Amro Ali makes an interesting observation of the power of social networking such as FB and Twitter but I think he undermines both the Tunisians and the Egyptians on the role played by the revolutionaries by comparing it to that of the role played by the Internet.

It wasn't the Internet that was getting tortured, kidnapped and killed though it did publish the facts as seen by individuals and found common ground for the people to unite finding a similarity of views.

Mr Ali belittles the Egyptians and makes light of their ideals for a free Egypt when he implies that it was to satisfy their addiction to social networking that led them to Tahrir Square putting their lives in danger for their aspirations and vision of a brave, modern and more equatable system of governance.

Furthermore he chose only these two Arab countries and doesn't reflect on the effect of FB and Twitter in Libya, Syria, Jordan, Bahrain, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E all highly important players.

The role that will be inevitably played by the USA, Israel and the EU I think will have a much more important role in the outcome. I find his views that the Internet has a role to play in the Arab Spring are without doubt correct but his conclusions of the degree of its importance are a little too trite and simplistic.

Mubarak had to go because have had not the stomach to back an attack on Iran for its' oil.The USA/Israel always premote despots who rape their people,so they are more easily removed under the banner of Western freedom when they do not conform to corporate imperialist's agendas.

Ulis, thank you for your points, I do want to make it clear that by bringing social media into the equation I’m not undermining the role of the Egyptian people for their desire for freedom. I stated in my article that social media is not an agent of change, people are. Social media was a facilitator. Moreover my argument is about academics who are triviliasing the role of social media in the uprisings.

I’m currently in Alexandria Egypt where I interviewed, this morning, several students from the College of Veterinary Sciences. Along with other youth groups I have spoken with, there is a growing consensus (so far) that social media cannot be separated from the unfolding of the revolution. Although they did stress that it played the most critical part in the early days.

“Mr Ali belittles the Egyptians and makes light of their ideals for a free Egypt when he implies that it was to satisfy their addiction to social networking that led them to Tahrir Square putting their lives in danger for their aspirations and vision of a brave, modern and more equitable system of governance.”

Most young Egyptians I have questioned so far about this event, gave their reasons for leaving home the day Egypt went offline has been to spite the government for the censorship move. Yes, the youth desired a free Egypt, but in any uprising, not every citizen is necessarily an active protester.
“It wasn't the Internet that was getting tortured, kidnapped and killed though it did publish the facts as seen by individuals and found common ground for the people to unite finding a similarity of views.”

Although I don’t see how I implied that, even if we were to agree with the statement of the internet being a common ground for people to discuss their views, does this not have any arising implications? i.e. coordination of protests, organisation of groups?, etc No small matter indeed.

“Furthermore he chose only these two Arab countries and doesn't reflect on the effect of FB and Twitter in Libya, Syria, Jordan, Bahrain, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E all highly important players.”

And should this be a reason for academia to suffocate social media out from their discussions? The fact that I did not choose those other countries does not invalidate my argument. The effects of social media in the coordination and organisaiton of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprising is too compelling to ignore. The other Arab countries may or may not be utilising social media to the degree the other two did. Again, facilitation should not be confused with causal factors.

“The role that will be inevitably played by the USA, Israel and the EU I think will have a much more important role in the outcome. I find his views that the Internet has a role to play in the Arab Spring are without doubt correct but his conclusions of the degree of its importance are a little too trite and simplistic.”

The commentator has misunderstood the argument being made. The original title for this article, until it was changed by OO, was “When Academia refuses to cite Social Media”. Its aim, as the title and content argue, is that academics are trivialising the role of social media in their discourse on the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions.
External parties will be a crucial factor in shaping outcomes, but where did I argue otherwise? I simply stated that social media is being utilised as an additional political space for Egyptians wishing to play a part in their country’s future.

This piece was about the role of social media in facilitating an uprising. It was not about the future of these countries.
The Arab Magna Cartas are being written in blood, tears and courage. But social media, particularly in the early stages, played a tremendous role in organising and coordinating the demonstrations. This is a topic that needs to be explored in depth, and academics need to open the space for discussions, not shut it out.