Facebook Stalking

Stalking used to be a term that was used seriously. Now, the terms is loosely used to describe everyday activity on the popular social networking site: facebook. The term “facebook stalking”, while not a legitimate legal term, is brought up in everyday conversation. It is typically used to refer to the harmless checking of a users profiles to see their interests, life updates, and even location. However, facebook stalking is not considered a crime. Cyberstalking is defined as “Using the Internet, through chat rooms and e-mail, to find, identify, and arrange to meet a person whom one intends to criminally victimize.” While users who “facebook stalk” are not attempting to victimize a user and “cyberstalk” them, using the term facebook stalking casually could cause concern from those not familiar with this term. Since most young adults use this term consistently, I think it is important for them to be aware of who they use it around.

My Confession

College isn’t easy. I know I’m stating the obvious; classes, midterms, and papers have consumed every one of our lives at one point or another. Coming into finals week we reflect upon the days we missed class or the hours we could have been studying. If we weren’t studying, what were we doing? Sports and clubs do take time chunks out of our day but personally that’s not where the majority of my free time is spent. I think our problem lies in Facebook.

Facebook has become an additional limb for many of my peers. Taking a walk through the library, I would estimate one out of every three computers has Facebook open. Facebook isn’t the sole problem in our procrastination; there is YouTube, Like a Little, and StumbleUpon but Facebook links them all together. The social network has become a one stop shop as a source of news and activities. A few nights ago, my roommates and I sat on the couch, five laptops open to Facebook and a show playing on the TV. We are completely over stimulated and I don’t think I could struggle through another round of finals living like this. So, I have turned my Facebook off this week. It wasn’t enough to make a personal commitment; I had my best friend change the passoword to my account. There will be no procrastination for me this week, no status updates, pictures to comment on, or online chatting. It’s going to be a tough week but I think it would be more difficult with my Facebook newsfeed open.

Facebook: a Stadium to Fight Your Personal Battles?

             Communicating with someone via social networking sites is very different from speaking to someone face to face. When conversing with someone online, we are indeed interacting with that person on an interpersonal level, but we are connected to him or her only by the screen in front of us. As much as we are connected, we are equally separated because we are shielded by the vast world of cyberspace. The shielding afforded by online interactions yields an odd twist to interpersonal communication; individuals often feel more at liberty to speak their minds online, sometimes in ways that are harmful or just plain rude. Communication online seems to generate the attitude that we can say whatever comes to mind without consequence. There is a lack of the immediate repercussions a person might feel after a rude comment or an angry outburst in a face to face interaction.

             This stems into a further problem that I continue to see all over the Internet: individuals conducting themselves in a highly distasteful manner as they interact in an impolite fashion not just with strangers online, but with acquaintances and friends as well. What threw this issue into the light for me was witnessing an argument on a close friend's Facebook account that was displayed for anyone to read.    

          Over the past weekend, there was some drama within my friend group: my friend, Jordan, had a horrible break-up with her boyfriend of three years after he left her for another girl. Their mutual close friend, Bobby, was very angry with the boyfriend for doing this to Jordan, and he decided to take Jordan’s “side” of the break-up, even though he was very close with the boyfriend’s family.

            Let me interject to say that there was nothing catastrophic or abnormal about this situation; it was simply petty drama within a friend group. However, in the comment section under Jordan’s changed “relationship status” on Facebook, the ex-boyfriend’s mother began writing rude and suggestive comments about the situation. Insulted, Bobby wrote a retort to her comment, and the two of them began throwing hateful comments at each other via this comment forum. The argument exploded into paragraph upon paragraph of insults, retorts, and screaming angry words (shown by all-capital letters) at each other. The entire argument was directly sent to the “News Feed” (a forum that displays all of the interactions between friends on Facebook) so that all four hundred mutual friends of the people involved could read and comment on the fight.

            What was so astonishing wasn’t that there was an argument taking place, or even that they were fighting about a rather private, personal matter; it was the absolute harshness and lack of thought in the words written, especially on the part of an adult poking around in a situation that was pointless, juvenile drama. Quite frankly, it made her look like a fool. The content of what she said on the forum was so boorish in nature that it was hard to believe that this was the respectable, polite mother we all knew well in real life. To top it off, she began deleting certain comments she had written to make Bobby look like he was saying angry things for no reason. The whole argument made her look extremely ridiculous, yet there is no way for any of us to tell her so without further fueling the fire. 

