Reader Response Draft 1

In Moore’s article (2011), she claims that the new social media (i.e. Twitter and Facebook) has caused a global revolution, and threatens the social order. It has aided the success of various uprisings, as a form of organizing tool and broadcasting platform. However, some argue that it has been an ongoing issue, and not a recent phenomenon. Nonetheless, as a result of this political sensitivity, countries such as China, Vietnam or Burma have imposed strict restrictions on their digital space, although their effectiveness has been put to the question.

With the rise of technology and digital usage in the 21^st Century, it is indeed true that social media is able to reach a wide audience with just a click of the finger. This has made it a very useful tool to attract global attention and raise awareness about various issues. Personally, as part of this digital generation, I have also had first-hand experience such as in the example of the Pink Dot Movement. Started out on a social media platform Facebook, it had gained the attention of many youths around Singapore and started a virtual rally, which led to the largest, record-breaking turn out in its demonstration this year. Although we were not strong activists, my friends and I had worn pink to show our support on the day itself. Furthermore, since its success a few years ago, it has also inspired people around the world to organise the pink dot event, such as in Hong Kong, Montreal, New York etc.This shows how the use of new social media has grown to be powerful platform.

However, without the accompaniment of an off-line activism, linking individuals and getting the word out through technology would render useless. From the article, some argues that the use of new social media merely acts as a catalytic factor. I agree that this is indeed true for a few reasons. Firstly, despite the big hoo-ha over the internet, it is unlikely for governments to take any demonstration seriously without concrete action. After all, the internet is merely a virtual platform. It might be able to translate ideas, however if each individual does not rise up to his or her stand and make a statement offline, then these ideas are merely empty talk. Thus, it is difficult for the new social media alone to create a global revolution. Secondly, the use of social media faces a huge challenge – censorship. Due to the power of the social media and its political sensitivity, some countries have imposed restrictions on their digital space, which limits the capability of social media. A valid example, as proven from the article as well, is the “Great Firewall” of China. The Chinese government has strict control over the cyberspace and censors any information that threatens their national security. Although the effectiveness of such measures was questioned, it still shows how the new social media is not a viable tool used alone. Thirdly, the use of new social media has its limitations as well, as it is only able to reach those who are more tech-savvy. In the case of Singapore, although our nation is developed and generally technologically advanced, the prevalence of social media lies only in the younger, more tech-savvy population. The older generation might not trust and rely as much on this new form of media. Thus, the spread of ideas would only be able to reach a certain group of people, hindering its effectiveness.

In conclusion, I agree with the article, and that the prevalence of the new social media has indeed changed the social construct and caused a “global revolution”. However, it must be used hand-in-hand with other measures and concrete action in order to be successful in its uprising attempts.

Reference:

Moore, J. (2011). Social media: Did Twitter and Facebook really build a global revolution?  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2011/0630/Social-media-Did-Twitter-and-Facebook-really-build-a-global-revolution