I do believe that Facebook has the right and obligation to protect these activist, as they do for regular users like myself. If these activists pages are following the rules of Facebook they should every right to be protected by Facebook. I also feel that Facebook needs to protect these sites because if not, the site wouldn't be doing what is says it will by allowing people to share information freely without a censorship from Facebook.
I think, not only facebook does have the obligation to protect political activist in the internet. Social networks are the fastest and best way for people to express themselves anonymous, because it reaches all the other people in the world and makes reactions possible. In some countries, governments prohibit the people to give informations about what is happening inside, to the outside world, especially if those things that are happening are from great cruelty and terrify the people in their land. In this case, people should have a safe way to make appeals to the outside world; 'This is what is happening here, do not look away, hel us to change our situation!'
1. Should Facebook change it's format to accompany more protest/awareness pages?
2. Is is fair to say that Facebook is pro-freedom? How do they display this belief?
3. How much of the blame should social media sites like Facebook take for opening the doors for revolutionaries? By taking blame, are they destroying their message of people being free to post and create pages?
#3 I think that social media has a substantial impact on the modern day revolutions. And Facebook, being one of them, is defiantly to blame. People around the world are now aware of happenings because of the allowance Facebook has. However, Facebook gives people the ability to post what ever they want. And there is some regulation on the absolutely horrendous things but there should be. There is a fine line between writing what you want and abusing the power to write what you want. So for this reason I don't think they are destroying the ability for people to speak at will.
According to the article, the egypt revolutions had a spark when the "We are all Khaled Said" page was shut down. Is there truth in saying that facebook pages run their account with the purpose of not getting "shut off"
I think a name is not really necessary but it probably helps the page more to catch people on reading it and visiting and being interested. An interesting name is just important to make people go for it, but it doesn't have to describe who did the page. Especially in this case, where it is important for the creators not to be found by their own government, facebook should allowed to change the names of the webpages
I think giving a fb page a name is specifying it more in a certain direction. You can either give your side a funny name or a serious name or a wordplay, whatever you choose, you give your site a personal note and you can change the whole effect(more ore less believable, ridiculous when the name backfires, etc)
I think because there are so many people use Facebook, and many of are not pleased with current politic situation. Finally, there comes a Facebook page which gather those people who have the same ideas. The page gives directions to people who want to do something but do not know what to do.
As with any revolution, there is significant power in numbers. As such, organization is a top priority. For example, the success or failure of a rally could be determined by how well-organized it is and how well participants are communicating with each other. This is why Facebook, with so many users all around the world, is so crucial.
Since political pages are created on facebook or in other social networks, people are not only informing and shaping an own opinion about politics, but can interchange opinions in real time and influence together. And they can answer immediately, create opposing sites etc
I believe that Facebook has virtually altered the way that news is relayed to us. Inside of Facebook, people have a choice of liking certain pages, some for instance are mitt romney and barrack obama's pages. On this page they could research things about the person which can influence your views about a certain topic. And for this reason I think that Facebook is a ideal platform
I think the most remarkable effect is that you can get feedbacks from many many people in a really short time, if you wanna spread out a certain political view, you are looking for people who think the same way or you are trying to persuade. And for this social networks are definitely useful.
Facebook is free and it reaches an enormous amount of people. If a group decided to congregate in person, it would never succeed because there is a large chance you can get killed by just doing so in the middle est. facebook at least reaches a large amount of people without revealing yourself in public.
I believe that most of facebook's moderation is all digital and integrated into the code of facebook itself. So when someone is using a pseudonym instead of their real name and that is discovered then it is considered a fraud and the page is removed. Which is how certain government officials shut down pages at important times.
Well according to a former facebook company official quoted in the article, there is "a bit if schizophrenia in trying to think you're ooerating a neutral platform. People at facebook definitely have pro-freedom views." So maybe facebook advertises themselves as neutral in order to attract more users, but this guy is a former fb official so he must know a lot about how the company works. So maybe they are a bit more biased than they seem....
I think that social media has indeed changed the way in which people revolt. For example, in the American Revolution, communication was very slow. Organisation must have been very difficult in those days, while now rallies and attacks can be easily coordinated vais Twitter or Facebook.
Social media changed way that how people share ideas and get supports from others in the revolution. They can post newest information and also update it in the following days. But there is still a problem. If people are free to post every revolutionary ideas, would it be safe if those who they are against see the page?
Why is Facebook so reluctant to help with revolutions? Is twitter a better platform for revolutions? I would say that, yes, twitter is a better platform. I feel that the executives are much more supportive of change. They are also better with people not having to use their real names thereby protecting their identities from the cyberpolice and governments cracking down on dissaence. Would the Syrian revolution have been won already if they organized as much as the Egyptians or the Libyans?
