EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Someone needs to help dictatorships get up to speed. The past few weeks, we have had more than the normal flow of rhetoric pouring out of official media outlets. Between Iran and North Korea, the bombastic statements have been flying like ill-fated missile tests. And I have to wonder: What are they thinking? How is it that a country like Iran, which is developing nuclear technology, doesn’t get Twitter? As Daniel Henninger wrote in last week’s Wall Street Journal, “Web 2.0 has become a metaphor. The communications technologies are important-cell phones, social networks, messaging protocols-but its more interesting attribute is that it enhances the role, and power, of individuals.” Those in power may be convinced that they are in still in control, believing governments can function in a pre-2.0 world. Neda Agha-Soltan’s tragic death in Iran this week, captured by amateur video and broadcast via Youtube, provided vivid proof of the brutality of the Islamic regime killing for control. Viewed by thousands a few days after being posted, Iran simply made up a ridiculous story. Reuters reported that “Iranian state television has suggested that Neda Agha-Soltan’s killing was staged. Iranian TV, quoting unnamed source, said Neda was not shot by a bullet used by Iranian security forces. It said filming of the scene, and its swift broadcast to foreign media, suggested the incident was planned . . . web sites supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad began reporting Thursday that she had been killed by “hooligans” commissioned by a BBC reporter who has been expelled from Iran.” Oh, it was the BBC. Yes, that makes sense. I feel better about the Iranian government now. Thank you. Could their statement have been more indicting? I wonder how this will shape events in the future. While the technology has two sides, with the ability to spread disinformation as much as truth, the inability for governments to control it makes it an especially intriguing tool. Would we have been fooled by our own media/politicians (thinking Swift-boat/weapons of mass destruction/etc) if Americans had made better use of Web 2.0? Would Barak Obama have been elected without them? This could get interesting. |
Comments
The blessing of 'web 2.0' is that it is the great equalizer; it puts power back in the hands of the common people. The curse of 'Web 2.0' is that it puts power in the hands of everyone who can afford the bare minimum tools for access, thus granting equal access to the same power for morons and geniuses alike. In the case of Iran, it has become an enabler for the commoner to hold their leaders accountable, and report in real time atrocities as they take place, making it almost impossible for a brutal regime to cover up its abuses, and thus it is a positive force.
In your example of an American election however, we have the opposite effect, where any 13 year old or other educational dropout with an opinion can flood the web with their drivel, diluting truth and facts coming from seasoned professionals with a sea of uninformed, uneducated, and possibly even deliberately false information. Hundreds, possibly thousands of people can now get away with anonymously posting libel and slander, can fake abuses or documents and post them online, and spread lies around the world three times over before the truth can even get its boots on.
My point here is that the equal access to sharing information via the web is a tool, and it can be an effective tool, or a dangerous one; the question is: how will we wield it? Human nature being what it is, I expect that the bad might outweigh the good over time, but only time will tell. You expressed surprise that the governments in question didn't seem to get it... oh how true! A smart dictatorship would wield those tools for the purposes of disinformation for their own benefit, instead of trying to ignore them.
Even if the nature of the human race wasn't to make the bad choices over the good ones time and again, it would be interesting to see how long 'Web 2.0' could go on as a force for driving change for the better, instead of becoming a new way to blanket the world with mediocrity. The Bell Curve on IQ goes both ways, and the bulk of the human race is in the middle, as "average" intelligences. Average people in large numbers rarely contribute greatness, and more often than not just go along with the flow.
Here's to hoping that these young revolutionaries in Iran will continue to seek excellence in the use of their empowering tools, and once (hopefully not 'if') they get their freedom, that they will not devolve into a mindless crowd seeking the lowest common denominator, such as their American rivals already have done.
Hello, anyone there? or were you the common reader too busy watching "America's got useless talents" or that Eye-dull program?
Just checking ;)
Great comment, Jon. Really appreciate your thoughtfulness. And I agree, this can go both ways very easily. "Seeking the lowest common denominator" is a real danger. My hope, like your hope, is that it will create a greater dialogue, above the normal.
I suspect that political authorities all over the world are taking notes about what has been happening in Iran. Some may consider reforms, others may consider more proactive steps to eliminate the potential. This could be a very important discussion for all of us.
I totally agree with whats been written here. Thank you for providing and sharing the post.
camel cigarettes | winston cigarettes