Social Media's Role Recently in Egypt - Conspicuous in Its Absence.
Or: The lack not presence of brought about Mubarak's departure.

There have been many conversations regarding to what degree Social Media (specifically Twitter and Facebook) had an affect on the recent event(s) in Egypt, and rightly so.
There is absolutely no denying Social Media (what we should really be calling, wait for it, the Internet) was (and remains obviously) a powerful tool of communication. Yes, it's probably safe to say it has replaced lanterns, pamphlets and even meat-space conversations as a means of general communication.

But was it the cause? No. Revolution and evolution have their roots in the actions of one physical party or group and the reactions of another (or a galvanized band of 'others.') Was it a catalyst? Only insofar as it is part of the suite of communications tools employed in 2010. I would posit that SMS had an equal if not larger role, but is less visible to the global public. Though it was shut down as well, it most probably has wider public use than the Internet relative to ownership.

Moving on then, the real story of Social Media and Egypt this past three weeks was the entirely consequential (to Mubarak) decision to shut down digital communication which was the flashpoint. This was a tactical failure on two major fronts. What we saw occur, and it is nothing short of amazing, was the result of the absence of Social Media, not the presence.


First, they lost the ability to know specifically who was saying what, when, and to whom. Like every corporate failure to address PR nightmares, blowing them off (in this case to the extreme of cutting them off) NEVER succeeds. And government and corporation, at the end of the day, are essentially opposite sides of the same coin. It's why both have presidents and directors and so on. Egypt's government and its power-based, hubris-oriented disconnect from its constituents makes yet another case for how to handle (or not handle) PR and the need for all governments to be digitally savvy.

But more on point and thus far mostly overlooked (though here is a good piece from Geoff Livingston) is that when digital communication was shut off, it caused human networks to form. It suddenly caught a broader global eye. Domestically, news (and plans) traveled person to person, through street and cafe, by phone call and note in a way that created something that could never have been created via Twitter or Facebook. Though they are wonderful for the mass dissemination of information, they do not promote what is paramount to a public movement - physical social cohesion.

And that is what happened when viral communication went analog. It produced a unity that rapidly and (mostly) peacefully achieved the first step in its goal.

I'll go a step further and say the general organization of the Tahrir camp and the incredible public unity to clean things up were the result of whispered rational ideas acted upon by a socially united group, and that group was again, the direct result of the absence of SM!



Now, in a more violent and totalitarian regime, the communication would have been controlled earlier so absence of SM would not have been as substantial. The gatherings would have been put down earlier and more violently, and in the end the outcome would have been more like Iran's failed efforts last year. So a slightly weak and older administration also contributed greatly to this perfect storm.

Whatever the cause, kudos to all involved and best of luck to Egypt. Based on how things began, I hope and have faith in a brilliant outcome that will change our collective futures for the better. Ideally they will, in the years to come, reap better health, income, and education as a result.

But one thing is certain; the new government won't be discussed meaningfully nor ultimately produced by people in a room communicating via blackberry, sms, twitter and facebook.