In search of substance at the G20

At the Toronto Summit's concluding press conference, U.S. President Barack Obama said that the G20 is now the premier forum for international economic cooperation (Photo by Paula Millar)

  

TORONTO, ON— Just one day removed from the G8 and G20 meetings of June 2010, affords some fresh perspectives on Canada’s three-day whirl-wind summit. For one, the much-talked-about “fake lake” and one-billion dollar security tab now seem irrelevant. While many of the weekend’s more popular headlines tell tales of “Black Bloc” rioters and Toronto’s tarnished global image, inside the International Media Centre and, more importantly, in the boardrooms of G20 meetings, the tumultuous streets were grossly insignificant.   

Well before the world’s most powerful leaders arrived on Canadian soil, the agenda for discussion seemed displaced with concerns of over-run costs and security. However, in retrospect, any attempt to amass an all-encompassing picture must focus on the content and outcomes of the meetings that took place, rather than the widely publicized images of protestors and riot police or the lakeside scenery in the International Media Centre.   

Contrary to popular belief, as G8 member countries arrived in Huntsville, Ontario, they weren’t in for a typical cottage-country jaunt. Instead, maternal health in Sub-Saharan Africa, North Korean hostility and Iranian nukes, amongst others, were on the to-do list. If that schedule appeared daunting, what awaited world leaders in Toronto was no comparison.   

As the group ballooned to 20, and the focus shifted from development to economics, the global issues up for debate got more complex.  Shielded from protestors and the media’s spotlight, the G20 leaders spent Sunday hashing out plans in the Metro Toronto Convention Centre – a modern-day bunker in the heart of the city.   

The three days of meetings took place behind closed doors. While affording the politicians unprecedented privacy to get down to business, the jilted television media defaulted to constant coverage of ongoing demonstrations. This allowed them to fill the dead air between steady, pre-packaged press briefings quite nicely. Meanwhile, in the International Media Centre, most sleep-deprived journalists lounged on Muskoka chairs while taking in World Cup play. In fact, outside of a handful of heavily-restricted media outings, the press’s only opportunity to venture into the convention centre for live G20 action was not until Sunday evening.   

After a security check that would put any airport to shame, and under heavy police escort, journalists were bussed through eerily empty downtown streets, and afforded an opportunity to witness what one billion dollars in security can buy. After negotiating a maze of fences, busses arrived at the convention centre – the press’s opportunity to refocus on G20 issues.   

Late Sunday, as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the media he spoke of successes and firm targets for the G20’s November 2010 meeting in Seoul, South Korea. Most notably Harper spoke of a “50 per cent debt reduction by 2013 and a debt-to-GDP ratio that should be on a downward trend by 2016.” On the controversial topic of bank levies, he explained that such a decision will be left to the discretion of individual countries – to the joy of Canadian bankers. Following Harper’s lead, American President Barack Obama commended the G20’s emergence as “a premier forum for economic cooperation.”   

The G8 and G20 Summit came at a pivotal point for Canada. As the United States and Japan struggles to combat deficits, the Canadian economy appears resilient. As the United Kingdom experiments with minority rule for the first time in years, Canada’s minority government appears strong. Finally, as the world’s banking sector begins to rebuild after last year’s bailouts, Canada’s once boring banking world is now a symbol of success. While protesters may have defaced Toronto’s streets, Canada’s international image, and the success of the world summits do not appear to have suffered the same fate.

 

Revealing the dark hidden core of social media

If Canadians were not already aware of the Internet’s capacity for evil, a report released this week served as a long overdue wake-up call.

On April 6, a team of Canadian experts based out of the University of Toronto divulged the findings of an extensive inquiry into the murkiest stretches of the digital realm.

One year in the making, what their investigation uncovered was a complex crime fit only for cyberspace.

The inquiry commenced as the Canadian team began tracking the online activities of the suspected espionage ring. After extensive tracing, the researchers named the Chinese province of Sichuan as the launchpad for the illegal operation. Eventually, success was realized as the group cracked one of the largest cyber spy rings ever unearthed.

The team’s subsequent report outlined that the cyber spies utilized a combination of digital resources to “pilfer documents from personal computers in several countries.” The hacker’s digital resources spanned everything from seemingly innocent email accounts to popular web services such as Twitter and Google groups. Reportedly, digital media was used to infect targeted mainframes, effectively turning them into spybots for the hackers. Subsequently, the infiltrated computers were tuned to upload the scores of sensitive documents to waiting Chinese servers.

