4 ms·

Thousands of years seemed to go by where uprisings didn't need social networking. The Babylonians didn't need Twitter when they rose up against the Assyrian Em

Thousands of years seemed to go by where uprisings didn't need social networking. The Babylonians didn't need Twitter when they rose up against the Assyrian Empire. The Inaros' didn't need Facebook when they confronted the Persians in Egypt (although they did have the help of the Greeks). Julius Caesar didn't tweet 'hey watch out Pompey' when he marched on Roma. Did the Sicilian Vespers need Twitter to alter the balance of European power under King Charles 1st. Maybe the great Peasant revolt in Medieval England would have been more successful had they used Twitter - although they did manage to keep the term poll tax out of the tax lexicon for 600 years. Then, of course, the period of history after Elizabeth 1st where pretty much everyone revolted at some point (even here in America) those all seemed to happen without need for social networking. I think humans are perfectly well equipped to revolt without social media. The currency of revolt has always been large numbers and big sticks. Maybe our (the HN community) sees the world through a lens that makes it impossible to accomplish what is an everyday occurrence (on the historical scale) without the internet.

blhack 16y ago
Our species existed for millions of years without cooking food. Our species existed for millions of years without any sort of sterilization. Thousands of wars have been fought without guns. Millions of businesses have been built, grown, and died without the use of the internet.
ig1 16y ago
Thousands of years seemed to go by where companies didn't need computers. It doesn't mean that computers add no value to companies.
danilocampos 16y ago
The Babylonians weren't up against armored tanks or teargas. To be certain: The Egyptians don't need social media to get their freedom. Just the same, communication is essential to any group activity, and social media is an advanced, instantaneous form of communication. It's a force multiplier for anyone seeking to maximize the effectiveness of the revolution. If the Egyptian security forces have access to modern tools, it's in the interest of the revolution to have modern tools as well. Even if social media only gets 10% more people to show up for a given demonstration, at the numbers we're seeing now, that's tens or hundreds of thousands of people. If communicating via the internet didn't help, why would Mubarak shut it down?
Cushman 16y ago
We never needed [x] before! [Y] was plenty good enough. No offense intended, but... if that's your attitude, why bother reading anything on this site?
bkmartin 16y ago
Ah yes. But how many people had to die in your examples provided. There are much better peaceful and diplomatic means now. they can have a bigger voice now by ramping up support around the world with their sympathizers. people shouldn't have to die to be heard and that is the joy of living now instead of 1000 years ago.
dholowiski 16y ago
No, and I don't need pants. But when it's -30 out and I have to shovel snow, they're sure a nice luxury.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
Mz 16y ago
Thousands of years seemed to go by where uprisings didn't need social networking. The Babylonians, Persians and so on had much smaller populations back then. It makes a difference. The scale of population we are dealing with currently is, as far as I know, unprecedented in the history of humankind. That means that things which worked historically will be insufficient to the current situation.
hnhg 16y ago
1. How many revolts have succeeded as a proportion of those that have failed? 2. Think about how the organisation, weaponry, instruments of control and scale of governments has changed over the last several decades from anything ever seen before. Decentralised communications now mean a people can communicate perhaps even faster than their military, for example. 3. Perhaps you've missed that communication allows the voice of the people to reach the outside world in a more personal and representative way than traditional media, and inspires more people to bring pressure onto those governments and remind them the world is watching their actions. If you think that's unimportant, it's precisely what Amnesty International uses on a relatively small scale to great effect.
cgs1019 16y ago
This reasoning fails to take into account the oppressors' possession of technology. Slower forms of communication may have sufficed in the situations you've cited (wherein the oppressor had faster-but-still-slow means of communicating), but when the oppressor has access to instantaneous communication and you do not you are at a severe disadvantage. This is precisely why public access to instantaneous communication is being revoked at this time.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
btilly 16y ago
Let's just take one of those examples. The US revolution. You are dead wrong in claiming that it happened without social media. They didn't have the same types of social media that we do today, but the version they did have they used to the hilt. Back in their day it was the printing press. Everything from pamphlets to Thomas Paine's Common Sense really were the social media of their day. And without them, the US Revolution could very well have failed. Conversely were Thomas Paine alive today, can you doubt that he would have a blog and use twitter?

blhack 16y ago

Our species existed for millions of years without cooking food. Our species existed for millions of years without any sort of sterilization. Thousands of wars have been fought without guns. Millions of businesses have been built, grown, and died without the use of the internet.

ig1 16y ago

Thousands of years seemed to go by where companies didn't need computers. It doesn't mean that computers add no value to companies.

danilocampos 16y ago

The Babylonians weren't up against armored tanks or teargas. To be certain: The Egyptians don't need social media to get their freedom. Just the same, communication is essential to any group activity, and social media is an advanced, instantaneous form of communication. It's a force multiplier for anyone seeking to maximize the effectiveness of the revolution. If the Egyptian security forces have access to modern tools, it's in the interest of the revolution to have modern tools as well. Even if social media only gets 10% more people to show up for a given demonstration, at the numbers we're seeing now, that's tens or hundreds of thousands of people. If communicating via the internet didn't help, why would Mubarak shut it down?

Cushman 16y ago

We never needed [x] before! [Y] was plenty good enough. No offense intended, but... if that's your attitude, why bother reading anything on this site?

bkmartin 16y ago

Ah yes. But how many people had to die in your examples provided. There are much better peaceful and diplomatic means now. they can have a bigger voice now by ramping up support around the world with their sympathizers. people shouldn't have to die to be heard and that is the joy of living now instead of 1000 years ago.

dholowiski 16y ago

No, and I don't need pants. But when it's -30 out and I have to shovel snow, they're sure a nice luxury.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

Mz 16y ago

Thousands of years seemed to go by where uprisings didn't need social networking. The Babylonians, Persians and so on had much smaller populations back then. It makes a difference. The scale of population we are dealing with currently is, as far as I know, unprecedented in the history of humankind. That means that things which worked historically will be insufficient to the current situation.

hnhg 16y ago

1. How many revolts have succeeded as a proportion of those that have failed? 2. Think about how the organisation, weaponry, instruments of control and scale of governments has changed over the last several decades from anything ever seen before. Decentralised communications now mean a people can communicate perhaps even faster than their military, for example. 3. Perhaps you've missed that communication allows the voice of the people to reach the outside world in a more personal and representative way than traditional media, and inspires more people to bring pressure onto those governments and remind them the world is watching their actions. If you think that's unimportant, it's precisely what Amnesty International uses on a relatively small scale to great effect.

cgs1019 16y ago

This reasoning fails to take into account the oppressors' possession of technology. Slower forms of communication may have sufficed in the situations you've cited (wherein the oppressor had faster-but-still-slow means of communicating), but when the oppressor has access to instantaneous communication and you do not you are at a severe disadvantage. This is precisely why public access to instantaneous communication is being revoked at this time.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

btilly 16y ago

Let's just take one of those examples. The US revolution. You are dead wrong in claiming that it happened without social media. They didn't have the same types of social media that we do today, but the version they did have they used to the hilt. Back in their day it was the printing press. Everything from pamphlets to Thomas Paine's Common Sense really were the social media of their day. And without them, the US Revolution could very well have failed. Conversely were Thomas Paine alive today, can you doubt that he would have a blog and use twitter?