Social Media and Unconventional Warfare

[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.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Bill Moore]

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

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.

[Dayuhan]

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...

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?

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.

[Bob's World]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

[bourbon]

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.

[Dayuhan]

You take everything literally, it is annoying.

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

[Fuchs]

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*

[davidbfpo]

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:

... 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:

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:

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/