Did becoming a platform of organizing political activities one of the original intentions of those people who invented the Facebook? If changed, how did those changes happen?
What is the purpose of using real names including those political revolution activists on Facebook. Why does Facebook emphasis that users must use real names?
Facebook is supposed to stay neutral on sensitive issues. One of the way to stay neutral is to be quiet over touch-and-go situation. They know the consequences of exposing how they get involved in Egypt revolution.
The Facebook originally started as a social website that help people build connections with their friends. With the number of people use Facebook increasing, it tends to focus more on group conversation. However, this is not necessarily a good trend because when the relationship between politics and Facebook get closer, government interference and the complex situation will make it hard for people to deal
Since Facebook has censored some posts and information, why are people still choosing Facebook for their revolutionary use? All revolutionary ideas are quite sensitive and aggressive, how does Facebook select pages that should be removed? Is Facebook more interested in personal information than revolutionary ideas?
Does Facebook have an obligation to protect political activists?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Facebook has the right and obligation to protect these activist, as they do for regular users like myself. If these activists pages are following the rules of Facebook they should every right to be protected by Facebook. I also feel that Facebook needs to protect these sites because if not, the site wouldn't be doing what is says it will by allowing people to share information freely without a censorship from Facebook.
DeleteI think, not only facebook does have the obligation to protect political activist in the internet. Social networks are the fastest and best way for people to express themselves anonymous, because it reaches all the other people in the world and makes reactions possible. In some countries, governments prohibit the people to give informations about what is happening inside, to the outside world, especially if those things that are happening are from great cruelty and terrify the people in their land. In this case, people should have a safe way to make appeals to the outside world; 'This is what is happening here, do not look away, hel us to change our situation!'
DeleteQuestions:
ReplyDelete1. Should Facebook change it's format to accompany more protest/awareness pages?
2. Is is fair to say that Facebook is pro-freedom? How do they display this belief?
3. How much of the blame should social media sites like Facebook take for opening the doors for revolutionaries? By taking blame, are they destroying their message of people being free to post and create pages?
#2: Of course we all want to say that we are pro-freedom but do our actions reflect this belief? Do Facebook's?
Delete#3 I think that social media has a substantial impact on the modern day revolutions. And Facebook, being one of them, is defiantly to blame. People around the world are now aware of happenings because of the allowance Facebook has. However, Facebook gives people the ability to post what ever they want. And there is some regulation on the absolutely horrendous things but there should be. There is a fine line between writing what you want and abusing the power to write what you want. So for this reason I don't think they are destroying the ability for people to speak at will.
DeleteAccording to the article, the egypt revolutions had a spark when the "We are all Khaled Said" page was shut down. Is there truth in saying that facebook pages run their account with the purpose of not getting "shut off"
ReplyDeleteHow does the increased role of technology in society affect modern revolutions??
ReplyDeleteShould Facebook require you to have a name associated with an awareness page, even if it could prove life threatening?
ReplyDeleteI think a name is not really necessary but it probably helps the page more to catch people on reading it and visiting and being interested. An interesting name is just important to make people go for it, but it doesn't have to describe who did the page. Especially in this case, where it is important for the creators not to be found by their own government, facebook should allowed to change the names of the webpages
DeleteHow might this name/identity requirement change what we say or how we act on FB? For the better or worse?
DeleteI think giving a fb page a name is specifying it more in a certain direction. You can either give your side a funny name or a serious name or a wordplay, whatever you choose, you give your site a personal note and you can change the whole effect(more ore less believable, ridiculous when the name backfires, etc)
DeleteWhy does a facebook page cause so much more sensation about what is happening in Egypt?
ReplyDeleteI think because there are so many people use Facebook, and many of are not pleased with current politic situation. Finally, there comes a Facebook page which gather those people who have the same ideas. The page gives directions to people who want to do something but do not know what to do.
DeleteAs with any revolution, there is significant power in numbers. As such, organization is a top priority. For example, the success or failure of a rally could be determined by how well-organized it is and how well participants are communicating with each other. This is why Facebook, with so many users all around the world, is so crucial.
DeleteHow has Facebook changed the way politics is viewed?
