|Ivan Boothe on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:43:50 +0100 (CET)|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: <nettime> Twitter does not cause revolution, people do|
But that's just exactly my point. Shirky did call it a Twitter Revolution -- perhaps a poor choice of words in service of a catchy title -- but he did NOT say "Twitter caused revolution."
And to Mark's email, I actually think we're on the same page -- different habits, and different software, does change the way we look at things, how we do things, how we plan revolution and carry it out, how we limit or expand our strategies and goals and opportunities. But a piece of software doesn't CAUSE revolution; it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Shirky may have over-covered the ROLE Twitter played in a few revolutions (I think he coined this in reference to the Iranian election protests, which of course didn't turn out to be any kind of revolution after all). But he never suggested Twitter was the sole cause of the revolution.
Again: I think this is a distraction from a real debate about that role.
Shirky, and perhaps Mark, thinks it plays a big role in how revolutions are planned. I am on the lower end, thinking social media provides a new tool but that the core basis of community organizing and movement-building remains. An interesting and useful and fruitful debate is to be had here. But no one on either side suggests Twitter causes revolution and people have no role, as the original columnist parodied fictional people saying -- and focusing on that straw man takes us away from the debate that can actually help move us forward on, you know, working on future revolutions.
--ivan ("web" is just the email)
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: email@example.com