Structured Response #7

Magda Borgarelli

When looking at revolutions such as the ones that occurred in Egypt and Iran, one can’t help but notice the great role that social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, have played in spreading ideas.  Because of them, people were able to better coordinate their efforts in order to be more effective.  They are also the reasons why the world began to pay more attention to these movements.  Therefore, without the social media, videos in which the Iranian police was beating the demonstrators would not have become news in other nations, which in turn would not have been felt compelled to send aid or support the cause as much as they would have done without seeing them.  It can be argued that things like Twitter and Facebook showed those who were involved in the revolutions that they were not alone, that they had support not only internationally, but also locally.  Therefore, following that line of thought, without the social media to back them up, protestors would have simply given up their cause in the belief that they did not have a chance against the system.  However, that did not happen.

In fact, social media was AN important factor in the revolutions, not THE only factor.  If, for example, we look at similar movements in a near past where Facebook and Twitter did not exist, we can still see regimes be toppled and social reform being carried on.  Serbia was able to become democratic because its people took to the streets, and at that time, no one had Facebook or Twitter, and there was little international coverage of the Otpor.  What can be argued, though, is maybe the speed at which it gained its goals.  Whereas the revolution in Egypt took about a year, the one in Serbia took about two.  However, both movements reached what they set to achieve, with or without Facebook and Twitter.  Revolutions are about the people and whether or not they are willing to make sacrifices for a certain cause.  Social media only plays a supporting part.