As of today, known targets of the hackers spanned the Indian military, the Dalai Lama’s office, Canadian visa applications, and Canadian universities.

In the wake of this latest discovery, it has never appeared more crucial for countries to consider the adoption of foreign policies for cyberspace.

While encouraging the Canadian government to take a firm stance on cyber crimes, Ron Deibert, a professor of political science and director of the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies, explained that “the social media clouds of cyberspace we rely upon today have a dark hidden core.”

Deibert furthered that “there is a vast subterranean ecosystem to cyberspace within which criminal and espionage networks thrive.”

To date, the Chinese authorities claim they had no knowledge or involvement in the scheme. However, as the inflammatory evidence mounts, researchers at the University of Toronto seemed unconvinced.

Mounting evidence aside, some of their disbelief stems from the Chinese government’s past encouragement of citizens to engage in cyber crimes. In light of this, the Canadian researchers ambiguously concluded that to date, “the relationship between the Chinese state and this hacker community is very unclear.”

As more and more of our daily lives migrate and manifest themselves in the digital realm, it is clear that instances such as these will only become more prevalent. As such, the world’s governments mustn’t continue to drag their feet when it comes to the development of policies in regards to cybersecurity.

In light of this latest discovery, it appears that governments must begin to stockpile their own cyber arsenals in order to ward off future attacks. Further, leaders must soon consider whether the militarization of cyberspace is necessary in order to keep these cyber criminals at bay.

Whatever the devised solution may be, in the end, it is clear that in order to successfully police the World Wide Web, a global effort will be vital.

 

Unpacking the Google-China relationship

It was a tale of two superpowers and a simmering hostility that spanned the course of years. While China emerged the victor, the failed challenger is not who you may have thought.

On Monday, March 22, the sun set on Google’s China operation for the last time. The move marked the closing scene of a drama that has been unfolding since the company entered Chinese territory in late 2006. It was somber drama that ended in Google admitting defeat.

As flowers were left on the Google corporate logo outside the corporation’s Chinese headquarters, the small gesture spoke volumes. It was a mixture of feelings of sadness, for a lost opportunity for freedom, and respect, for an honourable attempt at cracking the infamous “Great Firewall of China”.

In China, companies are forced to abide by strict government regulations of the Internet. However, in the early days of Google’s introduction into the Chinese mediascape, many thought things would be different for two reasons.

First, Erc Schmidt, CEO of Google, stated, “We will take a long-term view to win in China. The Chinese have 5000 years of history. Google has 5000 years of patience in China.”  Second, because, as Clay Shirky said, “what [Google is] exporting isn’t a product or a service, it’s a freedom.” Thus, with the unwavering support of a powerful multinational corporation, and the Western liberalist values inherent in the company’s presence, how could Google fail?

Kai-Fu Lee, the head of operations for Google in China, was one of those believers. In late 2006, upon Google’s launch in China, he optimistically posted to his blog: “youth + freedom + equality + bottom-up innovation + user focus + don’t be evil = The Miracle of Google.”

Today, however, Lee’s idealism appears nothing more than a foreshadowing of debacle and hypocrisy.

This is because, over the past few years, the multinational corporation’s actions in China have been in stark contrast to Google’s motto of “don’t be evil.” In fact, since the launch of company’s China initiative, it appeared Google was quite content playing ball with the Chinese.

In order to comply with censorship laws, the multinational corporation agreed to remove search results of any sites sanctioned by the Chinese government. In return, Google received flack from the international community for submitting to China’s wishes.

Google felt the wrath of those who felt they had gone against all that the company claimed it stood for. The blatant hypocrisy was evident in the fact that when the company went public in 2004, its founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, included in the company’s official filing for the Securities and Exchange Commission that Google is “a company that is trustworthy and interested in the public good.” The company’s actions in China, however, only prove how quickly we depart with idealism.

In its defense, Google argued that its presence as a censored search engine was better than no search service at all. However, according to the New York Times, after it discovered that its network had been hacked from inside China, and that the Gmail accounts of human rights activists had been infiltrated, that tradeoff no longer seemed defensible.

