
Twitter and Facebook are shields against future genocides - DanielRibeiro
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/24/shervin-pishevar-twitter-and-facebook-are-shields-against-future-genocides-tctv/
======
Tyrannosaurs
Let's not overplay this. Twitter and Facebook played a part in what happened,
but in both countries the internet was either shut down or heavily restricted
during the key phases of the uprising.

The thing which stopped the worst abuses of power against the people was the
presence of the global media in countries where the west had significant
financial and political interests.

The broad sweep of technology available these days (from reporters with
satellite phones to twitter, to the ability anyone has to send photos across
the world in seconds) may present future genocides, but Twitter and Facebook
are just one small part of the picture.

But does anyone believe that Twitter would have stopped Darfur? People know
what's happening there and it's still happening so I'm dubious as to how a
communication tool would have changed that.

~~~
cabalamat
> _Let's not overplay this. Twitter and Facebook played a part in what
> happened, but in both countries the internet was either shut down or heavily
> restricted during the key phases of the uprising._

The fact that governments shut down the net is evidence IN FAVOUR of the net's
importance in revolutions.

> _The thing which stopped the worst abuses of power against the people was
> the presence of the global media in countries where the west had significant
> financial and political interests._

Not really. The West has significant interests in China and Libya, but that
didn't prevent the Tiananmen Sq massacre, or Gaddafi's recent massacres.

The most important factor is whether the army will fire on the people. They
refused to obey orders to in Egypt, and Mubarak's rule was no longer viable.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
It's in favour of the potential but the fact that the relevant networks were
shut down by the governments in power shows that ultimately they can be
relatively easily counteracted.

That of course will change as the cost (to business and vital infrastructure)
of disabling the internet and cellular networks increases.

For instance in the UK police use the regular cellular networks for mobile
data, shutting them down would impact both police and protesters.

China's a special case - they're simply too powerful for the west to control
and have been for some time. Libya is run by a madman who isn't open to
reason. So yes you're right but the interest in and importance of the country
to the west is a factor, even if it's not the only one.

------
walkon
This is ludicrous. It's the people making a stand, not social networking
sites. The oppressed could be using Twitter/FB to talk about entertainment,
sports, or other frivolities. The tools in any revolution, regardless the
century, are of minor significance.

------
Tyrant505
Why couldn't the social graph also be used to aid in genocide?

Imagine if Hitler knew all about the "impure" friends you had.

------
reason
Why do we take what Shervin has to say seriously at all? One thing I do not
understand is this community's (not just HN) tendency to give instant validity
and credibility to those like Shervin who are running successful companies.
The guy runs a successful startup in one specific niche market -- how does
that lend any credibility to his opinion on the workings of genocide? It
doesn't.

This became really evident whilst watching the Launch conference. Companies
were getting hammered left-and-right by entrepreneurs who have never ventured
into said companies' markets. Being successful =/= insight to all of the
world's issues. Kevin Pollak knocked one of the startup founders for the
_shoes_ he was wearing, and a major blog picked up the pitch calling it a
complete meltdown.

Stop and think for just a second. Shervin runs a gaming company, not a
government.

------
dreamux
I remember the stories coming out of Rowanda, Bosnia, and more recently Darfur
were well publicized without much intervention. While I think facebook and
twitter are tools of political change, I sadly don't think we've seen the end
of genocide.

I very much hope I'm wrong.

------
thomasz
One might wonder how the Berlin Wall fell without those antibodies. And
examples like Libya and Iran demonstrate that social media will not save you
from a regime determined to mow down unarmed civilians with automatic weapons.

------
DanielN
Oh, if only this were true. In fact, the exact opposite is a serious concern
for the spread of the internet in the third world.

A key characteristic used in defining genocide is the use of popular media to
carry out orders. I don't mean the use of propaganda, but the use of new media
forms to carry out orders of genocide. In Rwanda and Bosnia radio was used to
this effect.

Unfortunately I can't find it now but there was an article (either in the
Atlantic or economist) suggesting this idea.

------
AngeloAnolin
Whilst I agree with statement concerning the recent events in Egypt and Libya,
there are still some things to consider:

1\. For any country to harness the social media offered, they should have
access to knowledge and technology (computer literacy, access to internet).

2\. Residents of a country should realize that it is still up to their resolve
to act and stand against tyranny and oppression. No amount of technology can
move the motivation of being freed from an evil regime.

~~~
ams6110
Case in point WRT #1, it's not having much of an impact in North Korea.

~~~
tomjen3
North Korea is a lost case. We can't liberate it because it would destroy
Seoul and the people are either too brainwashed or just plain too hungry to
help.

------
dclaysmith
What the world needs is cheap satellitte based internet that can't be 'turned
off'. Or someone should figure out a low tech bridge... Ham radio-to-twitter
or something.

------
frobozz
The claim is a stretch, even in areas of high internet penetration. It might
be a shield, in the same way as a sheet of cardboard is a shield. You can hold
it up in front of someone pointing a gun at you, it might make them miss your
vitals, and it will slow the bullet, but not by more than a negligible amount.

The lion's share of people under threat of genocide (e.g. the 70 or so
uncontacted tribes in the Amazon, that get in the way of gold mining, logging,
and oil exploration), are not in areas of high internet penetration (zero, in
the case of the Amazonians).

------
yardie
Umm no, journalism, real active journalism are the true shields. After the
internet was cutoff in Egypt this non-Egyptian could only talk with my other
non-Egyptian friends about what was going on. But I knew exactly what was
going due to the journalists on the ground (S/O english.aljazeera.net) who had
access to satellite relays.

------
rick888
Social networking sites and the Internet have shown many people the way they
could (and should) be living. Even if the Internet is blocked, people always
find a way to get around it. Dictators of the world should be worried, because
they can't hide the truth from their people forever.

------
gmac
We wish.

------
jellicle
Pretty doubtful. We've seen lots of photos of blown-up people from various war
zones, and they do very little to spur intervention. You've seen these:

<http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html>

but no one stepped in to stop the U.S. from killing well upwards of a million
Iraqis. Don't dream that future massacres will be stopped. I would tend to
argue the other side: due to individuals being numbed to the grotesque, they
are less likely to be shocked by images and videos coming out of future
conflict zones and thus less likely to want to "do something".

------
phlux
When twitter first came out , I tried to figure out how the novelty would not
wear off. How could it have use. I thought about B2B and M2M uses for it - but
found them limited.

Recently, though, I have realized something about Twitter; it is like a sense,
or an extension of a sense.

While I am not a heavy user of the service, I see that it is invaluable in
being able to provide, quickly and easily, an alert to millions about what is
happening in places far and wide.

The tweets serve to alert and attract attention - the attention can then
driven to deeper dives of information, articles, videos, news etc...

This alone makes it valuable - because it provides the simplest, most
accessible method for anyone, anywhere to be able to drive massive amounts of
human attention instantaneously.

To be able to have created such a service is quite a feat. I don't think that
"indoor plumbing" is the right analogy for what it is to the web, I'd almost
more liken Twitter to the seratonin of the web.