            Taking this example and countless others I have seen online into account, I would like to implore people to be careful with their words, especially on public forums. It is not a free-for-all place to lower your standards and resort to uncivilized verbal sparring. If you truly have a problem with somebody, talk to the person face to face, and do not hide behind the shield of cyberspace.

           

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

"Unlike a mirror, which reminds us of who we really are and may have a negative effect on self-esteem if that image does match with our ideal, Facebook can show a positive version of ourselves,” said associate professor Jeffrey Hancock. “We’re not saying that it’s a deceptive version of self, but it’s a positive one” (CNN Tech).

There has been a growing concern that our generation’s dependence on Facebook and other similar social media networks to determine our self-worth has reached unacceptable levels. How can we define ourselves as unique, interesting, artistic, clever, cool, etc. while differentiating ourselves from everyone else who might hope to get the same image across?

Facebook is formatted such that you can learn almost everything and anything you want about your connections. Naturally, the idea of such openness is intimidating to many, and privacy groups, like the Electronic Privacy Information Center, have come together and garnered some influence within the government (All Things Digital). What these groups might want to consider, however, is that companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are ultimately around to maximize their net income despite the efforts these organizations go through to convince you otherwise.

Ultimately, Facebook is not an inherent right but a privilege.

I admit that all of this sounds ominous, but we must not forget that there’s a bright side to it all. With a few exceptions, you, and no one else, have almost complete control, as a Facebook user, to control the content of your profile. It is up to you to determine which celebrity/athlete/artist pages to like, whether or not you want to share your education and employment specifics, whether or not you will keep other peoples’ posts on your wall and comments on your pictures, and even whether or not others will be able to access your pictures from your page. Finally, it is up to you to decide what picture will summarize your online presence. I’m referring, of course, to your profile picture, often the first thing you notice when you click through to your friends’ pages.

I took the above quote from Jeffrey Hancock from an article on CNN Tech. The story covers Hancock’s report regarding the correlation between Facebook and self-esteem in a study of 63 students (click here to be linked to the report itself). It turns out that subjects who spent time on Facebook returned more positive feedback about themselves than those who were either staring at a mirror or a blank computer screen during the allotted time (CNN Tech).

“For many people, there’s an automatic assumption that the internet is bad,” Hancock said. “This is one of the first studies to show that there’s a psychological benefit of Facebook” (CNN Tech).

Does the research speak for itself?

Either way, perhaps some of us should consider lightening up.

Nu Txt

The entire purpose of this blog - Constantly Connected - is to analyze what it means to be constantly connected. However, there is very little focus on the “language” of constant connection, if you will. Emoticons and shorthand text are becoming more and more prominent, especially among the younger generations. I cannot go onto Facebook and look at any of my younger friends’ posts without observing “u” instead of “you,” “r” for “are” or “our,” “2” for “two,” “to,” or “too,” and so many others. Often, it makes me cringe. “These people are butchering the English language that I know and love,” I think to myself, and I am certain that many share that view.

However, as a student-designer who works with text as well as imagery, I can understand the value of this shorthand as simply the next stage in the evolution of language. Emoticons, such as the smiley face depicted by a colon and a close-parenthesis or :), are the perfect example of this step. Just like the ancient Egyptians or Chinese cultures, which used pictographic images to symbolize “things,” emoticons are being used to symbolize emotions (see image). A well placed emoticon can perfectly supplement the meaning of a text or instant message.

Fun Fact: according to National Public Radio’s “Wait, wait… Don’t tell me,” President Abraham Lincoln is supposedly the first to have harnessed the power of emoticons, by making a ;) – or a “winky-face” – in his speech to signify a pause for laughs.

Once one gets past the traditions and stodginess of English as we know it, one can see the advantages of txt shorthand: it’s fast, readable, and efficient. Plus, it doesn’t rely too heavily on proper punctuation, grammar, or spelling, meaning that everyone can easily participate. And, really, what good is the internet if it’s not democratic?

Is Your Facebook Clean?

In all of our discussions, I believe that we focused on who should be able to see our information, rather than whether or not we should be held accountable for posting it. Yes, we may want to keep our comments and pictures private, but if they should be made public, are we still responsible for them, despite the fact that they were posted with the expectation of privacy?

