Social Media and Unconventional Warfare

http://www.soc.mil/swcs/swmag/archiv...ediaAndUW.html

Quote:

---

Social media — blogs, social-network sites, information aggregators, wikis, livecasting, video sharing — has decisively altered that most extreme of socio-politico acts: revolution. The 2011 Arab Spring revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East were engineered through citizen-centric computer and cellular-phone technologies that streamed web-enabled social exchanges. The Arab Spring has profound implications for the U.S. special-operations mission of unconventional warfare. This article posits that the study, practice and successful execution of future UW must deliberately account for and incorporate social media.

---

This excellent article is on the Blog, but due to technical problems with our social media it isn't possible to discuss it there, so I opted to transfer it to the council.

LTC Petit's article is a long overdue discussion topic for the Special Forces community. I recall that the last time it was surfaced it was rapidly dismissed by officers who don't understand the power of this new medium. It is a disruptive technology that allows anyone with access to this medium to not only share tactics, coordinate actions, but to upload multimedia (voice, video, images, text, etc.) to shape the narrative and potentially mobilize people to action. It doesn't mean that older forms of information broadcasting are obsolete, radio broadcasts, T.V. programs, leaflet drops, etc. are still useful means in conveying a message, but more often than not the interpretation of these broadcast messages will formed in the realm of social media. Most in the military understand that government officials (including the military) prefer to get their information from official sources, but the people often distrust these sources and prefer to get their information from their peers (to include fellow social media peers).

I initially had two areas that I was critical of regarding this article, the first was that Brian didn't adequately define social media, yet by accident I discovered the images in the article are links to additional information. To gain a better understanding of social media simply click on the image of the SmartPhone. That left me with on critique, and that was Brian's suggestion that Special Forces soldiers in the future given the authorities and situational awareness could use this medium to support their UW mission.

I don't disagree, and definitely support pursuing this, but offer the following observations. First the authorities issue, as many know we're not agile in the information realm, and decisions on what can and can't be shared are often made several levels of command up in the chain of command by those least aware of what is happening the ground. Social media by definition is interactive, and if you can't interact you can't play. I think if we're supporting a resistance movement or insurgency that is competing the domain of social media we risk formally or informally imposing our restrictive authorities on those we're trying to help. It may be better to informally encourage them to act on their own without asking higher for permission. I tried to get Iraqis to do their own MISO without asking permission from us instead of complaining about our slow approval process and complaining about how the insurgents were running circles around us. I suggested it was their country so of course they could make their own decisions, but they wouldn't, so if even if it isn't our intent to interfer with the resistance use of the social media, it could still happen.

Addressing the second point, situational awareness, it is unlikely that our soldiers will have the SA or language skills (in most cases) at least initially, so the best approach may be to provide the means (technology) and maybe some advise on how to project their message and effectively shape the narrative, but ultimately it is the local with the Smartphone that will engage in this domain instead of the SF soldier. One area I would hope we could help with is monitoring the narrative (an expert cell sitting at Fort anywhere in the U.S. can do this) and provide the resistance what the global perceptions of their narrative is, so they can adjust it if they see fit to do so.

I am just happy that the SF community is exploring this, and regardless of what route they ultimately decide to pursue, I hope at a minimum they add a block of instruction on social media to SFQC, and then advanced courses in ANCOC, WOAC, and NPS/SOF curriculum at CGSC, etc.

Moderator's minor note: the thread's title was Social Media and Unconventional Media till today, but the author noted his mistake and it has been corrected.

[originally sent as an email reply]

This is an interesting read; however, the zeal with which LTC Petit describes the social media ‘revolution’ demands tempering with a few significant caveats. First and foremost, the success the Arab street to mobilize via social media in any country is dependent on the nature of the country’s government. Egypt and Tunisia were soft dictatorships, unwilling to take the steps necessary to protect the regime, e.g., shutting down mobile phones and internet service, let alone a true violent response. Contrast the success in those countries to the events in Syria and Libya, where the regimes took the steps necessary to maintain power: Qaddafi only fell thanks to external military and technological intervention, and Homs has become Bashar’s Hama.

Second, what worked yesterday will not work tomorrow as the remaining regimes are taking notes and action. Look at Iran’s movements toward establishing an insulated national intranet, robust security apparatus, and willingness to shut down networks as needed; as well as, the regime’s use of its own version of social mobilization with the basij to counter anti-regime activity. In the hands of a savvy regime, social media can be as powerful a tool for control as it is for change.

Third, social media is just that, social. It comes with serious security drawbacks for organizing a resistance movement. Just look at Britain’s use of Facebook and Twitter posts in conjunction with a ubiquitous CCTV system to track down key participants in the recent riots. Also look at Britain's recent proposal to give its intelligence service unfettered access to all phone and internet activities. If a democratic state can make such use of social media for legitimate criminal prosecution, it is easy to imagine an autocratic regime doing the same in the face of overthrow. There’s anecdotal reporting China used key word filters on the net and mobile phones to nip discussion of a “Jasmine Spring” in the proverbial bud.

