This link shows some of the things I have been saying, like that using social media to spread information is basically like yelling what your doing, who you are doing it with, and on and on. Many bloggers where locked out of their accounts, as well as tracked down and arrested in real life. And it was easy to do, as well as finding who they where connected to.

It also says that any use social media could have would be as communication, basically. And an ineffective means of communication at that.

Iran would also be a perfect example of how ineffective it was, with the same situation of people who protested on blogs being attacked and targeted, with having an extremely small amount of of people actually having internet access, and all the other things I have been saying. Not to mention posting fake tweets, which is not exactly difficult to do...

1) A simple and efficient way to gather people.

2) The governments have never been able to crackdown on all protestors.

3) The sudden explosion of popular sentiment giving rise to more tangible protests has brought down Ben Ali and Mubarak. You don't get more tangible then that.

I don't think you read your own article. After all it stated this:

But as we learn more about the events of the past few weeks, we'll discover that online media did play a role in helping Tunisians learn about the actions their fellow citizens were taking and in making the decision to mobilize.

As for Iran, yes it was ultimately ineffectual, no one could have expected a solidly entrenched regime initiating reforms in suh a short period. But it did show the power of social media in spurring the populace and it did act as a role model for the AS.

It seems that the whole topic shifted.

Is the topic now on terrorism now?

No it's on social media.

Can't link on my phone. Social media as a tool is not "rather small", 90,000 people in such a short Spanish of time is phenomenal and shows he explosion of popular sentiment against decadent regimes.

Ah yes, since apparently years of oppression didn't do it. It was not the poverty, the lack of jobs, the censorship. It was a random kid who set himself on fire. Really, giving social media credit for this kind of takes away from the fact these people had actual reasons for doing this...

Besides, you have to figure out how many of them where really in the country and against things. After all, the president of the united states had ten times that in fake followers... And even then, that is still a small fragment of the population.

Africa alone has 140 million Internet users; with 40 million FB users.

And the second largest population in the world, with a billion people. What is that, .0000001%? I just hit random numbers and assumed it was close. Unless that was a typo of some kind?

The Middle East has a penetration rate of 35% compared to leas than 5 a decade ago.

Just a notice, your tying is off for the moment, isn't it? Spanish of time, leas than a decade...

Anyway, five decades ago there was no internet. So there is that. A decade is a long Spanish of time, after all...

This translates to more than 70 million Internet users. 10% of Africa's land mass is Internet accessible.

That is sad if you think that is a high number. Ten percent of a population is nothing, definitely not a revelation, and that is a best case if every computer was used for this purpose.

1) This was a response to your earlier posts unfairly attacking Forger. It was quite obvious.

Since I was of course serious about him wanting child labor back.

2) Blog post does answer your question, which was how many people have access to Internet which affected such movements.

Not really. The Tunisiaia whatever thing doesn't even give numbers, and the Egypt is pure speculation.

3) Blog information and sources came from reliable newspaper reports if you looked carefully.

1. Assuming that was true, you posted a quote and I found the link myself. How would that help, if I had not found the link?

2. The links are either to Facebook, Twitter (Unreliable sources, sometimes not even sources and just used on the words) and the NY times. And the links it did give where mostly for news.

4) Many of the protestors used not just computers but their phones. Egypt's Internet penetration rose from a mere 1% in 2000 to 24% in 2009.

Their phone usage is about the same as their computer usage. How about we just say internet usage to mean both?

Either way, that is still a small part of the population, and not enough for a revolution to be done totally on twitter, and that is assuming that all or most of the people are in on it. Imagine trying to organize something when you can only talk to 1/4 of the people participating.

5) The Egyptians pretty much remained connected via other ways of getting online; such as dialing up international numbers. There were many groups that sprung up just to maintain this connection, such as We Rebuild.

So the small original number gut a lot smaller but had a few people stay connected. Great.

You will no doubt find the links yourself for these.

Ah, good to know you believe in me.

Probably shouldn't post after midnight, but I am going to anyway.

