Reblogged “The Twitter Revolution Must Die” by Ulises Mejias

The Twitter Revolution Must Die by Ulises Mejias:

Have you ever heard of the Leica Revolution? No?

That’s probably because folks who don’t know anything about “branding” insist on calling it the Mexican Revolution. An estimated two million people died in the long struggle (1910-1920) to overthrow a despotic government and bring about reform. But why shouldn’t we re-name the revolution not after a nation or its people, but after the “social media” that had such a great impact in making the struggle known all over the world: the photographic camera? Even better, let’s name the revolution not after the medium itself, but after the manufacturer of the cameras that were carried by people like Hugo Brehme to document the atrocities of war. Viva Leica, cabrones!

My sarcasm is, of course, a thinly veiled attempt to point out how absurd it is to refer to events in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere as the Twitter Revolution, the Facebook Revolution, and so on. What we call things, the names we use to identify them, has incredible symbolic power, and I, for one, refuse to associate corporate brands with struggles for human dignity. I agree with Jillian York when she says:

“… I am glad that Tunisians were able to utilize social media to bring attention to their plight.  But I will not dishonor the memory of Mohamed Bouazizi–or the 65 others that died on the streets for their cause–by dubbing this anything but a human revolution.”

Granted, as Joss Hands points out, there appears to be more skepticism than support for the idea that tools like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are primarily responsible for igniting the uprisings in question. But that hasn’t stopped the internet intelligentsia from engaging in lengthy arguments about the role that technology is playing in these historic developments. One camp, comprised of people like Clay Shirky, seem to make allowances for what Cory Doctorow calls the “internet’s special power to connect and liberate.” On the other side, authors like Ethan Zuckerman, Malcolm Gladwell and Evgeny Morozov have proposed that while digital media can play a role in organizing social movements, it cannot be counted on to build lasting alliances, or even protect net activists once authorities start using the same tools to crack down on dissent.

Both sides are, perhaps, engaging in a bit of technological determinism–one by embellishing the agency of technology, the other by diminishing it. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between, and philosophers of technology settled the dispute of whether technology shapes society (technological determinism) or society shapes technology (cultural materialism) a while ago: the fact is that technology and society mutually and continually determine each other.

So why does the image of a revolution enabled by social media continue to grab headlines and spark the interest of Western audiences, and what are the dangers of employing such imagery? My fear is that the hype about a Twitter/Facebook/YouTube revolution performs two functions: first, it depoliticizes our understanding of the conflicts, and second, it whitewashes the role of capitalism in suppressing democracy.

To elaborate, the discourse of a social media revolution is a form of self-focused empathy in which we imagine the other (in this case, a Muslim other) to be nothing more than a projection of our own desires, a depoliticized instant in our own becoming. What a strong affirmation of ourselves it is to believe that people engaged in a desperate struggle for human dignity are using the same Web 2.0 products we are using! That we are able to form this empathy largely on the basis of consumerism demonstrates the extent to which we have bought into the notion that democracy is a by-product of media products for self-expression, and that the corporations that create such media products would never side with governments against their own people.

It is time to abandon this fantasy, and to realize that although the internet’s original architecture encouraged openness, it is becoming increasingly privatized and centralized. While it is true that an internet controlled by a handful of media conglomerates can still be used to promote democracy (as people are doing in Tunisia, Egypt, and all over the world), we need to reconsider the role that social media corporations like Facebook and Twitter will play in these struggles.

The clearest way to understand this role is to simply look at the past and current role that corporations have played in “facilitating” democracy elsewhere. Consider the above image of the tear gas canister fired against Egyptians demanding democracy. The can is labeled Made in U.S.A.

But surely it would be a gross calumny to suggest that ICT are on the same level as tear gas, right? Well, perhaps not. Today, our exports encompass not only weapons of war and riot control used to keep in power corrupt leaders, but tools of internet surveillance like Narusinsight, produced by a subsidiary of Boeing and used by the Egyptian government to track down and “disappear” dissidents.