Finally, social media as the organizing tool for a truly acephalous organization offers grand opportunities for deception. The examples thus far have been fairly innocuous--such as the Syrian blogger who was in fact an American ex-pat in Scotland—however, it is not too difficult to see the opportunity for deception on the part of a besieged regime.

Social media is important, and we must take it into account; however, social media like all technology is but a tool, not a panacea.

In response to Jimbo Monroe, I have the advantage of knowing the author, and trust he recognizes all the caveats you have identified. While only time will tell I not inclined to agree with all your points (though in the end you could turn out to be right).

Quote:

---

First and foremost, the success the Arab street to mobilize via social media in any country is dependent on the nature of the country’s government. Egypt and Tunisia were soft dictatorships, unwilling to take the steps necessary to protect the regime, e.g., shutting down mobile phones and internet service, let alone a true violent response. Contrast the success in those countries to the events in Syria and Libya, where the regimes took the steps necessary to maintain power: Qaddafi only fell thanks to external military and technological intervention, and Homs has become Bashar’s Hama.

---

I am beliver in complexity theory (I see it as a law), and in this case that implies social media was one factor of many that shaped the outcome. Soft dictatorships is probably a good description, but I think you may mixing apples and oranges. Revolutions can be relatively peaceful (mass political movement), and in other cases they can be extremely violent and ultimately force will determine the outcome, but in both situations you offered social media was key in mobilizing the populace. Mobilizing the population alone does not cause government's to fall. Another point worth adding is social media facilitated the movement to go viral quicker than it would have prior to the advent of social media. Syria, Iran, and Libya were all outliers (not as bad as North Korea, but still outliers) and they hurt themselves by failing to respond more effectively (modifying the government). For Qadafi it was a fatal mistake, for Syria the outcome is uncertain, and for Iran I suspect there is still an underlying tension that can be mobilized again if they have confidence they can actually overthrow the government. Several social and political conditions must be present or established before the people are mobilized.

Quote:

---

Second, what worked yesterday will not work tomorrow as the remaining regimes are taking notes and action. Look at Iran’s movements toward establishing an insulated national intranet, robust security apparatus, and willingness to shut down networks as needed; as well as, the regime’s use of its own version of social mobilization with the basij to counter anti-regime activity. In the hands of a savvy regime, social media can be as powerful a tool for control as it is for change.

---

My caveat is I don't see the Arab Spring as a victory over Al Qaeda, because I suspect the Islamists will reap the most from these revolts; however, nations have seen the power of social media, social movements, and the global pressure it will bring upon their government and have started reforms. Morocco is one case, but I think we're seeing globally to some extent, and this "may" be one reason the government in Burma is beginning to implement reforms. I agree that governments can use social media to reinforce governance, but a key point is social media is not restricted to national borders. The Egyptian government did shut down many services, but the resistance was still able to communicate. Syrians are still able to get their messages out (may do so through Turkey or other locations), etc.

Quote:

---

Third, social media is just that, social. It comes with serious security drawbacks for organizing a resistance movement. Just look at Britain’s use of Facebook and Twitter posts in conjunction with a ubiquitous CCV system to track down key participants in the recent riots. Also look at Britain's recent proposal to give its intelligence service unfettered access to all phone and internet activities. If a democratic state can make such use of social media for legitimate criminal prosecution, it is easy to imagine an autocratic regime doing the same in the face of overthrow. There’s anecdotal reporting China used key word filters on the net and mobile phones to nip discussion of a “Jasmine Spring” in the proverbial bud.

---

I think there are plenty of methods to remain anonymous, and once the movement starts it can rapidly overwhelm the government's ability to monitor. If I can get a message out and a thousand people read /watch it and share it with three of their friends and their friends do the same before the government removes it, then it is too late. The resistance if needed (after being mobilized) can go underground. The risk of government penetration is real, but it was real long before the advent of social media. The Nazi's were pretty good at penetrating the undergrounds, as were the communists, and to some extent so are we. I think mass mobilization may require a definition for a new category, but it doesn't really fall into the category of underground, auxillary, and guerrillas. I think most revolutions will still require an underground (clandestine element), and they needn't be exposed by social media, but they can leverage it. In some cases prompting a protest that prompts the government to crack down on them is worth millions if it results in foreign aid for your movement.

Quote:

---

Finally, social media as the organizing tool for a truly acephalous organization offers grand opportunities for deception. The examples thus far have been fairly innocuous--such as the Syrian blogger who was in fact an American ex-pat in Scotland—however, it is not too difficult to see the opportunity for deception on the part of a besieged regime.

---

You just demonstrated the power of social media, and just because the head isn't visible doesn't mean there isn't a head. Just like rifles, both sides can employ the weapon, so it is critical are team is armed with this knowledge (in my view).

Quote:

---

Social media is important, and we must take it into account; however, social media like all technology is but a tool, not a panacea.