ReplyDeleteSince political pages are created on facebook or in other social networks, people are not only informing and shaping an own opinion about politics, but can interchange opinions in real time and influence together. And they can answer immediately, create opposing sites etc
DeleteIs Facebook a ideal platform to express political views or support a revolution?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Facebook has virtually altered the way that news is relayed to us. Inside of Facebook, people have a choice of liking certain pages, some for instance are mitt romney and barrack obama's pages. On this page they could research things about the person which can influence your views about a certain topic. And for this reason I think that Facebook is a ideal platform
DeleteI think the most remarkable effect is that you can get feedbacks from many many people in a really short time, if you wanna spread out a certain political view, you are looking for people who think the same way or you are trying to persuade. And for this social networks are definitely useful.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)Wy was facebook the place of choice for this congregation to meet and post there ideas and issues?
ReplyDeleteFacebook is free and it reaches an enormous amount of people. If a group decided to congregate in person, it would never succeed because there is a large chance you can get killed by just doing so in the middle est. facebook at least reaches a large amount of people without revealing yourself in public.
DeleteThe simple answer is Facebook is easy and convenient, 1 billion people in the world use Facebook, so information is very easy to distribute and read.
DeleteHow does facebook control pages? How do they know if they are dangerous and do they have the right to remove them?
ReplyDeleteI believe that most of facebook's moderation is all digital and integrated into the code of facebook itself. So when someone is using a pseudonym instead of their real name and that is discovered then it is considered a fraud and the page is removed. Which is how certain government officials shut down pages at important times.
DeleteIt has been mentioned several times that Facebook is a neutral platform, but it also mentions that “Facebook would help”. Would this be a paradox?
ReplyDeleteWell according to a former facebook company official quoted in the article, there is "a bit if schizophrenia in trying to think you're ooerating a neutral platform. People at facebook definitely have pro-freedom views." So maybe facebook advertises themselves as neutral in order to attract more users, but this guy is a former fb official so he must know a lot about how the company works. So maybe they are a bit more biased than they seem....
DeleteI believe this would be a paradox because it is mentioning both that it could help or hurt something. It is contradicting itself.
DeleteHow have revolutions been altered through social media throughout history?
ReplyDeleteI think that social media has indeed changed the way in which people revolt. For example, in the American Revolution, communication was very slow. Organisation must have been very difficult in those days, while now rallies and attacks can be easily coordinated vais Twitter or Facebook.
DeleteSocial media changed way that how people share ideas and get supports from others in the revolution. They can post newest information and also update it in the following days. But there is still a problem. If people are free to post every revolutionary ideas, would it be safe if those who they are against see the page?
DeleteWhy is Facebook so reluctant to help with revolutions?
ReplyDeleteIs twitter a better platform for revolutions?
I would say that, yes, twitter is a better platform. I feel that the executives are much more supportive of change. They are also better with people not having to use their real names thereby protecting their identities from the cyberpolice and governments cracking down on dissaence.
Would the Syrian revolution have been won already if they organized as much as the Egyptians or the Libyans?
Are there important differences between the platforms of Twitter vs. Facebook that would be more or less accommodating to political revolutions?
DeleteUltimately how did social media affect the course of history for Egypt?
ReplyDeleteDid becoming a platform of organizing political activities one of the original intentions of those people who invented the Facebook? If changed, how did those changes happen?
ReplyDeleteHow has Facebook evolved into such a powerful tool that can be used for things such as raising awareness in the Middle East?
ReplyDeleteHow has the anonymity of the group page's leader(s) helped or hurt the point that they are trying to get across? How has it affected the message?
ReplyDeleteWould the creators of these FB pages be more credible if we knew their names?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the purpose of using real names including those political revolution activists on Facebook. Why does Facebook emphasis that users must use real names?
ReplyDeleteWhy are the poeple of facebook so tight-lipped and secretive about their role in Egypt?
ReplyDeleteThey probably don't want to draw a lot of attention to how they are defending these groups.
DeleteFacebook is supposed to stay neutral on sensitive issues. One of the way to stay neutral is to be quiet over touch-and-go situation. They know the consequences of exposing how they get involved in Egypt revolution.
DeleteTo what extent has this changed permanently the way in which Facebook should be used?
ReplyDeleteThe Facebook originally started as a social website that help people build connections with their friends. With the number of people use Facebook increasing, it tends to focus more on group conversation. However, this is not necessarily a good trend because when the relationship between politics and Facebook get closer, government interference and the complex situation will make it hard for people to deal
DeleteSince Facebook has censored some posts and information, why are people still choosing Facebook for their revolutionary use?
ReplyDeleteAll revolutionary ideas are quite sensitive and aggressive, how does Facebook select pages that should be removed?
Is Facebook more interested in personal information than revolutionary ideas?
Does Facebook remove pages? What kind of pages are removed?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete