If I tweet about a revolution does that make me a revolutionary?
The internet is always abuzz with the next big social media revolution. People are idealising the role technology has in the revolution, condemning it’s role and status, or claiming it as a mere tool of revolutionaries. But the main point is, it *is* being discussed.
There are people who risk their lives daily to revolt against what they deem to be unfit conditions, and then there are people on Facebook who share a photo with their social network.
There are genuine cases where social media has been instrumental in the start, progression or distribution of a revolution. Malala’s Blog and story has actually been ‘revolutionary’ in the international fight for women’s rights. Twitter spread information and aided in the planning of the Arab Spring demonstrations. Facebook and other social platforms accelerated the international awareness and involvement in the Egyptian uprisings.
But the problem is people are using ‘revolution’ too easily, too simply. People are using the term revolution for internet ‘karma’ on Reddit, to get likes on Facebook or get retweeted on Twitter. Social media is promoting how great social media is. I guess I am just a cyber-realist. I can see how it can help, but far too many of my Google search results for ‘revolution’ were not revolutionary by my standards.
Attributing the term ‘revolution’ to things that are not revolutionary de-values those that genuinely are.