#liberationtechnology

Seib (2012) argues that one of the equalizing capacities of new media has to do with its potential for rapid dissemination of information. For instance, tens of thousands of civilians can know about a protest location just as fast as the police forces. Mobile communications allow users instant, on-the-go access not only to a world audience, but to local civilians with whom they can coordinate political action. This should not be underestimated, but it ought not be overstated, either. As Seib notes, the institutional and diplomatic realities of politics are slow-moving, and thus digital information and communications flows are at constant risk of being out of sync with the traditional structures of politics.

For Diamond, the artifacts and systems that are branded as "liberation technology" are either inherently neutral, or inherently democratizing and therefore positive. The inherent aspects aren't established but presumed, and the rationale for or determination of which ones are and when they are good versus neutral is equally absent. This becomes particularly problematic with the good technologies fail to produce their expected outcome. If they have not, it's because they haven't yet -- wait, and it will happen, eventually. Or, it's because of state repression or some other intervention that prevents the technologies from actualizing their positive outcomes. 

“Incidents of police brutality have been filmed on cellphone cameras and posted to YouTube and other sites, after which bloggers have called outraged public attention to them” (2012 p. 10).