sociomateriality of the jan. 25th revolution

7/28/2019 Sociomateriality of the Jan. 25th Revolution

1/17

1

Abstract

For to discuss the argument presented by this essay, I begin by describing the

sequential development of organisation studies concepts; Social, Materiality and

Sociomateriality, as well as Crowdsourcing, defining each of them and discussing some

relevant insightful research topics. A Case study is then presented through which I try to

reflect on the employment of these theories on the events of the Egyptian Revolution,

arguing that; the Revolution would have never existed all along (in that way and in that

time) unless for the existence of social media and its integration in the happenings.

Keywords: Materiality, Sociomateriality, Social Networking (SNT), Crowdsourcing,

Egyptian Revolution

Introduction

While it is still a matter of argument the definition of technology, technology seems

to be everywhere in everyday practice. It is rapidly developing by the second and

increasingly influencing organizational behaviour. Organisations in turn, effectively

impact technology. The interchangeable relationship between both is so complicated to

the extent that they are believed to be inseparable in modern theories. That being said,

discussion of the Sociomaterial ontology as an advanced theory of Materiality in this

essay is inevitable, influenced by recent publications by Leonardi, Orlikowski and

others.

The term crowd refers to the people participating in processes beyond an

organisations boundaries that were once considered the internal dominion of the

organisation. Crowdsourcing as a process requiring coordination across organizational

boundaries utilized digital media and the Internet as powerful tools to cross such

boundaries (Aitamurto and others, 2012). Social Networking (SNT) is a form of


2/17

2

organizational boundary crossing technological artifact that is taking the world by a

storm. Egypt is no exception.

It takes a lot more than the 21st century version of a communication system to

persuade people to take to the streets and risk harm, imprisonment, or death. That

doesnt mean social media didnt play a role in Egypts 25th of January revolution. It

did. Given the magnitude of wrath, revolt would almost certainly have come eventually.

But social media simply made it come faster. It did so by playing a role in three main

dynamics, namely, organizing protests, shaping the narrative and putting pressure on

news media and politicians (Boyd, 2011).

Theoretical Background

1. SocialSimilar to technology social is a term that its definition remains to be agreed upon,

despite being so commonly used. Social is considered a fuzzy concept. This means that

the concept is vague, lacking a fixed, precise meaning, without however being

meaningless altogether. It has a meaning, or multiple meanings (it has different

semantic associations). But these can become clearer only through further elaboration

and specification, including a closer definition of the context in which they are used

(Ann Markusen, "Fuzzy Concepts, Scanty Evidence, Policy Distance: The Case for

Rigour and Policy Relevance in Critical Regional Studies." In: Regional Studies,

Volume 37, Issue 6-7, 2003, pp. 701-717.).

Society and community are synonym terms that set physical boundaries to human

interaction. The term Social is a derivative that refers to the manner of human actions

towards each other within a specific area, it reflects the collective coexistence of people

irrespective of whether they are aware of it or not and irrespective of whether the


3/17

3

interaction is voluntary orinvoluntary1. Social can alternatively be described as modes

of organization for individuals or groups living together.

Surfing through the wide seas of Social behavior theories is not the aim of this

essay; rather, some sort of preface is intended by such a brief discussion in regard of the

term social.

2. Materiality and Social NetworkingAs an advancement of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's and Karl Marxs social theories

stands the concept of materiality, which relates to and emphasizes the impact of

technology on peoples behavior. Many of the twentieth century research topics that

discussed the social discourse argued that technology is an independent variable

affecting the dependant organizational variables, when Materiality is summoned into

discussion. However, contemporary constructivist theories, suggested that the essence

of technologies did not matter much on social behavior of people. But peoples

interpretations of the technology mattered much more (Leonardi 2012).

