Imran Jamal is at the Berkman meeting in Istanbul as the “unofficial UK representative” of the Burma Global Action Network, a group that advocates for the monks and citizens who protested the Burmese junta during the “Saffron Revoluion”. His focus is on the use of Facebook for digital activism, reporting his experiences using Facebook during a recent campaign.
He reminds us that Burma has been a dictatorship since 1962, when the military junta took over from a democratic government. The junta now calls itself the “State Peace and Development Council” – SPDC – a truly Orwellian name. Since the 8888 uprising (a widespread protest on August 8, 1988) the nation has been officially named “Myanmar” – Jamal contends, “It’s another way to make the world forget about Burma.”
Burma vaulted back onto the global stage in August 2007, with the “Saffron Revolution” – widespread economic protests led by Burmese monks. To document the events in Burma and to coordinate events in solidarity, Jamal and others began a Facebook group. The group, at its peak, reached 440,000 users, a fairly astounding number. The users it reached were different from the dedicated activists who were reading the main Burma advocacy websites. Jamal feels like the Facebook group served as a clearinghouse for information, as some of the Burma advocacy sites don’t work well together.
Some of the “features” of Facebook are problematic when using the tool as a professional organizer. The “wall” of the Burma Facebook group was a very popular feature… but thousands of comments asked whether the protests should be about “Burma” or “Myanmar”, a debate that’s taken place for years and has no good resolution. As the administrator of a Facebook group, you have limited control over your page. Messages can get lost – during the peak of the campaign, over a hundred pages of status messages appeared per day. In that flood of data, it’s possible to lose key messages, like the announcement of an event in Mongolia. There were major layout changes the organizers wanted to implement, but they weren’t possible within the Facebook system.
The Facebook group didn’t attempt to raise money – it partnered with an outside foundation to support that work. Instead, it focused on bringing as large a group as possible together. The people who got involved weren’t dedicated activists, for the most part. They were bored students, clicking on their friend’s links, possibly being drawn in by some of the striking images of monks marching in the streets. The hope is that some percentage of the people involved with these groups could turn into long-term advocates, but Jamal characterizes many of the users as “serial activists”, moving from Darfur to Burma to whatever cause is next.
There were clear upsides to the Burma Fcebook group. At the very least, it worked as an intermediary between the different Burma activist groups, some of which don’t communicate well with one another, and many of which are poor at communicating with the wider world. But there were a lot of downsides as well. The organizers found themselves characterized as spammers by the Facebook operators because they were sending too many messages a day.
Jamal wonders whether Facebook is simply a glorified petition. “It’s very easy for peopl to join, but there’s no guarantee they come back, and it’s not neccesarily the tool for building an activist base.” One of the major things the BGAN group tried to do is move dedicated users to their website, in the hopes they would get more engaged with the effort, and that communication could be organized outside the Facebook structure.
In a discussion after the talk, people speculated that Facebook might be more anonymous than blogging, suggesting that the Facebook operators would be loath to release information on Burmese users posting information on Facebook. Jamal explained that most Burmese bloggers weren’t actually posting directly, but were sending information to friends outside Burma via the phone, rather than posting online. Given the pervasiveness of surveillance in Burma, it’s likely that posting to Facebook is as dangerous as posting to a blog from within the nation.
Facebook is good in that the market is huge, but in terms of mass organization its not great. Its difficult to keep track of wall posts and comments and I find the debates on them are not in depth enough. It tends to be two line, yes’s and no’s. However, the world is much better with it than without.
A lot of people and groups that try to use Facebook for organizing or politics don’t understand it because it’s not part of their lives, and come away disappointed. Facebook is really most effective for “insiders”, people who are familiar with the ways of Facebook and well integrated into it. It’s not set up to be quite as useful to outsiders.
For example, last year a candidate for Congress near here, Jamie Eldridge, made very effective use of Facebook to get & organize volunteers, in part because some of his strongest supporters were students for whom Facebook was a normal part of their social life.
I saw Jamie Eldridge at the state house on the day of the gay marriage vote, where I was taking pictures, so when I posted those pictures I tagged him in a couple. Other people who had friended him saw those photos in their newsfeeds, “Ofer Inbar has tagged Jamie Eldridge in a photo” with album name “Gay Marriage vote” or something like that. Eldridge was one of the district whips in the statehouse in the effort to corrall votes in favor of gay marriage, and this was one of his key issues, so for more casual supporters who had friended him, seeing that on their feed reinforced this message. Social photo tagging is one of the most powerful features of Facebook, but one that is usually neglected by outsiders trying to use Facebook to organize. Also, that is one example of how Facebook is better designed for organizing that is “closer” to the users.
Obama’s people have shown some understanding of Facebook, and his recent endorser MoveOn even more. For example, on Super Tuesday MoveOn emailed a reminder to all their members to set their Facebook status to “I’m voting for Obama today” so that friends’ and friends of friends’ newsfeeds would be likely to show a few of these status messages.
Just having a group and posting information there is a fairly weak use of Facebook, but it’s the first thing that comes to mind for people for whom Facebook isn’t part of their lives, because it’s more like how they’re used to seeing the web used.
Pingback: Bluey Blog | RobertBluey.com » links for 2008-02-11
You think SPDC is Orwellian? Before 1997, the junta was the State Law and Order Restoration Council or SLORC. No joke.
Hmm.. interesting point about serial activists. Does that mean that we can’t blame it all on the fact that
Facebook Groups/Causes doesn’t really incorporate the ladder of engagement? Or do we need a new activism/engagement theory for the Facebook generation?
Facebook Causes: A One Night Stand With Not Flirting
Social Network Applications and the Ladder of Engagement
Pingback: …My heart’s in Accra » The Cute Cat Theory Talk at ETech
Pingback: Digital activism and censorship (and more about China) » The Bartlett Diaries
Pingback: The Perils of Facebook Activism: Nisha Susan Locked Out of Pink Chaddi Campaign’s Facebook Group | Gauravonomics Blog
Pingback: Global Voices Advocacy » The Perils of Facebook Activism: Nisha Susan Locked Out of Pink Chaddi Campaign’s Facebook Group
Pingback: The Perils of Facebook Activism: Nisha Susan Locked Out of Pink Chaddi Campaign’s Facebook Group | Internet Filtering Monitor
Pingback: The Hub
Pingback: Ethan Zuckerman on Facebook and Burma / Myanmar
Pingback: Technologies for worldchanging « Globograma