---

Agreed 100%, I think the author's and my point is if your opponents are using automatic weapons and you're still using bows and arrows with a few muskets sprinkled in, you may want to consider updating your toolbox. :D

I tried to post this on the blog...

A few points...

This sentence kind of stuck out for me...

The Arab Spring demonstrated how social media can congregate its users digitally, then quickly shift to directing or influencing some form of focused physical mass or swarm.

That seems to suggest that "social media" have a degree of agency and even consciousness beyond that of their users, an idea that I suspect requires a little cautious examination.

Examinations of decentralized, leaderless forms of organization, whether or not they are enabled by social media, need to look not only at the undoubted power these entities have to produce agitation and disruption, but also at the extreme difficulty they have in structuring an aftermath to agitation and disruption. An amorphous, leaderless mass is difficult to counter and can bring a government down - particularly if that government is already regarded as expendable by its own military and other key internal elements - but unlike a "traditional" hierarchical resistance, there's often nobody to step into the breach, leaving a vacuum that may be filled by players with agendas very different from those that started the movement (such as the army (as in Egypt), or potentially any number of extremist elements). This deficiency needs to be understood and anticipated by those within the movement and those who would seek to leverage the movement.

While observation of social media could provide invaluable insight to the intelligence community or to UW operators, I suspect that we need to be very careful about any proposed attempt to proactively manipulate social media to achieve an outcome desired by an external party. We're often dealing with rapidly evolving youth subcultures in foreign lands, and an effort (for example) to pose as a local is likely to be quickly busted, potentially with adverse unintended consequences. Even people who are fundamentally on the same page as us may not take kindly to being manipulated.

Above all we have to remember that social media are a tool, not to be confused with the people using the tool. Revolutions happened before social media; people enable their revolutions with the tools they have available. Where the will is there and the moment is right things will happen with or without the social media. If the will isn't there and the moment isn't right social media alone will not produce revolution or anything else. Social media have the capacity to move the will and the moment, but they are not in themselves the will and the moment, and they are only one part of the process creating the will and the moment. We do not want to confuse the tool with the user, or with the job.

That's funny, an article on the importance of social media can't be commented on due to technical difficulties, "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!".:)

Joking aside, and as others are pointing out, the powers of 21st century social media may well be formidable, but potential 'market saturation' of a bogus and unfocussed narrative can now have theatre-wide, even global negative impact. Naturally, this cuts both ways for any respective participants.

The 21st century mediums might do well to also focus on what they hope to manifest with their strategic ectoplasm, not just how many tables they can turn.

Having said that, studies may indicate that humans tend to prefer bogus narratives that pander to their preconceived notions, thus consigning narrative generation to a subordinate position viz the target audience.:rolleyes:

An interesting article IMHO, curious to see the references to the FLN in Algeria; this has been copied from the thread on Media & UW.

Quote:

---

So does Syria’s uprising need more technologically savvy multimedia activists? Or – to be blunt – does it require more people inside the country blowing things up? In the end, which poses the greater threat to a repressive regime: its atrocities being instantly relayed across the world on Twitter, or a well-armed, tightly organised insurgency?

The 13 months of Syria’s revolt have starkly illustrated the limits of social media as an engine of revolution, and of the claims made for the internet’s transformative power.

---

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ads-hands.html

A different angle to the article - which I have yet to fully absorb - and from journalists, complete with podcast and from the summary:

Quote:

---

Governments and security forces are becoming increasingly wise to the role of social media in organising and enhancing protest movements. As a result they are developing new ways to block, hack and track citizens tweets, Facebook and other social media tools in order to prevent unrest.

Protesters and citizen journalists the world over are able to stay one step ahead, however with the help of Open Source developed phone apps that allow them to communicate effectively without being tracked as easily. From letting friends know if you've been arrested to getting your story public, there is an app for all possible situations.

---

Link:http://www.frontlineclub.com/events/...e-media-1.html

Of course "social media" are just one arrow in the modern quiver of information tools that are reshaping how seriously governments everywhere have to take the perceptions and concerns of the populaces they affect (their own and those that belong to other nations alike).

To overly focus on "social media" is to miss the larger point. UW is simply leveraging and enhancing the insurgent conditions within some populace or populaces of a country who's government one seeks to coerce, influence, overthrow, etc. We have a traditional bag of tools, tactics, techniques and procedures for doing that based largely upon the lesson's learned from various operations in WWII. Technology has advanced since then, but UW is the same. The question for the US as a whole is "do we appreciate how organizations such as AQ are counducting UW today with more modern tools, techniques and procedures to attempt to leverage conditions of insurgency among many dissatisfied populaces, primarily in the greater Middle East" (or do we simply lump them as a terrorist organization consisting of "Al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents" as in the National strategy for Counterterrorism)?

For SOF, are we updating our own thinking, doctrine, plans, etc to more effectively leverage the tools of our times? For our policy makers are they updating their thinking, policies, programs, etc to more effectively advance US national interests in a manner least likely to provoke popular blowback or trigger a "resistance" effect among the affected popuulaces?

