“Tweeting the Arab Spring”

I attended a fascinating talk with Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi, Non-resident Fellow at the Dubai School of Government and now a social media maven-by-happenstance in the UAE. A humble, young, well mannered and very likeable man, he became the premier tweeter during the radical Arab uprisings earlier this year. As he described it, he was just an average person who got swept up in the TV coverage of events, starting in Tunisia then cascading into Egypt, Bahrain and beyond. At the height of the Egyptian protests, he describes being in his apartment glued to several TVs watching different live broadcasts and tweeting constantly about what he was seeing. His story was gripping, and despite direct contact from an old friend telling him to stop out of fear for his safety, he said (rather humourously) “I just couldn’t stop tweeting. I tweeted about him telling me to stop, and he told me he saw my tweet!”  Many other people, however, encouraged him to keep tweeting, as his tweets were feeding important information to his 3000+ followers, who in turn retweeted it for an estimated total reach of as many as 200,000 people.  This was information like such-and-such action is happening on this street, or Mubarek loyalists are attacking a group or building at this address…” etc. He now believes his tweeting saved lives.

While it’s an inspiring story about the positive power of social media, he said that those governments caught unawares have now gotten social media savvy in a hurry, and in some cases are trying to use it for propaganda, suppression, disinformation and intimidation. Some countries are creating new ‘crimes’ in their penal codes for retweeting. Even in the West, we are seeing government intervention against flash mobs organized via social media in places such as London and San Francisco, and the debate is raging about when, if ever, pulling the plug might be within a government’s purview.  While Sultan described social media and tweeting as still an elite activity in the Middle East (people in rural areas would not even have access), most young people in urban areas around the globe have no concept of a world without the internet. Such mixed applications of connected technology are the next step in the evolution of these sociological and anthropological phenomena.

Privacy in a Mobile App World

I attended a thought provoking seminar yesterday put on by PRSA’s DC chapter. ( A shout out to Microsoft for hosting it in their beautiful Innovation and Policy Center facility at 9th and K. )  The speakers were great, and their often differing opinions created an interesting tension that perhaps yielded more useful insight than one typically gets at these sorts of events. 

One speaker was a goddess of all the shiny new social media tools, emphasizing the growing importance of group aggregation apps and social proximity networks. I must admit the idea of strangers being able to locate me on the street because of personal preference information I shared online was unnerving. I’ve yet to check out some of the tools she mentioned – Sonar, Blu, Nerd Nearby – but the clear trend was toward people aligning themselves via mobile tools. Instinctively I associate this with 20 somethings, but no demographic data was provided so I really don’t know.

Another speaker had formal education in animal behavior (among his many degrees and other talents). He observed that people who have become online influencers are actually pulling back on their use of social media tools due to overwhelming demand to always be ‘on’ and to have too many people wanting a little piece of them.  He particularly noted that the elites of social media were also looking to newer tools such as Quora and Namesake that have not been tainted by the invasion of ‘brands’ – read that, don’t think about using them for marketing – now that Twitter and Facebook were over-run by such activities.  He also noted that the conversation about social media hadn’t really changed in 3 years – many people now use Facebook or are still learning the basics of Twitter, but they don’t have time or interest in taking on any more.

While there was some polite sparring back and forth about the trends toward or away from further engagement, two things stood out to me: 1) Elites have a different experience curve for this social phenomenon, and in a compressed cycle, fundamental human nature kicks in – even influential, attention seeking people ultimately want and need a boundary that limits how much they’re available to the world. The masses always follow, and it still takes a long time for them to move up the adoption bell curve – but will they ultimately reach the same pull-back point if social media demands get too invasive?  2) Privacy is a core issue for both leaders and followers. While the implications of things such as social proximity networks are a bit frightening to me, the issue goes beyond finding strangers nearby with whom in reality I might actually want to interact if we have some relevant things in common. But —who is aggregating data about my physical movement? What are the implications if, for instance, an entity can figure out that I visit a certain shopping district three times per week, usually on Tuesday and Wednesday nights and Saturday mornings?

