Many are writing about the role of cell phones and Twitter, Facebook and other social media in enabling/precipitating the events in Tunisia and now in Egypt and possibly beyond. Clearly social media have a role, but precisely what and the extent is still to be worked through especially now that the events seem to have moved considerably beyond any, where a direct connection can be drawn to media and particularly since the temporary closure of the Internet and thus all interactive media by the Egyptian government.
But perhaps the most significant long term impact of social media use in the events is only now starting to emerge as the wondrous surprise of what we have been watching on CNN and Al Jazeera wears off, if only slightly, and we begin to reflect on how the world has changed.
That there will be many impacts some profound, many geo-political, even more unanticipated may be taken as a given. However, perhaps we received a signal of what may be one of the be the most important of all as it will potentially impact the way in which our world creates values and works towards an implementation of our highest aspirations. If such an impact is occurring then the effect will not simply change how we do and can behave but also how our technologies are defined and determined and perhaps most importantly how our relationship to our technologies acts so as to reinforce our humanity.
As an evident response to the events in Egypt the following statement has been issued by a group of United Nations associated independent human rights experts through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Governments must pay more attention to people’s voices – UN experts
GENEVA (3 February 2011) – …Over the past several weeks, men and women in many countries, including Belarus, Egypt and Tunisia, have expressed grievances related to, among others… the denial of their right to participate meaningfully in decision-making, underscoring the indivisibility of all human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social…We are alarmed at increasing limitations on the right to freedom of expression and information imposed by Governments actively seeking to suppress the rising number of voices who wish to be heard…We are disturbed at the major disruptions in communication networks and transmissions of news so essential to the modern world. The freedoms of peaceful assembly and association are among the most fundamental rights underpinning a democratic society.
Underneath the rather predictable headline to this press release, what is particularly interesting is the way in which the human rights notion of “freedom of assembly” – or as they phrase it in the above — “people’s voices” — appears by inference to be applied to freedom of assembly on the Internet, that is in this instance of course, referring to the freedom to express and assemble (and collaborate) by means of Facebook and to the freedom of expression via Twitter and YouTube.
The apparent extension and application of these human rights notions into the virtual sphere is an implicit acknowledgement of the equivalence and equivalent validity of those relations, activities and processes which are taking place in the virtual sphere; that is, is there any reason to see virtual connections and relationships as for example, via Facebook, Twitter or Facebook groups as being any different from the similar (or parallel) connections and relationships that individuals have in physical space? The implicit answer here seems to be no!
If these virtual manifestations of assembly and expression do have the same value and legitimacy as their physical manifestations then the implicit connection made by the UN’s Human Rights experts on the actions of the Egyptian governments in cutting off the Internet and thus disrupting the opportunity for assembly and expression via Facebook and Twitter would appear to be a clear violation of human rights (Egypt of course being a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
The “association” that Egyptian (and of course Tunisian) young people were carrying out via Facebook, Twitter and YouTube can be understood as a counterpart to the similar association that might have taken place on a university campus, in a coffee shop or in a community hall or mosque. Thus in this context, the closing down of the Internet so as to disrupt Facebook and Twitter was not simply a political (and evidently failed) act of desperation but was also a violation of the human rights of these Egyptian young people and particularly their right of association and assembly and specifically Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says that” “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.
Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.[1] The right to freedom of association has been included in a number of national constitutions and human rights instruments. (It actually is not included in the US Constitution, which is why it is debated.) The Constitution protects assembly, not association and the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thus interventions such as that of Egypt through Vodaphone in closing down access by Egyptians to the Internet and thus to their means of assembly via Facebook, Twitter and so on would appear to provide a potential framework of rights within which to assess and respond to those actions and ultimately bring to account those responsible..
If one accepts this argument then would this not necessarily change the way in which we must approach the social media. In this, the social media would not simply be commercial operations and competitive brands—do we look on our getting together in physical space to form political groups, formulate social actions, collaboratively create civil society–as something which can or should be commercialized or branded. In fact, in many jurisdictions there are significant restrictions on introducing commercial considerations into a variety of types of civic engagements.
If we transfer the conventional behaviours and types of “association” as understood under Article 20 from physical to virtual space could we then see Facebook and Twitter not as companies, brands or applications but rather as (commercial) venues in which necessary and legally protected social behaviours – assemblies and associations –take place in a manner legally and otherwise indistinguishable from any other similar behaviours and associations.