The times are changing, the tools are changing. Governments, Policies, doctrine, plans, etc are all lagging far behind.

Not directly related to Brian's excellent article but this 8:51 minute You Tube video is worth watching (it is the one that Daniel Drezner is referring to in his article below). I hear 20 cents bouncing on the floor as the traditional paradigm is breaking!! :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSZqP...ature=youtu.be

I have seen the future of teaching and it scares the bejeezus out of me
Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 12:46 PM Share
http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/pos...ezus_out_of_me

I like to think of myself as a pretty good teacher. I've been doing this for more than 15 years, and while I've dabbled in the fancier technologies, I've concluded that the meat and potatoes of podium, lectern, chalk, and blackboard have worked the best.

At last week's International Studies Association meetings, however, I participated in a panel on "Transnational Politics and Information Technology," in which Charli Carpenter delivered the following presentation:

(link above)

Now, I'm clearly pretty comfortable with Web 2.0 technologies, and some of the themes Carpenter touches on in this presentation echoes points I've made on this blog and... co-authoring with Carpenter. To be blunt, however, if this is the standard to which future international relations teaching pedagogy will be held... then the future is going to kick my ass.

Seriously, watch the whole thing.

http://www.khanacademy.org/

Posted by Max161

Quote:

---

I like to think of myself as a pretty good teacher. I've been doing this for more than 15 years, and while I've dabbled in the fancier technologies, I've concluded that the meat and potatoes of podium, lectern, chalk, and blackboard have worked the best.

---

Dave,

Please check out the link above, and actually take one of the math modules to get an idea of how it works. It has been updated since I last checked it out, and now they have quite a few history classes (haven't checked those out yet), but I can vouch for the math modules. I was able to use them to refresh some skills so I could assist someone, and then got them hooked on the KhanAcademy.

Agreed you're a good teacher, but now imagine instead of teaching a class of 20-40 students, and like all people they only hold their attention to one topic for so long, and they're attention may have drifted when covered a critical point. Hopefully they'll pick it up in their reading assignments, or when conductinga group study. This method has worked for years, still works, but now imagine the future and the future is now.

You're an internet star teacher, you're still using your blackboard, but it is a digital blackboard, and students can replay your teaching modules/lectures repeatedly until they feel comfortable with it, and by the way you now have students around the world. The military is experimenting with this, but most of their classes in my view are overly dumbed down and not challenging or progressive in nature, but more of a check the block training requirement. If you buy into the argument we need more disruptive thinkers, and that higher education that challenges your current perceptions is what helps develops those disruptive thinkers, and we're getting people into those classes too late in their careers, well here is another venue to expose all our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors to challenging higher education. They can pick the topics they like, the goal isn't a degree, but developing a crtical thinker.

In some respects this does relate to UW. There was a relatively recent study on public places and social mobilization. Most revolutions used public spaces (schools, churches, mosques, public squares) to mobilize people to their cause. In areas with repressive governments a revolutionary had to carefully develop a clandestine network whose communication was very channelized, encrypted and security was more important than transfering the message (protect your clandestine organization at all costs), at least until you can generate a popular uprising. While I think you still need a clandestine body (perhaps a shadow government that is pulling the strings), now you can anonomously communicate with the masses when the masses have access (or access to those who do) to the various forms of media. You can reach out to them, make a convincing argument (equivalent of Anwar Awlaki messages reaching out to a global audience), and provide instruction on they can do for the cause. You wouldn't know who was doing it, it would be a nightmare for security forces to disrupt, and their actions in themselves could gain enough momentum to achieve your political aim, if not they'll provide a major distraction for security forces while your more formal organization undertakes more decisive action. There are hundreds of ways this can play out. I hear all the warnings that the government can shut it down, but I don't think it is that easy, and of course there are ways a savvy operator can continue to work. They won't shut down this means of communication for any length of time in a high tech socieity without doing serious damage to the economy.

Just some thoughts on the potential, while not dismissing the challenges.

Bill,
That is Dan Drezner's quote from the article not mine! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

You're an internet star teacher, you're still using your blackboard, but it is a digital blackboard, and students can replay your teaching modules/lectures repeatedly until they feel comfortable with it, and by the way you now have students around the world.

---

The problem that nobody's yet solved with this, relative to a physical classroom, is that the teacher can't see the students, can't see if their attention is drifting, can't see if someone looks confused, can't alter the pattern of the lesson to suit immediate verbal or non-verbal feedback from the class. The teacher can't ask questions at key moments to see if the message is getting across, can't respond on the spot to student questions, can't get students to engage in discussion among themselves, guiding and observing that discussion to determine the extent to which the students are "getting it".

We've all seen how the inability to use non-verbal cues results in misunderstanding in online discussions... that's as much a factor, potentially more, in online educational environments.