Of the company’s recent move out of China, Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, said this “goes to the heart of a much larger global debate about freedom of speech.”

Immediately after Google shut its doors, the New York Times reported that the Chinese government launched an aggressive campaign to erase pro-Google sentiment from cyberspace.

Comments on social networking sites that are supportive of Google “will be deleted in a couple of seconds,” said Oiwan Lam, 38, an independent journalist and researcher who is an expert on Chinese independent media.

According to the China Digital Times, the Chinese State Council Information Office warned all news sites to “carefully manage the information in exchanges, comments and other interactive sessions” and “clean up text, images and sound and videos which support Google, dedicate flowers to Google, ask Google to stay, cheer for Google and others that have a different tune from government policy.”

China is known to regularly influence news coverage on sensitive issues. Nonetheless, the newly implemented restrictions in regards to Google are notably strict.

Today, we must question who has more to lose in this ramping up of Internet censorship. As the United States continues to struggle to develop a foreign policy for the digital realm, it is clear that someone/something must stand up to repressive regimes which seek to stifle free speech. Will Google be our saviour? In my opinion, it is far too early to tell.

Undoubtedly, however, China’s ability to force Google out of the country set a dangerous precedent. A precedent that we can rest assured has not gone unnoticed. Now, the only question left is who will be the next emerging power to stand in Google’s way?

Evgeny Morozov thinks he knows. In a recent blog post he begged the question, “Is Russia Google’s next weak spot?” We are just going to have to wait and see.

 

“Social media for social good”

Picture this: like-minded individuals coming together and working toward a common goal via the Internet.

In the past, such a scenario would have seemed a little far-fetched. Today, however, the concept of digital activism is very real. Further, as the popularity of this trend surges, it appears that a new face of digital activism is also coming to light. 

Interestingly, this emerging activism is not rooted solely in rebellion. Unlike the Twitter revolutions before it, this movement is pushing a different, yet equally commendable, agenda.

On March 25, 2010, the second annual Twestival kicks off in countless schools and in more than 175 cities around the world.

Twestival, or Twitter Festival, is a unique initiative that attempts to unite digital life with that of the real. On this day, thousands of individuals from online Twitter communities unite offline to raise money and awareness for a choice cause.

Last year, the cause was safe drinking water; this time around, the focus is education.

Essentially, Twestival works by using the platform of pre-existing social media – primarily through Twitter but also via Facebook – to raise awareness for social causes. Twestival’s aim, according to the event’s organizers, is to harness the power of social media for social good.

Advocates suggest that “Twestival is the way an idea spreads around the world and comes back five times its strength.” If this is the case, then we must question whether we are witnessing the future of activism.

Whether it is for charitable or political means, social media’s inborn power as a communications tool is an asset to any awareness campaign. Essentially, this type of media has the innate capability to connect, mobilize, and inform people around the world. Not only is this connection achievable instantaneously, but it is also at slim-t0-no financial cost. Thus, as long as you have a computer, or even access to an Internet cafe, you can jumpstart your own activist movement via the web.

In the case of Twestival, loyal volunteers, scattered in cities across the globe, are responsible for raising funds and organizing events. In the end, 100 per cent of the money raised from these events supports local charities directly.

 In September 2008, the groundwork for Twestival was established. At this time,  a group of active Twitterers based out of London, England planned an event in which “the local Twitter community could socialize offline; meet the faces behind the avatars, enjoy some entertainment, have a few drinks and tie this in with a food drive and fundraising effort for a local homeless charity.”

In under two weeks, the majority of the event was organized. By utilizing the talents and financial support of the local Twitterverse, the very first Twitter Festival came to life. Soon after, success of the event spread across cyberspace.

In turn,  stories started appearing of local Twitter communities coming together and taking action for a great cause. Essentially, today’s Twestival was born out of the prevailing “glocal” sentiment. This is the idea that if municipalities could collaborate on an international scale, while continuing to work from a local level, the impact would be astounding.

Twitter users recognize the network’s ability to organically create interesting communities from those people who find and follow each other. It is proven from the first Twestival that bringing the Twittersphere together for a special event is not only a memorable night; it has momentum to bring about social change.

February 12, 2009, marked the first Twestival Global. The event was held in 202 international cities to support @charitywater – a cause selected because 1 billion, or 1 in 6 people, in the world do not have access to clean and safe drinking water. 

