Iran is about to go to the polls again, and this time
Ahmadinejad definitely can't win (unless they change the laws like
Putin). But if you remember back in 2009, Ahmad. was declared the winner
despite suspicious polling conditions. That sparked the "Green
Revolution" where reform-minded Iranians (many students and young
people) risked their lives to take to the streets and demand a fair
election. The gov't cracked down on them, and dozens died. The most
famous protester death was of Neda Agha-Soltan (below, graphic video),
who became a symbol of resistance, and maybe even a hero martyr. She
bears the inglorious title of most viewed death on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76W-0GVjNEc&bpctr=1371270949
Social
media was often an asset during the Arab Spring (and Persian Green
Revolution), but in this case it went wrong. After Neda's death,
interested parties went online and found the Facebook page of a Neda
Soltani (an English lit student in Iran with a similar sounding name,
who had not participated in the protests and was very much alive). They
mistakenly identified her as the victim, disseminated her photo, and
soon it was on major media outlets like CNN. She and her family were
getting sympathy messages and vows that her death would inspire regime
change. There was no journalistic process or due diligence - they just
ran with the narrative. And wrong info goes viral just as quickly as
correct info.
Of course Neda #2 tried to set the record straight by posting
FB updates and contacting CNN that they were displaying the wrong photo
(CNN continued to show the erroneous photo and never issued an apology).
Eventually this story got to the leaders of the Islamic Republic and
the Iranian Opposition, and both lashed out at Neda #2. The regime
claimed that she was a phony and agitator who faked her death to hurt
the gov't, and the opposition called her a "whore" for daring to tell
them they messed up, thereby threatening the perfect Neda Jean D'Arc
martyr story that they were using as a rallying cry. People believe what
they want to believe, and get mad when you show them evidence to the
contrary. And somewhere in all this mess, an actual Neda #1 was dead,
with grieving loved ones seeing the wrong girl's face displayed on
protest signs and TV shows 24-7.
So Neda #2 was getting it on both sides, and even received
death threats. The gov'ts claims against her could have resulted in
prison/torture/death, so she decided to leave her life and flee abroad
as an exile. She currently lives in Europe, and has become a political
activist because of her ordeal.
Like the NSA scandal, I think examples like this (albeit rare)
demonstrate that technology advances faster than we simpleton humans
can learn to use it responsibly. Just because we are enabled to do a
thing doesn't mean we should. In general, social media is probably
low-harm, low-risk, and may even do great good here and there. Same with
secret spying I suppose. But how many destroyed lives do we just
"tolerate" in order to enjoy unfettered, unaccountable use of these
technological wonders? Tech moves at blazing speed because a lot of
money is at stake (same with traditional media and breaking the big
story). For the record, CNN was wrong about which Lanza shot up the
school and the Supreme Court verdict on Obamacare too.
But what voice of restraint will help us take a deep breath and
apply the brakes when needed? Who is fact-checking? There just isn't
enough time, and once the snowball starts rolling and getting bigger,
it's really hard to counter. So what can be done? Who gets punished when
their irresponsible social media use results in innocents harmed?
Especially since cyberspace is "borderless", what set of norms and
policies can we all agree to? I'm not saying we should abandon these
tools just because we haven't worked out the rules yet. But clearly we
are driving without a license here. And it's not just Neda, think of the
kids who have suffered depression and even killed themselves from
online bullying, not to mention all the affairs/divorces, sexual
predators, scams, propaganda/hate speech, fraud, hacking, you name it. I
don't mean to be an anti-tech luddite here, and I freely admit I
dislike FB/Twitter and have/will never use them (because I don't see a
need in my life). But like with drugs and food, we have to (in theory)
rigorously test their safety BEFORE we put them in our bodies. Somehow
we accept a priori that tech is infallible and altruistic, and approach
it more recklessly/trustingly. We are also more dismissive when
consequences like Neda are exposed (again, because it conflicts with our
preconceived beliefs), partly because blame is more diffuse and opaque
than with drugs or food. The titans of tech like Biz Stone, Jobs, and
Zuck really believe that their products are saving the world, like
penicillin and the printing press before them. But even medicine can
kill if misused. Let's try to be a little more grounded and
conscientious, and maybe future Nedas can be avoided.
