Social networking as a sphere was introduced to the world around a decade ago, and in less than three years became an essential element of social life around the globe. And it is quite easy to understand the exact reason social networking boomed to its present scale. From a psychological point of view the need for social networking is a simple reflection of a vital need of every person, and that is to compensate the lack of real life communication with a virtual one. That might be one of the reasons the number of subscribers using the worldwide web is growing extremely rapidly every year, with 22% of world’s population using internet every day, whereas just five years ago this figure was several time less. Such an active use of web contributed to the rise of social networks and related projects, such as blogs and microblogs. As a result not only we have a growing number of people using internet and networks, but also the growing influence of the networks on people themselves. An instance of this constantly growing influence is the role of social networking in the "Arab Spring". Public activism and revolutionary actions during the "Arab Spring" protest of 2010 led to people all over the world discussing the role of social networking media in these events. But did internet and social networking media really play the dominant role in the events of the "Arab Spring"? It is hard to consider this question without having a proper understanding of how a revolution is done. A successful experience of activism and revolutionary actions in the "pre-digital age" was based on the type of relationship, in which people with proactive attitude knew each other directly, and were able to cooperate basing on their ideas, and views. But social media platforms today are built differently around the "weak links". Successful experiences of protest are also associated with a centralized structure (hierarchy) and specific leaders, as it was during 1960 in the United States when movement under the leadership of Martin Luther King took place, whereas social networks are simply tools for the purpose of communication between people, when they find it difficult to maintain a connection in other ways. On the contrary, weak connections and ties that dominate the web can only be effective in a certain sense when it does not come to "high-risk activity". In addition, complete absence of any hierarchy in social networking and online protests is a feature that will not allow those to become the only means for an escalation of active and revolutionary actions. Social networks are fundamentally non-hierarchical, and such free structure of social networks makes them vulnerable inside and out. Therefore, with the help of social networks news can be passed, people can be gathered and coordinated, funds can be raised, suitable donors can be found, but it is extremely difficult to start a revolution. Now, after some time has passed, and facts have been carefully studied, it is obvious that is usually used as a GPS navigator of revolution, a bulletin coordinating the masses, with the main driving force still being in hands of people. But without social networking any revolutionary actions will be harder to carry out, even with needed hierarchy, needed funding, but when there are not enough activists due to them being poorly informed success can be reached.
Carvin, A. (2013). Distant Witness. New York, NY: CUNY Journalism Press.
Taki, M., & Coretti, L. (2013, April). The role of social media in the Arab uprisings – past and present. Westminster papers in communication and culture, 9(2).