And might the further implication of this be that for example, there would be a need to design and regulate those venues in a way similar to the manner in which we regulate physical venues including for example ensuring accessibility for the physically disabled, regulation to ensure non-discriminatory access, even the virtual equivalent to “fire regulations” which in virtual space would likely be regulation concerning privacy and personal security.
If we see human rights as seamlessly encompassing activities and associations in both physical and virtual environments perhaps then we must begin to look at the virtual world as something other than a normless wild west which to this time has been the broad perception . Rather cyberspace should be seen as a “place” where the kinds of protections and regulatory frameworks (including existing human rights legislation) would apply equally as for off-line behaviours. It follows then that owners of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should be seen not as owners of the space and behaviours being manifest through their systems but rather as proprietors of virtual venues where these behaviours are taking place.
Gurstein's Community Informatics 
Pamela McLean
February 4, 2011
Thought provoking piece Mike. I am very interested in “socio-tech” and how we behave on the Internet – our emerging online culture. I think of the Internet very much as a “location” where I e-meet people and we “move over” from one space to another – to form a breakout group, or meet-up with additional people etc. I hadn’t thought previously of the legal implications of that.
Rory O'Connor
February 5, 2011
You talk about Article 20 in the UDHR, but consider also:
Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
February 6, 2011
You fine post reminded me of the conundrum we faced in the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) when, with the arrival of the auto after WW2, shopping malls became the prime location for retail purchases, replacing many downtowns. As I recall, in the 1960’s there was a fight over access to these malls by cause advocates and political types who need to go where the people are. The malls wanted to maintain a pristine shopping experience for consumers and to keep the long haired and intense with their flyers and provocation off their property. As a New Yorker I’m not a frequent mall visitor, but I know that some rights of expression and assembly were won via citing first amendment requirements.
On a related plane…
I recently received an email from an old friend saying that she was setting up a Facebook page so that she could better reach residents of our neighborhood, Jackson Heights, and requested that I visit and pass on the message.
I told Celeste that this was a a reasonable thing to do for the moment, but that she should come to the local community board meeting a few days hence where I was set to give a 10th anniversary update on the board’s April 2001 Internet Empowerment Resolution. That Resolution called for the development of the .nyc TLD as a public interest resource. (Think of .nyc as like .com or .org but just for New York.)
I told Celeste that we’d not finalized a business model for the city’s 352 neighborhood names – JacksonHeights.nyc, GreenwichVillage.nyc, ParkSlope.nyc, etc. – but that these names would provide an excellent platform for improved local communication and that local advertising might be a factor in making them economically viable. And I pointed out that if her Facebook page succeeded, it would be to the detriment of the neighborhood, that our lives and livelihoods would be in the hands of others, and we’d once again be an information colony.
I’m going to go on a bit more here than perhaps I need, but I know you’ve readers from the four corners and some may not be aware of the communication limitations we have here in NYC. Let me take the liberty of relating the example I give to community groups to make that point.
I went to college in Terre Haute, Indiana, which had about the same population as my neighborhood. There they had 2 TV stations, 8 radio stations, and a daily newspaper focused on the needs of its 100,000 residents. In Jackson Heights we don’t have a single TV or radio station nor a daily newspaper. Our communication is based on the industrial era regional model of if-it-bleeds-it-leads that goes to the regions 17,000,000 residents (a bit of a exaggeration here, as some more affluent areas are served by weekly papers). Only disaster makes it to what’s essentially headline news and there is little of the conversation that is the basis of democracy and a healthy society.
Sorry about the ramble. If your readers can take more, they’ll find it at http://bit.ly/OurBlog.
Best,
Tom Lowenhaupt
Pablo Arribas
February 7, 2011
Couldn’t agree more.
Early from the blockade that WikiLeaks site followed after the cablegate, when Amazon, Paypal, or even the company where they’d registered their domain name, stopped serving the organization, I thought that something related to fundamental rights was going on…
I do not think the Internet or social media provides individuals with new rights. On the contrary, I think they’re the “places” (real-virtual does not matter for the case) where those rights are realized, where they take place. These days, Facebook, Twitter, and some other big names have become the big squares where people gather, exchange thoughts, engage in discussions, form their identities, etc. They have become “public spaces”, and I think that’s the key. As such, their access must be “regulated”, so as to avoid discrimination on the basis of personal conditions, ideology, etc.
The challenge, IMO, is how to regulate on a global scale the behaviour of the brokers to those public spaces, i.e. the companies who own them. Public spaces of a global constituency.
Patrick Anderson
February 7, 2011
Is water a human right?
Is food? Is shelter?