Dayuhan,

That isn't a problem, it is a challenge. You're living in the Philippines, so you may be out of touch with the reality of our education system. In many of our schools, especially in economically depressed areas the teachers are subpar, work in dangerous conditions, and the kids who desire to get an education can't (parents can't afford to send them to private schools). At a minimum this allows students to "augment" lessons in the classroom.

I saw a special where one school was using Khan Academy in the classroom. Obviously not a depressed inter city school, because every kid had a tablet and was taking math classes at their own pace, with the teacher monitoring their progress on her tablet and assisting students who were still struggling. She said it revolutionized teaching the results were outstanding.

As you well know a lot of people are self-educated, they key to learning is the desire to learn, then the environment. I'm not arguing your point, but simply pointing out that doesn't make this technique anymore obsolete than reading a book.

A superb headline and title on FP Blog, with a focus on the response of the Syrian state electronically and the recent Executive Order on supplies to Syria:

Quote:

---

President Obama is on the right track with Monday's executive order, but the United States needs to get tougher on the global digital arms race.

---

Link:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ance?page=full

I shall leave aside the clear and present danger at home for weapons of mass surveillance.

CWOT, a SWC member, has this intriguing post 'On Twitter, It’s Content, Not Contacts That Matter', which refers to a research finding:

Quote:

---

“Influence” doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does. In the age of the social-media celebrity, a glut of Twitter followers or particularly pugnacious sampling of pithy updates are often the hallmarks of an influencer. But new research suggests that influence is situational at best: as people compete for the attention of the broader online ecosystem, the relevance of your message to the existing conversation of those around you trumps any innate “power” a person may have.

---

The cited research:http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/1203...srep00335.html

For CWOT's comments:http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=620

Posted by davidbfpo

Quote:

---

CWOT, a SWC member, has this intriguing post 'On Twitter, It’s Content, Not Contacts That Matter', which refers to a research finding:

---

Content has always mattered, that isn't a change, but so has getting your message out, and in modern times that may mean getting it to go viral. An empty message going viral won't accomplish much, a message that resonates that isn't received won't accomplish much either, so in fact both are important.

There are always those that cling onto the past until there is nothing left to cling to. The hundreds of comments on the blogosphere downplaying the impact of social media is not only ironic, but comical. :D

I do think people overestimate the actual impact of "going viral". The question is staying power: something else will be viral next week, and today's sensation will be gone. How many people will remember "Get Kony 2012" at the end of the year?

Reaching a million or ten million or 100 million eyeballs doesn't mean much if the only action taken at the other end is a click on "like" or "share" and the material is forgotten within hours or minutes.

I'd think building a small but committed network that stays together and keeps coming back is a more effective use of social media than generating a viral sensation that's here today and long gone tomorrow.

Fair comments on the short duration effect of going viral, but reference this comment

Quote:

---

How many people will remember "Get Kony 2012" at the end of the year?

---

I think it already had its desired effect.

Dark things do not thrive, and even struggle to survive, in the bright light.

Dark things exist in certain men and organizations that challenge our society on social, criminal and political levels. Dark things exist within many governments that have grown used to not having to be responsive to the evolving needs and concerns of their respective populaces.

Greater access to information and greater ability to communicate sheds "light" into the dark spaces where these dark aspects of various legal and illegal men and organizations reside. Many call this "transparency."

The initial effect we see is growing discontent and growing instability. We have come to value stability over contentment in the West (so long as it is about someone else that we are are referring). But this growth of information will ultimately lead to better situations for everyone. Certainly not the situations we set out to design and control for others, but the systems they actually feel appropriate for themselves.

The Taliban was able to become a very dark organization because it operated within the darkest grid on the planet. Not unlike the Puritans who took exclusive refuge in Massachusetts and expelled any who did not conform to their own brand of ideology. But once the light of information and broader perspectives shone into Massachusetts, the dark aspects of Puritanism quickly faded; same will be true if Taliban influence returns to Afghanistan.

Today there is unrest and insurgency in many places. Despotic regimes agonize over their worries about how to sustain their control over the populaces; Western powers like the US agonizes on how to sustain a stability of its own design over the areas where it feels its greatest interests lie. Despots need to evolve or they will fall; the same is true for the US. If we want to remain a nation perceived by others as we perceive ourselves, we too must become once again a champion for the belief that the principles we hold for ourself apply to others as well; and that "stability" is not the panacea our Cold War doctrine and experiences would make it out to be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umo8G...e_gdata_player

Creative use of social media that apparently went viral and achieved its desired effect for short term mobilization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1xwz7tKTQU

Social Media and cartels in Mexico, interesting response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKhIqkjxH5I

Interesting discussion on social media during the Libya conflict, after it was shut down. Impact was external, not internal. Most insurgencies can't survive without external support, did SM help garner international support?

and old news, but still worth adding to the discussion

Quote:

---

An ordinary Colombian citizen uses Facebook to spark the largest protest in global history.

