Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Cyber-sceptics wanted!
Brie Rogers Lowery
brie at fairsay.com
Thu Mar 3 07:55:33 PST 2011
Thanks to all for the engaging and varying responses and views on this topic
- it's certainly been insightful and has not only provided some further
contacts but also a great framework for us to work into the debate.
Perhaps I should have been clearer as to the reasons for this 'debate' (for
want of a better word) - it was not, as some have queried, meant to pitch
the for's/against's at each other.
My colleagues and I certainly agree on the principle mentioned by many on
here and summarised by Graham who said: *"...the discussion about technology
and democracy, liberalization, regime change, etc., has gotten to a point
where we no longer need to argue at the extremes and we can get to the
difficult but important task of understanding what role technology plays in
The rationale for this 'debate' was rather to provide a platform to open
these discussions that we have all been having online in lists and forums
similar to this one, out into the wider public and particularly to
journalists outside of lists/blogs so as to come to that analysis of the
role of technology in both political and social change.
Much of the 'mass-media' coverage on this issue has been centered around
vocals such as Gladwell who (as Jill said) has perhaps more clout given his
platform than verifiable on his content. We're hoping (perhaps a little
idealistically!) that organising this forum will help to educate/inform
journalists particularly in the UK on the nuances and analysis necessary in
these sweeping statements of 'twitter revolutions' or 'facebook victories'
but also to highlight the role that internet tools have to play in
advocating for political change.
I'll let you know how that goes and if we manage to arrange webcast
facilities for those interested in watching it.
Thanks for your lively discussion and input,
All the best,
Brie Rogers Lowery
*FairSay - Making Campaigning Count*
+44 (0)7940 540021
On 3 March 2011 11:34, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Since others are quoting from their blogs perhaps I'll quote from mine...
> "There are current disputes within the blogisariat about the role and
> significance of social media and other technologies in animating, enabling,
> and empowering the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. This discussion, which
> moves back and forth between techno-philes and techno-skeptics,
> techno-optimists and techno-pessimists is however, mainly of interest to
> those who are interested, that is the blogisariat and their followers.
> It may be more useful however, to look forward rather than back; to
> identify what, from the experience of these revolutions and interwoven as
> they were (to a greater or lesser degree) by social media and information
> technology, might be of value as these countries go forward. What have they
> learned from their recent experiences that can be applied as they respond
> to the very real social and economic issues—youth and adult unemployment,
> poor quality and limited access to public services, rising food costs, lack
> of opportunities for democratic participation—which ultimately provided the
> motivation for the masses whose commitment to the movement ensured its
> I go on to attempt a first order response to my rhetorical question at
> http://wp.me/pJQl5-5P and somewhat earlier specifically on Tunisia
> http://wp.me/pJQl5-4o and in a somewhat parallel discussion to talk about
> the effects of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia on social media
> http://wp.me/pJQl5-5I . (My apologies as I know that this will be a
> duplication for some of you.)
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:
> liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of *Giuseppe A.
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:44 AM
> *To:* Yosem Companys
> *Cc:* Liberation Technologies
> *Subject:* R e: [liberationtech] Cyber-sceptics wanted!
> Very nice and informative discussion, thank you.
> As an observer not directly involved this field of research, I would say
> that there is some evidence to sustain that weak ties are important. In the
> so in cial psychology literature, it refers to the so-called process of
> ''silent conversion'' . The paradigm of minority influence (Moscovici, 1976;
> Maass and Clark, 1984; Mugny and Perez, 1991) demonstrates how established
> norms change under dissent and introduces the distinction between active and
> passive deviance. Consistent active minorities inform the majority and lead
> them to reconsider their take on the world. Organized minorities influence
> by inducing a latent conversion among the majority but miss out on the
> credit for achieving this: the ‘sleeper effect’ ensures that we remember the
> message but not its source. This all suggests two different processes of
> social influence: majorities achieve conformity in public, while dissent
> might continue in private; minorities make us rethink privately, while we
> still conform publicly, but maybe only for a while. Minorities induce a
> rethink about the world (informational processes), while majorities make us
> consider others (normative processes).
> Thank you
> Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic
> Mugny, G. and Perez, J. A. (1991) The Social Psychology of Minority
> Influence. Cambridge: CUP.
> Giuseppe A. Veltri
> personal email ga.veltri at gmail.com
> work email Giuseppe.Veltri at ec.europa.eu
> web http://www.giuseppeveltri.it/
> On 3 March 2011 00:14, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu> wrote:
>> My answers below.