Even without citing examples of specific Web companies that have aided governments in the surveillance and persecution of their citizens (Jillian York documents some of these examples), my point is simply that the emerging market structure of the internet is threatening its potential to be used by people as a tool for democracy. The more monopolies (a market structure characterized by a single seller) control access and infrastructure, and the more monopsonies (a market structure characterized by a single buyer) control aggregation and distribution of user-generated content, the easier it is going to be for authorities to pull the plug, as just happened in Egypt.

I’m reminded of the first so-called Internet Revolution. Almost a hundred years after the original Mexican Revolution, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation launched an uprising in southern Mexico to try to address some of the injustices that the first revolution didn’t fix, and that remain unsolved to this day. But back in 1994, Subcomandante Marcos and the rest of the EZLN didn’t have Facebook profiles, or use Twitter to communicate or organize. Maybe their movement would have been more effective if they had. Or maybe it managed to stay alive because of the decentralized nature of the networks the EZLN and their supporters used.

My point is this: as digital networks grow and become more centralized and privatized, they increase opportunities for participation, but they also increase inequality, and make it easier for authorities to control them.

Thus, the real challenge is going to be figuring out how to continue the struggle after the network has been shut off. In fact, the struggle is going to be against those who own and control the network. If the fight can’t continue without Facebook and Twitter, then it is doomed. But I suspect the people of Iran, Tunisia and Egypt (unlike us) already know this, out of sheer necessity.

[Ulises A. Mejias is assistant professor at the State University of New York, College at Oswego. His book, The Limits of Nodes: Unmapping the Digital Network, is under review by publishers.]

[UPDATE: This post has been linked to by and The Huffington Post, mentioned by Inside Higher Ed and Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab, reproduced in the French online magazine OWNI, the P2P Foundation wiki, and published in The Post-Standard’s opinion section (central NY’s leading newspaper).]

Responses to this post on [iDC]:

Anna Munster wrote:

Thanks Ulises for an interesting post and I am waiting eagerly for your book – very timely!

But I think there is a real can of worms is opened (but hopefully not closed) by your post! The first thing we could say is: where are the good critical contemporary analyses of the roles played by a range of media in social movements? We could look to all the work done on web and online media (by which I mean mailing lists, websites etc) in the Euro-MayDay movements across the first part of this decade. Then there’s the excellent article on texting and crowds in the Philippines during the early 2000s by Vincente Rafael titled ‘the Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines’ from 2003. But what’s clear from these eflections is that the social contexts and technologies deployed during both these periods and places constitute a specific ‘socio-technical ensemble’ (Guattari), in which we have to ask: to what other spheres or universes – aesthetic, economic, cultural, political – do these technologies and movements refer and envelop? Rafael does a great job, for instance, in bringing out the phantasmatic sets of beliefs around the mobile phone held by middle class Filipinos and what they believed this could do for them ‘on the streets’ and in relation to ‘the masses’. He also asks: why texting? And answers: because phone services as opposed to computer access virtually cost nothing in the Philippines at that time.

What is missing from contemporary analyses of social media in relation to social movements is this kind of careful tracing and investigation of the conjunctions of media and technologies that help to constitute the particularity of a given socio-technical ensemble. How for instance would the role of social media in the Austrian student protests of 2009 differ from the ways in which these feature in Egypt right now? I agree the moniker of ‘Twitter Revolution’ etc is ridiculous…nonetheless, what is the specific and differential role of text-messaging, of online social media etc in the energetics of a crowd’s movements, meeting places etc? It will take, I would imagine, Middle Eastern theorists, activists and participants to chart this kind of thing for the contemporary moment in Egypt, Tunisia…

