Sicherlich, es gab auch schon zuvor – in der Zeit vor Twitter und Social Networks – Demonstrationen, bei denen Zehntausende mobilisiert wurden. Doch ist die Situation bei Stuttgart 21 (S21) eine andere. Das Internet, genauer gesagt die Komunikation via Internet, dient als Verstärker des Protestes, als Instrument, die Massen zu mobilisieren – und auch dazu, kleine Meldungen zu großen Sachen stilisieren zu können.

Alles beginnt mit Mahnwachen und Demos im Frühjahr 2010. Die Möglichkeit der Mobilisierung von Demonstranten über das Internet wird früh entdeckt. Über Blogs wie „bei-abriss-aufstand.de“ werden Interessierte über künftige Aktionen, wie Mahnwachen oder, die wahrscheinlich berüchtigtste Protestform in diesem Zusammenhang, die sogenannten „Schwabenstreiche“, informiert. Diese Seite wird von einem Zentralorgan des Widerstandes geleitet: Den Parkschützern. Diese sind sich der Macht des Internets bewusst und organisieren den Protest von inzwischen über 31300 Mitgliedern, die sich auf der Website der Parkschützer nicht nur Bilder in einer Galerie, sondern auch ihre Meinung in einem Forum austauschen.

Gemeinsam mit dem Verkehrsclub Deutschland (VCD), Bündnis 90/ Die Grünen und vielen weiteren Organisationen, vor allem mit dem auf NGO-Ebene in der S21-Diskussion führenden Bund Naturschutz und Umwelt Deutschland (BUND) betreiben sie die Seite „kopfbahnhof-21.de“, welche in erster Linie dazu dient, den Gegenvorschlag zu S21, die Fortführung und Modernisierung des Kopfbahnhofs zu bewerben. Wie üblich ist auch hier der Abschnitt „Termine“ nicht zu übersehen. Das gemeinsame Ziel aller Seiten ist es, die Leute auf die Straße zu bekommen. Auch das Einbringen der Bürger in Initiativen wie Petitionen an den Bundestag werden hier zentral organisiert.

Anders sieht die Form der Seiten von Parteien aus, die gegen Stuttgart 21 sind. Die Grünen „gruene-gegen-stuttgart21.de“ und die Linken „s21-stoppen.de“ in Baden-Württemberg haben eigene Infoseiten erstellt. Hier ist jedoch ganz klar der Ansatz der Partei zu sehen, die informieren will, um gewählt zu werden. Die Positionen der Landespartei und die Gründe gegen das Bauprojekt stehen im Vordergrund. Eine Spalte „Termine“ gibt es bei beiden Parteien nicht.

Der Vorsprung der Gegner gegenüber den Befürwortern, auch in Hinsicht der Anzahl von Demonstranten ist sicherlich zu einem gewissen Grad der besseren Organisation im Internet geschuldet. Während die Gegner sich, wie beschrieben, über eine Handvoll Seiten organisieren, deren Fäden meist bei den „Parkschützern“, einem Verein, zusammenlaufen, begannen die Befürworter von S21 vereinzelt und weit verstreut in kleinen Grüppchen, wie „prosit-21.de“, „wir-fuer-stuttgart21.de“, „laufenfuerstuttgart.wordpress.com“, „stuttgart21.wordpress.com“ und Weiteren.

Inzwischen haben sich diese zum Großteil der Seite „wirsindstuttgart21.de“ angeschlossen, jedoch kann man schon am Layout der Seite den enormen Vorsprung der Gegner erkennen.
Auf den Plattformen Facebook (wo überaschenderweise die Befürworter des Projekts zahlenmäßig führen) und Twitter hat die Diskussion, via Gruppen und regelmäßigen Tweets von an Demos Beteiligten, ebenfalls Einzug gehalten.

