who said that line should take the blame?
We practice freedom of speech on social networking sites. Just like the name it self, it is a social site. Not some sites that contains all kinds of provocations. Hence, it is not wise for the cyber-utopian to put the blame on social media for all the summoned revolution. Even though it might have influences to it just because everyone is on the site, it doesn't mean that this is the media that driven the Arab Spring like what it is mentioned earlier in this post.
"You posted something online, doesn't mean people sees it.
ReplyDeletePeople sees it doesn't mean they are interested in it.
People interested in it doesn't mean they will take any actions"
I like this sentence as it's true that not everyone is interested on what you are posting as it is not related to them. Besides that, social networking really a easy place that let us to connect with our member in private or public but some of the peoples misuse on it. Yes! You are right that we should not put the blame on social media as it is not their problem is people problems. Anyway, nice post.
Hey there Jia Xin! First and foremost, I really like how you tied your explanation to something of a smaller but still important scale - The Star Revolution. I completely agree with your point that certain countries do not have the freedom of voicing out. This complicating issue is solved by the citizens themselves as they turn into netizens. And here's where an exchange of idea is put up to gather the word.
ReplyDeleteI stand on your ground as well with you mentioning that social sites like its name, is a platform for social communication. True to the fact that most but not all sites do contain provocation, especially in Malaysia, races and ethics of our multi-race country is a big issue. Some sites will have a bad intention while others want to fight for justice the professional way but we can't just put the pin that social media is the cause of revolution.
It is up to the public and netizens to take part or not. They have their choice and rights. They decide what actions to take with the posts about fairness in social media. The social tools are merely there to remind and inform you on what actions should be taken against the big boys. No one is forcing them to gang up and have a protest, it is a sole decision of one.
Cheers!
Hello Jia Xin! Indeed, the society nowadays is really praxis. People tend to use Facebook to express their feeling but people just utilize it to create protest and the activist sees it as a potential place to gather member to join the protest. Although it is impactful but in a wrong way.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, as you said "Do you think there is even a slight chance the activist can "advertise" on the newspaper/TV channels?" I am agree with it, but still I think Facebook is still not a platform to organize any protest or rebellation. They have just misused the Facebook and definitely the social media is nothing to do with it but it is just the matter of the human.
Its an interesting post. I like the examples that you had given and the way u explained things, its ver interesting.
ReplyDelete"Do you think there is even a slight chance the activist can "advertise" on the newspaper/TV channels?"
I don't think so, because there is no total freedom of speech in nespaper and TV channel. I don't think that they will had much news about the revolution as well. The newspaper and TV chennel will filter out the news about it. Because the government want to minimize the possibility for the citizens to get contact with the activist and known about their activities. They will scared that the citizens might join the revolution.
The revolution of social networking makes our life different. In your post, you mention about freedom of speech. In Malaysia, there is no freedom of speech of people should learn to speak out the opinion and thought. In newspaper, they will be restrict by the controller, but in social networking people can say what they want. It can help the citizen in Malaysia practice the freedom of speech’s trend.
ReplyDeleteThrough social networking, people can find the people which got same topic and opinion to share they personal comment. These can help peoples to share their culture with different races people in the world and help peoples build a communication relationship. Compare to past, it had already change people’s life by they have the freedom to speak.
"We practice freedom of speech on social networking sites. Just like the name it self, it is a social site. Not some sites that contains all kinds of provocations." I agree with this sentence. I feel that some people take these social networking sites too seriously. For one thing, it has brought more benefit then destruction to the world, in terms of communication and social uprisings. It has given a chance to the world to know what is really going on, without the interference and editing of any press or government. It has given us a platform to share and be part of something bigger, and given a chance to all of us to be contributive and active in the stand of adversity.
ReplyDeleteIt has also, in my opinion, brought more tolerance and understanding of various cultures, languages and etc.