Morozov also claims* that the “tools” didn’t drive people into the streets,  the grievances did.  Once again,  creating a non-existent argument about how cyber-utopians are not as concerned with what caused the revolution as they are the ‘tools’.

he dared to suggest that the grievances that pushed protesters into the streets deserve far more attention than the tools by which they chose to organise

And once again,  as Jay Rosen points out in his tweet,  no names, no links,  no specific reference.  Just an abstract “they”

Then he follows that line with: 

This was akin to spitting in the faces of the digerati – or, perhaps worse still, on their iPads – and they reacted accordingly

Just dripping with contempt for the constructed people he apparently loves to attack.  I can just hear him “on their IPADS!”

Then he turns to his apparent boredom with talking about the role of technology (or “boredom with” those apsects of technology that he envisions his cyber utopians talking about):

just like the role of the tape-recorder in the 1979 Iranian revolution and of the fax machine in the 1989 revolutions – is of interest to a handful of academics and virtually no one else

He goes on with his references to UNreferenced , unlinked, fictional characters:

By emphasising the liberating role of the tools and downplaying the role of human agency, such accounts make Americans feel proud of their own contribution to events in the Middle East.

“Downplaying the role of human agency”, eh?  Yeah,  I see lots of people talking about how the computers and networks would become self-aware and spawn a revolution all on their  own.  It keeps getting better with this guy.

Next, Morozov comes close to losing his own argument:

If, of course, the uprising was not spontaneous and its leaders chose Facebook simply because that’s where everybody is, it’s a far less glamorous story.

Because “that’s where everybody is”? And why is it that “everybody” is there? Morozov doesn’t want to ask that question. That would endanger  his argument,  since that would lead to the issues such as how Facebook ,  being a “place” where one can …uhhhhh…FIND OTHERS and like,  SAY STUFF to them,  and uhhhh….like, learn stuff about how others are talking about doing something about the country’s direction….hmmmmm.

In 1989, the fax-machine industry didn’t employ an army of lobbyists – and fax users didn’t feel the same level of attachment to these clunky machines as today’s Facebook users feel toward their all-powerful social network.

Really?  Fax machines? 

Perhaps the outsize revolutionary claims for social media now circulating throughout the west are only a manifestation of western guilt for wasting so much time on social media: after all, if it helps to spread democracy in the Middle East, it can’t be all that bad to while away the hours "poking" your friends and playing FarmVille.

Then he goes after the tech industry. 

Already, tech enthusiasts are blushing at the memory of the serious academic conferences once devoted to the MySpace revolution.

And who’s “blushing”? MySpace was a company that found itself eclipsed and made irrelevant by the advances that took place as they were dominating that spehere, and quickly lost that role to Facebook and Twitter.

today’s cyber-utopians need to log off their Facebook accounts and try a little harder.

HoHo! Good one!

* this post is referenced back to the earlier post: Morozov’s Own Straw Men