Facebook, Twitter, and the Arab Revolutions

The driving point of this article, which focuses initially on the middle east:

The ability of the social networks to organize a protest almost overnight, because people of similar beliefs and commitments are in close communication with others, has completely changed the nature of political resistance and revolution. This system of revolution toppled a middle eastern dictatorship (Tunisia) in less than a month. It threatens to topple two more before the end of February: Yemen and Egypt. We have entered into a new period of political resistance.

Click to expand...

The article goes on to cover a lot of territory, including the impact social networks have on speeding up and flattening the mobilization of protesters, and asks the question: "How can governments mobilize resources to head this off at the pass, when there is no pass?"

This indicates a shift in the balance of power from centralized governments, which have some form of control over most of the print media in the country, to broad masses of people with money and computers. The ability of social media to rapidly organize protest outstrips the ability of the government to organize effective countermeasures.

The internet and these same networking media (let's toss in YouTube here) also threaten any corrupt government's legitimacy. As more people recognize and report corruption, the government's legitimacy becomes an issue, and people are disinclined to respect and obey a government they perceive as illegitimate. At the same time, the only way a government can continue to function is to elicit voluntary compliance with its directives. This can cease to work very fast, as we've seen in the three recent examples.

Like Egypt, they can always shut off the internet, but:

There is no way that any society can grow economically without adopting the Internet. This is the wave of the future, and educated people understand this. Arab governments want to participate in economic growth that is spreading across the Third World as a result of telecommunications. They are going to have to allow their citizens to buy computers and sign up for the Internet.

Click to expand...

There's little doubt that vastly improved communication improves the ability of the citizens to critique their government, and to organize in opposition to, or in support of, its policies.

Much more controversial are the conclusions drawn by the author of the article.

From the point of traditional conservatism along the lines outlined over two centuries ago by Edmund Burke, and also from the point of view of traditional libertarianism as it was outlined by Leonard Read, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard, the development of the social networks is consistent with theory, and beneficial to the extension of liberty. The decentralized worldview of Burke, the decentralized worldview of Hayek and Mises, and the anti-government worldview of Rothbard all come together with social networking, YouTube, and e-mail.

Digital technology, because it is price competitive, penetrates the broad masses of individuals in the West. It is price competitive, and therefore is inherently decentralized. Everyone can have his own printing press in the new system. The ability of governments to control the spread of ideas is not keeping pace with the ability of the Internet to enable people to communicate ideas. The competitive system is asymmetric. This time, it is not asymmetric in favor of the government; it is asymmetric in favor of the citizens. They hold the hammer.

Click to expand...

So here's my question (to borrow a phrase):

Does the digital revolution threaten the consolidation of power wherever it occurs, or only in those places where that power is most blatantly abused?