To elaborate in discussing materiality, I hereby quote Leonardis simple modern

explanation, published via his chapter Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-

Technical Systems (2012), which exemplifies the hammer as a physical artifact

consisting of both substance and form that necessarily exist mutually to make use of it:

If one were to consider a physical technology like a hammer, it would be

relatively easy to isolate and describe a set of properties intrinsic to it. For

example, one could point to the steel out of which the head was fashioned, the

fiberglass that was shaped into the handle, and the rubber that was placed on top

of the fiberglass But when one moves from the realm of the physical to the

1This definition of social is aided by the text found on Wikipedia web page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialon Feb. 2013.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voluntaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(psychology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(psychology)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(psychology)http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voluntary


4/17

4

digital, it is much more difficult to isolate the materials out of which a

technology is built. Try it! What are the materials out of which a Microsoft

Word Document is made? What are the materials out of which social media

tools are fashioned? Most information technology artifacts like computer

programs and various software applications have no physicality. Such

information technological artifacts may be accessible through certain

technological artifacts that have physical properties that are made of

identifiable materials (e.g. a computer program is accessible to users through a

monitor and keyboard)but the physical properties of the artifacts that serve as

bearers (Faulkner & Runde, 2011) for the non-physical artifact do not change

the composition of that non-physical artifact in any real way.

But, matter is not the only thing that identifies a technology. Form is also

important. If one were to take the same mass of steel out of which a hammer

head is normally made and form it into a long, thin cylindrical shape and reaffix

it to the fiberglass handle, the hammer would no longer be useful for driving

nails, knocking holes in drywall, or dislodging jammed boards. But it might be

useful for poking holes in leather. Thus, matter (or whatever constituent

materials out of which a technology is fashioned) and form together constitute

those properties of a technological artifact that do not change, by themselves,

across differences in time and context. It is this combination of material and

form that I call materiality. To be clear, materiality does not refer solely to

the materials out of which a technology is created and it is not a synonym with

physicality. Instead, when we say that we are focusing on a technologys

materiality, we are referring to the ways that its physical and/or digital materials

are arranged into particular forms that endure across differences in place and

time. Such a definition suggests that the usefulness of the term materiality is


5/17

5

that it identifies those constituent features of a technology that are (in theory)

available to all users in the same way.

In summary, it is paramount to refer to technological artifacts that have substance

and form that do not change from time to time across different places using the term

Materiality. This is in resemblance to Leonardis (2012) understanding of Materiality

which seems to be contrary to Orlikowskis (2000) argument that;

Technologies are never fully stabilized or "complete," even though we may

choose to treat them as fixed, black boxes for a period of time. By temporarily

bracketing the dynamic nature of technology, we assign a "stabilized-for-now"

status to our technological artifacts. This is an analytic and practical

convenience only, because technologies continue to evolve, are tinkered with

(e.g., by users, designers, regulators, and hackers), modified, improved,

damaged, rebuilt, etc. (pp. 411-412)

Consider any organizational practice, and then consider what role, if any,

materiality may play in it. It should be quickly evident that a considerable

amount of materiality is entailed in every aspect of organizing, from the visible

forms such as bodies, clothes, rooms, desks, chairs, tables, buildings,

vehicles, phones, computers, books, documents, pens, and utensilsto the less

visible flows such as data and voice networks, water and sewage

infrastructures, electricity, and air systems. (Orlikowski, 2007).

SNT is one of the most commonly used technological artifacts nowadays. The rapid

widespread use of online social networking services is a phenomenon worth examining

further. The Materiality of SNTs as platform for online social interaction is under


6/17

6

question here. In an attempt to do so Leonardi (2012) looks into the Materiality of SNTs

as follows:

It is important to focus research attention on materiality if we aim to understand

social interaction. Take social media tools like social networking sites, blogs,

wikis, micro-blogging platformsas an example. The materiality of most social

media tools enables editability. In other words, a user can edit and re-edit

comments and additions to a site before actually clicking post or share. As

researchers have shown editability derives from asynchronicity and spatial

distancing (Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008; Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, &

Sunnafrank, 2002). The materiality of social media tools also enables persistence

of text, images, and sound. That is to say that ones communication is stored in

the system where it remains over time and can be accessed later (Binder, Howes,

& Sutcliffe, 2009; Erickson & Kellogg, 2000). But editability and persistence

are not germane to social media.

