Protests and Social Media — Trading wrist-rockets for hash tags.
by jeffreykriley
In these two readings, we have social unrest and social media in an intermixed scene. However, one frames the social media use as a success, helping aid the overthrow of a brutal dictator, while the other shows the flaws of the system being similar to systems of the past.
Let’s explore a similarity, then an opposing point, followed by a really powerful shared assumption.
One of the seemingly obvious similarities between the articles by Lim and Poell & Borra, is that the social networking in both situations was not done by one cohesive group with one cohesive message or goal — at least not off the bat. In Lim’s Egyptian setting, there are vastly different players with vastly different goals. Although the Egyptian Marxist-communists, conservative Muslim Brotherhood, and hoards of soccer hooligans all agreed that Mubarak needed to go, their reasons for supporting that idea were varied. For Poell & Borra’s G20 setting, the players are similar in that they are strikingly different. Environmentalist organizations were in the fray with gay rights organizations, organized labor, and ever-aggravated Black Bloc anarchists. So that aspect of the setting of both analyses is the same. Both social movements were considered “one” movement, however they were formed from a very loose collective who really only shared disenfranchisement in common. The assumption was seemingly made by both authors that social networking systems would act as a binder for these loosely connected groups.
That leads to something that makes the two situations different, and therefore makes the points of analysis opposed:
One of the aspects of social media and revolution discussed by Lim is that of a turning point — or with Lim, a series of turning points — that allow for people to come together against a common enemy. For the Lim study, this was the death of Khaled Said, a prominent blogger. When the government murdered Said for allegedly distributing video of police pocketing drug money after a raid, many different sides of the anti-government movement now had a martyr and common enemy. Social networking allowed those different groups with different political affiliations to have a “shared victimization.” And, after the death of Said, the topic of the social media produced by the different folks shifted into that singular topic, as did the increasing effort to spread the word of upcoming protests. However, that is lacking with Poell & Borra’s analysis of social media use by G20 protestors and activists. There is no turning point, where the different factions of G20 protestors, all using the same channels of communication, were able to form together with a single common enemy for the same reason. Yes, the protestors tended to focus on the topic of police brutality, it wasn’t enough to unite everyone against either the G20 for a specific reason or the police themselves. Whereas in Egypt the conversation became the need to oust a dictator, the G20 protestors all had a different motivation and a different desired outcome, and nothing ever changed that. Unlike Egypt, social networking as a platform was unable to unite for a common goal.
Finally, that leads to the final point that both Poell & Borra and Lim share.
Both studies seem to carry the assumption that social networking, the mimicking of interpersonal social networks in an online setting, have the potential to be more, to be better, to be more powerful, than traditional means of media when it comes to the ability to insite social change and unite people behind a given cause. For the case of Egypt, it was because the traditional forms of media were controlled by the very dictator they were trying to ouster. For the G20, it was because of long-standing criticisms that traditional news media focus on spectacle instead of message. Granted, in the case of the G20, it was found that the social networks were not all that different.
However, isn’t it saying something that the researchers felt the need to test it as such in the first place? That’s powerful, right?
Both authors point to social networks having a ton of potential power in our world, even if that potential is not being lived up to.
Atoms_to_Bits 
Hi Jeff, overall, I haven’t much to disagree about. I only wonder: you state that “both studies seem to carry the assumption that social networking, the mimicking of interpersonal social networks in an online setting, have the potential to be more, to be better, to be more powerful, than traditional means of media when it comes to the ability to insite social change and unite people behind a given cause.” I am hardly convinced that any comparison goes on between traditional and social media with regards to inciting social change. Indeed, social change is not mentioned at all; and would hardly be expected of traditional media, especially that controlled by the state. Rather, what is mentioned is the coverage of possible social change. Thence, there’s the analysis of the role of social media, certainly in Egypt, essentially on par with the word of mouth effect of taxi drivers, which was rather illuminating.
;
Jeff, on another note, I’d like to hear your opinion on this: was the role of media, traditional and social, positive in these two cases? If you haven’t the time to answer, no problem, I know how short time is 😉
Just wondered how you felt about it…thanks…
(I feel guilty that I never respond to your questions on here. I don’t do it on purpose, I promise)
Oh man, that’s a tough question.
I think yes, in part, for the basic use/gratification approach to media. Media serves a specific function – to inform. And, in both cases, I think that social media informed people about what was going on around them. In Egypt, it was to coordinate protests. At the G20, it was to let protesters know where to avoid trouble with the police. Even if the latter mimicked the role of mass media as opposed to interpersonal, it still fulfilled a need.
I agree that the fact that the studies are cropping up about social media and protest that there is a power of social media that is getting dissected for future predictions. I really agree with your common point that the networks brought together voices that might have never met, and I believe that the social media movement will soon be used to predict outcomes of elections such as our upcoming presidential election. If a study could trace the impact of social networking use patterns and use to the success of (or reasons for failure) then that formula will become very valuable!
It’s undeniable that social media play an indispensable role in facilitating social
movement. However, I am wondering if it’s the most important reason for social movement to appear on a larger stage. I believe opinion leaders exert great influence in the whole process. Poell & Borra (2012) criticized that social media only represent the opinions of a small part of people because they are more active than others. But from my perspective, it is those people from the small group who lead the social movement, unite people around them, and become the striving force for activism. Social media provide tools and space that opinion leaders can make use of to promote activism. Without those opinion leaders, would the social media be just filled up with people’s different ideas and would the activists jut be in a state of diunity?