Gerade an Twitter wird deutlich, wie die These der „Verstärkung“ des Protestes durch das Internet gemeint ist. Der Protest, wie auch der Gegenprotest hat zunächst nichts mit dem Internet, sondern lediglich mit dem Bahnhof zu tun. Die Organisation wird pragmatischer Weise mittels Internet vollzogen. Dies ist jedoch nicht zwingend notwendig. Es würde auch anders gehen. Aber wie sich Meldungen verbreiten, in welchem Tempo und vor allem in welcher Extensität, dafür ist das Internet, zuallererst Twitter, verantwortlich. Schon beim Abriss des Nordflügls wurden ständig Links auf die – inzwischen offline gegangene – Seite fluegel.tv getweetet. Dort konnte man mittels Webcam live die Abrissarbeiten und den Protest dagegen bestaunen. Für die Freunde des geschriebenen Wortes wurde auch jedes einzelne Detail in Twitter mit dem Hashtag #S21 mitgeteilt. Den Höhepunkt erreichte das Getwittere am 30. September, an jenem Tag, als mit Wasserwerfern und Pfefferspray heftig gegen Demonstranten vorgegangen wurde. Das Bild des aus den Augen blutenden Rentners Dietrich Wagner ging zigmal als Twitpic um die Welt. Die Wut und der Schock der Demonstrierenden füllte Twitter. Bevor die Seiten der Zeitungen von den Wasserwerfern wussten, stand es in Twitter. Doch weniger die Aktualität, sondern vielmehr die Masse machte Eindruck. Ähnlich wie bei den Protesten im Iran, vergangenen Jahres, wurde Twitter als Mittel der Demokratie in Deutschland entdeckt. An diesem Tag, der den Protest in Stuttgart ohnehin veränderte, hielt das Internet Einzug als 5.Macht in unserer Demokratie.

Currently, I am writing on a paper about the open collaboration via Web 2.0 technologies in the field of public e-procurement. While one might assume that E-Government 1.0 is dead, the rise of social media and networks in the private sector has awoken new hopes for the final kick-off the digital government. The Obama administration has identified this potential and implemented its Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government on its very first day in charge. Like in the case of public e-procurement, government agencies can heavily benefit from the advantages of open collaboration with citizens and even more so with contractors. In times of economic crisis and widespread economic stimulus programs the ideas of citizens and the private sector, e.g. generated via crowdsourcing in the case of Wiki’s, might be worth a lot to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government spending.

Through its focus on human interactions, social media has made interactions in the internet age social again. But while Web 2.0 has led collaboration back to its very roots, it brings out another more general problem already well-known from the times before the web conquered the world: How much collaboration should be allowed between government and the private sector, in particular in such sensitive fields such as public procurement?

Roughly accounting for $530bn, the US government’s annual acquisitions provide a huge area for economic savings not only through streamlined acquisition processes but also through a better interaction between public agencies and contractors before and after the bidding process. However, the field of public procurement represents – ever since government spending expanded – an area that is highly vulnerable to corruption and other versions of arbitrary misdemeanor by government officials. This being a global problem, many countries have reduced corruption by constructing a complex legal framework for procurement processes – thereby causing many of the problems that procurement agencies are facing around the globe.

The conflict of interest newly arising in the era of Web 2.0 is the balance between efficiency of procurement processes and governmental independence. Instruments for open government collaboration, like the use of Wikis for formulating product requirements by the federal General Services Administration (for further information see the Betterbuy Project), might give especially ethics officers the heebie-jeebies.

According to the OECD there are four major principles to ensure integrity in public procurement:
Transparent organization of tendering processes and fair and equal treatment of all potential suppliers,
Good Management via skilled and ethically sensitive procurement managers,
Prevention of Misconduct via mechanisms of compliance and monitoring, and
Accountability and control through the civil society.
While these principles mostly refer – in the very sense of a Principle-Based-Approach – to the enactment and exercise of certain rules through public administrators, the duty to act fully aligned with the public interest in the Web 2.0 era also requires an updated understanding of a public servant’s virtues.

The emergence of social media has not only made online collaboration more social, it also has some continuative consequences for the daily functioning of public organizations: In many ways, the ethical behavior of these organizations (and in particular of their employees), is so far secured by the existence of a specific set of rules and the still important forms of hierarchic organizations. While I do not assume that collaboration between government and corporations was not in place before, I do believe that the implementation of Web 2.0 collaboration boosts this cooperation and lifts it up to a new level of de facto institutionalization. As a consequence of social media interaction through Wikis and many other tools, public servants in any agency will be expected to work more actively and engaged with users of the outside-public-administration-world – administrative reference books and hierarchic orders are likely to lose at least a part of their stabilizing impact.

So what is the consequence?

Ultimately, the importance of social interaction – that means direct and faster interaction instead of reference book-bounded, formalized reaction – centers the appropriate behavior of administrators, particularly in the field of public procurement. Probably more than in the last decades, the public servant of the Web 2.0 age depends on the reliability of its virtues and personal ethical intuitions. Open government is an ethical issue: As in the case of Acquisition 2.0, the length of government to business interaction is no longer restricted to tendering and contract management. Furthermore, government agencies start to design their procurement strategies in accordance with information from the private sector. This certainly holds a huge potential for improvement, but it also brings out a challenge to agencies and single employees in the public sector: Their duty to serve the public interest and to balance (at best of course to align) public and private interests is now extended to balancing the information and collaboration processes in open government tools such as Wikis. In the case of public procurement this means not only to allow and enable all possible tenderers to bid but also to share their information – in particular in order to prevent asymmetries of information and thereby the structural failure of procurement policies.