The application of these technologies to PR needs (the purpose of yesterday’s seminar) can obviously be beneficial to practitioners targeting audiences on their client’s behalf – and in many ways, that’s a good and useful thing. The implications go way beyond, however, and take the current legislative discussion about online privacy to a vastly different level. I would expect some action to protect personal data in this area soon (although with this Congress, can even something this important be accomplished?) but with technology evolving so fast, can slow, bureacratic legislative bodies keep up?  Mind your data.

Advancing Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age

The internet and especially social media have had dramatic impact on diplomatic as well as state-internal communications and relations over the past many months.  The 2010 post-election Iranprotests were perhaps the first significant demonstration of the new power of social media used by a large populace. The Wikileaks release of reams of confidential U.S.diplomatic cables just barely preceded the Arab Spring ‘Facebook’ uprisings of early 2011. All of these events have significant ramifications for traditional diplomacy, mandating changes in practices, philosophies and norms that have existed for a very long time. This has left diplomatic organizations such as the U.S. State Department and others around the world in unfamiliar waters.  The implications of new media are broad for state and for non-state actors, as the effects of technology-enabled communications will almost certainly influence all diplomatic endeavors of consequence from here forward. How policies or government actions will play in the court of public opinion, how to (attempt to) control a message, and how to win hearts and minds in a chaotic media marketplace all require a very different approach.

Public diplomacy in and of itself is still a somewhat controversial practice. While funding is being cut for diplomatic efforts in general, the harder to measure, longer term and somewhat elusive practice of public diplomacy is even more vulnerable to scrutiny and cutbacks. Yet the option for governments to go light on public diplomacy is increasingly being taken away by the omnipresence of professional and amateur media, and an instantly connected populace who are taking more matters into their own hands. The power structure has simply shifted and a new reality must be faced. Today, public diplomacy takes many forms, one of the most significant of which is through new media because it enables many of these disruptive activities, because it underpins an increasing share of contemporary life (who is not tethered to their mobile device these days?), and because it has the potential to enhance or undermine a government’s efforts.

The rules of the new media environment are significantly different from the traditionally bureaucratic character of diplomatic organizations.  Credibility and influence require giving away some control of the message. The trick is balancing the right amount of give in order to sustain a higher overall level of control. The issue is not if but how, and how successfully, diplomatic ministries around the world will adapt their dogmas and practices in light of this new power shift. 

Reality Check

To test the impact of new media channels as tools of public diplomacy, I conducted a brief, unscientific, but none-the-less telling survey of young Saudis about their media consumption habits and the influence on their impressions of theUnited States. The survey results are slanted, since all 13 of my respondents had attended university, read and spoke English, were mostly current students or working in technical fields, and were between 20 and 30 years of age – a rather elite population, but a cream of the crop group that stands to have status in Saudi civil society, and who are reachable through multiple media channels.

All respondents use Facebook, almost all use Twitter and You Tube, and 63% seek news and information about countries other than their own on a daily basis. Seventy-seven percent watch Al Jazeera daily or several times per week, 78% consume Al Arabiya, and 50% consume BBC news daily or several times per week. Exactly 0% consume U.S.-sponsored Alhurra.com with that same frequency, although 75% said they do look at it ‘only occasionally’. State Department sponsored Radio Sawa fared just slightly better, with 22% saying they listened to it a few times a week. Of those who do consume the U.S. broadcasting channels, not one person said those channels have a positive impact on their impression of the U.S. When asked if other social media had that impact, 60% of the group said yes, but the impressions were unfavorable. When asked what makes news credible for them, they all (unaided) referenced trustworthiness of the source. 

