The argument between the cyber-skeptics and the cyber-utopians seems to be getting ever more intense of late, with the former seemingly being afforded the most exposure. Perhaps that's only fair given the amount of positive press given to the cyber-utopians over the years. However, that doesn't mean it's the absolute truth even if only natural thanks to many media reports which naively presented a brave new world of social justice and freedom ushered in by the advent of blogs, Twitter and Facebook to readers the world over.

In the past year, however, opinions expressed by researchers have started to counter that view, and the publication of Evgeny Mororov's book, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, earlier this month continues that trend. Others, as noted by The Observer, are also starting to voice their concerns as well.

The way in which people frantically communicate online via Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging can be seen as a form of modern madness, according to a leading American sociologist.

 

[...]

 

Turkle's thesis is simple: technology is threatening to dominate our lives and make us less human. Under the illusion of allowing us to communicate better, it is actually isolating us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality that is a poor imitation of the real world.

 

[...]

 

Another strand of thought in the field of cyber-scepticism is found in The Net Delusion, by Evgeny Morozov. He argues that social media has bred a generation of "slacktivists". It has made people lazy and enshrined the illusion that clicking a mouse is a form of activism equal to real world donations of money and time.

These are all good points, of course, but it seems as though the entire argument is being framed in very black and white terms. Such arguments are also not new, and have been heard in times long before the Internet came into being as a popular form of mass communication. The idea of slacktivism, albeit not known by that term, has often been used to criticize charities in general, especially for projects in the developing world, and isolation or the erosion of 'human interaction' used against television.

On the other hand, The Observer article does at least put the counter-argument.

[...] even the backlash now has a backlash, with many leaping to the defence of social media. They point out that emails, Twitter and Facebook have led to more communication, not less – especially for people who may have trouble meeting in the real world because of great distance or social difference.

 

Defenders say theirs is just a different form of communication that people might have trouble getting used to. "When you go into a coffee shop and everyone is silent on their laptop, I understand what she is saying about not talking to one another," [Professor William] Kist said. "But it is still communicating. I disagree with her. I don't see it as so black and white."

 

[...]

 

He also pointed out that the "real world" that many social media critics hark back to never really existed. Before everyone travelled on the bus or train with their heads buried in an iPad or a smart phone, they usually just travelled in silence. "We did not see people spontaneously talking to strangers. They were just keeping to themselves," Kist said.

And Kist is probably right, especially as before iPads and Smart Phones, commuters on the metro or passengers on other forms of transportation never struck up conversation with others, preferring to sit ignoring everyone or with their heads buried in newspapers or magazines instead. Indeed, in developing countries where family bonds are usually stronger and human interaction the only form of communication available, others might actually argue that the West lost any sense of society long ago.  

But, sitting here writing this post in Armenia, thousands of miles away from my native England, it could definitely be argued that, thanks to Facebook, Twitter and Skype, my ability to communicate is now stronger than even two years ago when I only had access to email and [relatively more expensive] international calls. Now I can be in regular contact with old friends in the UK or US that I couldn't before, and not only there, in fact. As a British citizen with an Armenian name, for example, I cannot visit Azerbaijan, but I can communicate online.

And it is here where these new mediums are unprecedented for conflict zones such as those in the Caucasus where traditional forms of communication between Armenia and Azerbaijan are unavailable because of the still unresolved conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Now, this by no means will bring about a solution to the conflict, or even involve the majority of people, but it has allowed more online communication which can eventually lead to offline meetings, and that could never have happened before. Period.

Of course, I'm not saying that everything is perfect.

As The Observer article also points out, perhaps a new 'netiquette' needs to be evolved. And as I've mentioned before, while social networking sites have played a role in connecting some Armenians and Azerbaijanis, such connections are petering out too, which is why I've also argued that a more holistic approach needs to be taken. And, with the recent detention of a Palestinian activist reportedly because of being tagged on Facebook, there are also personal security and privacy issues waiting to emerge.

Yet, this post is about an article I probably would never had come across were it not for the fact that Anne Nelson, Adjunct Associate Professor Lecturer of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, shared it on her Facebook page. I've only met Anne once, and ironically only because of our shared interest in new and social media eight months ago at the Global Voices Summit in Chile, and the only interaction we have now is precisely through social networking sites such as Facebook.

Another example also happened this week. Last Wednesday marked the fourth anniversary of the murder of newspaper editor and activist Hrant Dink in Istanbul, Turkey. An ethnic Armenian, Dink stood for reconciliation and friendship between nations, and especially Armenia and Turkey. Few such figures, if any, exist in the area of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, but quite unexpectedly a number of Azerbaijani bloggers payed homage to his memory, and contrary to popular opinion on how Azerbaijanis view Armenians (and vice-versa). 

Again, it was Facebook through which one of those posts was spread. Moreover, as was the case with my own personal project, an Armenian who uses Facebook to communicate with her Azerbaijani friends not only saw it, but also translated it into her own language. As a result, it was this post in its various language versions, but Armenian and Azerbaijani rather than English, that was most widely spread on Facebook. Indeed, this was the case with other posts by Azerbaijanis on Dink and coincidentally supports my argument about the use of language too.

