Social Networks: Learning from The Tamil Tigers, TED Talks and Anonymous

Though all these groups have different mechanisms, they all do a powerful job at connecting people- both online and in the physical world.

 I’m not particularly interested in whether the Internet helps or hinders interaction, in fact I’m a bit tired of that argument. Rather, I’m interested in how physical and online interaction can be best strengthened, in a way that crosses both spheres. Both online and physical are necessary for strong social movements, according to one of the most cited sociologists, Manuel Castells (Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, 2013). I‘m particularly interested in this because I’m wondering how my network or 'community of interest', Cybersalon, can help its members connect better. Equally I think it's important for institutions to change and become more outward focused- enabling interaction between their constituents is one important way. It's interesting that Julian Assange from WikiLeaks is running for the Australian Senate. Who would've envisaged that such a controversial activist group would want to enter an institution, to change it from the inside, no doubt.

 Today’s civil societies need ways to strengthen their connections between people, which are crumbling, according to Robert Putnam’s study of the US (Bowling Alone, 2000). However, more recently, Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman (Networked: The New Social Operating System, 2012) argue that we are more connected to others than ever before, but in a new way, through networked individuals rather than through more traditional societal groups or so-called communities. With 716 billion text messages sent per month, 1.1 billion active monthly users on Facebook and 200 million on Twitter globally we cannot ignore the power of online communication.  When trying to build connections between people we must learn from some of the shining networks and communities out there.


Manuel Castells and Bruno Latour believe that in the future, rather than occupying physical space, in addition to cyberspace, social movements will need to occupy institutional space. Institutions will have to change to reflect the changing power structures we are seeing. By building better tools and frameworks for participation, within public and private organisations, we can enable successful self-­organisation and collaborations ready for the next stage of democracy that is surely coming.

  “The way [chaotic social change will] play out, will depend ultimately if the political institutions open up enough channels of participation for the energy that exists in society for change that could overcome the resistance of the dark forces that exist in all societies."

 (Interview with Manuel Castells by Paul Mason, BBC Radio 4, Oct 2012).

Latour is a professor at Sciences Po Paris and wrote: 'Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor Network Theory', 2005.

 When deciding to look at strong networks, there are a number of types: there are the global 'leaderless' social activist groups who are often cited to by those studying Social Media and Net Culture – such as Occupy and Anonymous ­‐ and on the other hand, hierarchical groups with strong leaders, such as the LTTE (Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka) who are often cited by those studying terrorism, conflict resolution and human rights. The LTTE was one of the first political groups to use the Internet in its campaigns, though this is not widely known (Shyam Tewari: The Internet and Governance in Asia: A Critical Reader, 2007).The Internet has allowed Tamils and their supporters to receive news outside of the other media channels that were heavily censored by the Sri Lankan government. The LTTE successfully raised up to US $300 million a year mostly from their diaspora and networks.
  (Source: Jane's Intelligence Review and Human Rights Watch Report, 2008).

 A third type of network of strong connections between its participants come from the TED Conferences and the Burning Man festival - US real‐world events that have spawned global communities. There’s also Enterprise 2.0 also known as Social or Collaborative Business across businesses. Started by Google and Facebook and quickly adopted by others, these systems aim to help employees, customers and suppliers collaborate, share, and organize information via Web 2.0 technologies. These are important to learn from in terms of internal knowledge management.

 As I said earlier, I’m interested in strengthening connections amongst the nodes in one of my networks, Cybersalon. Cybersalon is unusual as it brings together pluralist groups that cross occupations, race and class across a tech-­savvy audience in the physical world as well as online. It has an ambition of fostering dialogue and collaborations between this diverse range of people-­‐ academia, business, politics and art. It has been around since 1997 and is based in London.

 Context
Online Communities and Social Networks
 A variety of people have studied the impact of the internet on communities in general: from Howard Reingold’s seminal book Virtual Communities in 1993 where he described them as “a social network of individuals who interact through specific social media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue mutual interests or goals”. They can be either weak or strong ties, often the former as people often shift in and out of networks during their lifetimes. (Source: The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited: Mark Granovetter (1983)).

  Anonymity versus Identity WikiLeaks has led the way in terms of governments’ transparency and individuals’ privacy. Its founder, Julian Assange, advocates the need for anonymity to unearth what people really want to say, not only for whistleblowing but for opinions too. Both WikiLeaks and Anonymous have used Tor to ensure total anonymity. Anonymous formed on 4chan bulletin boards where such anonymity is encouraged. Given the recent disclosures by Edward Snowden on surveillance, this may well become important for social networks. Google and Facebook on the other hand are trying to ensure that users use their real identities.

“Tor means that submissions can be hidden and internal discussions can take place out of site of would-­be monitors.”
WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy: David Leigh and Luke Harding, 2011.


 Hierarchical Versus Leaderless Groups Felix Stalder in "Enter the Swarm: Anonymous and the Global Protest Movements" talks about the important dichotomy between hierarchical organizations based on the principle of representation, where leaders are formally legitimised through procedures of delegation, usually based on voting, to speak and act on behalf of their constituencies. He argues that their legitimacy has been weakened by corruption, favouritism and institutional capture. On the other side are self-­consciously leaderless organizations which reject the principle of representation in favour of direct participation in concrete projects. Many of the latter have become “a social swarm” consisting of independent individuals who are using simple tools and rules to coordinate themselves horizontally into a collective effort.

