| Summary: | One of the first moments when the new information and communication technologies were used in a political protest was the Orange Revolution that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005. Ever since that moment social media proved to be an important tool of political revolt. The London protests, the Arab Spring or Moldova’s Twitter Revolution are only a few of the most representative moments when digital media were used in organizing political protests. Obviously, the new communication tools paved the way for a new type of organizing collective action and political uprising. Once the Orange Revolution took place, media theorists and political philosophers emphasized the role of the new media in political reform. Most of today’s articles analyzing this phenomenon share a rather optimistic perspective on the role the new social media is playing in political reform, offering a “microphone to the masses”. My perspective is rather pessimistic. I think that, before enthusiastically embracing the benefits of the new digital media, we must acknowledge the indisputable dangers that threaten the ideal of liberating technology. What I try to prove in my article is that there are two types of challenges when it comes to the role the new information and communication technologies play in political protests. First of all, there are state regulations used by the political leaders to restrict access to the new technologies, to identify those opposing their regime and to use the new media as a propaganda tool. These bear direct negative influences on the way the new digital media are used. But, as I shall try to prove in my article, there is also another type of challenge that could endanger the ideal of liberating technology. The neoliberal deregulation of media led to a so-called “feudalization” of the Internet, whereby huge media trusts try to control important parts of the information market, transforming it into a closed and controlled environment.
|
|---|