Such communication and cooperation was unthinkable a year or two ago, and is still unexpected now, but it was social media tools in particular that facilitated it. Undoubtedly, in an environment of fierce negative and nationalist propaganda in Armenia and Azerbaijan against the other, it was the online world that allowed those in or from Azerbaijan to first have access to alternative information, or even any at all, about Dink, with Facebook used to disseminate blog posts, and other cross-border connections spreading it further.

Indeed, were it not for Facebook, another translator, this time a Global Voices author, would not have been aware of these posts in the first place, let alone be able to translate and curate them. Global Voices co-founder and Berkman Center researcher Ethan Zuckerman calls such in betweens 'bridge bloggers.'

By “bridge figure”, I mean someone who acts as an interpreter between cultures, introducing people who look at the world in one way to another way of looking at the world. The term has a murky genesis – Xiao Qiang and I started using the term to describe the work bloggers were doing translating and contextualizing ideas from one culture into another. Shortly after, Hossein Derakshan gave a memorable talk at the Berkman Center, explaining that blogs in Iran act as windows, bridges and cafés. I’ve been using the term “bridgeblogger” ever since to refer to people who are building connections between people from different cultures via their online work, and “bridge figures” to people engaged in the larger process of building understanding between cultures.

Of course, as others as well as myself have also pointed out, such interactions are a minority in the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and Internet use in general. Indeed, one very real danger is simply that, as The Observer also notes, it can isolate users from [a more negative] reality. Indeed, I've often joked with people that Facebook has created my own 'virtual Caucasus' which is free from conflict and where everyone just gets along. But, as every regional observer and analyst will tell you, nothing could be further from the truth.

However, while I'm under no illusion as to the reality of the situation outside the online space, others might be, especially when it comes to security and privacy concerns which will undoubtedly become significant issues in Armenia and Azerbaijan over the next few years. But, this isn't the fault of Facebook, it's because of 'human error' and the absence of any analysis or strategy on the part of those who lack foresight or fall victim to complacency. This is especially true for NGOs and international donors now moving into this area.

Indeed, unless used correctly, a lot of advances in this area risk being overturned overnight unless analysis and strategies are introduced into the mix. Internet penetration in Azerbaijan and especially Armenia remains quite low, and the internal security agencies are not particularly very tech-savvy, but that will eventually change. Ultimately, the tools now being given by international donors to local activists could therefore end up being used against them, as Evgeny Morozov explained in a recent interview.

The reason why the KGB wants you to join Facebook is because it allows them to, first of all, learn more about you from afar. I mean, they don't have to come and interrogate you, and obviously you disclose quite a bit. It allows them to identify certain social graphs and social connections between activists. Many of these relationships are now self-disclosed by activists, by joining various groups. [...]

 

[...] Social media definitely help to mobilize and to bring attention to issues. But that has to be balanced with security concerns. It has to be balanced with just being smart about what you do on Facebook. I mean, I wouldn't be installing third-party apps which may compromise my private data on Facebook. [...]

In fact, I've also mentioned such risks in a previous post, as well as in another looking at more privacy-conscious alternatives to Facebook such as Diaspora. Meanwhile, a journalist friend who recently visited Azerbaijan said such concerns were already starting to emerge there among some prominent youth activists. Ironically, however, such fears are related more to Armenia-Azerbaijan communication and cooperation rather than in terms of other activism likely to irk their government.

It's sad that [IDENTITIES CONCEALED] were very sceptical about projects like yours to bring people from both sides together. [ONE] said if pictures of Azerbaijanis together with Armenians are found on the internet, then they will have to go to the KGB and be questioned. And also it would only be possible to solve the conflict (in a peaceful way) first and then to start such projects. [...]

More on that in later posts, but for now I've already made it clear that the approach to new and social media by international donors and local NGOs in countries such as Armenia at present might actually frustrate or even destroy all progress to date. However, it has to be said that the world is far more complex than either the cyber-utopian or cyber-skeptic approaches imply. In reality, there's a huge area of gray in between. Indeed, perhaps it's time to coin a new term -- that of being a 'cyber-realist.'

After all, as with the printing press, telegraph, and telephone before them, Facebook and Twitter are simply tools, and their true value and worth is only defined by how they are used and by whom. For now, though, it's probably best to consider that they have their advantages and disadvantages too, something that few actually do contemplate. In that context at least, it can perhaps be considered healthy that such arguments and debates are now starting to occur before it is too late. 

But, it has to be asked, is anyone listening? For now, despite the bad press, which is perhaps a little too negative, there's an incredible amount of naivety and complacency going around as well, especially in Armenian circles, when it comes to new and social media. Yes, these are incredible tools which offer unprecedented ways to empower people like never before, but only if the obstacles and problems are also identified now as well as over time. And it is this that is arguably the problem, not the tools themselves.