Looking through a variety of Blogs, Newspapers and statements of Social Media Evangelists, you can find the conviction that Social Media could bring Athenian-style democracy back to the future. The rise of Iranian regime criticism, and similar developments in non-democratic and democratic countries are usually quoted as examples for a renewed rise of popular sovereignty around the world.

However, not only can one question the success of Iranian protesters and the ultimate impact of Social Media on organizing protest and, finally, politics. Additionally, Social Media and their supporters see themselves faced with the challenge of implementing Web 2.0 as a democratically sustainable tool.

Why is that?

First, the currently most prominent strategies of Social Media focus mainly on questions of mobilization. The impact on politics is significant as the Iranian example, Obama’s overwhelming campaign and a number of European imitators show. Whoever is willing to implement these tools on a long-term basis to foster direct communication with citizens, their inclusion in policy-making and, ultimately, democratic governance, must necessarily answer a number of new questions. The most important one would probably be: How can one use Social Media as a sustainable tool?

What I mean by that is rather simple to explain: While current success stories of Social Media are success stories of mobilization, direct democratic Social Media would have to be designed for a long-term application. It goes without saying, that not only the range of interaction but also the design of structures of interaction had to be changed dramatically. Government agencies, from federal to local communities, need to be prepared to the rush of engaged citizens. Social Media – and in particular their unpayable potential as a creative source to improve policies – need to be embedded in the development of government agencies.

Secondly, as interactions are improving and becoming more and more serious on the basis of Social Media, they will become more and more complex as well. While the new media brought major change to Social Media, for example by Wikis for government-crowdsourcing in different policy areas, they have also lead democracy back to its root: As social interactions, for example in the case of community management, are increasingly redesigned at the virtual level, Web 2.0 made democracy personal again.

However, does this finally promote direct democracy?

The personalization effect of Web 2.0 is often considered from its positive effects. No doubt that personalization is a desirable goal. But like for any goal, you will also have to work for personalization. The price for personalization is personal engagement. The success factor of Web 2.0 is its supportive potential for human interaction.

The success of the Better Buy Project is a good example for the idea of promoting openness, transparency and responsiveness to the public in the very specific field of federal procurement. The strongly structured process of interaction and information gathering though is a hint to the challenges of social interaction in the Web 2.0-enabled democracy: Information flows need to be structured.
This problem, well known in representative democracies, remains central in the age of Wikis, Facebook and Twitter. Tools like particularly Wikis allow users to share complex ideas instead of just voting in favor of or in opposition to one certain choice. While these information are a more complex and valuable input than before, they need to be structured, at least to make a distinction between usable and non-usable proposals. Such structuring processes are already a major challenge in the day-to-day business of radio stations or newspaper, but long-term efforts on a broad, national basis are still in the fledging stages.

What is to expect from these efforts? While they will certainly help to improve the quality of government policies and government-citizen interactions they will hardly bring back Athenian-style democracy to the future. To complex are the requirements of modern policy design in a highly segmented, modern community. However, higher stages of policy design and interaction are opened for the public – or rather: These sections of the policy cycle are given back to the agents of representative democracy. Though the core principle of representative democracy – that is the dislocation of decision making processes on a higher level of representatives in order to generate gains of efficiency in decision making – remains the same.

A rather sceptic opinion – but what do you think?

Fabian Boehm, CEO of PUBLIC POLeCY, talked to Jonson Chong, former Communications Director of Parti Keadilan Rakyat from Malaysia, about the significance of social media in his country.

Fabian Boehm: How do you use social media in your daily work/life?

Jonson Chong: I use social media for both work and personal purposes. As the communications director of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, the leading opposition party of Malaysia, I use social media like Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis, 7 days a week, to interact and engage with Malaysians who are concerned with our country’s political situation. In my personal life, I use both to connect with family and friends. Generally, I use my BlackBerry and MacBook (whenever there is a Wi-Fi connection) to update and monitor both Facebook and Twitter. Also, my Twitter account is connected to my Facebook account; thus, whenever I update Twitter, my Facebook is also updated. (This is done to reach both Twitter followers as well as Facebook friends, who are quite different types of social media users.)


Fabian Boehm: How important are social media in your country: in politics, in the media and in your society?