I believe that, expectation of privacy or not, a person has still made the information in some way available and should be held accountable. One may be arrested for crimes committed in the privacy of one’s home, and I believe that, similarly, one is responsible for information posted to what many forget is technically a public forum. I’m sure we’ve all heard stories about people’s Facebook pages costing them their jobs, or other such serious consequences. This may be the case for Dr. Joseph Kenan.

Dr. Joseph Kenan is the president of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry. He advises family court cases in custody disputes—or, perhaps, that is what he used to do. “Lewd” photographs of Dr. Kenan were recently discovered on his Facebook page, leading many parents to challenge his ability to determine good and bad child rearing situations. Dr. Kenan claims that the photos and comments were made in jest and in no way reflect his real views or professional abilities.

At least one court commissioner approved his removal from a case, but at least one other said that his Facebook has no bearing on a court case. While we have yet to see how this will ultimately play out, what we can take away from this case is that it is far simpler in the long run to maintain a clean profile. Once content is uploaded, there is no telling who may see it. This is not a privacy issue, it’s a common sense issue.

An App to Help You Unplug

Usually, technology-related apps exist to hook users into spending as much time as possible absorbed in the digital world. Now, from an organization called Reboot, there is an app that does just the opposite. Called the Sabbath Manifesto, this app posts on Facebook and Twitter that the user is partaking in a technology-free day. Lest the user forget, Sabbath Manifesto sends multiple text messages throughout the day prior to the day of unplugging.

As one might guess based on the app’s name, the organization that created Sabbath Manifesto (Reboot) is a Jewish organization. Some followers of the Jewish faith routinely unplug themselves for a full 25 hours. A Reboot spokesperson said that “while the group isn’t anti-technology, it hopes people will consider logging off more often.”

One may note the irony inherent in using a smartphone app to facilitate a day of technological abstinence. However, for many, responding to a cell phone’s beep is as automatic as to a friend’s greeting. By using this platform to advocate unplugging, Reboot is approaching people within their comfort zone, which may make them more likely to follow through. In addition, by informing the user’s Facebook friends and Twitter followers, Sabbath Manifesto makes the user more accountable for his or her adherence.

It is more difficult to measure how many people are not using a particular service than to measure how many are. However, Reboot claims that last year millions partook in the National Day of Unplugging. This year, it is scheduled for March 4-5. Will you participate?

Are Blogs Dying Out?

According to The New York Times, blogging may soon be a relic of the past. Particularly with younger generations, blog use is declining. Instead, Facebook and Twitter are being used to serve the same expressive purpose.

With Facebook and Twitter, users can be certain that their content will be viewed by someone, while blogs generally have low view counts. In addition, blogs are considered to be more of a commitment and typically have more structure than a quickly typed status update or 140 character Tweet.

Older generations, however, are clinging to their blogs.

Among 34-to-45-year-olds who use the Internet, the percentage who blog increased six points, to 16 percent, in 2010 from two years earlier, the Pew survey found. Blogging by 46-to-55-year-olds increased five percentage points, to 11 percent, while blogging among 65-to-73-year-olds rose two percentage points, to 8 percent.

In addition, Tumblr still describes itself as a blogging site, though many users are unaware. Despite its description, Tumblr is used mainly for photo uploading. This would indicate that it is the users of a technological service who truly determine the nature of the product. Tumblr can call itself a blog for as long as it pleases, but if users only upload photos, is it really a blog? I think not.

Facebook and Twitter cannot be said to be fully cannibalizing the blog business though; many use these outlets to promote their blogs rather than replace them. Still, how many of us had ever contributed to a blog before this course? Perhaps Facebook and Twitter have evolved from the blog mania that characterized the early 2000's? Technology of course must evolve with societal needs, so this should probably be viewed as technological progression rather than mourned as a dying art.

When the digital divide and the rural-urban divide align

We talked at one point during this quarter about who is "left out" when they are not constantly connected--either because they choose not to be--or because they have no opportunity to be. For the former category, I suggested the elderly as an example because they may not be willing to invest the time to learn new skills, to master new technology. Plus, we should remember that it is more difficult "for an old dog to learn new tricks."