We're looking for funding! Find out how you can help march the film into production at www.onemillionvoicesfilm.com

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=truJOj_PaCY

interesting case studies to consider:

http://www.movements.org/case-study/c/latin/

Read the about the situation in Vietnam under country snapshots, it will be interesting to see if activists can change this oppressive system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I think it already had its desired effect.

---

What do you think was the desired effect? Beyond giving its makers a moment in the sun, of course...

Quote:

---

An ordinary Colombian citizen uses Facebook to spark the largest protest in global history.

We're looking for funding! Find out how you can help march the film into production at www.onemillionvoicesfilm.com

---

"The largest protest in global history"? What exactly was that? Who protested, and how, and what was the outcome?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Dark things do not thrive, and even struggle to survive, in the bright light.

Dark things exist in certain men and organizations that challenge our society on social, criminal and political levels. Dark things exist within many governments that have grown used to not having to be responsive to the evolving needs and concerns of their respective populaces.

Greater access to information and greater ability to communicate sheds "light" into the dark spaces where these dark aspects of various legal and illegal men and organizations reside. Many call this "transparency."

---

This I think is a pretty optimistic view. Dark things thrive as well online as they do in real life, and the world of social media and do-it-yourself news often encourages them. For all the hate thrown at the mainstream media, in their day it was almost impossible to avoid hearing or seeing information contrary to one's own views, unless you unplugged completely. Today those with extremist inclinations can easily create a network of mutually reinforcing sites and individuals that excludes any contrary view and effectively constructs an alternate reality. These exclusionary networks are ideal conditions for fostering extremism, and may have more impact in the long run than any passing viral sensation.

Lies flourish as well as truth on social media, and the people who turn to these media for information may be outnumbered by those who turn to them for affirmation.

The degree to which internet communication and social media have really changed the game for despotic regimes is open to question. Certainly there are useful tools, but revolutions happened before they existed, and the fundamental dynamics of revolution post-social media haven't changed much (anyone else remember the days when mobile phones and text messaging were said to have "changed everything"?). The basic conditions remain the same: you need a widespread sense of grievance, and you need a widespread sense that the regime is vulnerable. Once those exist, all it takes is a spark to kick things off, whatever tools are used to spread the word. True in Manila in '86, equally true in Cairo in 2011.

That's not to say that social media are irrelevant, only to suggest that they may not be as earthshaking a change as some suggest ("flashmobs" happened long before the name was conjured up). Certainly in their public aspect they provide an interesting window into public opinion. I suspect that in some cases they may actually prove to be release valves, and that people may choose to vent steam on Facebook rather than taking to the streets... but we will see.

No one will ever get an argument from me on the points that:

Social Media cannot create insurgency where conditions for insurgency do not already exist;

Ideology cannot create insurgency where conditions for insurgency do not already exist;

"Malign actors" internal or external to a state cannot create insurgency where conditions for insurgency do not already exist.

Etc, etc.

But just as breakthroughs in various technologies over time have changed the character, but not the nature of war; so too have breakthroughs in information technology changed the character of governance and illegal challenges to governance; but not the nature of governance.

Some insurgency (primarily resistance insurgencies) is war. Some insurgency (primarily revolutionary insurgencies) are more accurately civil emergencies; but both are affected in character in how they begin and in how they are sustained by breakthroughs in information technologies, and social media are major part of how those technologies are operationalized.

Governments who could not long ago largely ignore the reasonable concerns of various populace groups affected by their actions (internally for most states; but for large states such as the US, externally as well); but no more. I have never been a fan of Dr. Kilcullen's "global insurgency" construct; but I do recognize that the foreign policies of the US to create a form of "virtual occupation/manipulation" of the governance of others sufficiently to create conditions of resistance insurgency among many populaces around the world. But such conditions without the ways and means to connect and synergize that energy is not much of a problem. But now those ways and means exist, and organizations such as AQ work to tap into that energy to advance their own agendas.

Governments ignore the changes to the character of governance created by advances in information and social media to their peril. There is a new standard for governance, and that standard is being set by the people affected by governance, not the governments themselves. Governments think they get to set the standards. Governments are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Governments who could not long ago largely ignore the reasonable concerns of various populace groups affected by their actions (internally for most states; but for large states such as the US, externally as well); but no more.

---

When exactly was this time when governments could ignore such concerns? Given the number of dictators toppled in the decade or two before social media were widely adopted, one would have a hard time concluding that governments in those years could safely ignore anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

When exactly was this time when governments could ignore such concerns? Given the number of dictators toppled in the decade or two before social media were widely adopted, one would have a hard time concluding that governments in those years could safely ignore anything.

---

You take everything literally, it is annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bourbon

You take everything literally, it is annoying.

---

I assume that people mean, literally, what they write. If that's annoying, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

When exactly was this time when governments could ignore such concerns? Given the number of dictators toppled in the decade or two before social media were widely adopted, one would have a hard time concluding that governments in those years could safely ignore anything.