>> Weak ties might act as fuel for movements, but they don't ignite them.
>>> A core set of strong ties (whether offline or online, whether they knew
>>> each other from earlier or got to know each other well as part of the
>>> movement) is required.
>> In the absence of empirical evidence, we can't say this categorically.
>> Where's the data? It's a good hypothesis though, and I agree with it, as
>> my quotes from McAdam/Diani's work suggested.
>>> I agree that weak ties are important. (And disagree to the extent that
>>> weak ties can get converted to strong ties: so Dean & Clark might have
>>> started out as weak ties, but that subsequently changed (even before meeting
>>> each other IRL).)
>> How weak ties become strong ties, and vice versa, is rarely studied
>> empirically in movements & revolutions because it's so difficult to collect
>> good data on the phenomenon. Longitudinal net analysts such as Powell,
>> Strang, Tuma, Aral, Wasserman, Faust, Carley, etc. use event history
>> analysis & hazard models to try to get at this.
>> Some of the best work I've seen examines dynamic tie formation & change
>> qualitatively. For example, I wrote a working paper a few years back
>> showing how weak ties became strong ties in 9/11. The firm in question lost
>> 90% of its staff, and so it called on its former employees (then weak ties,
>> but previously stronger ties when they worked as employees) to come back and
>> work for it; hence, strong -> weak -> strong again.
>>> In fact, in a message on the Gladwell thread on this mailing list last
>>> year I'd written:
>>> 2. Even traditional political advocacy can actually be based on weak
>> Most, if not all, successful political advocacy requires weak ties. All
>> social network analyses I've seen support Granovetter's original contention
>> that information diffusion is not possible in the absence of weak ties.
>> Granovetter showed this was true in the context of finding jobs. But
>> scholars of movements & revolutions have found this to be the case there,
>> and so have organization scholars in all sorts of organizations. It's a
>> pretty robust social and political finding.
>> This is the problem with Gladwell's argument. He claims categorically
>> that offline (or as you say, IRL) movements use strong ties while online
>> movements use weak ties. This is just patently false based on the
>> sociological and political data.
>> Any movement based solely on strong ties -- whether online or offline --
>> will not be a movement at all. It will be a densely, interconnected, closed
>> group that speaks to no other networks, like a family. As Burt suggested,
>> you need weak ties to serve as brokers to new knowledge. Information
>> diffusion a la contagion and epidemics not possible without weak ties.
>>> Thus social
>>>> media-based advocacy can help convert some of those with only weak ties
>>>> into those with stronger ties. This is thus a case of one complementing
>>>> the other. Thus, I agree with Mary that this distinction is one of
>>>> degree and of tendency, rather than absolute.
>> Without empirical evidence, I don't see how we can categorically say
>> anything about the relationship between social media advocacy and tie
>> formation & change. We can speculate on it, but we don't have any grounded
>> evidence to advance an argument. But empirical research on
>> movements/revolutions does show organizing requires strong ties, but
>> marketing/advertising/PR -- the basis of movement growth -- requires weak
>>> In an offlist mail to Jillian I'd written:
>>> It seems to me we are both in agreement in terms of his argument and its
>>> weaknesses. But while I conclude that for the most part I agree (focussing
>>> on its strengths), you conclude that for the most part you disagree
>>> (focusing on its weaknesses).
>> I agree with the comments on the Twitter list @Liberationtech, where I
>> believe Jillian also participated in a discussion about how we need more
>> exchange between non academic media observers and academics. Academics have
>> grounded evidence to share with non academics to produce fascinating
>> practitioner books like Gladwell's The Tipping Point. Non academics often
>> come up with new ideas, but have to be careful not to present them as
>> empirical evidence. These are simply propositions or working hypotheses
>> that academics should explore further.
>> I think it's dangerous to make non grounded arguments about social media
>> in the context of movements/revolutions, especially since high-risk activism
>> employing such advice could cost lives.
>> Best, Yosem
>>> - Pranesh
>>> Pranesh Prakash
>>> Programme Manager
>>> Centre for Internet and Society
>>> W: http://cis-india.org | T: <%2B91%2080%2040926283>+91 80 40926283<%2B91%2080%2040926283>
>> liberationtech mailing list
>> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
>> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
>> above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
>> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
>> moderator in monthly reminders.
>> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
>> Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
> liberationtech mailing list
> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
> above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
> moderator in monthly reminders.
> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
> Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the liberationtech