Now, a front-page story in today's New York Times reminds us of a group who would like to be connected, but who don't have a choice. The headline is "Digital Age is Slow to Arrive in Rural America." In it, journalist Kim Severson reports from Coffeeville, Alabama, population 563, in non-metropolitan Clarke County, where only half of residents have access to the broadband that so many of us take for granted. The story focuses on Coffeeville, but it is essentially about the Obama Administration's plan to "wire" the nation for broadband and close the digital divide--with a special focus on unserved and underserved communities--many of them rural. More than $7 billion in stimulus funding was earmarked for this effort. Severson summarizes the situation:

In rural America, only 60 percent of households use broadband Internet service, according to a report released Thursday by the Department of Commerce. That is 10 percent less than urban households. Over all, 28 percent of Americans do not use the Internet at all.

In Clarke County, the situation is even worse. Half of the county's residents cannot easily engage in e-commerce, consult their physician online, participate in online banking, upload family photos to Facebook, or make an appointment with a public official. With cell phone service also lacking in many parts of the county, they also cannot receive emergency alerts. Severson tells us that the only computer many Coffeeville students ever touch is at school. For many residents, it is at the library.

Severson's story quotes Brian Depew of the Center for Rural Affairs, who likens broadband to electricity early last century, when the federal government made a huge investment in rural electrification to level the playing field for rural people and places and bring them a critical service.

“You often hear people talk about broadband from a business development perspective, but it’s much more significant than that ... . This is about whether rural communities are going to participate in our democratic society. If you don’t have effective broadband, you are cut out of things that are really core to who we are as a country.”

The story is a good reminder of the myriad ways we have come to rely on being constantly connected, ways not available to rural residents because the digital divide all too often does align along the rural-urban axis. Read a related post on Legal Ruralism here.

View a map of the places with broadband access here.

Facebook Official

A new social phenomenon brought on by Facebook is people announcing their relationship status’ online. According to UrbanDictionary.com, a site that defines slang words and references that one would not find in a more authoritative dictionary, Facebook Official is defined as “The ultimate definition of a college relationship- when on one’s Facebook profile it says ‘In A Relationship’ and your significant other’s name.”

Why is it that Facebook users feel the need to share their relationship status with everyone online? Isn’t that personal information? How awkward is it for couples to announce their breakup online? Ever since the founding of Facebook, couples have had to seriously discuss the ways that they are defining their relationships. Facebook puts pressure on people to define certain aspects of their lives that was not previously discussed until information became public.
If a woman defines herself as “single,” does that give her unwanted attention from men and red flags to be hit on? If a couple goes out on a date or two, are they serious enough to declare to their entire online network that they are in a relationship? Before Facebook, couples would refer to this discussion as the relationship talk. Nowadays, a relationship talk is better known as becoming Facebook Official. The New York Times article “Married or Single: Is That in the Facebook Sense,” from February 2011, discusses some of the pressures of defining relationship status to the virtual world.

While I could understand wanting friends and family to be happy for you in your new relationship, or even the desire to announce that you are no longer single, don’t people worry about what will happen when their relationship ends? I cannot even imagine the humiliation of changing your Facebook status to single and having to respond to comments inquiring about what went wrong. Some things are better left private, and I think that relationship status may be crossing the line.

Related material to this post can be found here.

MySpace: The Eulogy

Does anyone remember MySpace? (Or as it's now called, Myspace or My____.) Have you even heard of it? Okay, well I'm assuming that sometime in the last five years, you either owned a MySpace account (as it was called back in the old days), or you at least knew about it but chose not to become a member of the MySpace world (or you have no idea what I'm talking about). Regardless, as we enter into the year 2011, eight years after MySpace's 2003 birth, perhaps its time to pay our last respects. As MySpace lies on its deathbed, I would like to prepare the eulogy...

My first encounter with social networking happened through MySpace, so you could say that MySpace was my first love. He promised me the world, and I promised him loyalty. I would spend hours editing my profile so that it was as visually appealing as possible, choosing colorful and pretty backgrounds that made a statement. I re-wrote my "About Me" section dozens of times, and I made sure that MySpace was always proud to show me off. He was good to me...but apparently, not good enough for me. I soon left him for Facebook, a younger, hotter, and better social network boyfriend. I know that I broke MySpace's heart, and he hasn't been the same since. In fact, he's dying now. What went wrong? Was it the breaking of my vow to MySpace to be with Facebook? Yes, it was. Not just me, though. It seems that while MySpace still has loyal followers, Facebook has stolen almost all of MySpace's significant others. As a result, MySpace is now alone and unwanted (just like AOL was before it died in the late nineties-though a zombie version of it still exists online).