Realistically, this survey reflects just a micro sample of just one target population in one country, but it raises some interesting considerations on where the State Department has its new media work to do. Other governments should only benefit by following suit.  In fairness, the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are in uncharted waters here (as are many in the private sector), and are bound to suffer a few mis-steps in the learning curve. That they have undertaken a significant new media effort to date is laudable. But with some failures behind, they must now course correct, apply what has already been learned, keep an open mind, and seek more outside guidance in how to cultivate a better approach. This will require changing bureaucratic culture (a typically painful and slow process that in this circumstance cannot drag out), empowering more staff to publish according to guidelines but not always direct content review, staying on top of new media in other countries, and encouraging open discussion on issues of true import.

The Short and the Long Term

Noted internet expert Clay Shirky argues that the potential of social media lies mainly in its support of civil society and the public sphere, which will be measured in years and decades rather than weeks and months. He also advocates that the U.S.should “maintain internet freedom as a goal to pursue in a principled and regime-neutral fashion, not as a tool for effecting immediate policy aims country by country.” Well, sort of…

The reality is that new media need to be adeptly deployed for both short and long term situations, and regime-neutrality is a nice goal but not necessarily realistic for the United States. U.S. hesitance to call for Mubarak’s ouster did not stop young Egyptians from toppling their government – it just made us look unprepared and uncertain. The traditional State Department aim to promote civil society over the long run is and will remain a crucial objective. But today, civil societies and other actors are moving at their own speed, in timeframes than couldn’t have been imagined even a few years ago. If the U.S. wants to maintain its position of global prominence and influence, the realities imposed by new media and an interconnected world must be addressed head on. Can we muster the will and the agility to do it?

The Approach of Internet Regulation [and the End of the World as We Know It]

 

The March 2 Communications Summit, put on by the Institute for Policy Innovation, presented some diverse and compelling perspectives on key issues in the Communications industry, particularly relating to government regulation. While I’d expect an anti-regulation stance from the sponsor, they did a credible job of civilly presenting a variety of perspectives in a town known of late for less than civil discourse. 

‘Communications’ in this context means what most of the world now refers to as ‘ICT’ – Information and Communications Technology – but many in the US still think of as ‘telecomm’.  Communications includes the ecosystem of internet-centric businesses, hardware vendors, software vendors, networks, content providers, and the data-gathering and advertising machinery that pervades much of the online world.

Given the aggregation of mountains of personal data about all of us who dwell online, the implications of such data moving freely around the world in nanoseconds, and the increasing incidence of taking content without paying for it [music, movies, etc.], regulation is coming—soon.

Keynote speaker Rick Boucher, Former Chairman of the House Commerce Communications Subcommittee and co-author of draft legislation on internet regulation, prefaced his remarks by stating that net neutrality as an issue is dead. The Senate and President Obama are not going to allow any overturn or spend any more time on it. So, he advocates focusing on what’s feasible at this point.

He predicts real action by Congress, perhaps in as little as a year, on extending privacy rights to internet users. This could include mandating ‘do not track’ options on web sites, providing ‘opt in ‘or ‘opt out’ options for data collection, compelling full disclosure of how your gathered data is collected and used, and variations thereof for certain kinds of data—social security numbers, passport numbers, geo-location info, etc. Boucher likened this movement to other major privacy protection legislation of recent times such as HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

It’s a complex issue that’s going to require hard-wired technical adjustment as well as changes to business practices. The implications for advertisers and aggregators are obvious, but these changes will also extend to other aspects of marketing and communications. Lest corporations fear too much, Boucher also predicts that if/when this is legislated, grievance handling would be managed by the FCC and NOT by allowing individuals to sue companies for a potential breach of their privacy. I suppose I could live with that.

As another of the Summit’s speakers put it, transformational change is when the technology is so pervasive you no longer notice it [like fish not noticing the ocean]. The ever-connected Millenials are certainly there. If privacy concerns prove enough to get even this contentious Congress to agree and act, you can bet the times are a-changing.