Comparing SNT to E-mail in terms of materiality we find that a major difference is

the publicity of social media. Users of SNT primarily express consent that their text,

images and videos are publicly demonstrated and may be viewed, edited and

republished in forms different from how they originally existed and by people who may

be anonymous to the originator -which is quite the opposite of the concept of

copyrights-. Emails in contrary ensure confidentiality and definite recipients of the

digital content enclosed. This difference in materiality has direct consequences over

organizing (Leonardi 2012).

3. Sociomateriality and Crowdsourcing


7/17

7

The term sociomateriality is obviously the fusion of both terms; social and

materiality. What is described as social and as material are fundamentally correlated

with each other (Leonardi 2012), yet, Sociomateriality stands apart from socially and

technologically deterministic conceptualizations (M. Jarrahi and S. Sawyer, 2013).

Instead, materiality and social behavior of people are considered constitutively

entangled2 and are interchangeably altering each other. Sociomateriality is unique from

the term materiality in that it shifts the unit of analysis from materials and forms to the

development or use of materials and forms (Leonardi, 2012). It is not about the material

going away, but about encapsulating the meaning of the material. The material changes

as it gets its meaning from practice and this meaning changes as practices change (A.

Johri, 2011).

Sociomaterial assemblage challenges the deeply taken-for-granted assumption that

technology, and organizations should be apprehended separately, it is beyond the

duality of social behavior and materiality. The progression of sociomateriality is mainly

in considering humans and technologies as agencies of which the boundaries among

them have dissolved, agencies that have relational ontology (Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).

A sensible life example of sociomateriality is expressed in the terms of civil

engineering by using bridges. A bridge is proficiently modeled by Suchman (2000, p.g.

316) and Leonardi (2012) to better explain organizational-technological entanglement

and interrelationship;

Like an organization, a bridge can be viewed as an arrangement of more and less

effectively stabilized material and social relations. Most obviously, of course,

the stability of a bridge is a matter of its materiality, based in principles and

practices of structural engineering. This material stability is inseparable,

2constitutively entangled is a term introduced by Wanda J. Orlikowski.


8/17

8

however, from the networks of social practiceof design, construction,

maintenance and use that must be put into place and maintained in order to

make a bridge-building project possible, and to sustain the resulting artifact over

time.

On the other side, some scholars find that sociomaterial terminology is irrelevant or

unnecessary to be used in organizational studies, this - in my opinion - can be attributed

to the matter of linguistic difficulties in interpretation of the sociomateriality concept.

Such difficulties were addressed by Orilkowisky (2008):

Part of the difficulty in discussing this perspective is that our language makes it

difficult to express indissolubility. We are used to dividing, separating, and

distinguishing. Thus, even terms such as mutual constitution, entanglement,

assemblage, and relationality allude to separateness, even as they try to

move beyond it.

The scaffolding theory is of much relevance to the sociomaterial discourse, as it

provides a lens for studying how information and communication technologies (ICTs)

can shape social practices (Woerner, Orlikowski, and Yates, 2004) and (Jarrahi and

Sawyer, 2013). Just like scaffolds that support physical construction, performativity of

technology scaffolds the enactment of particular social practices. Scaffolds are, in

practice, diverse, heterogeneous, emergent, flexible, and exist only within of the

practices they support. For example, the role of email in organizational contexts cannot

be defined and explored outside the organizational practices it enables and constrains.

Similar to scaffolding, email can be described as diverse and flexible because

organizational members use emails in many different ways (Orlikowski, 2006) and

(Jarrahi and Sawyer, 2013).


9/17

9

Nevertheless, crowdsourcing is a concept that is of significant importance to the

topic of discussion in this essay. It can be defined as the practice of obtaining needed

services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people,

especially from the online community (J. Howe, 2006). Crowdsourcing is different from

ordinary outsourcing since it is a task or problem that is outsourced to an undefined

public rather than a specific body (Wikipedia, accessed January 2013).

An interesting connection is developed between crowdsourcing and collective

intelligence (Levy, 1997) by Aitamurto, Erickson and Ventresca (2012) as quoted

below:

Coordination via a boundary object allows each community to work from its

own assumptions, theories and representations (Carlile, 2002) by creating a

series of social moments in which diverse communities of experts and

knowledge can find pragmatic purchase for action (Strauss, 1988) The current

model of crowdsourcing upends these foundational conditions by requiring

coordinated action across a digital boundary made possible by the Internet

where the internet works generally and diffusely as the boundary object

permitting (inter)action.