Impressively, over 1,000 volunteers and 10,000 donors fundraised $250,000. The funds were responsible for the construction of more than 55 wells in Uganda, Ethiopia and India. In the end, this single Twestival had a direct impact on the lives of over 17,000 people.

For the 2010 edition, Twestival  is working to highlight eight hindrances which are preventing some of the world’s poorest young people from going to school.

Twestival events in cities and schools around the world will be selecting one of these areas to give particular awareness and fundraising focus to. With so many getting in on the action, celebrities included, Twestival’s success is undeniable.  

Perhaps in the future, Twestivals will be the norm.

 

Revolution in the making

 

Today, the opportunity for like-minded individuals to connect has never been more achievable.

According to Clay Shirky, “the moment our historical generation is living through is the largest increase in expressive capability in human history.”

While Shirky admits the grandiosity of such a statement, it is still important to peruse what a potential increase in expressive capability means for mankind.

Quite simply, expressive capability is the ability to communicate a particular meaning.

In the past, the birth of the printing press, rise of coffeehouse culture, and the emergence of film, all served to improve the expressive capability of greater society. In recent years, however, we have witnessed the onslaught of corporatized top-down news, the exploitation of our air waves by dictators, and the rise of global media conglomerates.

In light of this historical trajectory, many believe that the rise of new social media technologies – Facebook, Twitter, blogs – have helped to bring about the reinstitution of this particular aptitude. Essentially, the emergence of platforms of expression and engagement in the digital realm has afforded active citizens a voice once more.

Shirky explained that “there are only four periods in the last 500 years where media has changed enough to qualify for the label Revolution.”

The first and foremost was the printing press. In the middle of the 1400s, the invention of movable type jolted the whole of Europe into what Marshall McLuhan called the “Gutenberg Galaxy”.

Next, a couple of hundred years ago, the rise of two-way communication – the telegraph and telephone – meant the arrival of conversational media and marked the second media revolution.

Around 150 years ago, Shirky stated that the third media revolution, brought about by the introduction of recorded media other than print, was in full swing. What began with photographs quickly moved on to recorded sound and then film.

Lastly, just about a century ago, the fourth media revolution came to light. “The harnessing of the electromagnetic spectrum to send sound and images through the air, radio, and television” spawned this revolution, Shirky said.

While this 20th Century mediascape is one our parents know quite well, it is not reflective of contemporary reality.

Therefore, we must question where the Internet fits into this modern mediascape. Does it warrant the label Revolution?

Of the recent changes to our mediascape, Shirky said that revolutionary capacity is not a question of “Internet or no Internet.” 

Shirky explained that this is because “we’ve had the Internet in its public form for almost 20 years now.” As such, the mere presence of the Internet does not denote revolutionary potential. Instead, the capability for revolution is a matter of how social the media becomes.

Thus, social media is the defining factor of the fifth media revolution.

 

What would Habermas do?

I have always had enormous respect for the power of media. Media’s ability to perpetuate myth and propaganda, sway the emotions of the masses, instigate activism for a chosen cause, and all the while shape a choice worldview, is undeniably impressive.

Further, I have always wholeheartedly believed in Jurgen Habermas’s notion that a well functioning public sphere is a necessary prerequisite of modern democracy in any civil society. While I acknowledge that media’s awesome power has not always been a positive service to society – as in the past it has been subject to obvious governmental manipulation and more recently corporate exploitation, surely the absence of a free press has worse repercussions.

For proof of this, one does not have to look farther than modern day states that curtail freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to see the harm that the absence of a healthy public sphere has on any democratic society. These instances of the suppression of the freedom of speech have shaped my belief that the press is a necessary watchdog for the public.

Essentially, I believe that it is the responsibility of the media to recognize when societal norms are being challenged, and when the public sphere is being undermined, and point such occasions out for greater society to also take note. However, what is a society to do in the face of a no nonsense regime bent on silencing all dissenting voices? Further, what is a civilian populous to do when their authoritarian government owns all of the country’s media? In the midst of these contemporary realities, we must revisit the work of Habermas to find inspiration for a modern solution to these age-old problems.

For some time, I found the concept of citizen journalism problematic. However, the chaotic scene in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau in April 2009, following the contested Communist election win, curbed my dislike. As the country’s Communist leadership was re-elected, and university student took to the streets in protests organized via Facebook, a new dimension was in the mix.

