How important are social networks in popular uprisings - Stratfor analysis

The role of social networks like Facebook or Twitter or revolution protests drew special attention from the press in recent years and produced a general impression that the network facilitates the organization of actions to change the regime in one country or another. But social media alone can not trigger the revolution and can just as well to help the organizers of the protest movements and those who are the target of protests, shows a Stratfor analysis, which starts at the influence of online communication in case of protests in Egypt.

According to analysis by Marko provender and Sean Noonan, now social media is supposed to weaken support for authoritarian regimes, even in Iran or Myanmar. Even Barack Obama, in his recent interview on YouTube, social networking compared with fundamental rights such as freedom of expression.

But, says Stratfor, social media may not cause alone, revolutions and riots in Tunisia and Egypt in their role was not much different from that of tapes recorded by Ayatollah Khomeini in the speeches of the Iranian revolution in 1979. Social media are tools that enable revolutionary groups to reduce costs as the organization of protests or recruitment. But they have both advantages and disadvantages, and their efficiency depends on the ability of leaders to use them and how accessible they are for those who can use them, says Stratfor.

How social networks have been used in protests in recent years:

    * In Tunisia and Egypt, increased usage of Facebook and Twitter to organize, communicate and trigger campaigns of civil disobedience and street protests.
    * The "Green Revolution" in Iran, in 2009, events have been followed by Western media via YouTube or Twitter.
    * Riots in Moldova in 2009, were called "Twitter Revolution" since it was used by participants in the demonstrations.
    * For foreign observers, especially for the media, these networks have been very helpful to track events and to gather information in real time.


What can and can not do social networking, according to Stratfor analysis:

    * A revolution involves much more than those seen on the Internet - requires organization, funding and popular support. Social media offers advantages in disseminating messages and quickly among a large number of people, but are vulnerable to protests against government tactics.
    * Social networking sites allow organizers, at very little cost, involve a large number of people in a protest movement, but not necessarily enable them to determine these people - often hidden in the anonymity allowed some networks - to go out into the street.
    * The Internet allows a revolutionary group to spread the message not only ideological, but also the training program and operational plan. Call to protest at a time, can be done in seconds and no longer necessarily need to prepare for a demonstration of a specific date.
    * A motion to reduce his costs and organizational communication using social networks may depend less external funding and can thus create the impression that it is a movement without external support and a large number of local supporters. On his Facebook page, the group supported the Egyptian Movement April 6 as a protest of 28 January was attended by almost 90,000 people, but, according to estimates by Stratfor, the number of participants was much lower.
    * Stratfor show that this movement is made up of Egyptians have access to the Internet, given that, according to estimates from 2009, only 15.4% of Egypt's population has access to the Internet - more than most African countries, but less than most countries in the Middle East. And to be successful, a revolutionary movement must reach different segments of the population such as workers, pensioners and farmers, who are unlikely to have access to the Internet in most developing countries.
    * Organizers of the protests must prove ingenuity to counteract the disruptive tactics of the authorities, as happened in Egypt where, after being cut off all access to the Internet, the protesters called the "old" faxes, phone calls and printed materials to communicate .


How are social networks or can be tackled in the event of riots, according to Stratfor:

    * Authorities may have access to messages posted on Facebook, for example, including those protected or private and social networks can become such a sensitive tool for collecting information concerning the organization of protests.
    * When the organizers of the protests is based too much on social media to disseminate their messages, their activities may suffer deeply when the regime cut all access to the Internet, as happened in Egypt.
    * Governments and intelligence services can easily monitor social networking sites to find the latest information about users watch, for example through their Facebook profiles, offering images, contacts, information on where to find them. In Egypt, nearly 40 leaders of the Movement were arrested April 6 at the beginning of the protests, and this may have been facilitated by monitoring their activities on the Internet, especially on Facebook.
    * Web pages of protest movements can be completely closed by the authorities - which often happened in Iran or China. In July 2009, China had cut all access to the Internet throughout the Xinjiang autonomous region, after the Uighur ethnic unrest because of their banned websites could be accessed using IP addresses from outside the country
    * On the other hand, social media can be used by regimes appealed to his advantage, dezinformand, scaring them or luring them protesters to protest in a certain place, where the intervention forces can 't wait.
    * In the U.S., officials who were monitoring anti-WTO protests or anti-G8, for example, could learn in advance where the demonstrators were to gather to send police forces there.


Stratfor noted in its analysis that blocking access to the Internet any way reduced the number of participants in the protests in Egypt. A new medium with its own advantages and disadvantages of social networks triggered a protest movement, but allow their members to communicate more easily. General climate must be conducive to revolution (serious economic problems, corruption and oppression), and the people be motivated to mobilize large scale. "There are Facebook groups, YouTube videos and tweets about anything, but do not automatically mean that they are popular. A neo-Nazi who post messages on the Internet in the basement family home in Illinois will not trigger a revolution in the U.S., regardless of how writing and say it, "insisted Stratfor.