Official US Policy on the Internet

I was privileged to be among a couple hundred students and press who attended Hillary Clinton’s on campus speech today about Internet Freedom. After the happenings in Egypt, the new protests in Iran, Yemin and elsewhere, and the whole Wikileaks broohaha, she came forward with a clear, firm policy position on keeping the Internet free. Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, it was very exciting to be in the room. She is totally in command of her space, polished, poised and on point. A heckler was tackled by police a few feet away from her, yet she never even glanced. In the wake of the Tuscon shootings, I was impressed [although security at today’s venue was tight!].

She referenced 3 key Internet challenges – 1) Achieving libery and security; 2)protecting transparency and confidentiality; and 3) protecting free expression while fostering civility. All of these are obviously timely and are big issues associated with the Internet that are only going to increase. Her point, of course, was that the U.S. was trying to balance all of these.  With regard to Wikileaks, she flat out called it a theft akin to smuggling confidential documents in a briefcase. It was interesting to see her directly address this issue, which caused the State Dept so much embarrassment and trouble. She contended, and in my opinion rightly, that governments need to keep some secrets for good reason – security, safety of those working in risky positions, etc. She also offered that a better answer to ‘offensive’ speech online was more speech – but of the nature to express what’s right, rather than ignoring or brushing what’s wrong under the rug.

Of the many points she made, the speech was obviously a timely policy statement on how the Administration is regarding and approaching Internet Freedom in this incredibly tumultuous time. The fact that such a speech was made by so prominent a person was indicative of the importance of the issue. The State Dept has an enhanced public diplomacy campaign of tweeting in Arabic, with Chinese, Farsi and other languages spoken in internet-repressed areas being added soon. Fascinating stuff.

Facebook and the Changing of the Middle East Order

I have heard the unprecedented uprising in Egypt described as the ‘facebook revolution’.  I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever envisioned his campus-related social experiment having this kind of impact.  What started in Tunisia, a much smaller and previously less significant [now a benchmark] country, took just a matter of weeks to alter the balance of the middle east, perhaps permanently.  

Younger generations have traditionally been the engines of revolution. This generation has radical new tools available to them in the form of internet-based communications that enable enormous change in a short amount of time. Dictators and secretive regimes around the world now have much to fear.  The thing they have forever tried most to control, information, is out there for anyone with a cell phone to engage in – and that is most of the modern world.

Mubarek tried unsuccessfully to cut off internet access – technically, it can be done, but culturally it can’t. The failed effort lasted a day before everyone was back online. Remarkable in itself that pressure to do this from inside Tahrir Square and around the globe actually paid off. Duplicity was called out for what it was, and it caved. Woo hoo!

This unprecedented communication movement throws more traditional comms theory in a tailspin. No one was in charge.  No one had a strong agenda they were promoting except ‘Mubarek has to go, and it must be done peacefully’.  There was no calculated influence campaign, no press releases, no strategy, no talking heads on TV. The power of this movement was emotion – hope, courage, determination – and the ability to communicate those needs and feelings in real time to a huge mass of people. Granted emotion of this depth is not easily aroused, but when it is genuine, it is unstoppable.

Many questions remain, as Egyptians, other Middle Eastern nations and the rest of the world wait to see how a new order unfolds. Already this morning, one day after Mubarek left, I saw a headline about anti-government protests in Yemen, although those were evoking an aggressive government response. Do Yemenis use Facebook?  What about China?  How and where will this form of instant, emotional and sustained communication be used for other issues – from politics to the workplace?  The potential is fascinating and unsettling.  Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the revolution.

Tweeting Out?

CNN today is reporting that the number of Twitter users has flattened since mid-2009 http://bit.ly/dtd9G8.  Given how quickly Twitter ramped in early 2009, some are arguing that level of growth would be unsustainable, and it’s getting more to a normal profile of adoption and usage.  But others are seeing its usefulness as limited compared with social media tools like Facebook, and predict Twitter will remain popular with a subset of users but not become a robust business tool.  Are you using Twitter for your business communications?  Or just telling people what you’re eating, where you’re at, and what you’re doing.   Twitter’s usage over the coming months will be an interesting evolution – a best practice, or a fad?