POMED Notes: “Sifting Fact from Fiction: The Role of Social Media in Conflict”

The United States Institute of Peace hosted a conference with several discussion panels regarding the use of social media in conflict. Each of the panels had a different focus, varying from the very technical to the more politically-oriented. The purpose of the conference was to determine if a definitive effect from social media on conflict could be discerned.

For notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Opening remarks were addressed by Sheldon Himelfarb, the Director of the Center for Innovation at USIP.  Himelfarb remarked that over the last year there has been a wave of social media companies, a true “a cottage industry” around the analysis of social media and its impact on social movements. He also referred to the first Blogs and Bullets panel where panelists discussed two opposing positions: the “cyberutopian” and the “cyberskeptic” and whether social media can cause social movements to come into begin, or whether social movements come into being and merely use the technology at hand to their advantage. Himelfarb noted that there was little solid evidence for either points of view and noted that, “for every Egypt there is a Bahrain.”

The first discussion panel was moderated by Himelfarb and included panelists Mark Lynch, Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, and John Sides, all professors at George Washington University; Brian Eoff of Bit.Ly, and Dean Freelon, professor at American University. Participants in the panel were in general agreement that the proposed framework for a report the panel had helped author after the last conference on the topic of social media title: Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics. The panel identified that indeed new media can help transform individuals and give them new competencies with which to participate in politics. They also noted that new media draws external attention from outside a region or country where the events are occurring to create what they dubbed “a megaphone effect.” But, the panel said it was harder to argue on whether social media had the ability to shape events on the ground or were responsible for a specific sequence of events, which could be perceived as a “domino effect,” an example being the Arab Spring. The panel also reminded the audience that new media was being used by regimes to repress movements and it was not solely a tool to promote democracy or activism.

A question from the audience focused on how social media will be used in the post-revolutionary environments of Egypt and Tunisia. Aday responded that while social media tools are useful to “achieve a revolutionary moment” he was not sure that they were as equally useful for organizing political power. Farell responded that while social media had cheapened the cost of organizing a revolution, after the revolution is over there needs to be a real institution that can fill the power vacuum, and that in the case of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, while they did not organize the revolution, have been able to fill some of the power vacuum because they have a real, long-standing institution and organization.

The second panel was entitled: New Trends in Data Mining and Analysis. This panel discussed the more technical aspects of looking at all the data generated by social media and how to sift through it to look for relevant trends and patterns. Cosma Shalizi of Carnegie Mellon University chaired the panel. Panelists included Rohini Srihari of the University of Buffalo and Janya Inc., Fadl al-Tarzi of New Group, Dubai, Bruce Etling of the Berkman Center and John Kelly, Morningside Analytics.

The third panel, entitled: Digital Activism and Politcal Change: Practitioners was a discussion of the importance of social media, and if activists have benefited from this technology, what kind of challenges will activists face in the future. Himelfarb chaired the session and opened discussion with a few questions.  Panelists included Sultan Al’Qassemi, a notable blogger, Andy Carvin, journalist for NPR, and Mary Joyce of the Meta Activism Project. One question asked was about the state of Egypt’s revolution and the feeling that it was “floundering.” Al’Qassemi responded that the activists who toppled the regime were taking “a backseat” to the Muslim Brotherhood because while they had used social media to topple the regime, they hadn’t formed a coherent organization unlike the Muslim Brotherhood. Al’Qassemi also discussed how he used Twitter to cover the Arab Spring and specifically, Bahrain. Carvin (who also covered Bahrain) noted how much easier it was to cover Bahrain where just about everyone has access to cell phones and the Internet, versus Libya where very few people had access to the Internet. He also discussed the problems of covering and tweeting in Arabic due to the lack of being able to write an Arabic “hashtag.” Another question was regarding the coverage of Twitter by journalists, and whether that coverage was then used by movements within the country in a “feedback loop.” Carvin responded that “there is always the possibility of a feedback from Twitter back into the country I am reporting on.” Lastly, another question asked whether social media could be used in America to challenge the U.S. Government. Carvin responded that due to America’s history of having a diverse and independent media and press, Twitter and social media get used differently in the United States, unlike other countries where “social media has been used to circumvent the repressive governments who don’t grant these rights.”

The fourth and final panel was entitled: New Media’s Role in Peace, Protest, and Political Upheaval. Himelfarb moderated the panel. Panelists included Marc Lynch, professor at George Washington University, Clay Shirky, professor at New York University, Alec Ross, senior advisor at the U.S. Department of State and Jillian York, of International Freedom of Expression. The first question asked was whether those who study and use social media “were any closer to learning how to harness the power of social media.” Ross stated that he saw a broader trend in which geopolitical power was shifting away from the nation-state to smaller institutions and the individual. Ross stated that he was more pessimistic than others in the fact that this shift in power presents a huge challenge to governments around the world and that governments do not cede power willingly, “I think this shift will produce more of a body count and increase levels of tension between the State and smaller institutions as power shifts.” Lynch stated that “we are only seeing the beginnings of massive structural change of shifting power to individuals…this is not going to lead to democracy necessarily.”. Lynch also stated that social media in terms of a unifying force is dubious as Egypt is an example of: “everyone is against Mubarak, which is fine, but what are they for? Which goes into the heart of real democracy.” Clay also commented that it wasn’t just enough for social media tools to exist, but that strengthening of civil society had to occur as well. Moreover, these tools in the hands of people with little or no experience with civil society were less useful. Ross concluded his comments by noting that in his opinion social media tools were “effective in exercising dissent” but not useful when it came to creating cooperation.