Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Does social media make political change easier? Is it true that it has already been the force behind political changes? Here, experts outline how social media has been a game changer - but also the limits it has.
Political change: What social
media can do and can't do.
As people rose up in North Africa,
Time Magazine, HuffPost,
even the New York Times,
asked if events there could be
called a Facebook Revolution.
While these revolutions may have
occurred without social media,
the speed at which
they have occurred
would have been much,
much different.
I think social media
has been very important.
Social media gives them a safe place.
They don't need to know anything
about you on Twitter or Facebook.
At a time of crisis I think people
are searching for information
wherever they can find it.
If they have Internet access,
Facebook is a place
to which they turn.
One of the darlings
of the movement, Facebook,
was created
on the East Coast of America.
But only when it reached
the West Coast, in California,
its explosive growth took off.
So how does California
see the role of social media
in effecting change?
When you look at revolutions,
you usually have a leader.
You usually have a cadre
of individuals who are the cause,
the motivation.
But now we are seeing
revolutions without that.
We see democratic change, or
what we hope is democratic change,
occur in a very broad base
of support that is leaderless.
So how does social media
help bring about this change?
Social media, what it has done
is to really, suddenly show the light
on perhaps the vastness
of the wealth at the top.
And also on
what is possible in other countries.
Once you allow people
to begin expressing themselves
and then when they find other people,
who they might not meet
in their day-to-day life,
who have the same feeling,
that's a very powerful process.
You get a point where suddenly,
you know, the cauldron boils over
and people suddenly see
that they are not the only ones.
It's like a rapid wild fire,
in a sense, with a big wind,
which suddenly brings people
in contact
who realise
that many feel the way they do,
and that it might be possible
to do something about it.
And why has use
of social media spread so quickly?
The good thing is that the tools
are free or very low cost.
Facebook and Twitter are free.
You can start a Ning website
which is another
social media website.
Individuals can now organise
almost costlessly,
share information almost costlessly,
and that allows them
to share ideas, to gather,
to call for change
in a very short order,
whereas before it would
have been much more difficult.
But this is only part of the picture.
How much credit can social media
take for the recent
political changes in North Africa?
Social media is much broader than
sending 144 characters over Twitter
or updating your status posts
on Facebook. Those are useful,
but if you look at how people
are sharing videos and information,
in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya,
it's primarily through SMS.
It’s not primarily through Twitter.
So how did the phrase
Facebook Revolution come about?
There is much about these uprisings
that people cannot understand.
They are looking for some sort
of rationale. How did this happen?
I think they are jumping
onto this bandwagon of…
Here are the latest toys, and look
at everybody playing with them.
This is not to denigrate
the role of social media,
but as people try
to figure it all out they are saying:
Here are the tools that made
it happen. I think that's not true.
We observe Twitter
so we give Twitter a lot of credit,
but there’s a lot more
communication going on.
For those people who call this
the Twitter or Facebook Revolution,
I think that's a misnomer
that is unfair to the people
who went onto the streets
and risked or even lost their lives
in the cause of these revolutions.
The facts on the ground
in North Africa seem to confirm
the limits of social media’s role there.
In Egypt, the greatest growth
in the protests occurred
after the government
shut down the Internet.
I think social media starts the idea.
It gets people involved.
But then,
the protest will take a life of its own.
The Egyptian government
shut down everything it could.
Everything from the Internet
to the train system.
The idea was to try to paralyse
this movement, but it didn't work.
These revolutionary movements
develop a kind of momentum
and once they get rolling it doesn't
matter what the government does.
Political change: What social
media can do and can't do.
As people rose up in North Africa,
Time Magazine, HuffPost,
even the New York Times,
asked if events there could be
called a Facebook Revolution.
While these revolutions may have
occurred without social media,
the speed at which
they have occurred
would have been much,
much different.
I think social media
has been very important.
Social media gives them a safe place.
They don't need to know anything
about you on Twitter or Facebook.
At a time of crisis I think people
are searching for information
wherever they can find it.
If they have Internet access,
Facebook is a place
to which they turn.
One of the darlings
of the movement, Facebook,
was created
on the East Coast of America.
But only when it reached
the West Coast, in California,
its explosive growth took off.
So how does California
see the role of social media
in effecting change?
When you look at revolutions,
you usually have a leader.
You usually have a cadre
of individuals who are the cause,
the motivation.
But now we are seeing
revolutions without that.
We see democratic change, or
what we hope is democratic change,
occur in a very broad base
of support that is leaderless.
So how does social media
help bring about this change?
Social media, what it has done
is to really, suddenly show the light
on perhaps the vastness
of the wealth at the top.
And also on
what is possible in other countries.
Once you allow people
to begin expressing themselves
and then when they find other people,
who they might not meet
in their day-to-day life,
who have the same feeling,
that's a very powerful process.
You get a point where suddenly,
you know, the cauldron boils over
and people suddenly see
that they are not the only ones.
It's like a rapid wild fire,
in a sense, with a big wind,
which suddenly brings people
in contact
who realise
that many feel the way they do,
and that it might be possible
to do something about it.
And why has use
of social media spread so quickly?
The good thing is that the tools
are free or very low cost.
Facebook and Twitter are free.
You can start a Ning website
which is another
social media website.
Individuals can now organise
almost costlessly,
share information almost costlessly,
and that allows them
to share ideas, to gather,
to call for change
in a very short order,
whereas before it would
have been much more difficult.
But this is only part of the picture.
How much credit can social media
take for the recent
political changes in North Africa?
Social media is much broader than
sending 144 characters over Twitter
or updating your status posts
on Facebook. Those are useful,
but if you look at how people
are sharing videos and information,
in Egypt, in Tunisia, in Libya,
it's primarily through SMS.
It’s not primarily through Twitter.
So how did the phrase
Facebook Revolution come about?
There is much about these uprisings
that people cannot understand.
They are looking for some sort
of rationale. How did this happen?
I think they are jumping
onto this bandwagon of…
Here are the latest toys, and look
at everybody playing with them.
This is not to denigrate
the role of social media,
but as people try
to figure it all out they are saying:
Here are the tools that made
it happen. I think that's not true.
We observe Twitter
so we give Twitter a lot of credit,
but there’s a lot more
communication going on.
For those people who call this
the Twitter or Facebook Revolution,
I think that's a misnomer
that is unfair to the people
who went onto the streets
and risked or even lost their lives
in the cause of these revolutions.
The facts on the ground
in North Africa seem to confirm
the limits of social media’s role there.
In Egypt, the greatest growth
in the protests occurred
after the government
shut down the Internet.
I think social media starts the idea.
It gets people involved.
But then,
the protest will take a life of its own.
The Egyptian government
shut down everything it could.
Everything from the Internet
to the train system.
The idea was to try to paralyse
this movement, but it didn't work.
These revolutionary movements
develop a kind of momentum
and once they get rolling it doesn't
matter what the government does.