---

*shameless self-promotion*
on a related note:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....n-tunisia.html
*/shameless self-promotion*

I've been looking at the impact of social media and warfare of late, so thought it might help SWC readers to add a couple of pointers. Especially after a non-SWC member added:

Quote:

---

... there are few who have grasped the full implications of social networking for public order, security etc

---

Hat tip to Tim Stevens, Kings War Studies to the work of Daniel Bennett, from the BBC and a Ph.D student:

Quote:

---

My thesis considered the impact of blogging and 'new' media on the BBC's coverage of war and terrorism.

---

Daniel has a blog:http://mediatingconflict.blogspot.co.uk/

More an information-gathering point maybe; I was intrigued by the possibilities in his piece 'Links on Twitter and Mapping', notably a map of newspapers:http://mediatingconflict.blogspot.co...d-mapping.html

The non-SWC member pointed to another blogsite, with an article from September 2011 'How government could use social media to improve its response to public crises', which opens with:

Quote:

---

Over the last couple of months I have been watching with interest how social media has been used during a number of crisis events and how governments have reacted to and made use of these technologies. It has been an instructive period as we have had the opportunity to observe both man-made and natural crises. What is clear is that governments still do not fully understand social media and how to use it in a disaster or crisis.

---

Link:http://i-logue.com/chaos-is-a-social-issue/

No, I'm not a cartographer, amongst the embedded links is this one:http://crisismappers.net/

A suggestion from a SWC reader: '10 ways the military and intel should be using social media, if they aren’t already' which was written in August 2011, so before Tahrir Square, that opens with:

Quote:

---

..if I were in charge of finding and eliminating bad guys, and protecting civilians on the ground in wartime situations, if I were in charge of understanding the formation of events such as Arab Spring..this is what I’d do.

---

And concludes:

Quote:

---

We’re not completely sure where we are all headed, but we’ll get there by learning from each other.

---

Link:http://productfour.wordpress.com/201...-soical-media/

Hat tip to Bruce Schneier for the pointer to a lengthy article on Wired 'Jamming Tripoli: Inside Moammar Gadhafi’s Secret Surveillance Network':http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/ff_libya/all/1

I was struck by this sentence:

Quote:

---

By now, it’s well known that the Arab Spring showed the promise of the Internet as a crucible for democratic activism. But, in the shadows, a second narrative unfolded, one that demonstrated the Internet’s equal potential for government surveillance and repression on a scale unimaginable with the old analog techniques of phone taps and informants.

(Much later) Today you can run an approximation of 1984 out of a couple of rooms filled with server racks. And that’s precisely what Libya’s spies did—and what dictatorships all around the world continue to do.

---

Bruce's article draws attention to Chinese, French, South African and USA technology suppliers:http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...sting_art.html

Hat tip to Londonistani for this wide ranging review of social media in the Arab Spring, actual title 'The Arab Spring: Revolution without Revolutionaries?' by Guy Harris, who has "sand in his boots":http://www.defenceiq.com/defence-tec...lution-withou/

David,

These are largely opinion pieces, like most of the articles we post on SWJ, but there is little science behind these opinions, and IMO little logic to support their views.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/behavioural-conflict

Quote:

---

They wrote at length about the importance of focusing on group versus individual beliefs to effectively shape behavior. I think this phrase effectively captures one of their arguments, “Just like research which disproves any strong connection between attitudes and behaviors, this (discussion on poverty and violence)is contrary to prevailing wisdom and, if true, has serious implications.”

---

The authors didn't address social media, but assuming that behavior is "mostly" driven by identity group and group expectations, is it is possible that online communities can form identity groups? Then is it also possible that these online communities can provide a social structure that motivates or constrains specific behaviors? I don't think we're too concerned about thousands of people getting online complaining, but this obviously went a step further.

I have read several studies on radicalization, and one of the salient points about online radicalization that at least one study pointed to was the ability of the radicalizer to bypass the normal social structure that motivates and constrains the targeted individuals behaviors. Parents, friends, etc. are at a loss to explain why he or she became a terrorist, not realizing that person had another virtual identity group that compelled him to change his behavior.

I'm only proposing these as ideas for consideration and do not pretend to know the answer, but I am hesitant to dismiss the potential power of social media at this point.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...anonymous/all/

Quote:

---

In fact, the success of Anonymous without leaders is pretty easy to understand—if you forget everything you think you know about how organizations work. Anonymous is a classic “do-ocracy,” to use a phrase that’s popular in the open source movement. As the term implies, that means rule by sheer doing: Individuals propose actions, others join in (or not), and then the Anonymous flag is flown over the result. There’s no one to grant permission, no promise of praise or credit, so every action must be its own reward.

