Jeg sagde engang: "Hvis du vil liberalisere et samfund, er alt du behøver Internettet." Jeg tog fejl.
I once said, "If you want to liberate a society, all you need is the Internet." I was wrong.
Jeg udtalte disse ord tilbage i 2011 hvor en Facebook side jeg oprettede anonymt var med at starte den Ægyptiske revolution. Det Arabiske Forår viste sociale mediers største potentiale, men samtidig også de største mangler De værktøjer der forenede os og væltede diktatorer endte med at splitte os. Jeg vil gerne dele min erfaring med aktivisme via sociale medier og tale om nogen af de udfordringer jeg personligt har mødt, og hvordan vi overkommer dem.
I said those words back in 2011, when a Facebook page I anonymously created helped spark the Egyptian revolution. The Arab Spring revealed social media's greatest potential, but it also exposed its greatest shortcomings. The same tool that united us to topple dictators eventually tore us apart. I would like to share my own experience in using social media for activism, and talk about some of the challenges I have personally faced and what we could do about them.
I de tidligere 00'er, var arabere overalt på nettet, tørstige efter viden og muligheder, for at netværke med mennesker overalt i verden. Vi flygtede fra de frustrerende politiske realiteter og levede virtuelle alternative liv. Som mange af de andre, var jeg totalt upolitisk indtil 2009. Når jeg dengang var på sociale medier, så jeg flere og flere ægyptere tale for politisk ændring i landet. Jeg så jeg ikke var alene.
In the early 2000s, Arabs were flooding the web. Thirsty for knowledge, for opportunities, for connecting with the rest of the people around the globe, we escaped our frustrating political realities and lived a virtual, alternative life. Just like many of them, I was completely apolitical until 2009. At the time, when I logged into social media, I started seeing more and more Egyptians aspiring for political change in the country. It felt like I was not alone.
I juni 2010, ændrede Internet for evigt mit liv. Mens jeg var på Facebook, så jeg et skræmmende foto af en død og tortureret ung mands krop. Hans navn var Khaled Said. Khaled var en 29-årig Alexandrianer som blev dræbt af politiet. Jeg kunne se mig selv i billedet. Jeg tænkte: Det kunne have være mig.
In June 2010, Internet changed my life forever. While browsing Facebook, I saw a photo, a terrifying photo, of a tortured, dead body of a young Egyptian guy. His name was Khaled Said. Khaled was a 29-year-old Alexandrian who was killed by police. I saw myself in his picture. I thought, "I could be Khaled."
Den aften kunne jeg ikke sove og besluttede at gøre noget. Jeg oprettede anonymt en Facebook side og kaldte den "Vi er alle Khaled Said." På bare 3 dage, havde siden over 100.000 personer, Ægyptiske landsmænd der delte samme bekymring. Hvad end der foregik, måtte det stoppe.
I could not sleep that night, and I decided to do something. I anonymously created a Facebook page and called it "We are all Khaled Said." In just three days, the page had over 100,000 people, fellow Egyptians who shared the same concern. Whatever was happening had to stop.
Jeg rekrutterede min co-admin AbdelRahman Mansour. Vi arbejdede sammen i timevis. Vi samlede ideer fra folket. Vi engagerede dem. Vi kaldte på kollektivt samarbejde, og delte nyheder som regimet ønskede at holde skjult. Siden fik flere følgere end nogen andre i den arabiske verden. Den havde flere fans en etablerede organisationer, endda store berømtheder.
I recruited my co-admin, AbdelRahman Mansour. We worked together for hours and hours. We were crowdsourcing ideas from the people. We were engaging them. We were calling collectively for actions, and sharing news that the regime did not want Egyptians to know. The page became the most followed page in the Arab world. It had more fans than established media organizations and even top celebrities.
D. 14. januar 2011, flygtede Ben Ali ud af Tunesien efter at have opildnet til protest imod regimet. Jeg fik et glimt at håb. Ægyptere på sociale medier overvejede, "Hvis Tunesien kan, kan vi vel også?" Jeg oprettede et event på Facebook under navnet "En revolution mod korruption uretfærdighed og tyranni." Jeg stillede et spørgsmål til de 300.000 brugere på siden: "I dag er d. 14. januar. D. 25. januar er Politidag. En national helligdag. Hvis 100.000 af os indtager Kairos gader, kan ingen stoppe os. Kan vi mon gøre det."