Events in Tunis last month were the latest spark for protest in many Arab countries, most importantly Egypt , following similar upheavals in the past �" notably Iran’s 2009 “Twitter Revolution,” so named for the use of the popular micro-blogging service in organizing anti-government demonstrations. Mindful of the Iran precedent, one of the first things the authorities in Egypt did last week -- alongside deploying riot police and the army on the streets -- was to disable Internet and mobile phone communications in a futile effort to nip the unrest in the bud.

This time however, and for the first time on such a scale, technology-minded protesters quickly began devising methods for circumventing the obstacles to Internet and mobile communications erected by the Egyptian government and finding new routes to social sites like Facebook, Twitter and others. Social network user “status updates” such as this one �" public guidance for the protesters -- began cropping up on sites: “OUR DSL IS STILL WORKING IN EGYPT USING DIAL UP 0777 7776 or 07777 666 Share with every one asap #Egypt #25Ja.”
Such messages were transmitted, providing instructions on how to dial up a phone number to connect to the Internet and bypass government controls. When domestic Internet connections were completely shut down, such updates were sent from Egyptians living abroad or from other Arab social network users living outside the country who support the protesters in Egypt, helping independent media get the news out on television and newspapers.

Link.

As I said, first you start with a small number. Then you take away a bunch more with this. Then you have an extremely small and useless number, not exactly useful for revolutions.

Facebook has an Event feature, which members can use to create an event, post it to their pages, and invite other people. According to an article in Newsweek, protesters used this popular feature to post Events and invite fellow citizens to join mass demonstrations. They'd schedule demonstrations on Fridays after prayers. Friday is a day off for most Egyptians and a day when mosques are heavily attended, and the government officials had a tough time determining whether people milling about on the streets were legitimately going to prayers or fomenting rebellion. The protesters capitalized on the fact that Fridays were a normal day for Egyptians to gather, and they organized the protests as Facebook Events held on Fridays. Young people shared the Events, and viral marketing, or spontaneous sharing, of the events spread throughout Facebook until tens of thousands of people joined the protests that were seen on television worldwide.

rnLink. rn

Like I said, that is basically shouting out what you are doing to the government. The government was well prepared...

As for social-network mobilization, observers say that Facebook is easier than word of mouth or cell-phone use for the government to monitor. Some say the strategy also makes events actually more of a free-for-all and less tactical as an instrument of dissent. "What we've seen time and time again is that this organizing on the Internet actually leads to more fragmentation," says Stacher. The government "will mobilize a great number of security forces," predicts Nafaa. "Security forces are very concentrated in a city like Cairo. It's easy for them to intercept the demonstrators."

As This link shows, Twitter was over emphasized, while it is on Iran, it is the same thing. When someone said they had 700k people, they actually had 7k. It also states that there was probably only 1k active twitter users actually in the country...

However, it also states that Youtube was a useful tool, but we are not talking about that, are we?

Next post as it round 12:30

1) A simple and efficient way to gather people.

It would be, if everyone had access to it. With so few people with access it is useless. And as I said, telling everyone with an internet connection where you will go is a good way to get yourself arrested and to get forces in the area.

2) The governments have never been able to crackdown on all protestors.

Of course not. But then again, why would they have had to?

3) The sudden explosion of popular sentiment giving rise to more tangible protests has brought down Ben Ali and Mubarak. You don't get more tangible then that.

Since of course before twitter came along, they where all happy with the corruption and oppression? And how many actual protesters where in there, anyway?

Why do you keep using numbers, by the way?

I don't think you read your own article. After all it stated this:

I don't think you read my posts, so it looks like we are even.

After all, I did say "The link does say that Twitter was used as a means of communication, and an ineffective one at that". So apparently you have not read all the way?

As for Iran, yes it was ultimately ineffectual, no one could have expected a solidly entrenched regime initiating reforms in suh a short period. But it did show the power of social media in spurring the populace and it did act as a role model for the AS.

Hardly. As I said, there was probably only 1,000 twitter users in the area at the time, and Youtube was probably a better outlet then things like FB and twitter where.

It seems that the whole topic shifted.

Is the topic now on terrorism now?

Wait, what?

I am going to sleep now.