Recently, MySpace fired about half of its staff, for budget reasons. The fact is that MySpace can't compete with Facebook anymore. Sadly, many people agree that MySpace is outdated now. According to a recent article in the New York Times:

"On one level, the decline of MySpace again shows the fragility of social media where fickle consumers and changing tastes can make sensations out of services like Tribe and Friendster that quickly fade from public imagination. According to comScore, MySpace reported 54.4 million users at the end of November, a loss of more than nine million from the previous year."

So Myspace, you had a nice run. You were good to all of us and we'll never forget you (even though all of us left you for Facebook). As you came before Facebook, you really were a trailblazer in social networking, and you gave me my first technology kiss (aww). It's time for us to once again part ways, though. I'm sure that Facebook is right behind you, so don't worry, maybe one day we'll be together again. May you rest in cyber peace. Now I'm logging out...

Digital Immortality

I woke up that morning not expecting to learn that a classmate had died after fighting cancer for almost 3 months. I also did not except to hear this tragic news through Facebook. My classmate’s name was Brittney, and even though we were not best friends, I was close to her. She was diagnosed with cancer months before her death, but I was still shocked to discover she was no longer with us. In the days that followed her death, I noticed on my Facebook’s newsfeed that many of her close friends wrote on her wall, offering passages and stories about how Brittney will be missed. It was nice to read all the comments that people posted and I felt a sense of comfort visiting her Facebook page as if she had never passed away. Even though Brittney was no longer with us, her Facebook page lives on.

A New York Times Article, Things to do in Cyberspace when you’re Dead mentioned, “Finding Solace in a Twitter feed may sound odd, but the idea that Tonnies’s friends would revisit and preserve such digital artifacts isn’t so different from keeping postcards or other physical ephemera of a deceased friend or loved one.”

A lot of Brittney’s friends, including myself, used Facebook as a mechanism to help with the grieving process. Brittney’s Facebook page made people feel as if she was still alive because everything on her page was just how she left it. Her profile picture was the same, her statuses remained, and nowhere on the page did it announce she was dead. Just as people found peace in looking through Tonnies’s Tweets after he died, people did the same with Brittney’s Facebook page.

The question is how immortal are our digital lives? Is it someone’s responsibility to delete a Facebook account after that person dies? Who is responsible for doing that? If Brittney did not leave the password to her Facebook account, will Facebook provide her parents with that information? These questions are being asked more and more often with so many people now having a digital life. According to "Things to do in Cyberspace when you’re Dead", there are many “digital-estate-management services” that will manage a will, which includes passwords of different online accounts and who has access to them after one dies.

For Brittney’s case, I believe her Facebook page should remain accessible for her friends to visit and write on her wall when they miss her. Even though this enduring digital identity is not completely real, it is the closest humans have come to becoming immortal.

If it's not on Facebook, it's not official!

“Mom, I’ve been meaning to tell you this…but um, he asked me out…we are official now”
“Wow! That’s great!...but how come I haven’t seen it on Facebook yet?”

I’m sure this scenario is either familiar or sounds true enough to be real to most of us. Our generation seems to be not only physically or mentally dependent on online social networks, but also socially dependent. The most influential social network these days is Facebook, which has over 500 million active users worldwide. Facebook limits its users to one of six different “relationship statuses”, and also gives the option not to post a status at all. According to a Time Magazine article regarding Facebook relationships, 60% of Facebook users choose to post their relationship status. Interestingly enough, most of them are either “single” or “married”. It seems as if Facebook puts social pressure on its users to share as much as possible through the network with their friends or with the general public. Consequently, users post their pictures, locations, and common friends, and in addition-their personal relations with their “partners”.

By giving their users the decision whether to announce their new or current relationships or not, Facebook creates this social expectation, which most people want to meet. No one wants to date someone who refuses to be in a relationship on Facebook, while a person who is open to suggestions would want to keep his or her options open by making sure the word “single” is loud and clear on his/her page. Furthermore, Facebook makes it easier to follow your friends’ or acquaintances’ relationships, while also giving some insights for the gossipers in society. After all, who doesn’t enjoy seeing ten “Likes” or multiple congratulating, and sometimes dramatic comments about his or her own changed relationship status?

