Social Networking Spurs Activism Against Repression

The New York Times Magazine is running a story about the rise in political activism in Egypt through sites like Facebook, which allow citizens to gather and share ideas in ways they otherwise aren't allowed. A state-of-emergency law has been active in Egypt since 1981, which, among other things, "allows the government to ban political organizations and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a license from the government." As affordable internet access has spread throughout the country, the government is having a much harder time keeping wraps on the ideas of dissidents. Blocking access to the sites isn't a good solution for the government, because many non-dissidents use it for mundane communications. As Harvard's Ethan Zuckerman puts it, "...doing so would alert a large group of people who they can't afford to radicalize."

Comments

For repression proper look elsewhere

[MadFarmAnimalz]

It isn't that there's something magical about teh intarwebs or facebook that enables these activists, the regime in Egypt is also taking a somewhat lenient approach to the whole affair. There's precious little internet censorship in Egypt (matter of fact, can't think of any real examples, not as blatant as for example thepiratebay.org getting blocked in Italy and Denmark for example).

The worst internet censorship I saw (haven't been to all the countries in the area, mind) was actually in Tunisia where bogus MSIE error pages would be thrown back at me. In firefox. Not too long after the WSIS conference in fact, to ladle the irony on. Even sites like BoingBoing was blocked, but then I can kind of understand that :) Consider also, if facebook and social networking internet-style was so effective at fostering political opposition, there's be more successful grass-roots opposition in for example Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, etc.

There's been some arrests of bloggers in Egypt, but if you watch the Egyptian blogging community it's pretty clear they can get away with far more than many other countries. Wasn't there legislation being written in Italy that bloggers were to be held up against the same laws as journos?

In any case, with internet penetration being what it is in Egypt, even a very successful digital opposition campaign will only have limited effect on a national aggregate. I wonder if the traditional coffee shop networks or SMS for that matter (if you really want something technological to tout) as a vehicle for collective social action isn't orders of magnitude more effective.

Not to rant too hard (the blogging community there sprang from the LUG I helped set up, so I got to observe in a sense), but as an experiment in citizen media the Egyptian blogging community has at the very least outdone traditional media in one respect: sensationalising. I'd be careful where I dish out my kudos, Mr. New York Times. :)

Re:Not all repression is bad repression

[HungryHobo]

Well I think people who are pro-abortion should be banned from running for office too! a genocides worth of children are killed every year thanks to them!!!
(I'm pro choice but this is as valid as your argument)
And people who think it's alright to murder other humans by running electricity though them after nothing more than a handful of others have decided that they've probably done something bad! People who support those things shouldn't be allowed run for office either!
And those communists! They want to take away my property! they shouldn't be allowed run for office either!

And so ... ?

[khasim]

By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.

Huh? Why not? Why couldn't we put trade embargoes on them?

You might want to note that we didn't invade Germany during WWII because of what he was doing to his own people. We did it because he invaded other countries.

By your reasoning Iran, even with nuclear power, is carrying out the will of it's people during it's genocidal cleansings of various minorities inside it's borders. But they chose once to start this. Now they'd chose, in a heartbeat, to end it, but they can't.

And don't we have trade restrictions with Iran?

The problem with your reasoning is that it quickly results in the USofA being the "policeman of the world" and our country cannot AFFORD that.

Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.

I think that you need to read up on some history.

If the muslim brotherhood gets control over the state of Egypt, world war III starts. It's that simple.

But you never ask the question WHY the majority of voters in Egypt would WANT to elect them.

It doesn't matter if you outlaw one political party. If the majority of the people have the same beliefs as that political party, then they will, eventually, become the government.