In “The Political Power of Social Media”, Clay Shirky discusses the way social media can affect political situations in countries. As soon as I saw this article, I thought of our discussion of the power of social media and whether or not this power is a positive or negative force. In this article, Shirky claims that there is no confirmed decision on this issue. In some cases social media can be a positive political force, such as the given example of the impeachment of the Philippine President and the evidence against him being forced to be taken into account. However, sometimes the consequences are not as favorable, as shown in the given example regarding Iran when “activists…were ultimately brought to heel by a violent crackdown.” Reading this article, I saw that Shirky claimed social media was a positive force however, he explains that there is not guarantee for the success of a political movement with the help of social media. When he discusses the issue of the U.S. conducting the uses of social media in other countries he states that this is “likely to do more harm than good”.
I agree with Shirky that social media influence does not have an automatically positive effect on political movements. In some cases, the social media can cause more problems than it solves. One example Clay Shirky gives is that social media facilitates the identification of specific individuals behind some movements. In addition, there are other factors that need to be taken account into a politic protest, such as the presence of police forces and whether or not they are sympathetic to the protesters’ cause. Clay Shirky explains that while social media can help a political movement and aid its success, this positive outcome does not happen in every case. I agree with his stance and hope a balance can be found in order to help citizens that are oppressed by their government.
I enjoyed reading the article you posted, and it goes along with my own thinking of where these social media phenomenon is taking us. Which is that is all up to anyone’s’ interpretation. Just as it says “It does not have a single preordained outcome.” The lingering question as if whether it helps democracy is an issue that cannot be answer without solid arguments from both sides. At least we can take the baby step of internet freedom, which can be a great tool to advance anyone’s agenda, depending on the smarts of the coordination. As I see it and in concurrence with the author, the real power seems to be the old “public sphere” where issues gather strength either supporting or rejecting the status quo.
Additionally, the power of people to be able to communicate among themselves cannot be scrutinized or censor by any administration and If that would be the case then I would imagine that people would reluctantly express their real concerns. As stated in the article, “the value of media that allow citizens to communicate privately among themselves.” The risk of retaliation by the government is a factor that invites anonymity and that is one of the benefits that social communication offers. However, I have no doubt that just as the old saying goes “where there is a will there is a way.” And this goes for all sides, the government and the people, and even the business sector. Tools created for a specific purpose can be put to use the other way,