Jonson Chong: I believe that Facebook is much more popular than Twitter at the moment. Nevertheless, they are both commonly used for politics, for highlighting issues not reported in the mainstream media and also as a tool to connect for social reasons. I would say that for the vast majority of Malaysians without internet connections or smartphones, it is not very important yet. However, the “connected” urban middle-class population would consider it as an essential tool in their daily lives.


Fabian Boehm: Are just young people using social media or is it also common for older people to use social media? Is there digital divide in your country?

Jonson Chong: The digital divide that exists is not a matter of age. It’s a matter or geographical location and economic status. Both young and old (especially politicians) use Facebook and Twitter. However, as indicated in my answer to Question 2 above, the poorer people, especially those in rural areas, who do not have internet connections and cannot afford expensive smartphones, do not use social media.


Fabian Boehm: How did social media change the way you or your organization work(s)?

Jonson Chong: Firstly, social media has made it extremely easy for me to share interesting and/or useful information with family, friends and the general public. What used to be done with either SMS or emails (which had restrictions in terms of sharing photos, videos, website links, etc.), we can now very quickly and very simply share via Facebook or Twitter.

Secondly, both Facebook and Twitter have given the opposition in Malaysia an additional media channel to reach the masses. In a country like Malaysia, where the media laws tightly control the mainstream media, social media is making freedom of expression and free media meaningful and effective.

Last but not least, with social media, both personally and professionally, I can reach a much bigger audience, much faster, and virtually for free.


Fabian Boehm: How much time do you spend on social media and is it worth of it?

Jonson Chong: The time spent on social media changes from day to day. It depends on my schedule for the day and also the current issues of the day. Some days, my entire working day is dedicated to social media work; e.g. tweeting live from court to cover the proceedings of Anwar Ibrahim’s trial. On other days, I will just tweet or share on Facebook whatever interesting news items or articles that I come across. Of course, sometimes I share my personal views, too, on both Facebook and Twitter. With apps for Facebook and Twitter on my BlackBerry, the time spent on social media is virtually inconsequential as I can update both on the move.

It’s definitely worth it. Ten or fifteen years ago, the web was seen as insignificant to businesses and political parties. Now, it has a huge impact on both. Similarly, Facebook and Twitter might still be an insignificant factor for both but I am convinced that it will be the media of the future, including personal blogs, Flickr, YouTube and the like.


Fabian Boehm: Does your organization have a specific employee or work unit for social media?

Jonson Chong: No, we don’t. Many of our elected reps and party officials have their own Facebook accounts and pages, as well as Twitter accounts. Nevertheless, there is an official Party Twitter account used to tweet Party-related statements, news, etc.


Fabian Boehm: How important is it to have a social media strategy?

Jonson Chong: It is very important to have a proper social media strategy. Firstly, we need to know and understand the psyche of social media users, which is not the same as newspaper readers or TV viewers. The expectations of social media users include interaction, engagement and responsiveness from commercial entities as well as political figures and parties. Thus, the strategy must take this into consideration.

Also, we must note that social media users are usually highly educated and more affluent. They are quite aware of current issues and the personalities involved in the field. Thus, “old school” propaganda strategy will not be effective. Indeed, any bare denial of facts will result in a backlash. Also, we cannot and must not ignore comments and questions from social media users. Again, that will be seen as arrogance and/or incompetence vis-à-vis social media technology.


Fabian Boehm: How important will social media be 5 years from now?

Jonson Chong: As indicated above, social media will be more important 5 years from now. As the population becomes more educated and the middle class grows, not to mention higher connectivity to the internet, more and more people will be relying on social media to influence public opinion and to promote their products and services, as well as to connect with family and friends.


Fabian Boehm: Are social media an elite issue?

Jonson Chong: It really depends on how we look at it. It is understandable for social media to be considered an elite issue by many. This view probably came about because of the perception that only the financially better off or privileged are able to afford computers and/or mobile devices that are needed to access social media. From this perspective, yes, one could say that it’s an “issue” for elites.

However, this perspective does not take two critical points into consideration: One, if we look at the reality of internet access, the user does not need to actually own the computer or mobile device that she uses to access social media. For example, in Malaysia, there are many cyber-cafes where financially disadvantaged people go regularly to go online.

Secondly, access to and creation of social media is very much dependent on the mindset of the individual. For example, despite being able to afford computers and mobile devices, many “elites” still do not access social media, much less use it in a proactive manner.


Fabian Boehm: Do you personally think that there is a link between social media/social networks and democratization/democratic development?

Jonson Chong: Most definitely. In my opinion, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube (I can only say for these social media as I personally use them) are the most “democratic” forms of media that I know—they are free and content creation as well as access are open. The only limitation that I can see is the limited access to the Internet, which will be overcome when Internet access becomes more widespread.

Thus, taking a leaf from Gandhi’s quote, “The means and the ends must be the same,” social media, if used properly, can be the most effective way develop democracy.

Here’s a personal example: Despite not being an elected representative or a prominent leader of a political party, I am able to influence public opinion as well as mainstream media by my tweets as I have a significant number of Malaysian followers (even more than some elected representatives from my own party).


Fabian Boehm: Is there a link between social media and good governance?

Jonson Chong: Yes. I believe the pressure from social media either through tweets mentioning government leaders or Facebook messages to these leaders do affect their policy decisions, which have a strong bearing on good governance.


Fabian Boehm: What is the importance of social media in political and civic engagement in your country in comparison to offline/classical social and political engagement?

Jonson Chong: This question highlights a very important point about strategic social-political activism.

Although overall internet penetration is relatively low in Malaysia, the level of access amongst liberal-minded social-political activists is quite high. Thus, social media should be used to consolidate and coordinate the efforts of these social-political activists or organizations, whereas traditional media ought to be used by the individual organizations to reach out and communicate with the masses.


Fabian Boehm: Are social media independent?

Jonson Chong: On the whole yes, but it should be noted that in a country like Malaysia, where the ruling regime has engaged a very media savvy international consulting firm, there are many pro-government cyber-troopers whose function includes countering information unfavorable to the government and also spreading government propaganda.


Fabian Boehm: Do social media really foster more political participation? Is it really easier to participate in politics via social media?

Jonson Chong: Yes, with regards to the first question, I believe social media really do foster more political participation. However, the level of political participation depends on the context or political landscape of the country in question.

For example, a country where mainstream media are relatively independent or where political awareness is very high, social media would not be so important for raising awareness but more could be more useful in coordinating political activities.

However, in a country where political awareness is very low or where the mainstream media are tightly controlled, social media can and does have an important role in raising awareness, especially amongst apolitical youths who are “privileged” enough to have access to social media.

As for the second question, it is extremely important to make a distinction between easier and effective political participation. Social media definitely makes it easier for anyone to participate in politics, let’s say either to receive or to disseminate information. For example, the fact that Facebook and Twitter users can register accounts anonymously allows them to use social media without fear of repercussions.

However, an anonymous tweeter, obviously, will have less credibility than one who uses his or her real identity. Thus, this is a simple example of how social media may not be as effective for political participation.

Having said that, I should point out that the effectiveness in question very much depends on what we are trying to achieve. If the objective is simply sharing information about details of a political forum, then it can be effective.

On the other hand, if an anonymous social media user wishes to make a political statement, such a statement would be ineffective as it would be irrelevant to the majority of politically aware citizens; though I hasten to add that there could be value in such a statement if it highlights points not previously raised by other political observers.


Fabian Boehm: Is there a party or a political movement focusing on the Internet (like the pirates in Sweden)?

Jonson Chong: No, not that I know of.


Fabian Boehm: Thank you so much, Jonson, for taking the time for this interview.

On the second day after the humanitarian crisis #helphaiti had already made it into the top 10 trending topics on Twitter worldwide. As of now, the flood in Pakistan has not even made it into the top 20. So far roughly 179,000 Euros (220,000 US $) have been raised for Pakistan. In the same amount of time 10,000,000 Euros (12,250,000 US $) had been raised for Haiti. One of the main factors that has been crucial for the success of the Haiti campaign is micro-donations via mobile phones or online donations.

So why doesn’t anyone seem to care about Pakistan on Twitter? Where is the difference from Haiti? I would love to hear your opinions on this. Have you come across any articles that deal with this issue? (Here is an article from a German Newspaper: http://bit.ly/99nXtO.)

Here are my suggestions: Could it be that there are just too many catastrophes going on right now? Is it because Pakistan is not close enough to the States or the EU? Do fears of terrorism and the nuclear bomb play a role?

My two cents: Whatever the reasons may be (and we will try to find out what they are), the people in Pakistan are in as desperate need of help right now as the people in Haiti have been. So please help if you can.

On Friday, August 6, I attended the second annual Social Media Summit “Bringing Theory to Practice” which was organized by the Young Nonprofit Professionals Network DC (YNPNdc). This Social Media Summit was simply amazing. The speakers, the atmosphere, and the attendees all played perfectly together.

While I was writing this blog article about the Social Media Summit, I came across the blog of Ms. Rasberry (msrasberrysworld, @msrasberryinc). She reported about the event in such a wonderful way that after reading her article I thought, “why am I even writing this?” So instead of repeating everything again, I will give you the link with no further ado.

One thing that I want to add though is the presentation of Jordan Viator (@jordanv) about Social Media ROI (you should say what ROI stands for). This presentation was the most interesting to me. Monitoring Social Media success and calculating the ROI (return on investment) is really tricky. Jordan gave many interesting examples how to measure ROI for Social Media.

Could the internet hold the keys to reform of authoritarian regimes?

In 1997, the World Bank labelled the Middle East and North Africa as one of the most resistant regions in the world to institutionalized democracy.

Today, nearly a decade and a half later, the situation is hardly more promising. The region contains an overwhelming proportion of authoritarian or quasi-democratic regimes, and civil and political freedoms are severely limited in many places. Add to this the number of destabilizing conflicts the region has experienced in recent history. Western observers and policymakers look to the situation with a mixture of befuddlement and exasperation.

But one thing certainly has changed since 1997. The Internet is slowly spreading into more and more facets of society. Governments have invested heavily in IT infrastructure, viewing it as an essential motor of economic development. As a corollary to this trend, the social media have grown in importance and popularity. A town in Jordan claims to hold the Guinness World Record for the highest concentration of internet cafés in the world, meaning that even those who can’t afford to own a computer have the possibility of getting their Facebook fix on a regular basis. Does this growing trend have political ramifications?

Our previous blog articles have argued that the social media can have a significant impact on the functioning of democracy. Sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are extremely useful for accomplishing a wide range of political goals – ranging from fundraising, to garnering electoral support, to spreading news about events. They present unique opportunities for politicians to engage with their citizens. Above all, they are forums where political ideas and information are easily – and quickly – disseminated.  All of this takes on a heightened importance in countries where political freedoms and civil society are restricted, and where governments sometimes directly control all the main media outlets. In such a situation, online civil society could act as a stand-in for traditional civil society and become a breeding ground for ideas about reform. Is this hypothesis supportable in the Middle East?

The idea is certainly not new. In 1998, Jon B. Alterman theorized that the Internet would bring about freer flows of information in the Arab world, reducing the efficacy of state censorship and weakening the ability of governments to pass ill-justified policies without the consent of their populations (view a summary of his argument here.) I recently read Deborah Wheeler’s study of Internet cafés in the Arab world, in which she concluded that Internet usage helps foster political consciousness by allowing people to overstep normal boundaries of gender and social class, bringing them into contact with new people and ideas, and encouraging them to be more outspoken about their opinions. The authors of a recent study called Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere observed that bloggers across the Middle East tend more often than not to be critical of their domestic political leaders, and frequently discuss civil and political rights in their writings.

We can already see evidence of the social media producing tangible political outcomes in the Middle East. In Egypt, where a state of emergency in place since 1981 places limitations of freedom of association and allows authorities to arrest individuals without court supervision, the online sphere has become a flourishing avenue for dissent. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is banned from participating in Egyptian elections, is tolerated online. Facebook played a significant role in the organizing of the April 6 strike in Cairo two years ago. Bloggers have been instrumental in exposing cases of police torture in the country and opening them up to public and international discussion. In Iran, the role that Twitter played during the 2009 disputed presidential elections, both in organizing protests and drawing international attention to the situation in the country, led observers to proclaim a “Twitter Revolution.” Jordan’s Queen Rania actively uses the social media to promote intercultural dialogue, advocate for social change and give citizens a means to connect with the monarchy.

Despite these encouraging examples, the overall situation is much gloomier. Perhaps because they have realized the potential of the Internet to stir up change, governments in recent years have stepped up their efforts to censor and filter online content. YouTube is blocked in Turkey, Syria, Iran, Libya and Tunisia (check out the OpenNet Initiative’s Social Media Filtering Map here.) Iran has developed its own sophisticated array of technologies for blocking websites it deems threatening to the regime. Internet cafés are in many places subject to heavy surveillance, and owners are required to keep records of all customers using their services. To a varying degree from country to country, criticising political leaders or the mainstream religion via the Internet can constitute grounds for arrest and imprisonment. Out of the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 10 Worst Countries to be a Blogger, five are in the Middle East and North Africa. It is still dangerous, and maybe even increasingly so, to call for reform over the social media.