Is communication and transportation?
If so, then why do we leave it up to the corporations to supply us with those
needs when we know those entities must never allow us to fully succeed,
for to do so would destroy the only motive for their existence: profit.
And of course government entities can never do anything of value, as they
are simply an arm of those usurist corporations, and so are held in check
to keep us from gaining the ground that would bring us from under the
thumb of those who revel in our misery because of the way scarcity
increases Exchange Value.
We could organize as consumers of those things to co-own the Means of
Production for Use-Value if we could only see what enormous benefit it
would bring.
We, as consumers, must create new organizations that allow us to invest
for the purpose of receiving at-cost product.
Our ROI would be the product itself which we would attain without paying
tribute to any others, and under our collective control.
For as long as we do not organize to own the sources of that which we need,
those who *do* organize to own the sources of that which we need will use
that ownership against us to keep those objectives artificially scarce for the
purpose keeping price above cost in their quest to be paid without working.
zaziepoo
February 11, 2011
Although we discussed this via email and I considered reproducing my thoughts here, I think this great commentary on TechCrunch says it much more eloquently than I ever could:
Cheers!
бесплатный каталог статей
December 4, 2011
I don’t disagree with you!!!
Lee McKnight
February 21, 2013
Michael, I owe you other comments on other – somewhat related – topics; but for right now, a word of caution, and maybe some new jargon for you and others to consider.
Certainly platforms for communication have significance in ensuring free expression. Further, which – technologies and means of communication and information-sharing are common – and how/when governments intervene to inhibit free expression, also matters.
Having said that – and now to get to my point – Facebook pages, and its software platform, and its delivery as a service; and the camera on your smartphone which takes the image you share to Facebook; and the smartphone itself; and the Facebook mini-app you play with; and this reply to your blogpost; and your blogpost itself; are all ‘Non-Person Entities.’
Non-Person Entities = NPEs. NPEs may and often do have persistent – digital identities.
We may agree that the camera on your phone however, does not possess – human rights.
Similarly my – digital expression of views here – is just that. It may have persistent identity, but possesses no particular rights in and of itself.
It is only when particular NPEs are tied to – human expression – that we may ascribe the rights of the human to a – digital thing/NPE.
To be very clear, by way of example – an environmental sensor possesses no ‘rights’ to express itself.
If I analyse data from that same sensor and share information about its – findings/readings – on my Facebook page – then that page as my (human/free expression), shares in my – human rights.
Facebook as a software/service however, is neither human, nor can it possess – human rights.
(Except in the minds of US Supreme Court Justices, and Mitt Romney which consider the – mega-aggregation of Non-Person Entities in corporations – as possessing rights equal to humans, as per U.S. campaign finance laws; R.I.P.)
(More on all this is written up re cloud and edge services in a white paper on ‘Workplace as a Service’ which I contributed to, recently released from the Enterprise Cloud Leadership Council. Happy to share that with you should you have interest in getting further acquainted with – Non-Person Entities ; )
Last note of full disclosure re NPEs: just as much of the Internet spun out of US DOD; the NPE jargon/terminology is also – out of DOD circles and analyses. But frankly I do believe it is helpful to keep in mind, since we are all dealing with and creating, and wishing to manage – an increasing array of NPEs, these days.
Some – but not all – of which may be seen as sharing or expressing some of our human rights.
Michael Gurstein
February 21, 2013
Thanks Lee for your very thoughtful comments (and for the new jargon… who wouldn’t be grateful for more new jargon 🙂 …
I deliberately (mis?)phrased the heading to be provocative but also,I was/am trying to make a more serious point. That is that with something like Facebook, its very size means (if perhaps only temporarily) that quantity has become quality.
Facebook, with roughly 20%+ of humanity (and probably 50%-60-70%? of all those on the Internet) having accounts and (presumably) using it, and including for significant activities which aren’t being reproduced elsewhere, means that those who don’t have access are (potentially) significantly disadvantaged.
Given the size/scale/scope of Facebook (or Google for that matter) they have become the equivalent of global utilities even if they are in your terms NPE’s. What I’m trying to do with this post is to link the on-going discussion of “rights” of access/use of “essential” services (the telephone, water, electricity, etc.) into the Internet era.
I probably could have just asked “shouldn’t we consider the Internet a Human Right” (I’ve said this often enough in other contexts), but in thinking about this the rather more “interesting” (and at some level equivalent) question re: Facebook seemed appropriate (and particularly in the context of the then, very topical Arab Spring).
M