Still, peoples need to communicate effectively with minimum restrictions was and

will remain the driving force for creating and developing technological artifacts that

enable cross-border interaction such as Facebook and Twitter.

A lens that views the use of SNTs as an interactive application of sociomateriality

effectively brings upfront the practical assemblage of socio-material cognition. SNTs

are very much diverse and flexible tools that are creating unprecedented magnitude of

global influence on social and organizational behavior. Such influence is worth of


10/17

10

extended research through sociomaterial framework by scholars, especially that the

effective employment of these technological artifacts have led not only to uprisings, but

to glorious revolutions against political regimes that lasted decades in power.

Case Study: The January 25 Revolution

1. Case Profile, Key Events and Theoretical ReflectionRevolutions occurred long before computers were invented. The causes were always

different, yet similar, but when the time came there was no turning back, history was

written. For Egyptians the causes were various, accumulated and deep-rooted. But it

was the instant widespread nature of the new media that made it possible for so many to

recognize that the turning moment for liberation (Tahrir) had come (Idle & Nunns,

2011). Idle & Nunns (2011) return back in history as I quote:

Every revolution is shaped in part by the technology available for those who

make it and those who try to stop it Soon after printing presses became

widespread in England, the English Civil Wars of 1642-51 happened. There was

lots of discussion and hype about the role that popular pamphlets from agitators

like free-born John Lilburne were playing. The governments response (both

that of Charles I and later Oliver Cromwell) was censorship. The same thing has

been repeated ever since (Idle & Nunns, 2011, p.21).

History tends to repeat itself, centuries pass by and governance never changes, even

across nations. In 2011, the Egyptian regime censored internet connection to all users

across Egypt (except for the stock exchange ISP) as well as mobile phone networks at

the peak of demonstrations on January 28, in an attempt to cut-off communications

among protesters and hence make it easier for police forces to face and disperse less

organized groups on the streets:


11/17

11

The fact that Hosni Mubaraks regime took the step of blocking the internet,

despite the millions of dollars lost to the economy, is a testament to the fear it

provoked among the rulers (Idle & Nunns, 2011, p.21).

The acts of blocking the internet and mobile networks by the Egyptian government

sure caused a lot of communicational difficulties among protesters. But eventually, the

results were quite the contrary to what was expected. Censorship was faced by heroic

acts of defiance on the streets, which have increased the magnitude and power of

protests, as they gained international support and as the regime continued to lose

ground. Satellite communication was one non-traditional tool used by activists to

prevail over censorship, signifying the constitutive entanglement of technology and

social behavior.

The aim of this essay is not to narrate the events of the 25January Revolution, but to

theorize its happenings in terms of organizational studies vocabulary. In an attempt to

do so, I revert to the concept of crowdsourcing. Adopting crowdsourcing strategies

was inevitable by rebels of the Egyptian revolution, before and after the 18 days of

protests. They could not have gained that shear momentum without the collective

intellgince of the millions of people who marched to the streets announcing their

frustration and their decision to bring down the regime, rather than their intention.

The internet provided a tool that helped shape the form of the uprising Of course,

the internet was also an organizing tool. Calls for protests and coordination between the

different groups that mobilized for the January 25 demonstrations in Egypt, which

started the Revolution, did happen online. (Idle & Nunns, 2011).

Crowdsourcing here had a whole new dimension, people accepted the digital

invitations of prime protest organizers to physically participate (not just to digitally


12/17

12

contribute to the online forums, groups, blogs, etc) in well thought schemes outspread

by social media. Without proper crowdsourcing tactics and techniques by the organizers

who were Facebook groups admins, active tweeters and bloggers revolution would

have turned out to become chaos.

2. FacebookThe Facebook is a technological artifact aimed at connecting people with family and

friends allowing them to strengthen their social ties (Jarrahi and Sawyer, 2013). But

Egyptians have found a whole new concept of using the Facebook as a press tool.