On January 14, 2011, Ben Ali fled out of Tunisia after mounting protests against his regime. I saw a spark of hope. Egyptians on social media were wondering, "If Tunisia did it, why can't we?" I posted an event on Facebook and called it "A Revolution against Corruption, Injustice and Dictatorship." I posed a question to the 300,000 users of the page at the time: "Today is the 14th of January. The 25th of January is Police Day. It's a national holiday. If 100,000 of us take to the streets of Cairo, no one is going to stop us. I wonder if we could do it."
På få dage nåede invitationen ud til over 1 million mennesker, og mere end 100.000 bekræftede deres deltagelse. Det sociale medie betød alt for denne kampagne. Det samlede en spredt bevægelse. Det fik folk til at se de ikke var alene. Og gjorde det umuligt for regimet at stoppe det. På det tidspunkt havde de end ikke fattet det. Og d. 25. januar gik ægypterne på gaden i Kairo og andre byer med krav om ændringer, og frygtens barrierer blev nedbrudt og varslede en ny æra.
In just a few days, the invitation reached over a million people, and over 100,000 people confirmed attendance. Social media was crucial for this campaign. It helped a decentralized movement arise. It made people realize that they were not alone. And it made it impossible for the regime to stop it. At the time, they didn't even understand it. And on January 25th, Egyptians flooded the streets of Cairo and other cities, calling for change, breaking the barrier of fear and announcing a new era.
Så kom konsekvenserne. Et par timer før regimet afbrudte Internet- og telekommunikation, gik jeg ved midnatstid på en mørk vej i Kairo. Jeg havde lige tweeted: "Bed for Ægypten. Regeringen planlægger nok en massakre i morgen."
Then came the consequences. A few hours before the regime cut off the Internet and telecommunications, I was walking in a dark street in Cairo, around midnight. I had just tweeted, "Pray for Egypt. The government must be planning a massacre tomorrow."
Så blev jeg slået hårdt i hovedet. Jeg mistede balancen og faldt, og blev omringet af 4 bevæbnede mænd. Den ene dækkede min mund mens resten hold mig fast. Jeg blev kidnappet af af sikkerhedsstyrker.
I was hit hard on my head. I lost my balance and fell down, to find four armed men surrounding me. One covered my mouth and the others paralyzed me. I knew I was being kidnapped by state security.
Jeg endte i en celle, i håndjern og med bind for øjnene. Jeg var rædselsslagen. Det var min familie også, og de satte en eftersøgning igang på hospitaler, politistationer og endda lighusene.
I found myself in a cell, handcuffed, blindfolded. I was terrified. So was my family, who started looking for me in hospitals, police stations and even morgues.
Efter min forsvinden, gjorde et par af mine kolleger, som vidste jeg var admin på siden, medierne opmærksom på min relation til netop denne side. Og også at jeg sandsynligvis var arresteret af sikkerhedsstyrker. Mine kolleger hos Google starte en eftersøgningskampagne og mine medprotestanter på pladsen, forlangte min løsladelse.
After my disappearance, a few of my fellow colleagues who knew I was the admin of the page told the media about my connection with that page, and that I was likely arrested by state security. My colleagues at Google started a search campaign trying to find me, and the fellow protesters in the square demanded my release.
Efter 11 dages total mørke blev jeg løsladt. Og 3 dage senere, blev Mubarak tvunget til at gå af. Det var det mest inspirerende øjeblik i mit liv. Det var en tid med store håb. I 18 dage, under revolutionen, levede ægypterne i et utopia. De delte alle den samme overbevisning at vi kan leve sammen på trods af forskelligheder, at Ægypten efter Mubarak ville være et sted for alle.
After 11 days of complete darkness, I was set free. And three days later, Mubarak was forced to step down. It was the most inspiring and empowering moment of my life. It was a time of great hope. Egyptians lived a utopia for 18 days during the revolution. They all shared the belief that we could actually live together despite our differences, that Egypt after Mubarak would be for all.
Men desværre var tiden efter revolutionen som et slag i mellemgulvet. Euroforien svandt, vi fandt ikke et fælles ståsted. Politikernes kampe endte i intens polarisering. Sociale medier forstærkede den tilstand ved at sprede misinformation og rygter, splittelse og hadefulde ytringer. Debatten var ren gift. Min online verden blev en krigsskueplads fyldt med trolls, løgne og had. Jeg frygtede for min families sikkerhed. Dette handlede naturligvis ikke kun om mig. Polariseringen toppede mellem de mest magtfulde -- hærens og Islamismens støtter. Personer i midten, som mig, mærkede følelsen af hjælpeløshed. Begge grupper ønskede man tog deres parti Man var endten med eller imod dem. Og d. 3. juli 2013, fortrængte hæren Ægyptens første demokratisk valgte præsident, efter 3 dages larmende protester der krævede hans afgang.
