People are using 21st century technology to work around these restrictions : Twitter and Facebook! The key to these services is that they don't have a single point of entry like traditional web services used to have. You don't have to go facebook.com or twitter.com to access, share, comment on information or upload pictures and videos. A whole list of desktop applications like tweetdeck [6/28/09 - Fixed Link] or seesmic use web APIs (Application Programming Interface) to interact with facebook or twitter. These innovations in the web delivered services make controlling access much harder than it used to be. Multiple arab countries today still ban youtube and dailymotion as they are considered subversive. Some banned Yahoo!Mail and Google Mail for years.
So, what if a similar situation, like the latest iranian events, happened at home? How does the regime cope with people using non-traditional communication mediums to coordinate action, rally support and ultimately allow the world to have a direct view of what's happening on the ground?
It's safe to assume that governments in charge must be looking at emergency plans in case some level of unrest threatens the regime itself. I think two camps will clearly separate themselves : Those who understand what the technology is about and those who don't.
Let's start with those who don't. The old guard's reflex (as it's happening in Iran) will try to disrupt the "enemy"'s operational structure by cutting off these communication channels at all costs. This is the wrong answer by all means.
First, one has to contemplate what the economical cost of stopping Txt messaging service in the country's capital must be. Besides, a large number of Wireless operators in the region are backed by western companies which invested massive amounts of money to buy licenses to operate. These companies will let these government hear it if they lose millions of dollars because of a mandated ban and may even decide not to comply if it's not explicitly written in the license agreement. Give the region's reliance on Foreign Direct Investments, this could cause a backlash from investors that is damageable to its development.
Second, by banning something, you clearly give people the perception that it's more important than it actually is! The clear proof of this is the explosion of Facebook and Twitter accounts in Iran during the crisis because everybody rushed to get access to information that the government was trying to sensor. This pushed Facebook to rush out a Persian version.
On the other side, those who understand the dynamic behind the current RealTime communication revolution are aware that there is more disinformation than actual reliable information on these channels. Totally decentralized information channels (think ham radio since that's really the way I see Twitter for example) are open to anybody and therefore, are a mix of mediocre as well as extremely valuable data. How to discern fact from fabulation is up to the reader/listener... People tend to agree with others who think alike so there is bias.
It would be easy to marginalize informal media like Twitter or Facebook by letting more formal (state-controller or private) news sources report with a relatively fair stand. Only a handful of diehards would still be attracted to the chaos that decentralized information brings. So the best way to counter this potential disruption is to convince people that traditional media is balanced, not by saying but by proving that everyday!
Freedom of speech is a non questionable right and we definitely have a serious lack of it in our Arab societies. However, if we want a more transitional (aka peaceful) evolution toward regimes which are more representative of their constituents, we have to avoid the total chaos that revolution initiates and RealTime media fuels.
Outsiders to the iranian situation tend to forget that Moussavi was the Prime minister under khomeini during the Iran-Iraq war for 6 years and he's not a western-leaning politician by any stretch. If the Khatami days are any reference, moderate politicians in Iran may have the people's backing but their hands are still tied by the conservatives. For Moussavi to get to be president, a revolution (albeit of the minor kind) would have to happen with all the uncertainties that comes with it. There is no guarantee that this would result in a true positive step toward Iran standing as a peaceful regional power.
Transparency helps everybody act rationally during a crisis and that's the type of thinking everyone should rely on when the country's future is at stake.
Posts