(Source: n.n.: Notes and Nodes on Society, Technology and the Space on the Possible (Feb 2012)). One of the fundamental choices a network must rests on the debate about leaderless versus leader‐led organisations. Thinkers include Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom’s ‘The Starfish and the Spider’, Harvard government professor Barbara Kellerman’s The End of Leadership and British diplomat Carne Ross’s The Leaderless Revolution.

 Clay Shirky, a leading academic on social media from NYU, identified three main requirements that must come together for such loosely organised cooperation to emerge: promise, tool, and bargain. Only when the three dimensions match for a large number of people does cooperation get underway. (Source: Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations: Clay Shirky (2008). New York, Penguin Press.)

  Hierarchical Groups Online: The LTTE-­‐ The Liberation of Tamil Tigers of Eelam, Sri Lanka

“The Tamil diaspora is one of the most networked and its members are extensive users of the internet.” (Source: P.179, ‘The Internet and Governance in Asia: A Critical Reader’, 2007). The LTTE’s online strategies are shrouded in secrecy, even now, after the Separatist war has ended. One important source is book ‘The Internet and Governance in Asia: A Critical Reader’ (2007). In this, Shyam Tekwani’s paper argues that “a case study of the LTTE offers the ideal model to understand how online networks have been incorporated into the operational strategies of terrorist groups and how online networks of contemporary terrorist groups are as much of a security threat as their land-­based networks”. He goes onto say that the LTTE’s online strategies over twenty years are being copied by other similar groups around the world.

Social Activism and Leaderless Groups

 Zeynep Tufekci has written on #Occupy Wall Street in the US to the #M15 movement in Spain, from Tahrir Square and #Jan 25 in Egypt, to Taksim Square and #occupygezi in Turkey. She comments that these social movements, while coming from strikingly different backgrounds and contexts, share structural and stylistic elements. She terms them “networked movements” and says that they all have a lack of identifiable institutional leadership, either in institutional form or as spokespersons. (However there are other forms of leadership). This means that they cannot be negociated with behind closed doors.
In ‘Revolution 2.0’ Wael Ghonim (the Google employee and founder of the ‘We Are All Khaled Said’ Facebook page) recounts how Mubarak’s top officials tried to negotiate an end to the demonstrations with him. He could only chuckle as he had no such power, says Tufekci.

Paolo Gerbaudo, a Cybersalon participant says in 'Tweets and the Streets' (2012) that these movements are centred around a ‘no’, an opposition to something, rather than having strategic action towards taking political power themselves. Social media works well in this kind of context, but this also explains why, compared to the large size of the movements, they often have limited long-­term impact. The thinking around Social Media Activism would benefit from comparison with other types of long-­‐term political protests such as the LTTE, who have been using technology for more than 20 years. The Internet has meant the LTTE’s operations became “quicker, cheaper, more covert and more varied”. It also enabled them to lengthen their staying power. By bringing in thinking from the business world too, the analysis will be enhanced further.
(Source:P.175, Shyam Tekwani (2007)).


Online and Physical Worlds: the importance of the two spheres Yochai Benkler from Harvard stresses the importance of Occupy Wall St having both a very important digital and physical presence to garner support and awareness:
(Source: Protesters Look for Ways to Feed the Web: By Jennifer Preston (November 24, 2011); The New York Times).

  “I think the online component was critical: the ability to stream video, to capture the images and create records and narratives of sacrifice and resistance” but “the ability to focus on a national agenda will depend on actual, on-­‐the-­‐ground, face-­‐to-­‐face actions, laying your body down for your principles — with the ability to capture the images and project them to the world”.

 In November 2011 the 1.7 million videos that the Occupy movement disseminated on You Tube were viewed 73 million times, together with more than 400 Facebook pages with 2.7 million fans around the world. An important physical group that have a significant online following is TED Talks or Conferences, who state on its website: “What began as a small conference in California has grown to a global community, many million strong, focused on exchanging and spreading ideas”. This is a key example to learn from. Likewise, Burning Man festival, which started off with 20 people in 1986, has grown to 68,000 people today. One interpretation of its success is its reinforcement of ideas of sharing and exchange, making it a key resource for companies like Google to send their employees to, argues Fred Turner.

(Source: Burning Man at Google: a Cultural Infrastructure for New Media Production, Fred Turner, New Media Society, 2009).

 For institutions to have a deeper understanding of the important role they play in shaping thought and power structures, as Castells and Latour argue, is crucial. They need to understand how they can bring in greater participation through different technologies and tools. Else they risk becoming irrelevant one­‐way ivory towers.

Questions 
 • What are some key uniting forces for strong networked groups and how are these strengthened or lost over time?
• What are some of the pros and cons of accountable and non-­accountable leadership networks and how do online technologies benefit each of them?
• For ‘weak­‐tie’ networks what are some mechanisms of ensuring participation and a sense of belonging?
• How best can we reach the aims of collaboration and dialogue between diverse networked individuals?
• How should identities and privacy be managed?
• How should we best facilitate differences of opinion? Flaming on bulletin boards was an early method, what is best used today?
• What sort of digital system(s) would work best for pluralistic groups that operates both and offline?