But unfortunately, the post-revolution events were like a punch in the gut. The euphoria faded, we failed to build consensus, and the political struggle led to intense polarization. Social media only amplified that state, by facilitating the spread of misinformation, rumors, echo chambers and hate speech. The environment was purely toxic. My online world became a battleground filled with trolls, lies, hate speech. I started to worry about the safety of my family. But of course, this wasn't just about me. The polarization reached its peak between the two main powers -- the army supporters and the Islamists. People in the center, like me, started feeling helpless. Both groups wanted you to side with them; you were either with them or against them. And on the 3rd of July 2013, the army ousted Egypt's first democratically elected president, after three days of popular protest that demanded his resignation.
Den dag tog jeg en svær beslutning Jeg valgte at være tavs. Helt tavs. Det var nederlagets time. Jeg forblev tavs i mere end 2 år, og brugte tiden til at reflektere over alt hvad der var sket, prøvede at forstå hvorfor. Det stod efterhånden klart at selvom polarisering primært skyldes menneskelige handlinger former sociale medier disse handlinger og forstærker virkningen. Hvis du har et budskab der ikke baserer sig på fakta, starter et skænderi eller ignorerer nogen du ikke kan lide, er det naturlige menneskelige impulser men som følge af teknologi er vi altid kun få klik fra at udleve disse impulser.
That day I made a very hard decision. I decided to go silent, completely silent. It was a moment of defeat. I stayed silent for more than two years, and I used the time to reflect on everything that happened, trying to understand why did it happen. It became clear to me that while it's true that polarization is primarily driven by our human behavior, social media shapes this behavior and magnifies its impact. Say you want to say something that is not based on a fact, pick a fight or ignore someone that you don't like. These are all natural human impulses, but because of technology, acting on these impulses is only one click away.
Som jeg ser det, har vi 5 kritiske udfordringer med dagens sociale medier
In my view, there are five critical challenges facing today's social media.
Vi har for lidt erfaring med at håndtere rygter. Rygter der bekræfter folks fordomme deles som sandheder, blandt millioner af mennesker.
First, we don't know how to deal with rumors. Rumors that confirm people's biases are now believed and spread among millions of people.
For det andet opretter vi egne små cirkler hvor vi kommunikerer kun med mennesker vi er enige med, og takket være sociale medier, kan vi ignorere og blokere alle andre.
Second, we create our own echo chambers. We tend to only communicate with people that we agree with, and thanks to social media, we can mute, un-follow and block everybody else.
For det tredie, online debatter udvikler sig ofte til vrede hobe. Det er almen viden. Det er som om vi glemmer at bag skærmene sidder rigtige mennesker ikke bare profilbilleder.
Third, online discussions quickly descend into angry mobs. All of us probably know that. It's as if we forget that the people behind screens are actually real people and not just avatars.
For det fjerde, blev det rigtig svært at ændre vores meninger. Hastighed og kortfattethed på sociale medier tvinger os til at drage forhastede konklusioner og nedfælde skarpe meninger på 140 karakterer om verdens komplekse emner. Og bagefter lever teksten for evigt på Internet, og vi er derfor mindre tilbøjelige til at ændre vores syn, endda selvom nye beviser dukker op.
And fourth, it became really hard to change our opinions. Because of the speed and brevity of social media, we are forced to jump to conclusions and write sharp opinions in 140 characters about complex world affairs. And once we do that, it lives forever on the Internet, and we are less motivated to change these views, even when new evidence arises.
For det femte -- og det mener jeg er det allermest kritiske -- Sociale medier er i dag designet til at fremme promovering frem for involvering, indlæg over debatter, overfladiske kommentarer fremfor dybe samtaler. Vi er tilsyneladende enige om at tale til hinanden i stedet for at tale med hinanden
Fifth -- and in my point of view, this is the most critical -- today, our social media experiences are designed in a way that favors broadcasting over engagements, posts over discussions, shallow comments over deep conversations. It's as if we agreed that we are here to talk at each other instead of talking with each other.
Jeg så til mens disse kritiske udfordringer yderligere bidrog til et allerede polariseret ægyptisk samfund. Men det handler ikke kun om ægypten. Polarisering forstærkes overalt i verden. Vi må arbejde hårdt på at finde ud af hvordan teknologi kan blive en del af løsningen, fremfor en del af problemet.
