@ GNΩME
2025-02-03 07:37:44
In a striking contrast of ideals versus actions, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently awarded the Medal of Freedom. Yet, it is impossible to forget [what happened in February 2011](https://youtu.be/grFWkyXPfxk), when ex-CIA analyst and well-known dissident Ray McGovern was violently removed by security while silently protesting one of Clinton’s speeches at George Washington University. McGovern’s only act of defiance was standing up and turning his back to Clinton in protest of America’s ongoing wars of aggression. The incident, which unfolded under Clinton’s watch, stands as a stark reminder of the selective nature of so-called freedom and democracy.
The irony of the moment was profound. Clinton's speech [that day](http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm) was ostensibly about the brave individuals in Egypt who had stood up against authoritarian rule, using the internet to organize their dissent. The same U.S. government that praised online activism abroad seemed intolerant of peaceful, silent protest within its own borders.
Over the past two decades, mainstream media has pushed a narrative that social media platforms like [Twitter](https://youtu.be/BYSchIVpEJ8), [Facebook](https://youtu.be/UoRspCp5Xn0), and [YouTube ](https://youtu.be/ja-tbqN5-Jk)have played an instrumental role in shaping revolutions and uprisings across the world. From Moldova and Iran to Egypt and Tunisia, reporters with little on-the-ground knowledge have eagerly proclaimed these digital platforms as revolutionary tools of democracy. The only problem? This oft-repeated story is largely[ a myth](https://youtu.be/pFGSplRR7oI).
While journalistic laziness explains some of this exaggeration—reporters compiling their stories from hotel rooms rather than gathering firsthand accounts—the truth runs much deeper. The idea of a "social media revolution" has been deliberately constructed by U.S. State Department-linked NGOs with vested interests in overthrowing governments that do not align with Washington’s geopolitical agenda.
One of the key figures in shaping this narrative is [Evgeny Morozov](https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/open-society-fellowship?fellow=evgeny-morozov), a former fellow of George Soros’ Open Society Institute and a visiting scholar at Stanford University. Morozov pioneered the concept of the "Twitter Revolution" during the [2009 Moldovan protests](https://slate.com/technology/2012/01/anti-vaccine-activists-9-11-deniers-and-googles-social-search.html), arguing that social media facilitated "flash mobs" and "huge mobilization efforts" against authoritarian regimes. His language, promoted in publications like [Foreign Policy](https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/04/07/moldovas-twitter-revolution/), [The Economist](https://web.archive.org/web/20150504011512/http://www.economist.com/node/12815678?story_id=12815678), and [openDemocracy](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/the-alternatives-alternative/), laid the foundation for the media’s portrayal of networked protests.
However, even Morozov was forced to later acknowledge flaws in his argument. [He admitted](https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/04/07/more-analysis-of-twitters-role-in-moldova/) that at the time of the so-called "Twitter Revolution" in Moldova, there were only about 70 registered Twitter users in the entire country. Despite this glaring inconsistency, the Western media ran with the story.
The same pattern repeated in the 2009 Iranian unrest, where an alleged flood of 30,000 tweets provided live updates on the protests. [Most of these tweets](https://mashable.com/archive/twitter-iran-election), however, were in English and were posted by newly registered accounts with identical profile pictures—hardly the grassroots digital uprising the media portrayed. Notably, [Israeli news outlets](https://web.archive.org/web/20090714235359/https://chartingstocks.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/jpost.jpg) began covering these "tweets" almost immediately, [raising questions](https://web.archive.org/web/20090619154321/http://www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via-twitter/) about external orchestration.
Similarly, during the Arab Spring, social media was widely credited for fueling protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. Yet, the data tells a different story. At the height of these uprisings, the combined number of [Twitter users](https://mashable.com/archive/egypt-twitter-infographic) in those three countries was under 15,000. [Facebook](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/jul/22/facebook-countries-population-use#data), while more widespread, still had only a 4.5% penetration rate in Egypt by mid-2010—dwarfed by the reach of television networks.
Even those who originally championed the "social media revolution" have had to admit that the phenomenon was blown out of proportion. What they refuse to acknowledge, however, is the strategic motivation behind these uprisings. Who benefits from these revolutions, and whose interests do they ultimately serve?
At a [2010 Berlin conference](https://youtu.be/yQ1b67Noy9w), Morozov conspicuously avoided addressing these critical questions. His silence speaks volumes. [The reality is](https://youtu.be/LAlbajRFgUE) that "social media revolutions" are often less about organic uprisings and more about the West’s longstanding practice of using digital tools as part of broader regime-change strategies.
In 2011, for instance, the U.S. State Department funded Psiphon, an online encryption system designed to help users bypass government firewalls. This technology was distributed in Syria, conveniently aiding opposition forces at a time when the U.S. was actively working to destabilize the Assad government. Yet, when Syria was later found using U.S.-developed internet filtering technology, it was condemned for [violating American trade laws](https://web.archive.org/web/20120522162400/https://arabiangazette.com/syria-violating-trade-laws/).
The most glaring hypocrisy is that while U.S. officials champion the internet as a tool for democracy in foreign countries, they simultaneously push for more restrictive internet laws at home. In 2011, Senator Joe Lieberman openly discussed using internet filtering technology to regulate American citizens’ access to information—ironically sounding much like the authoritarian leaders Washington claims to oppose.
This contradiction exposes the true nature of the social media revolution myth. Far from being an organic expression of people’s will, it is often just another weapon in the arsenal of Western powers seeking to manipulate and destabilize governments that refuse to align with their interests. [The very same politicians](https://web.archive.org/web/20130919221400/https://youtube.com/watch?v=OBB1S86_yBY) who praise internet activists in Iran or Syria are the ones clamping down on online freedoms in their own countries.
The story of social media as a revolutionary force is not one of grassroots activism triumphing over oppression. Instead, it is a carefully crafted narrative, used to justify interventionist policies and promote regime change under the guise of "democracy promotion." As history has repeatedly shown, the beneficiaries of these so-called revolutions are rarely the people on the ground—but rather, the geopolitical architects pulling the strings from afar.