But there is hope. As governments develop more extensive filtering software, dissidents will continue to develop ways to circumvent it. It is unlikely that a force as powerful and far-reaching as the Internet could ever be completely subject to government control. Despite the restrictions placed on it, the Internet remains a powerful tool for individuals living in undemocratic regimes to connect with the outside world, share ideas with one another, and draw attention to the need for reform within their countries. The social media may not usher in a flood of social change that will set Middle Eastern nations on the fast-track to Western-style democracy any time soon. But if it provides citizens with a medium to discuss issues outside the limitations of traditional civil society, then that in itself is progress.

Today, I attended two really interesting events and I just wanted to share some insights with you.

The first one was “Bridging Cuba’s Communication Divide: Empowering Cubans through Access to New Media & Technology” (http://bit.ly/c8v6lW) by the Brookings Institution! This event gave me a good overview of the current situation in Cuba and how big the potential of the Internet and especially of Internet infrastructure is to foster social change.

The second one was “Decoding Digital Activism” (http://bit.ly/aAYFks) by the New America Foundation! It was a general panel discussion about digital activism. It was especially interesting to hear the viewpoint of Robin Lerner, Counsel, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and from Katharine Kendrick, Internet Freedom, Department of State. Also Joshua Goldstein, Coordinator of the Apps4africa 2010 Competition was part of this panel (he was actually in Nairobi and was talking live via skype): http://appfrica.net/blog/. Mary Joyce, Author and Editor of Digital Activism Decoded was in the panel too and presented some work from her most recent book.

One question that I have been thinking a lot about lately, was also raised during the discussions: “Is Internet technology neutral? Will it help the undemocratic regime or the people?”

I think that we will look further into this question with our work here at PUBLICPOLeCY!

Lately I am doing an internship with a Washington-based think tank and I wanted to share with you how this has changed the way I work. So get ready for the first “Behind the scenes of PUBLICPOLeCY.”

When I wake up in the States it is already lunch time in Germany, so all the emails and the tweets from Europe come floating in. Sometimes this is a little bit overwhelming right after you wake up. Therefore, I get up a little earlier on working days in order to be able to respond to the most urgent topics.

I tweet during my lunch break.

The main part of my work I actually do in the evening and night when I come home from work.

Since PUBLICPOLeCY is in its starting phase, there are a lot of strategic decisions that need to be made- apart from all the operational work that I have to do.  So I use the time over the weekend to work on topics and strategies. Plus, I finish the work that I could not do during the week.

Because we are a think tank that deals with social media and operates online, it does not matter where I am. That is the great advantage of this work. I can manage PUBLICPOLeCY wherever I am, as long as I have a working internet connection. Without Skype, email, and Twitter all this would not be possible! The internet allows us to work anywhere, anytime for free.

The downside of living in the United States of America is that it makes communication with Europe-based contributors more difficult – but it is still manageable. Plus, when my roommates go out, I stay in to finish up some work.

The advantage of living here is the silence in the evening when I work because nothing and no one from Europe distracts you. Secondly, I am closer to the things  that are happening in North America and I can respond more quickly to them.

It can sometimes be more difficult to work from the United States of America.  With my care and passion for my work, however, I am able to overcome these small inconveniences.

Is there something rotten in the State of Facebook?

Last Monday, Facebook suddenly deleted the popular ‘Boycott BP’ Fanpage with its almost 800,000 fans. Just a few hours later, the page was fully restored. Meanwhile, the Facebook account of the group’s founder, Desmond Perkins, remained closed, as well as that of his 14-year-old daughter. Fans around the globe were left in the dark, wondering if this was as an attempt to censor them. Having undertaken these actions without any further notification, Facebook still did not provide an official apology. Until now, Facebook has claimed that the incident occurred because of a system error. Facebook wrote:

The admin profile of the Boycott BP Page was disabled by our automated systems therefore removing all the content that had been created by the profile. After a manual review we determined the profile was removed in error and it has now been restored along with the Page.

Facebook further asked Perkins’ daughter to provide a copy of her I.D. before restoring her account as well. The company declared that this was in accordance with their transparency policy. They wrote that a sufficient proof of identity was needed in order to proof the authenticity of her account:

Hi,
In an effort to maintain a culture of authenticity on the site, Facebook requires users to provide their real first and last names. Impersonating anyone or anything is prohibited, and fake accounts are a violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
Your account has been suspended because we have received reports that your account could be in violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. If you believe you were disabled by mistake, please reply to this email with a scanned image or digital picture of a government-issued ID (e.g., driver’s license, passport, etc.) and make sure the following information is clear:
- Full name- Date of birth- Photo.
Please black out any personal information that is not needed to verify your identity (e.g., social security number). Rest assured that we will permanently delete your ID from our servers once we have used it to verify the authenticity of your account.
Note that writing in and submitting your ID multiple times will not result in a faster response. Once you submit your initial request, it is placed in a queue and responded to accordingly. We appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
The Facebook Team

Aside from any speculation about BP lobbying Facebook to delete the pages as a threat to the concern’s economic interests (even though BP claimed no involvement in the incident), the case tells us a lot about Facebook as a ‘political room.’