Other than students following their friends’ teenage on /off relationship statuses, adults also utilize Facebook as a reachable medium to publicize their current love life situation. I mean, it is much easier rejecting a romantic date by “friend requesting” your fellow worker, letting him see your page, rather than saying “Sorry, I’m engaged” face to face, right? In the same Time article, an engaged couple shared an interesting story about announcing their engagement to the world via a simple Facebook status change. After receiving an angry phone call, they realized they forgot to tell the news to their own parents who ended up finding out through the network. Evidently, society believes Facebook provides the best and fastest way to announce, share, track and comment about personal relationship statuses of the people around us. Without this wide updating network, people would feel “out of the loop” and would be less entertained by judging others’ decisions or following others’ achievements. Once again, we fall into the online trap- getting addicted to being constantly connected.


So bottom line, to share or not share?

Anonymity in Cyberspace: Faceless Cage-Fighting from the Safety of Your Home?

Last week, 17-year-old Kayla, a girl from my theatre community in my hometown, stood up on stage and “came out” to her high school at an all-school assembly. She did not do this just to inform the world that she was gay; in a powerful and touching speech, she cracked open the taboos and barricades surrounding the acceptance of gay teens and gay marriage. Kayla’s speech was heartfelt and brave as she spoke about a personal subject that is very controversial. Kayla’s words were not confined to the time and space of the assembly, however; a video of her speech was posted on Youtube.

I was one of the very first people to watch the video on Youtube. I immediately posted the video onto my Facebook to share it with all of my online friends. By the end of the day, thirty of my friends had reposted the video. After three days, all of our friends and many friends of friends had seen the video. After six days, almost everyone in my hometown had seen or at least heard of Kayla’s speech. It was the talk of the town. It did not stop there; after a week, the video went beyond the boundaries of people who know Kayla: the video went viral.

Before the video went viral, the comment section was full of friend and family’s support, love, and admiration. As the video began to spread, complete strangers praised her words, her bravery, and her message. The upheaval of positive support was enormous. Yesterday, however, as the video reached 16,000 views since it was posted last Monday, some anonymous person wrote a short and hateful comment violently opposing not just the girl’s argument, but also the girl and everyone who supported her. There was an instant outcry against this comment, and things immediately got messy: the comment forum exploded into a battleground against this negative comment. It was like Pandora’s box had been cracked open: everyone began hashing out their opinions against the offender in a brusque manner. A few more rude and negative comments against Kayla’s argument appeared. These negative comments sparked angry and sometimes equally hurtful responses. Even the people who were against the comment were violent in the way the dealt with and answered the original offender. 

The conversations soon escalated into branched-out cyberspace fights, and soon a large majority of the conversation threads on the comment page no longer had anything to do with the actual video. Instead, every few seconds new comments would appear to bash apart a previous commentator. The majority of the people shooting angry comments back and forth did not even make an effort to censor what they were saying by trying to be polite and reasonable. Those that tried to do this initially quickly became incensed by the “ignorance” or unwillingness for the offender to see their point of view.

I was left wondering: what on Earth made it all right for people to brawl in such an undignified way on a public forum? Part of the answer, without a doubt, is the veil of anonymity cloaking a person to the point where they find themselves at liberty to say whatever they please, no matter how insensitive, hurtful or extreme. The comment section for Kayla’s video has turned into a bitter brawl as angry comments are flung back and forth between completely anonymous people. These people stopped arguing about the video and started openly insulting each other with profanities and accusations, most of which have nothing to do with any of the issues presented in Kayla's argument. 

What does this say about the power of anonymity in such a public forum? It allows people to say violent things that they would never say in person. Yet from the safety of their perch behind their computer screen, a person can say anything that they please and distance themselves emotionally from the repercussions their words might cause.

As of this afternoon, the video has jumped from the 16,000 views it had yesterday to a whopping 70,000 hits. Since this morning, over 600 comments have accumulated in the comment forum. Watching a video spread so rapidly and generate such a large response is an eye-opening vision of the strange functions of this modern world of cyberspace. It leaves me with these questions: is it OK to argue in this uncivilized, potentially hurtful way on a public forum? Or has the internet reduced human disagreements into faceless cage-fighting from the safety of your home? 

Tunisia: Trouble in Paradise

Flash back a little more than one month ago to December 17^th of 2010—Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old Tunisian citizen and recent college graduate with a computer science degree, had started a fruit and vegetable stand to make ends meet. There was already a sense of unrest n the air as Tunisia was supposedly undergoing some of the worst unemployment rates in recent history as well as a spike in food prices across the country.

