Social Media and Unconventional Warfare

[Bill Moore]

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.

[davidbfpo]

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:

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.

[davidbfpo]

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

“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

[Bill Moore]

Posted by davidbfpo

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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

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

I think it already had its desired effect.

[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."

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.