The series of protests, riots, and subsequent storming of the parliament was all organized via-social networking sites. As countries with little freedom begin to use social media to articulate their views, perhaps a public sphere revival is underway online.

As democracy flourished, during the transition from a feudal to a civil society in the 15^th to 18^th centuries in Europe, the public sphere developed into a “warning system.” This system worked by sending signals, on issues deemed important by public actors, for the purpose of attracting the attention and action of government to particular problems in greater society. From this notion, came Habermas’s conception of the public sphere – a “network for communicating information and points of view.” Furthermore, Habermas believed that progressive politics should interpret the needs of citizens in a rational way – something a well functioning public sphere does quite well. Nonetheless, while the rise of a civil and democratic culture is significant, it is history which proves why the maintenance of such a regulatory system is imperative.

For Habermas, the public sphere is not an institution or a thing. According to Habermas, the public sphere is a mediator. Essentially, the public sphere mediates between the citizenry and the government. The public sphere permits civil society groups a forum in which to discuss issues they deem critical. Furthermore, the public sphere framework allows for the collective lobbying of the government. Most importantly, however, the public sphere is something people can participate in without fear of reprisal. Thus, without a functioning public sphere, democracy will not be possible.

The public sphere is an arena strictly set aside for public deliberation.  This space is solely constituted by the participation of civilian actors embattled in various discussions on issues of greater societal importance.

Today, as citizens unite for a cause on the Internet, it seems as though a new arena for public debate and discourse has been realized. Further, it appears that engagement with journalism is changing. In these countries where newspapers, magazines, and independent television stations are not permitted to exist it appears an especially active and engaged online population emerges. One who’s actions will transcend the blogosphere and engage a populace beyond that of cyberspace. Recently, we saw internet-planned revolutions take to the streets in Chisinau, Moldova, Tehran, Iran, and Honduras. In our home country of Canada we saw a protest in reaction to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to prorogue parliament organized online.

In the face of this trend, we must question whether or not this means that social media is changing or influencing citizen engagement with politics and other social issues. Is social media actually “leveling the playing field” as cyber optimists attest it is? Or, is Evgeny Morozov correct in his belief that social media is in fact providing a platform for governmental intervention into cyberspace?

My original question was whether or not social media is an appropriate forum for news. I have come to recognize that while it may not be the best for those in the free world, perhaps it is the most viable option for those suppressed. In the end, the argument could be made that if the mainstream media is ignoring your position, online citizen media may be your only answer.

 

Drop iPods not bombs

As of late, the term “iPod liberalism” has caught my attention.

But, what exactly does this term mean?

Upon unpacking such a concept, an interesting narrative comes to light. We already know that liberalism is a political orientation that favours social change through legislative means, rather than via revolution. In turn, one can assume that “iPod liberalism” must advocate the dropping of iPods, as opposed to bombs, as the solution to a brewing rebellion.

STRATFOR’s George Friedman puts it this way, iPod liberalism is “the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n’ roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism.”

Essentially, “iPod liberalism” is the view that an individual, who embraces even certain superficial aspects of Western culture, must also harbour amicable feelings toward the Western world en masse. This assumption is construed to even that of unwavering support for Western ideals: democracy, capitalism, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Undoubtedly, there are clear problems with this notion.

Evgeny Morozov is one outspoken critic of the term. He adamantly disagrees with the utopian assumption that technological innovation always works to promote freedom and democracy. In stark contrast, Morozov draws attention to countess situations, where the Internet has actually helped oppressive regimes stifle dissent, to prove his counterpoint.

In order to grasp Morozov’s logic, it is crucial to first develop an understanding of  his background. Hailing from the former Soviet republic of Belarus, he is no stranger to state-controlled media. Upon graduation, the admittedly young and idealist Morozov went on to work for an NGO that used new media to promote democratization. Interestingly, through his work, Morozov grew increasingly disillusioned with utopian views of technology. This is because, over time, he came to realize that “dictatorships do not crumble so easily.” In fact, with the onslaught of these new digital technologies “some get even more repressive.” Some time later, with dampened spirits, Morozov began researching the potential for the Internet to impede democracy.

