Recent Egyptian uprising

I'm sure everyone has read about the recent Egyptian uprising, and how it was fuelled by years and years of pent-up rage at the authoritarian government and corruption within the ranks of the military and security forces.

The main driving force was unprecedented: It was the younger generation, the ones so commonly called "politically apathetic". Their main source of communication and information? Not propaganda-infused newspapers, not government-approved radio stations, not mind-numbing television, but the Internet. Yes, by Internet I mean social networking sites made popular four years ago like Facebook and Twitter, and information through search engines like Google (a search engine)and news sites.

There is a reason why they call it 'Infocomm', or Information Communication.

To the main questions: 1) What are the implications of this rise in the power of technology? 2) How can or might it change the way we live or govern? 3) Consider the pros and cons at the great influence of facebook and twitter.

Let's note that the technology could work two ways. If one could use it for revolution and rebellion in Egypt, one could also use it for the same purpose in China, the United States and even Singapore. It will always work as long as the key purpose, communication, is not taken away by the government or the web host. Assuming I'm a terrorist and I use the sites to bring people to my cause. It would work if neither the government nor the site takes action against me.

In this way, the country would become less safe. Terrorists would spring up everywhere (or maybe violently racist people). Your friend might be innocent one day, and a cultist the next. We would then need to create the virtual equivalent of an army to police and combat potentially dangerous ideas. Following the idea of influence over the younger generation through the internet, politicians might get themselves on the internet and try to appeal to the younger generation.

Another implication would be the over reliance on technology. Assuming I want to get a message out, I'd logically use the internet, seeing that it has worked so well. However, the internet crashes because of failure of the phone line. I am now technologically crippled and thus cannot get my message out. This is a bad outcome of over reliance on technology.

Third question (because combining it with the other two would look weird) - The influence of Facebook and Twitter does not come close to being great; rather, it just serves as more of a messenger. Facebook and Twitter have always been addictive for people wanting to stay updated on new events. When you first learnt about the Egyptian uprising, would you take to the streets? Yes, if you are already angry at the government. Would you support some obscure fund-raising ceremony that appears on your homepage? Probably not.

I guess my point is that Facebook and Twitter as networking sites do not influence one's opinion, it just serves to inform. Whether one takes action or not is another case. The good thing about it is that it brings one's message across to a audience quickly, especially if it is a message concerning the masses. However the bad things about those networking sites is that they can be pretty addictive, causing failing grades in students.