How much has the internet and communication technology really helped human rights? From the first “Twitter revolution” in Moldova to the Youtube videos of Burmese monks marching against their military leaders, the internet has been heralded as a gateway to information we’d never have had access to otherwise. But how much does it actually help the victims of human rights abuses?
Amnesty International’s panel in London Monday night aimed to address this question, with participants including author Andrew Keen – via the magic of iPhone – and Susan Pointer, director of public policy and government relations at Google.
Discussions about social media often focus only on its incredible potential, with marketing-types sharing stories about consumer engagement and citizen journalists credited with ushering in a new age of journalism. But Annabelle Sreberny, professor of global media and communication at the School of Oriental and African Studies, pointed out that internet tools do nothing new. In 2009 in Iran, Youtube and Facebook did what cassette tapes and leaflets did in the 1979 revolution. What is unprecedented, she said, is the speed and scale of the information dissemination.
Does this help people? With more information around, there’s more to repress – and governments are getting better at using the same tools to their own advantage. They may never have the same innovative ideas as their desperate citizens are forced to come up with, but they have resources, and they have power.
Kevin Anderson, Guardian blogs editor, quoted a Chinese general calling the internet a new battlefield: just because we hear about the success stories doesn’t mean the activists’ enemies are sitting back and letting them get on with it. It’s simply a new front in an age-old political battle – and it’s one where cyber-security must be taken much more seriously.
Plus, no matter how many times you sign an e-petition or turn your Twitter avatar green, internet campaigning will never be enough. There must always be people who take it further, and take real-world action if change is going to be achieved.
Much of the discussion focussed on the big political fights we hear about in the mainstream press – the Iranian revolution, and Google’s tussle with the Chinese government. I’d have liked to hear a little more about how these technologies are helping activists and victims whose plights are not given such attention.
Amnesty campaigns on behalf of people beaten and imprisoned without trial, or on issues like female genital mutilation and the use of rape as a weapon in war. Does the internet really help these people, or does it just allow western journalists and commentators to comfortably discuss other countries’ politics with more information than they would otherwise have had?
Amnesty did comment briefly on this, saying email campaigning had helped mobilise people because of its convenience, although the physical impression of a big bag of campaigning letters is still in some ways more effective than an inbox full of easily-deleted email. And the internet helps the charity to get information from countries they’re not allowed to enter. I can imagine it could be a huge comfort and support to human rights activists working in isolation, but maybe not so much use to those in prison cells.
There’s no straight answer to such a complex question, but the panel highlighted just how complicated the internet’s consequences are going to be – and how imperative it is that they’re discussed.