According to Morozov, cyber optimists naively believe that, with copious amounts of connectivity and technological devices, democracy is inevitable. It is this very assumption that underlies the notion of “iPod liberalism” –  the idea “that everyone who owns an iPod must be a liberal.” Morozov found this sentiment problematic because “it confuses the intended versus actual uses of technology.”

Here, the idea is that no technology is ever used the way it was originally planned. Clay Shirky puts it this way, “these tools don’t get socially interesting until they get technologically boring.”

Overall, while many assume that social media technology is a catalyst for democratic progress, we must also question its potential to be an opiate for the masses.

Today, governments have the power to convince their civilian populations that they are more involved in the governing process than they truly are. Conceivably, any state can engage in practices that lead their citizens to believe they have at least some say in their government’s doings.  Unknown to the civilian populous, however, is that the exercise itself is purely for the regime’s gain. This is because such an exercise only works to provide the leadership a scapegoat if their policy fails. That scapegoat is the newly empowered public.

Interestingly, an additional unforeseen problematic component is that the social media technologies – used to organize and facilitate activist movements, are accessible to all. For instance,  in June 2009, digital activism via social media sites actually afforded the Iranian authorities access to open-source intelligence on the vast networks and cells of anti-government activists. The blogosphere, Twitterverse, and Facebook actually helped the Iranian government track down dissenters via their own activist launch pads.

Morozov would say that for technology to be considered a true agent for change, we need to stop thinking about computers, or iPods, per capita. On the contrary, we need to begin empowering real people within our societies.

Perhaps, Morozov had it right all along. Maybe it is time we question and “shatter some of our utopian assumptions and actually start doing something about it.”  For, in the end, technology will only get us so far.

 

Beware of the “spinternet”

During the June 2009 uprising in Iran, following the re-election victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I came across an article in the Washington Post which detailed the situation at hand in an interesting fashion.

The article explained that while the use of new media to stir up activism may appear groundbreaking, in actuality, throughout history “Protesters have often used new technologies to evade government attempts to stifle dissent.”

Further, the Washington Post noted that even when the Soviet Union appeared on the verge of collapse, “Dissenters used underground fax services to spread information.” Therefore, it is clear that new media technologies provide vital communication links. Clearly, exploiting such communication avenues, while evading governmental interference, is the key to raising awareness for a political cause. Undeniably, this is the reality of modern revolution.

Today, just as citizen journalism is hailed the rejuvenator of the digital public sphere, digital activism is championed as the revivalist of online democracy. Undoubtedly, however, there must be a dark side to this.

While activists should surely take advantage of their digital tool belt, at the same time, society must be leery of what Evgeny Morozov has dubbed the “spinternet”.

(The segment relevant to this post begins at 3:50)

Georgetown University fellow Evgeny Morozov hails from the former Soviet republic of Belarus. To but it simply, he is, what I would like to call, a “cyber realist”. For instance, Morozov is well known for debunking myths, established narratives, and prevailing assumptions about the impact of the Internet and mobile technologies on geopolitics and democratic society at large. In a field overrun with countless so-called cyber optimists, Morozov offers a fresh perspective on the issue of digital activism.

Today, according to Morozov, “What you can actually see is that sectarian governments have mastered the use of cyberspace for propaganda purposes.”

“They are building” what he calls, “the spinternet”.

What exactly is the “spinternet” you ask?

Morozov explained that the “spinternet” is “The combination of spin, on the one hand, and the Internet on the other.” Very simply, spin + internet = the “spinternet”.

According to Morozov, “governments from Russia to China to Iran actually hiring, training and paying bloggers in order to leave ideological comments and create a lot of ideological blog posts to comment on sensitive political issues.”

Thus, one example of the “spinternet” would be authoritarian regimes, equally well versed in online technologies, who utilize social media to hunt down dissenters and spew their own propaganda. Therefore, while digital activism surely has its positives, due to the anonymity afforded by online media, one can never truly be certain of who is behind each and every digital campaign.

The next question we must ask is “why”?

Why do dictatorships feel the need to engage with cyberspace? Well, Morozov would attest that this is because “censorship actually is less effective than you think it is in many of those places.”

For instance, the moment a digital activist injects something critical into the blogosphere or Twitterverse, even if a dictatorship manages to smother it immediately, the dissenter’s message will still spread from blog-to-blog.