Picture Credit

Due to Mohamed’s lack of a vending license, authorities shut down his cart, confiscated his wares, and were even said to have slapped him around a bit. In protest over a lack of jobs, Mohamed set himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid, in front of a government building in an act of self-immolation. I seriously doubt that he had any idea of how great the scope of events his actions sparked would turn out to be: Mohamed became a symbol of resistance in the Arab world as several others copied his self-immolation protest in Algeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. While he survived the initial suicide attempt, he died later in the hospital after a visit from the President Ben Ali.

Mohamed’s death turned out to be the United States’ equivalent of “the shot heard ‘round the world” in 1775. Thousands took to the streets in protest of the government and of how the country’s leader received 90% of the vote over multiple elections and had been in power for over twenty years along with the issues mentioned in the first lines of this post.

This might have all fizzled out with the government either making a few concessions to smoothen out relations thereby calming down some of the more moderate protestors, or simply with the passing of time. The government’s reaction, however, would be their undoing. According to a BBC article published earlier today, between January 8^th-10^th, there were dozens of reported deaths during the protests.

Many have referred to this movement and these protests as a social media, and more specifically, a Twitter revolution. There is some credence to these claims as protesters organized and spread the word through their use of Twitter and Facebook. There is no doubt that technology and the newfound connectivity between Tunisians, in how their plight was played out in the eyes of the international community, played a huge role in the sacking of the interior minister, the dissolving of the parliament and Ben Ali’s subsequent flight.

Many claim, however, that it would be inaccurate to attribute this revolution to social media as there was already great dissatisfaction with the government and how Ben Ali and his wife’s families seemed to own every big business in Tunisia. Apparently they possessed extravagant wealth even as the rest of the country struggled to get by. Condoleezza Rice, in a state visit to Tunisia during the Bush administration, praised the country for its stability. The price of this stability, however, was limited freedoms in press and television as well as an excessive display of propaganda around the capital city.

But would the protests have been remotely as successful (I’m using the word “successful” very loosely as the killings were inexcusable) without mobile phones, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and blogs? I don’t think so. But what really charged the atmosphere for us in the United States (who in general are oblivious to the struggles of those outside our own country) were the videos rife with acts of violence posted online as well as the cables released by WikiLeaks which assert, in detail, the corruption of Ben Ali’s administration.

Here's Obama's take on the situation:

"I condemn and deplore the use of violence against citizens peacefully voicing their opinion in Tunisia, and I applaud the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people. The United States stands with the entire international community in bearing witness to this brave and determined struggle for the universal rights that we must all uphold, and we will long remember the images of the Tunisian people seeking to make their voices heard. I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future that reflect the true will and aspirations of the Tunisian people.

As I have said before, each nation gives life to the principle of democracy in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people, and those countries that respect the universal rights of their people are stronger and more successful than those that do not. I have no doubt that Tunisia’s future will be brighter if it is guided by the voices of the Tunisian people."

But there’s little value in arguing the case, what matters is what lies ahead for Tunisia and its people, and whether there are further implications for other oppressed nations and whether these tools promoting connectivity will play a role in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead. Already there is evidence of this as Slim Amamou, one of the most prominent bloggers in Tunisia, accepted the post of Secretary of Youth and Sport. He has promised to keep the people updated via Twitter and would like for other cabinet members to also use Twitters as a means of communicating with citizens.

Currently, with no opposition leaders taking the mantle of leadership, Ben Ali’s Prime Minister has taken control and the future of the country is uncertain, though he has promised to step down as soon as elections are conducted democratically. I suppose all that’s left to do now is wait and see what’s next.

*UPDATE*

Professor Pruitt has brought it to my attention that there is a discrepancy between my source, International Business Times, and NPR with regards to Mohamed Bouazizi's academic standing. In my post, I stated that he had graduated from college with a computer science degree, but the more recently published article from NPR says that he had dropped out of high school. Wikipedia agrees with NPR.

Also, I read an article titled "Tunisian TV boss arrested for 'treason' as popular station that supported deposed president is closed down." I highly recommend checking it out if you want to follow up on the country's progress.

Other sources:

• http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/arab-bloggers-cheer-on-tunisias-revolution/?hp
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/world/africa/18egypt.html
• http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/01/14/tunisia.protests/
• http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/social-medias-role-in-tunisias-revolution_b12963