This collective innovation approach illustrates the constitutive entanglement of

technology and the society as described via the blog post Zack Brisson (2011):

Unsurprisingly, social networking is a prominent force in certain layers of

Egyptian society. It is a common source for news and information for those

under 35, middle-class and above, who use it to stay abreast of latest topics of

discussion among their social network. Facebook is by far the most popular

platform, outstripping Twitter which is confined to a relatively small collection

of internationally-oriented users. Indeed, many Facebook users see the site as

more of a publishing platform than a space for online socializing. These groups

are using Facebook to create fully formed publishing cycles and advocacy

campaigns, with limited to no use of external websites. This is an interesting

example where efficiency over complexity is leading users to leapfrog the

traditional technology adoption cycle.

3. TwitterAnother important technological artifact is the micro-blogging based SNT service

Twitter. Its primary use for an individual is to locate and follow interesting insights


13/17

13

broadcasted by people/experts by the means of online tweets. People following each

other may have not necessarily met (Jarrahi and Sawyer, 2013).

Tweets from Tahrir (2011) is a book that opted to document the Egyptian

revolutionaries tweets -before disappearing into cyberspace-, from the beginning of the

revolution and up till February 11th, 2011 -the date of Mubaraks resignation-.

According to the authors (Nadia Idle and Alex Nunns), their endeavor to write such a

book was motivated the following:

The most compelling coverage was on Twitter, coming directly from the people

in the square. The tweets were instant, and so emotional and exciting that

anyone following them felt an intense personal connection to what was

happening in Tahrir The tweets are valuable for two reasons: as firsthand,

real-time accounts of events (a primary source for historians of the Egyptian

Revolution); and as testimony to the significant role that Twitter and other social

media played in those events.

Was it a -so-called- Twitter Revolution or was it not? That remains to be a matter of

debate among observers and political analysts around the world. Whatever the outcome

of this debate is, the fact will remain to be that; Twitter was more than an influential

instrument in the hands of Egyptian revolutionaries. Tweets were tweeted to record an

epic symphony to the history of mankind.

4. Further ReflectionWith the intention of reflecting on the sociomaterial ontology discussed earlier,

anotherreasonable question could be raised; did Egypts revolution do more for social

media than vice versa? A blog-post by Ramesh Srinivasan (September 1, 2012) targeted

to answer this question stated that:


14/17

14

While we will debate ad infinitum the centrality of social media in the events of

January, 2011, it is clear that the Egyptian revolution has done a great

deal FORsocial media Internet use has expanded, individuals in working

class communities share computers, bloggers believe more than ever in their

ability to take their issues to the street, and journalists are more integrated with

digital modes of production and distribution than ever before. Social media

technologies present a relatively open public sphere and an open competitive

playing field for parties and actors vying for political power in the nation.

Egyptians understand that no longer can social media communities be seen in

isolation but instead as hybrids and convergent vehicles to interface with street

movements, political parties, campaigns, issues, and institutions.

Social media is a significant force in ways that are far more profound than many

realize. Twitter, Facebook and other networks are disrupting things on levels were just

starting to understand. All of this is changing us personally, professionally and

ultimately, at a societal level. This is why social media really matters. (Holmes, 2012)

Socioeconomic factors are still limiting access to the Internet and certainly to social

media of a broad spectrum of communal classes in Egypt, not to mention literacy

problems and lingual restrictions that limit interaction of the native Arabic speaking

Egyptians with the Web (but this is another discussion). However, technological

artifacts continue to penetrate and evolve into the Egyptian society widening the

interconnectivity and dissolving the boundaries more and more, following realization of

their huge impact on social and political reformations nowadays.

Conclusion
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121115191419-2967511-3-reasons-why-your-company-should-pay-employees-to-use-social-media?trk=mp-edit-rr-postshttp://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121115191419-2967511-3-reasons-why-your-company-should-pay-employees-to-use-social-media?trk=mp-edit-rr-posts


15/17

15

Sociomateriality is a debatable contemporary concept that diffuses the boundaries

between social and material conceptualizations, which organization studies scholars are

yet to examine further. It is considered an advancement of the well established and

comprehensively researched Materiality theory.