In the last few years, Facebook developed into a so-called ‘political room,’ used by thousands of groups for a wide spectrum of political targets. But only a few groups gain such a huge number of supporters as ‘Boycott BP’ did. The page is certainly at the heart of the most controversial current political issues. In fact, that’s why this case is different from the Facebook pages used by political actors (e.g. politicians, parties) to mobilize users for strategic reasons like political campaigning. Obama-style political mobilization is no longer the sole purpose of Facebook.

Because of the very critical issue it is dealing with, ‘Boycott BP’ can serve as an example of a real political dispute in the social media. In reality, the page which calls on individuals to “Boycott BP stations until the spill is cleaned up” poses a real threat to BP’s economic interests. Naturally, BP wants to protect these interests. What emerges is a classical conflict between two pressure groups and their opposing targets.

In this sense, Facebook is becoming more and more about political interaction and engagement.

Facebook’ s behaviour in this context is interesting. If we understand Facebook to be an emerging ‘political room’, we would expect a different kind of behaviour. As citizens, we expect our government or state to be held accountable to its actions. Transparency and accountability represent the fundamental basis of any modern democracy and free society. A full-fledged political room cannot exist without these pre-conditions.

In contrast, Facebook’s present attitude obviously violates these standards. But this simple finding is not an adequate judgement of the whole story. The situation is more complex.

Facebook, first of all, does not represent a traditional state or democracy. It is a private company. Its judicial obligations are therefore primarily defined by civil and privacy law standards. As a consequence, Facebook can claim the right to edit or simply delete user comments, just like a newspaper can do with letters to the editor.

Greg Beck, a Public Citizen attorney, might have been right in saying that de facto, “Facebook and other social websites have become the public squares of the internet — places where citizens can congregate as a community to share their opinions and voice their grievances. Facebook’s ownership of this democratic forum carries great responsibility.”

The problem is that a marketplace is a public space where freedom of speech can be executed under the shelter of a democratic political system. Facebook is not such a public space, even if its owners want to create the impression that it is. From a judicial standpoint Facebook certainly does not fulfil democratic standards. Figuratively speaking, Facebook does not need to allow all activities in the virtual rooms of its company to go on.

In any case, such an authoritarian attitude towards its users violates the Facebook deal. This kind of deal is much like a deal between a lessor and a renter: The lessor (Facebook) rents (virtual) living space to a renter (the user). The hire charges are the renter’s personal information and the time he spends in the social network. In their contract, both sides have some specific rights, but it seems that the lessor remains more powerful.

The specific rights and options of the user in this relationship are based on another informal part of the Facebook deal: The agreement was built on the expectation that Facebook would act as a neutral platform towards its users. This implies the neutral transmission of any information users want to share with others. In practice, this expectation was violated for a certain time. So there is a legitimate right to protest against it.

That leaves one very important question still open: in what capacity can we protest?

In a traditional state, one would protest as a citizen with participatory rights assured by the constitution. Facebook does not have such a legally binding basis, nor does it need such a basis for its business model. This business model is based on social networking. From the company’s viewpoint, the expectation of neutral transmission of information is therefore also limited to the areas of social networking. This is slightly different from political networking or engagement.

Of course this differentiation sounds very abstract, but it alters our conception of the problem in an important way. In the social network called Facebook, we are obviously not citizens, but we are at the same time more than customers. Instead of buying certain products from the company and then ending the relationship with the seller, we are permanently involved in the network. Thus, we are permanently involved in the production of Facebook’s most important resources: personal information and social capital. Facebook’s business model would fail in the long-term if it lacked these resources. This kind of co-production qualifies our role as users.

So is there something rotten in the state of Facebook? Yes and no (a typical answer from a political scientist!) First of all, Facebook is not a state and it is formally not subject to the same obligations as a state, e.g. towards transparency. But at the same time, it is not an independent company in the traditional sense since its business model and success are dependent on social capital. As users, we find ourselves in a classic dilemma. On the one hand, Facebook helps us to develop a space for political interaction. But on the other hand, this space lacks the characteristics of a ‘political room’.

A de facto space for political engagement exists, where judicially there shouldn’t be one.

How should Facebook react to this situation? Please share your thoughts with us!