The Arab springs has sparked many discussions on what sort of role social media has played in these events. Essentially there is the cyber-Utopian who believes the protests would never have happened without social media, and then there is the critics who think that social media was used as an organisational tool but didn’t create the change.
Before I had done much research on the subject I took the cyber-utopian view, that the revolution was a direct result of social media. The evidence here is when vlogger Asmaa Mahfouz created the video that resulted in thousands of people revolting. Through YouTube she created the revolution.
Although after doing some research, personally I think the revolts would have transpired anyway. Sure social media played a role in this, I think with social media everything happened a lot quicker and everyone was more organised because of the quick communication that was created through twitter, and the organisation through Facebook. But there have been revolts in the past before , without the help of social media, take the French Revolution for example they sure didn’t have social media in 1789. Also what was occurring in these countries was so directly affecting the citizens that they eventually would have had enough and something would have been done. The revolutions started because there was already a problem and a reason to start them, not because social networking sites created a revolution.
Morozov writes in his article, Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go, that he attended the collaborations between cyber-activists in person, not online but face to face. Showing that more was needed than just social media to start these uprisings.