Navid Hassanpour, a student at Yale argues that social media hinders revolutions and slows them down, because of a lack of "face-to-face communication." He explains that people won't be motivated to actually be apart of what is happening, and will instead get distracted by everything else that is going on the internet.
On the other hand, Wael Ghonim, a Google employee who helped organize Egypt's revolution over Facebook, explains how these mediums of social interaction helped the revolution by simply stating, "'If you want to liberate a society, just give them the internet.'" Personally, I agree with his statement. The internet obviously helps spread ideas and news a whole lot quicker than say the evening news or tomorrow's newspaper, but more importantly when the government has to shut down something because it's threatened by the ideas that are being passed on you know that particular something is powerful.
While there are valid points on both sides, I think the focus to be considered here is the long-term influence technology has on people. On one side it's nice to have information at your fingertips and definitely speeds up processes and communication, no one doubts this. I can definitely see some rebel guy in a basement somewhere using social media to get help or supplies more quickly distributed to his cause. But, when there is a revolution being considered, such as Egypt's and Libya's, wherein there is violent cultural barrier against that same technology, "Tweets" become irrelevant very quickly. It seems to me that this is a conflict over the soul of the country and the winner will be able to decide how much the culture is actually influenced by technology... Yes technology can help, but I think other countries are simply looking at the long term effects and flat-out taking a stand. I can also see that anti-social behavior can be associated with using too much technology (I know this because I did it). I'd game it up for several days in a row and when I would go back to work, or did whatever else, I was very irritable, short with people and couldn't care less what anyone else was doing that night or almost any other night, I just wanted to be entertained... If used too often, even if just temporarily, I have experienced that it can make you less of a friend to you and yours. For me, it's something I will definitely continue using (gaming etc...), but will also regulate my intake a bit more carefully.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are valid points on both sides, I think the focus to be considered here is the long-term influence technology has on people. On one side it's nice to have information at your fingertips and definitely speeds up processes and communication, no one doubts this. I can definitely see some rebel guy in a basement somewhere using social media to get help or supplies more quickly distributed to his cause. But, when there is a revolution being considered, such as Egypt's and Libya's, wherein there is violent cultural barrier against that same technology, "Tweets" become irrelevant very quickly. It seems to me that this is a conflict over the soul of the country and the winner will be able to decide how much the culture is actually influenced by technology... Yes technology can help, but I think other countries are simply looking at the long term effects and flat-out taking a stand. I can also see that anti-social behavior can be associated with using too much technology (I know this because I did it). I'd game it up for several days in a row and when I would go back to work, or did whatever else, I was very irritable, short with people and couldn't care less what anyone else was doing that night or almost any other night, I just wanted to be entertained... If used too often, even if just temporarily, I have experienced that it can make you less of a friend to you and yours. For me, it's something I will definitely continue using (gaming etc...), but will also regulate my intake a bit more carefully.
ReplyDeleteJohn Leinweber = The Noosh