The problem of naming things ‘the twitter revolution’ is more endemic than ‘branding’ and – I guess this is something you deal with in your book Ulises (?)– goes to the heart of the problem of ‘social’ media. That is, what’s the model of the ‘social’ here except for the nodal connectivty of already constituted individuals (‘friends’), with their habits, patterns and online ‘identity’. How can we possibly conceive, then, of a conjunction of social media with social movements? A social movement is never a collection of linked nodes but is first and foremost a moving ( ie dynamic, heterogeneous and nonpredictable) collectivity. Social movements and social media occupy two different scales and modes of doing and thinking the social…but it would be interesting to attempt generate a consistency through which we might re-think their relations…this may well have to begin not with ‘how do people use Twitter, ie what are they tweeting, what pictures get circulated ?’ in periods of social protest but rather: ‘how does a (particular) crowd become and move via relations between physical and telecommunications spaces?’

best Anna

Mark Deuze wrote:

fyi: my 2 cents (and some links to excellent responses, such as on the protests and premediation by Richard Grusin) on the discourse of twiiter/facebook/high technology revolutions and the straightjacketing of lived experiences into the criteria and categories of media:

Gabriella Coleman wrote:

Hi folks,

Just echoing what many have said (thanks Ulises).

For me, what seems significant to social media is the fact of co-witnessing global events and what that might mean for how we, to quote Brian “listen to what people in the Middle East and elsewhere have to say, whatever the medium they use, and let’s talk about their fates and the ways they intertwine with those of other people in other lands, including ourselves in our own confrontations with corrupt rulers and special interests.”

I can’t but help think to 1883 and the telegraph and Krakatoa, which many hailed as the first global media event that allowed many folks scattered across the globe to witness as some level something thousands and thousands of miles away. This co-witnessing has now been unfolding for over a century and in distinct ways with the mix of new technologies but is happening in some new ways with live commentary and with the help of established media entries like AJ who are showing such a different picture than let’s say CNN, and which we can see due to the Internet.

I am not going to make any grand pronouncements as to what this watching and co-witnessing means (and I do think that proprietary corporate owned platforms pose so many problems, even for this) but it is worth putting on the table.


Ulises Mejias wrote:

Thank you, all, for your comments.

I’m afraid that while I was trying to get beyond the “media did it” (as Mark Deuze puts it) v. the “people did it” dichotomy, my condemnation of corporate branding seems to have skewed my argument towards “people did it.” While this is a function of my own biases, and it felt like it needed to be said at the moment, it is nonetheless problematic. I agree with Mark when he says that “lived experience is synonymous with mediated experience” (specially when we take into account all forms of mediation, including language and non-verbal communication, not just digital mediation).

Actor Network Theory has taught us that agency is a complex web of interactions in which humans and non-humans intervene, and I agree with you, Anna, that we need more nuanced maps of the assemblages. I also agree with you, Biella, that these assemblages provide new affordances for co-witnessing the event.

But is analysis and co-witnessing the only modes of participation? What is our responsibility, as media practitioners/scholars/artists/educators/etc., at a time like this?


