Encrypting rebellion: There will be no more Facebook revolutions

By: |
Published: October 21, 2019 4:30:42 AM

Encrypting rebellion, Facebook revolution, Umbrella Movement, Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, Signal, the encrypted messenger, and Mattermost, an open-source alternative to the enterprise messenger Slack, also are popular among activists. (Reuters photo)

By Leonid Bershidsky

Twitter revolution, Facebook revolution—these terms became widespread during the Arab Spring rebellions at the beginning of this decade. They are outdated now: For today’s protesters in Hong Kong and Barcelona, or for Extinction Rebellion activists in capitals around the world, the social networks and even messenger applications run by big US corporations are becoming a secondary tool, and one not used for organisational purposes.After protesters in Egypt forced president Hosni Mubarak to resign in February 2011, one of the revolution’s public faces, Google executive Wael Ghonim, went on CNN to be interviewed by anchors Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer. When Blitzer asked him what was going to happen next, the following exchange ensued:
Ghonim: Ask Facebook.
Blitzer: Ask what?
Ghonim: Facebook.
Cooper: Facebook.
Blitzer: Facebook. You’re giving Facebook a lot of credit for this?
Ghonim: Yes, for sure. I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him, actually. This revolution started online. This revolution started on Facebook.
That was so 2011. If there is any one app today’s protesters would want to credit, it is Telegram. But not even this itinerant messenger, whose team was based in St Petersburg, Berlin, London and Singapore before ending up in Dubai, plays the same kind of outsize role that Facebook and Twitter took on in previous protests, up to and including Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement of 2014.

With its powerful group messaging functionality and “channel” feature which allows users to broadcast information, Telegram is the central media platform for the Hong Kong protesters of today, who are now pushing for greater democracy for the former British colony. It is also the go-to tool for pro-independence Catalans who have taken to the streets to protest the long prison sentences for leaders of the Spanish region’s doomed 2017 secession bid. There, the secretive Democratic Tsunami group uses Telegram to communicate with its 150,000 followers. It also uses a Telegram bot to collect data for an app it created to map protest activities and street clashes.

For its part, Extinction Rebellion has been moving from Facebook-owned WhatsApp to Telegram because it allows bigger group chats, and because it has a voting tool that allows independent-minded rebels to decide what they want to do. (This tool is also used in Hong Kong).

Signal, the encrypted messenger, and Mattermost, an open-source alternative to the enterprise messenger Slack, also are popular among activists.
Direct file transfers, encrypted messengers and specially created apps have become essential for spreading all kinds of material that might land its distributors in trouble—such as the fake boarding passes Democratic Tsunami sent out so protesters could get into the Barcelona airport on October 14, causing more than 100 flights to be cancelled.

Of course, today’s activists still use social media platforms run by big US corporations. But when they do, it is mainly for outward communication such as with the media, not with people actively involved in the protests. Since the Arab Spring, governments have mastered use of the big commercial social media networks themselves. Since the Hong Kong protests began, both Facebook and Twitter have complained about China’s attempts to use them for disinformation and counterpropaganda. Besides, many protesters believe their anonymity isn’t well protected on the social networks, Malek Dudakov of the Moscow-based think tank Center for the Study of

New Communications wrote in a recent report about the use of the technology by the Hong Kong protest movement.
Telegram, run by a nonprofit founded by Russian libertarian Pavel Durov, has a reputation for resisting government attempts at censorship and infiltration. Russia has attempted to block the messenger for refusing to hand over encryption keys to domestic intelligence, but Telegram has fought back and is still accessible in most of Russia. Mainland China has had more success in cutting off access to it. But even on Telegram, the risk of losing one’s anonymity is a potential problem. One protest group moderator in Hong Kong was arrested in June. Durov has accused China of trying to take his service down in Hong Kong with distributed denial of service attacks.

Those efforts contrast with concerns that big US companies are more likely to cooperate with the authorities. Earlier this month, Apple Inc. approved a smartphone map app that Hong Kong protesters have been using for distribution in its App Store after an initial ban. But then it swiftly took HKmap.live down again. Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook explained that the Hong Kong cybersecurity authority had told the company that the app was being used by criminals to “target individual officers for violence and to victimise individuals and property where no police are present.” This episode prompted the Democratic Tsunami in Catalonia to release its own app for Android only—and not through the Google Play Store, in which most Android users get their apps.

Even though its services are blocked in mainland China, Google has also behaved in a way some protesters, and even some of its employees, find suspicious. Citing an internal rule against the monetisation of current events, the Play Store banned a game called “The Revolution of Our Times” that allowed players to act out the role of Hong Kong protesters. The game’s developers had promised to give 80% of their proceeds to charity.

Big Tech’s role, even if unwitting, in unrest has always looked like an aberration. Where the profit motive is involved, cooperating with governments makes more sense than facilitating those who fight them. Now, the dust is settling on the tech revolution, and real-world revolutions need non-commercial tech tools. So protesters either design their own or fall back on open-source apps or those developed by nonprofits. Facebook and Twitter are where propaganda battles rage and insults fly, not where action is coordinated—and that is a natural consequence of their evolution as big businesses that attract way too much government attention.
So, if you’re wondering what comes next for all the modern-day protest movements, don’t ask Facebook.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners

Get live Stock Prices from BSE and NSE and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Next Stories
1Austin power: What does it take to drive a golf ball over 500 yards?  
2Indira or Kashmir: Why politicians are so sensitive to what Western world thinks  
3India needs to focus on TB cases going unreported