I witnessed how these critical challenges contributed to an already polarized Egyptian society, but this is not just about Egypt. Polarization is on the rise in the whole world. We need to work hard on figuring out how technology could be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
Mange debatter handler om hvordan online chikane bekæmpes og trolls undgås. Det er virkelig vigtigt. Det kan ingen argumentere imod. Men vi må også overveje hvordan sociale medier kan designes til at fremme god tone og belønne indsigt. Jeg ved med sikkerhed at hvis jeg skriver et bombastisk ensidet og måske aggressivt indlæg, vil flere læse det indlæg og jeg vil få mere opmærksomhed.
There's a lot of debate today on how to combat online harassment and fight trolls. This is so important. No one could argue against that. But we need to also think about how to design social media experiences that promote civility and reward thoughtfulness. I know for a fact if I write a post that is more sensational, more one-sided, sometimes angry and aggressive, I get to have more people see that post. I will get more attention.
Men hvad hvis vi fokuserer mere på kvalitet? Hvad er vigtigst: antallet af mennesker der læser dit indlæg, eller hvem du når ud til med dit indlæg? Kunne vi ikke engagere folk i samtaler fremfor bare at promovere meninger hele tiden. Eller belønne folk for at læse og besvare holdninger de er uenige i? Og også gøre det socialt acceptabelt at ændre sin holdning, og måske endda belønne det? Hvad hvis vi har en måling der viser hvor mange der ændrer holdning og det bliver en del af oplevelsen på sociale medier? Hvis jeg kunne se hvor mange der ændrer holdning, ville jeg nok skrive mere gennemtænkte indlæg, fremfor at appellere til dem jeg allerede er enig med og "synes om" fordi jeg lige har bekræftet deres fordomme.
But what if we put more focus on quality? What is more important: the total number of readers of a post you write, or who are the people who have impact that read what you write? Couldn't we just give people more incentives to engage in conversations, rather than just broadcasting opinions all the time? Or reward people for reading and responding to views that they disagree with? And also, make it socially acceptable that we change our minds, or probably even reward that? What if we have a matrix that says how many people changed their minds, and that becomes part of our social media experience? If I could track how many people are changing their minds, I'd probably write more thoughtfully, trying to do that, rather than appealing to the people who already agree with me and "liking" because I just confirmed their biases.
Vi bør også udtænke hvordan vi mere effektivt kan faktatjekke de meget udbredte online budskaber, og belønne de der tager del i det. Helt basalt, bør vi genopfinde økosystemet i sociale medier og redesigne oplevelsen så indsigt, god tone og gensidig respekt belønnes.
We also need to think about effective crowdsourcing mechanisms, to fact-check widely spread online information, and reward people who take part in that. In essence, we need to rethink today's social media ecosystem and redesign its experiences to reward thoughtfulness, civility and mutual understanding.
Som tilhænger af Internet, gik jeg sammen med et par venner, om et nyt projekt, for at finde svar og undersøge mulighederne. Vores første produkt er en ny platform for samtaler. Vi er vært for samtaler der fremmer gensidig forståelse og forhåbentlig ændrer holdninger. Vi påstår ikke at have alle svar, men vi eksperimenterede med forskellige diskussioner om emner der ofte splitter, såsom race, våbenkontrol og flygtningedebatter, relationer mellem islam og terrorisme. Det er samtaler der betyder noget.
As a believer in the Internet, I teamed up with a few friends, started a new project, trying to find answers and explore possibilities. Our first product is a new media platform for conversations. We're hosting conversations that promote mutual understanding and hopefully change minds. We don't claim to have the answers, but we started experimenting with different discussions about very divisive issues, such as race, gun control, the refugee debate, relationship between Islam and terrorism. These are conversations that matter.
I dag har mindst en ud af tre mennesker på Jorden adgang til Internet. Men en del af det Internet holdes som gidsel af mindre noble aspekter ved menneskers opførsel.
Today, at least one out of three people on the planet have access to the Internet. But part of this Internet is being held captive by the less noble aspects of our human behavior.
For 5 år siden sagde jeg, "Hvis du vil liberalisere et samfund, er alt du behøver Internettet."
Five years ago, I said, "If you want to liberate society, all you need is the Internet."
I dag mener jeg, at før vi kan liberalisere et samfund skal vi liberalisere Internettet.
Today, I believe if we want to liberate society, we first need to liberate the Internet.
Mange tak.
Thank you very much.
(Bifald)
(Applause)