[…] https://atomstobits.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/protests-and-social-media-trading-wrist-rockets-for-hash… […]
I was going to disagree with your last paragraph, then I saw David’s comment, and decided to read it again, and then I changed my mind. lol I would agree with that but only to a certain extent.
I definitely don’t think that any of the authors came out and explicitly said social media is better or more reliable for their causes than traditional media, but i think that it was somewhat implied. However, it is important to note the reasons why this was the case. It wasn’t simply because they didn’t want to use main stream media. Like you noted, it was the obstacles they faced with main stream media that left them one of the only other options of social media. That being said, I wouldn’t say the activists thought it was better. I would say they thought it was the best other option for them besides main stream media.
I think you have a great sense of observation. It can be clearly seen in the way you present your ideas and it can be understood that you also have enough knowledge to back your observation, meaning that you also have gathered extra knowledge about the issue other than just the assigned readings.
Going through your post, I tend to agree that the G20 protesters lacked in their vision (goal) unlike the participants of the Arab movements. It is justifiable when you mentioned that the prior ones were so much focused on the police activities towards the later part of their protest movement, whereas the later ones was actually so successful that they overthrew regimes in different countries.
This makes me understand in a convincing matter that a unity, like you said, in ones thoughts is also an important aspect when you are up for achieving you goals via medium (like uses of new media) that is both new and non-conventional.
Last but not the least, your observation on how the effects of social media can be different is something that I observed as well. It basically suggests that it is also the situations/conditions in which a/the particular social media is being used that effects the results, which is clearly seen in this two cases. And definitely more researches in the subject is needed to be conclusive enough…Have a good one!
This is going to sound really strange, but part of me still wonders about the “black bloc” dynamics from the Toronto protests. The truth is that while I think we conceive of these two protest movements (and I certainly presented them) as more or less equivalent, it’s easy to miss how much higher the stakes were for the Egyptian protestors than those in Toronto.
In particular I think about the likelihood and severity of police crackdowns. While I don’t mean to belittle how damaging beanbags, pepper spray, and riot batons can be, the truth is that for protestors in Egypt, the consequences for “black bloc” style action would likely have been death. I wonder if that kind of pressure from the security mechanisms of the oppressor do a certain something to focus attentions and to implicitly delimit the lengths to which protestors dare to go.
Ironically I almost wonder if that kind of extremely high-stakes environment almost creates a better defined space in which objectives, goals, and methods of resistance movements can better focus.
(Although even as I write this, I think about protestors seeking a two-state solution in Palestine, or the tragedies currently unfolding in Syria. There are just so many dynamics to these sorts of things, I suppose…)
There’s a lot of weird confounding variables to think about when it comes to how revolutions and protests choose to use what level of force.
And the “black bloc” (Which I guess is more of a tactic than a movement, although you really only see anarchists reported doing it) tends to really only be used in westernized societies. You’re right. I’ve never thought about it that way.
Weekly comments!
HI Jeff
I will focus on the first similarity you found between the articles. I agree that Egyptians, though coming from completely different political ideologies, were able to unify and protest against “a common enemy”. G20 reporters, on the other hand, were not able to establish a shared purpose behind the protest, and probably that is the reason why their report ended up being dominated by police brutality.
Ironically, this similarity led me find a crucial difference between the articles. In Poell and Borra (2012), there is only a mention of the social groups involved in the protest, but we don’t have the whole picture of the users behind online activism in the three platforms analyzed by the authors. By contrast, Lim(2012) not only offers us an overview of how social movements were constituted in Egypt, but she also provides us useful information about the type of people encompassing the social movement and promoting online activism in the country.
Hey Jeff, could you approve my comment so that it can show up on your blog? Thanks.
Jeff, I must admit I didn’t even consider the arguments you made with your first main point. It’s extremely interesting to think how in both situations, the protesters were vastly different people whose secondary goals were also vastly different and yet the united with one major common goal.
You know, just last night, I met an Egyptian journalism Ph.D. student who was in the heart of Tahrir Square during the protests in Egypt, and she was telling me how disenchanted she was with how the state of the nation has developed since then. She told me how despite the pretense of democracy under which Egypt is currently operating, Morsi and the military’s rule over the country is no better than how it was under Mubarak. This is a viewpoint I’ve often heard from Egyptians in the news media. I wonder if this result can be traced to any degree to your point that the protesters were a relatively loose collective of varied people who felt disenfranchised by the Mubarak regime and wanted him to go, and yet felt that way for different reasons. I’m not sure if that would mean the current chaos in the country can therefore be blamed on the protesters, which I also don’t exactly agree with.
I’m often of the opinion that democracy is a magic bullet that can solve the ills of society, but I do also realize that can be a narrow-minded view that doesn’t take into consideration the subtleties of different cultures. I’ve often heard that some nations/cultures simply “aren’t ready” for democracy, and while I don’t entirely agree with that, I do also see that can be the case depending on the situation.
I enjoyed the clarity and directness of your reasoning until the final point, when for me it went a bit murky. Same assumption about social media trumping MSM — okay, clear. But then: “For the case of Egypt, it was because the traditional forms of media were controlled by the very dictator they were trying to ouster.” I wouldn’t call that a cause for an assumption. Then: “For the G20, it was because of long-standing criticisms that traditional news media focus on spectacle instead of message.” I don’t think that’s exactly what they meant — see Poell and Borra’s discussion of the role of alternative media. It was the chance to have the participants tell their own story.
I get your point in spite of the murkiness, thanks to the final two paragraphs, but I think the final point came across less well than the first two.
Note: “incite,” not “insite.”