Feb 26, 15:47
Trackback URL

Leave a comment


calls + opps performance livestage exhibition installation networked mobile writings participatory locative media augmented/mixed reality event new media video interactive public net art conference virtual intervention distributed second life sound political technology narrative festival tactical lecture art + science conversation social networks social games history surveillance dance music workshop urban mapping collaboration live upgrade! reblog activist wearable immersive public/private data architecture platform body collective aesthetics environment systems city identity film visualization culture telematic wireless web 2.0 site-specific ecology place webcast open source tool software text research intermedia space community audio radio nature hybrid 3-D avatar e-literature audio/visual responsive presence pyschogeography interdisciplinary media object interview physical global/ization ubiquitous theory theater biotechnology relational play code archive bioart generative news DIY robotic light place-specific hacktivism synthetic p2p cinema remix education agency interface language im/material live cinema algorithmic labor copyright simulation mashup animation perception image free/libre software multimedia artificial motion tracking voice convergence streaming reenactment gift economy machinima emergence webcam cyberreality glitch DJ/VJ tv censorship ARG nonlinear tag transdisciplinary touch recycle asynchronous fabbing semantic web hypermedia chance synesthesia biopolitics tangible app social choreography gesture unconference forking 1
1 3-D activist aesthetics agency algorithmic animation app architecture archive ARG art + science artificial asynchronous audio audio/visual augmented/mixed reality avatar bioart biopolitics biotechnology body calls + opps censorship chance cinema city code collaboration collective community conference convergence conversation copyright culture cyberreality dance data distributed DIY DJ/VJ e-literature ecology education emergence environment event exhibition fabbing festival film forking free/libre software games generative gesture gift economy glitch global/ization hacktivism history hybrid hypermedia identity im/material image immersive installation interactive interdisciplinary interface intermedia intervention interview labor language lecture light live live cinema livestage locative media machinima mapping mashup media mobile motion tracking multimedia music narrative nature net art networked new media news nonlinear object open source p2p participatory perception performance physical place place-specific platform play political presence public public/private pyschogeography radio reblog recycle reenactment relational remix research responsive robotic second life semantic web simulation site-specific social social choreography social networks software sound space streaming surveillance synesthesia synthetic systems tactical tag tangible technology telematic text theater theory tool touch transdisciplinary tv ubiquitous unconference upgrade! urban video virtual visualization voice wearable web 2.0 webcam webcast wireless workshop writings



Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul
Jun | May | Apr | Mar | Feb | Jan


Dec | Nov | Oct | Sep | Aug | Jul

What is this?

Networked Performance (N_P) is a research blog that focuses on emerging network-enabled practice.

RSS feeds

N_P offers several RSS feeds, either for specific tags or for all the posts. Click the top left RSS icon that appears on each page for its respective feed. What is an RSS feed?



New Radio and Performing Arts, Inc.
New American Radio
Upgrade! Boston
Massachusetts Cultural Council
New York State Council on the Arts, a State agency
Thinking Blogger Award

Turbulence Works

These are some of the latest works commissioned by's net art commission program.
[ openspace ] wilderness [] A More Subtle Perplex A Temporary Memorial Project for Jobbers' Canyon Built with ConAgra Products A Travel Guide A.B.S.M.L. Ars Virtua Artist-in-Residence (AVAIR) (2007) Awkward_NYC besides, Bonding Energy Bronx Rhymes Cell Tagging Channel TWo: NY Condition:Used Constellation Over Playas Data Diaries Domain of Mount GreylockVideo Portal Eclipse Empire State Endgame: A Cold War Love Story Flight Lines From the Valley of the Deer FUJI spaces and other places Global Direct Google Variations Gothamberg Grafik Dynamo Grow Old Handheld Histories as Hyper-Monuments html_butoh I am unable to tell you I'm Not Stalking You; I'm Socializing iLib Shakespeare (the perturbed sonnet project) INTERP Invisible Influenced iPak - 10,000 songs, 10,000 images, 10,000 abuses iSkyTV Journal of Journal Performance Studies Killbox L-Carrier Les Belles Infidles look art Lumens My Beating Blog MYPOCKET No Time Machine Nothing Happens: a performance in three acts Nothing You Have Done Deserves Such Praise Oil Standard Panemoticon Peripheral n2: KEYBOARD Playing Duchamp Plazaville Psychographics: Consumer Survey Recollecting Adams School of Perpetual Training Searching for Michelle/SFM Self-Portrait Shadow Play: Tales of Urbanization of China ShiftSpace Commissions Program Social Relay Mail Space Video Spectral Quartet Superfund365, A Site-A-Day text_ocean The Xanadu Hijack This and that thought. Touching Gravity 2/Tilt Tumbarumba Tweet 4 Action Urban Attractors and Private Distractors We Ping Good Things To Life Wikireuse Without A Trace WoodEar Word Market You Don't Know Me
More commissions