What’s harder to comprehend—but just as important, if you want to grasp the future of Anonymous after the arrests—is the radical political consciousness that seized this innumerable throng of Internet misfits. Anonymous became dangerous to governments and corporations not just because of its skills (lots of hackers have those) or its scale but because of the fury of its convictions. In the beginning, Anonymous was just about self-amusement, the “lulz,” but somehow, over the course of the past few years, it grew up to become a sort of self-appointed immune system for the Internet, striking back at anyone the hive mind perceived as an enemy of freedom, online or offline. It started as a gang of nihilists but somehow evolved into a fervent group of believers. To understand that unlikely transformation, and Anonymous’ peculiar method of (non)organization, it is necessary to start at the very beginning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

How Anonymous Picks Targets, Launches Attacks

---

I am currently reading We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency by Parmy Olson. Based on extensive research, Olson monitored anon over two years and interviews with key anon personalities; so far I highly recommend it.

That's why I don't have a smartphone, iPad, or Kindle; still use a 3G flip phone; still have an iPod; still use a Garmin GPS; have less than 20 friends on Facebook, and most of their feeds are turned off; etc. I'm an analog guy in a digital world, and will be quite happy retiring to some sunny, sandy spot in central America as an ex-pat, where my retirement dollars will let me live much more comfortably than here in the States.

People can debate if the use of "social media" in UW is "revolutionary" or "evolutionary". To a digital dinosaur like me, doesn't matter. I think it's another tool in the UW kit bag, albeit a very powerful one. It makes the battle of the narrative all that more important, timely, and potentially more complicated.

Now where's that fruity drink with the little umbrella thingy...

David,

Thought you might find this article and link to be of interest, as did I...

Big data is watching you, By Dr. Gillian Tett, August 10, 2012 5:01 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

Quote:

---

But last week, I took part in a seminar organised by America’s Brookings Institution and Blum Center to discuss development and global economics. And now I am looking at that mobile phone with fresh eyes. For what became clear in discussions with aid workers, healthcare officials and US diplomats is that those oft-ignored mobile devices are not just changing the way the western world lives – but changing the lives of poor societies, too. This, in turn, has some intriguing potential to reshape parts of how the global development business is done.

These days, there are about 2.5 billion people in emerging markets countries who own a mobile phone. In places such as the Philippines, Mexico and South Africa, mobile phone coverage is nearly 100 per cent of the population, while in Uganda it is 85 per cent. That has not only left people better connected than before – which has big political and commercial implications – it has also made their movements, habits and ideas far more transparent. And that is significant, given that it has often been extremely hard to monitor poor societies in the past, particularly when they are scattered over large regions.

Consider what happened two-and-a-half years ago when the Haitian earthquake struck. The population scattered when the tremors hit, leaving aid agencies scrambling to work out where to send help. Traditionally, they could only have done this by flying over the affected areas, or travelling on the ground. But some researchers at Columbia University and the Karolinska Institute took a different tack: they started tracking the Sim cards inside mobile phones owned by Haitians, to work out where their owners were located or moving. That helped them to “accurately analyse the destination of more than 600,000 people who were displaced from Port au Prince”, as a UN report says. Then, when a cholera epidemic hit Haiti later, the same researchers tracked the Sim cards again, to put medicine in the correct locations – and prevent the disease from spreading.

Aid groups are not just tracking those physical phones; they are also starting to watch levels of mobile phone usage and patterns of bill payment, too. If this suddenly changes, it can indicate rising levels of economic distress, far more accurately than, say, GDP data. Inside the UN, the secretary general is now launching a project called Global Pulse to screen some of the 2.5 quintillion bytes of so-called “big data” being generated each day around the world, including on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. These sites are strikingly popular in parts of the emerging markets world; Indonesia, for example, has one of the most Twitter-addicted populations on the planet. Thus if the UN (or anyone else) spots a sudden increase in certain keywords, this can also provide an early warning of distress. References to food or ethnic strife, for example, may indicate the onset of famine or civil unrest. Similarly, medical researchers have learnt in the past couple of years that social media references to infection area are powerful early warning signal of epidemics – and more timely than official alerts from government doctors.

---

Global Pulse, http://www.unglobalpulse.org

Quote:

---

Global Pulse is an innovation initiative of the UN Secretary-General, harnessing today's new world of digital data and real-time analytics to gain a better understanding of changes in human well-being. Global Pulse hopes to contribute a future in which access to better information sooner makes it possible to keep international development on track, protect the world's most vulnerable populations, and strengthen resilience to global shocks.

Global Pulse functions as an innovation laboratory, bringing together expertise from UN agencies, governments, academia, and the private sector to research, develop, test and share tools and approaches for harnessing real-time data for more effective and efficient policy action.

---

This could fit the 'Big Brother' thread and theme, but sits here well IMO. Not surprisingly the examples cited and linked are Anglo-American:http://californiawatch.org/dailyrepo...s-police-17846

I have m' doubts over the value of such tools, do drug suppliers really use Twitter? Can sense be made of the torrent of information, say anger over a police shooting in Chicago?

One thing is guaranteed hi-tech companies will try to sell their products to the police and other agencies who are still trying to get working desk-top computer systems.

That last sentence is exactly correct davidbfpo.

Social Media Unconventional warfare is outlined as a method of contention, where the planning of whatever, is to establish control of the nation by gaining control of its online media society.