Ah yes, since apparently years of oppression didn't do it. It was not the poverty, the lack of jobs, the censorship. It was a random kid who set himself on fire. Really, giving social media credit for this kind of takes away from the fact these people had actual reasons for doing this...

As I mentioned, social media didn't cause the revolution, it exacerbated it.

And the second largest population in the world, with a billion people. What is that, .0000001%? I just hit random numbers and assumed it was close. Unless that was a typo of some kind?

140 million out of a billion is 0.000001%? really?

Just a notice, your tying is off for the moment, isn't it? Spanish of time, leas than a decade...

Anyway, five decades ago there was no internet. So there is that. A decade is a long Spanish of time, after all...

No it isn't off. 35% from leas than 5% in a decade.

That is sad if you think that is a high number. Ten percent of a population is nothing, definitely not a revelation, and that is a best case if every computer was used for this purpose.

Obviously from your perspective it is. It never took more than ten percent of the population to kickstart the French, Chinese or Russian revolutions just to get some perspectives.

Since I was of course serious about him wanting child labor back.

From the way you were hounding him yes it was.

Not really. The Tunisiaia whatever thing doesn't even give numbers, and the Egypt is pure speculation.

Pure speculation from a legit newspaper source? Sure.....

1. Assuming that was true, you posted a quote and I found the link myself. How would that help, if I had not found the link?

2. The links are either to Facebook, Twitter (Unreliable sources, sometimes not even sources and just used on the words) and the NY times. And the links it did give where mostly for news.

NY times as unreliable? Sure. The stats are all out there.

Either way, that is still a small part of the population, and not enough for a revolution to be done totally on twitter, and that is assuming that all or most of the people are in on it. Imagine trying to organize something when you can only talk to 1/4 of the people participating.

You are forgetting that people spread messages by mouth too. Someone receives a message by social media and he can spread it to those he knows. And even if the range is "limited" it did gather far enough people to kick out the government.

So the small original number gut a lot smaller but had a few people stay connected. Great.

As mentioned it wasn't a small number. 90,000 people at a single rally isn't small. Unless you have valid sources to show "small", because by most standards, those are huge numbers.

i think the most of the world around us is plagued by humans who know nothing real, every public school in the world feeds innocent children lies about the world, it reminds me of rats in a testing lab being experimented on.

i think the most of the world around us is plagued by humans who know nothing real, every public school in the world feeds innocent children lies about the world, it reminds me of rats in a testing lab being experimented on.

In case you didn't notice, this isn't the conspiracy thread. Also I have to wonder, how could you manage to visit classes in all public schools in the world?

What I think of the world around us? Marvelous and ever changing, with old problems and challanges coming at us in new meduims/ forms.

As for the technologoical debate, I think the advancement of technology can indeed be abused and used for the wrong. But when has it not been abused? Technology, regardless of the time, era or how advanced a population is in technology, will find ways to corrupt, misuse or abuse their technology. It's just how we humans are. And it's a good thing too, being filthy is fun.
And if the advancement of technology is tied to us, its like greed. Need as well as greed will take us to the stars, resources will be consumed, and while it should be a focus that we find ways to sustation our rate of consumption, greed in general is part of our common pulse. Whether it's greed for new technology, knowledge or wealth.

Of course there was a thread jacking...

In relation to the original topic, it isn't what you read that should be a massive point, but the fact that you are understanding what you read. If an eight year old reads Chaucer or Shakespeare, it would make no difference because odds are they wouldn't have understood a word of it. However you let them read Harry Potter and suddenly they're processing what they're reading, they're making connections, no it's not filled with hidden symbolism and it doesn't require deep thought to see the true story, but it sets a foundation.

Now to the current topic, about social media apparently, consider that Africa is by all accounts the poorest and most underdeveloped continent, if fourteen percent of the population is such a place has access to not only a computer but to internet, that is a rather significant achievement, on top of that forty million have access to social networking, meaning this isn't access they retain only in a particular circumstance but are able to rely on it for entertainment purposes for long periods of time. All circumstances considered this is not a small or insignificant number, but a marker of how quickly technology is reforming the world.