Listening this morning Thierry Garcin , the Global Issues on France Culture , talking with his guest of the Internet as "an instrument of geopolitical power" and the need for its control by international powers, it has tickled my ear just as I was reading in Christian Rioux Le Devoir write about the trials of Egypt minimizing, conversely, the impact of the Internet, I told myself that my "multitasking" morning on "Media Trade" was not that ultimately unproductive.
In radio, there was saying that "the control of the Internet is as important as the commercial and colonial wars of the 19th century" (according to the guest, Lawrence Bloch, Director of Information Systems, Paris Dauphine). Some states find it unbearable, but there may nothing (he cites a Europe powerless Americans who make both software and hardware that make Internet market), but others find it unbearable, but intervene to change the situation (he cites the China Summit cut squarely Internet with a parallel system of domain names, a "directory" of Internet addresses "Sinis").
rivalry now in broad daylight, between China and the United States in this area was subsequently the subject of the rest of the radio interview (available as podcasts for some time, here ). The attacks, organized or secret mafia are no different acts of piracy on the high seas on the lines of communication at a time when the British Empire controlled the seas.
To arms, Internet
Internet is indeed a strategic weapon, and commercial. We see traces Wikileaks recently and notably with the green revolution in Iran who have devoted Twitter as a political weapon in Washington. (Read my notes Demarcation Line to understand the state assault against Wikileaks and Twitter enters the U.S. strategic weapons for policy implications in social media).
That Egypt has cut Internet il y a quelques jours pour contrecarrer les manifestations en cours démontre probablement la puissance, à double tranchant, d'internet. Dans ce cas-ci, il s'agit d'une «affaire intérieure» et touche principalement la communication et le transfert d'information.
Est-ce que je me trompe, mais n'est-ce pas là la première fois de l'histoire qu'un gouvernement « débranche son peuple »?
Le post de gloire arrivé
En ouvrant le journal ce matin, on peut être surpris (?) de lire de la plume de Christian Rioux, dans sa colonne au Devoir: « S'il fallait en croire certains, sans Facebook et Twitter, there was never any uprising in Tunisia and Egypt. Have they read enough of reports describing an optimist globalized Arab youth who spend long days chirping about these new media supposedly "social"? ( source)
Not that the media socionumériques is at the heart of the revolution (to my knowledge, there are real batons cabossent that the real head), but with other more traditional channels, such involved in new media to spread the "meme" of the revolution on the breeding grounds.
When a media can transmit socionumérique "same" revolutionary, is there a fault line already existing for entering it. Social filtering allows small dose to confirm a sense that we have and we did not think shared. A video, writings, podcast, broadcast worldview unfiltered (with all that this could lead to as risk), content often alternative visions to "official" or at least "dominant" in the channels traditional. In general, these messages come from people you trust: family members in their social network.
Against us, cyber,
The journalist is surprised: " One wonders how, despite the blackout that hit the Internet for five days, two million Egyptians have still found a way to go to Tahrir Square this week. "question well put it back the Internet, as he likes to do it regularly (read my notes on his epidemics bloggers).
But here is that you can not easily turn off the Internet: various workarounds were put in place (via ZDNet.fr ). But if we see more Internet and social networking as a spark who sets fire to the powder (as I think), the same can not spark much left after the fire lit.
As I wrote this week "Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, all ablaze, through information technology. TV, radio, internet. "But there is information flow. And, yet, it is men who make the revolution in the streets. Social networks are like a trigger (or "mediator"). The roots of all revolutions have to be inked later in the pulpit of life as simply an emotion epidermal an act of communication.
The bloody flag is twittering
There still need the powers that be to send these thugs mater young revolutionary in the street to disperse them and even attack and scare journalists into their car so they are more witnesses. Will probably remain the social networks to keep even a little contact with the outside, probably for some time. And then probably drowned by the cons-information and indifference.
If we reassure Mr. Rioux, Internet will not make the revolution instead of people (he's right). But it is worth noting that a new was added tool in the hands of the people and what they can do could potentially exceed even nations, to use the theme of my recent post. (Until then, this new tool can be used for decentralized coordination demonstrators ...)
you hear in forums
Hey, speaking of "excess of nations," the guest Thierry Garcin wrote last January, "The Internet [is] a radical break with the modern national structure. Precisely because it is not a mediator between the nation and the citizen, an annoyance, but something which is extracted completely from the Nation to refer to something other than the Nation. "The great schism Internet
roar of those ferocious networks? Read
complement
What's the point to activate over the Internet? Doctorow meets on Morozov's blog Framablog. Essential.
Does Egypt Need Twitter? Where Malcolm Gladwell, which is not believed to be refractory to the Internet, writing in the New Yorker serious revolutions that have existed before Facebook.
yes, Malcolm Gladwell, egypt Does Need twitter a response to the previous link as an introduction to finally offered the opportunity to communicate to be mobilized.
0 comments:
Post a Comment