Contemporarily, Morozov said that it seems as though the more effort corrupt regimes put into stifling dissent online, “the more it influences people to actually avoid the censorship and thus, win in this cat-and-mouse game”.

Today, a new consciousness is emerging in the blogosphere and cyberspace. Further, contemporary social media is changing and influencing citizen engagement with politics and other social issues. As like-minded individuals are united via these networked technologies, digital activism can flourish. All of a sudden, seemingly niche groups have the power to affect global change. 

At the same time, however, one must question whether social media is always promoting transparency. We must ask whether the accessibility and anonymity of citizen journalism is actually working to make the public increasingly vulnerable to the wrath of the “spinternet”. If this is the case, a collective solution must be devised.

 

Long live the revolution

A newfound consciousness and sense of community is emerging via the Internet. In countries where newspapers, magazines, and independent television stations are not permitted to exist freely, it seems that an especially active and engaged online population often emerges.

In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of social media and citizen journalism. From this, we have come to see a surge in activism as like-minded individuals harness the power of social media and networking sites to broadcast views often suppressed or ignored by the mainstream media. This is known as digital activism.

By definition, digital activism is grassroots activists using networked technologies – Twitter, Facebook, blogs, SMS text messaging – for social and political change campaigns. As activists take advantage of their digital tool belts, it is revolutionizing how activists organize. Today, via digital means, socially aware people can connect, and create change in a space that is free and global. In addition, individuals can organize large scale events, to create awareness and engage others for their cause, at virtually no cost.

This phenomenon is one that bewilders economists – who cannot believe that people will engage in such practices for slim-to-no financial gain. However, these largely Western economists are clearly missing the bigger picture. Undoubtedly, there must be something much larger and more crucial at stake.

This something is democracy, freedom of the press, speech, and assembly. Such ideals have no dollar value – a concept the business world fails to grasp.

The events of 1979, 1986, 1989, 1991, and 2005 are so far back in our historical trajectory that they should be beyond our consideration. Nonetheless,  it seems as though we have already forgotten the havoc that communist and socialist regimes can wreak. While we would prefer to believe that our collective memory is not that short, we must be mindful of modern reality. As even today: a pair of arguably authoritarian leaders run the Russian Federation, China is ruled by communists, Belarus is an “outpost of tyranny” – and this is just the short list.

On the streets of Chisinau and Tehran, we saw the sheer capacity of digital media as means to organize and facilitate mass demonstrations and uprisings. Interestingly, these forums for discussion and collaboration have grown especially popular in countries with state-infiltrated public spheres – namely, Iran, Russia, and China. Interestingly, however, such forums have not been restricted to use by merely the authoritarian and totalitarian-dominated masses. In fact, one does not have to look farther than the Alberta political blog scene – the most active blogging community in Canada, to see minorities finding their voices online.

Contemporarily, concerns of a digital divide appear outdated. Instead, utilizing these mediated technologies to bridge the geopolitical divide is the newfound aim. Upon investigation of current world politics, it is clear that this switch has not gone unnoticed.

On January 22, 2010, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that “A new information curtain [was] descending across much of the world,” it was as if someone had taken a page out of Sir Winston Churchill’s notes.

This snippet from Clinton’s recent call for internet freedom and security speaks to a need for freedom of expression and the right to access information online. Her words serve as a marker of change in the way we conceptualize internet freedom as a pillar of democracy today, and the medium’s future as a democratic staple. While Clinton did not go as far as to say, “Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall,” the Cold War mantra was unmistakable. More or less, Clinton’s address served as a warning for those who choose to stifle citizen dissent online – the United States will be watching.

For some, this shift represents a public sphere revival online. Today, proponents of digital activism tend to embrace social media as an open forum for discussion, and trumpet its’ citizen journalists as watchdogs.

Similarly, during the Cold War, dissenters circulated literature, known as samizdat, through underground publishing and fax services. According to Clinton, “viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.” If this is true, at a time when traditional channels of media have been censored or made impassable by oppressive regimes, perhaps the emergence of a digital public sphere is a positive step for democracy.

Ultimately, this blog will explore the social media revolution currently unfolding; a revolution that could craft our future world order. While a new consciousness is unarguably emerging online, we must question whether it is powerful enough to curb citizen apathy toward political engagement. Does the digital public sphere have a future as a democratic staple? Let’s find out.