My argument presented through this essay is that; had it not been for the

implementation of Sociomateriality through the constitutive entanglement and

interrelationship among Web 2.0 technological artifacts and Egyptian protesters, the

Egyptian Revolution would have never happened how it happened and when it

happened. What's more, I discussed how adoption of Crowdsourcing techniques was

crucial for the uprising to occur in first place, not to mention its role in organizing and

regrouping of demonstrations that brought down the regime, as well as in gaining global

support for the cause. The key element has been and still shall be for years to come;

social media (SNTs).

References

Aitamurto T., Erickson I. & Ventresca M. J. (May 2012). Sociomateriality at the

Boundary (Object): extended knowledge and the crowd, Materiality and Space

in Management and Organization Studies / 2nd Organizations, Artifacts and

Practices Workshop - Universit Paris Dauphine (May 2012, 10th-11th).

Boyd E.B. (2011). How Social Media Accelerated the Uprising in Egypt, Fast

Company Magazine article (31st January 2011).

Brisson Z. (2011). The Role of Technology in the Egyptian Revolution, Blog post

http://thereboot.org/blog/2011/03/18/the-role-of-technology-in-the-egyptian-

revolution/(March 18, 2011).
http://thereboot.org/blog/2011/03/18/the-role-of-technology-in-the-egyptian-revolution/http://thereboot.org/blog/2011/03/18/the-role-of-technology-in-the-egyptian-revolution/http://thereboot.org/blog/2011/03/18/the-role-of-technology-in-the-egyptian-revolution/http://thereboot.org/blog/2011/03/18/the-role-of-technology-in-the-egyptian-revolution/http://thereboot.org/blog/2011/03/18/the-role-of-technology-in-the-egyptian-revolution/


16/17

16

Holmes, R. (2012). Why Social Media is (Really) Revolutionary: Looking Back At

Egypt. LinkedIn Article (November 26, 2012)

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121126213602-2967511-why-

social-media-is-really-revolutionary-looking-back-at-egypt

Idle N. & Nunns A. (2011). Tweets form Tahrir,Bloomsbury QFP(p. 9-22).

Jarrahi, M. and Sawyer, S. (2013). Social Technologies, Informal Knowledge

Practices, and the Enterprise, Journal of Organizational Computing and

Electronic Commerce, 23 (1).

Jarrahi, M. (2012). The Role of Social Networking Technologies in Sociomaterial

Ecology, iConference, February 7-10, 2012, Toronto, Canada,

Johri A. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the

field of learning technology,Research in Learning Technology, 19:3, 207-217.

Kautz K., Jensen T. B. (2012), Sociomateriality: new vocabulary or reformulation of

existing theories? Materiality and Space in Management and Organization

Studies / 2nd Organizations, Artifacts and Practices Workshop - Universit Paris

Dauphine (May 2012, 10th-11th).

Leonardi P.M. & Barley S.R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building

better theory about technology and organizing, Information and Organization,

18, 159176.

Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems:

What Do These Terms Mean? How Are They Related? Do We Need Them?

Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (pp.

25-48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121126213602-2967511-why-social-media-is-really-revolutionary-looking-back-at-egypthttp://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121126213602-2967511-why-social-media-is-really-revolutionary-looking-back-at-egypthttp://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121126213602-2967511-why-social-media-is-really-revolutionary-looking-back-at-egypthttp://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121126213602-2967511-why-social-media-is-really-revolutionary-looking-back-at-egypthttp://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121126213602-2967511-why-social-media-is-really-revolutionary-looking-back-at-egypt


17/17

17

Orlikowski W. J. & Scott S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation

of Technology, Work and Organization, The Academy of Management Annals,

Vol. 2, No. 1, 433474.

Orlikowski W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work,

Organization Studies, 28, 1435.

Srinivasan R. (2012). Did Egypts Revolution Do More For Social Media Than Vice

Versa? Blog post on http://rameshsrinivasan.org/ posted on (Saturday,

September 1, 2012).
http://rameshsrinivasan.org/http://rameshsrinivasan.org/

sociomateriality of the jan. 25th revolution

Documents