summarize this to one paragraph.

IV. Political Implications Though the Internet, and the World Wide Web in particular, often seems like a vast garage filled half and half with superlative tools and unkempt rubbish, one must remember that it is not merely a communal storage place full of statics. The Internet is, at its very heart, a method of communication. It is natural to think of instant messaging, forums, or email as interpersonal, but also each restaurant menu, each Java documentation page, each dictionary entry was put there by a human for another human to see. As a tool for communication, the Internet is clearly superior to older media. Unlike books or television, any person can get a blog or Facebook page or Twitter account for free and post anything they want as much as they want (legal restrictions aside; that is a separate issue and applies to books and television anyway). Unlike in letters or phone calls, any type of data can be sent and received on the Internet; a single blog post may include video, audio, picture and text. As the Internet becomes more embedded in more people's lives, these people are better understanding this power that the Internet provides them with. This has led to an enormous boom in the social media" sector, which is based entirely on interpersonal communication, most of which would not be possible outside of the Internet. Although there are surely many ways in which the Internet has an effect on politics, this project focused mainly on the implications of the use of social media. The reasons for this were twofold: because these social media websites have been growing and are now very much a center of attention on the Internet, and because there are currently many critical events occurring in world politics in which social media have been involved in some way. These social media websites all offer things that traditional media don't Twitter, for example, is the largest and most prominent microblogging website. Each post on Twitter is text-only. In addition, each tweet", as they're known, is limited to 140 characters. This sounds a bit odd and restrictive at first, but many tweets have links in them to articles on web pages, or audio, video, pictures or anything other kind of file. Every tweet is visible by every user, although users can choose whose tweets they would like to be actively notified of. This format makes it quick and easy to read and send tweets from mobile devices, enabling people to easily participate anywhere, anytime. Facebook also offers things that traditional media cannot. In fact, there is very little about Facebook that compares directly to any traditional media. Facebook users have a status that they can set so others know what's going on in their lives currently, a "wall" their friends can post on that is visible to all of their friends, and applications to use most frequently games that can involve others). They can create events and invite people to meet up in real life (or virtual reality), they can make public and private groups, and show their support for their favorite band or TV show by "becoming a fan". There is more, and nearly everything one can see and do is extensively customizable. These two super popular social media sites don't seem to have much in common. One seems Spartan, a short text-only broadcasting service, and the other overflows with options and additions and activity. However, they share something very important: the ability for any person to communicate with any number of other people near-instantly, at any time, publically or privately. Especially important is the public part. Social media gives its users an open platform to say what they want, and easily connects them to others. The power of social media is so great that many people are suggesting that it has the power to turn a silent majority into a roaring majority. The term "social media revolution", once applied to these websites rising in popularity, is now applied to popular uprisings. Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have many people suggesting that Twitter, Facebook, and blogs are the catalysts for revolution, and even the driving force behind it. Others, however, are asserting that, although these things were used by revolutionaries, they were no more significant to the revolution than megaphones or a good pair of shoes. Thus the question is: to what extent did social media play a role in the creation of these revolutions, and how significant was its role in their success? It is impossible to believe that the Internet has no impact at all on such revolutions. Even the governments of these countries can see this. Bloggers have been censored and arrested in countries such as Tunisia, and in some cases major websites or even the entire Internet has been blocked. Corrupt governments such as Tunisia's (which is now overthrown) are clearly threatened by the freedom and wide range of communication that the Internet offers. They are used to being able to control what people see and hear on TV and radio, effectively blocking the spread of information they dislike. For example, while riots ran rampant in the streets of Tunis and the president fled the country, the official TV channel played music and chat shows(Beardsley). This fear of the Internet is certainly not unfounded. Even though YouTube has been banned in Tunisia since 2007, technologically skilled activists were posting videos of demonstrations throughout December 2010 and January 2011(Lister 4). There is also no denying that Facebook, Twitter, and blogs such as A Tunisian Girl had an impact on informing the public (both in and out of Tunisia) about the protests and even on getting people involved. While the state TV stations were pretending nothing was going on, social media fed the independent Al Jazeera station with pictures, video and news to broadcast via satellite into Tunisia. These tools were used for more than gathering public interest and getting the protests rolling too. Tunisians were using Twitter during demonstrations to warn others of sniper locations and to call for blood donations at hospitals, making good use of its cell-friendly platform(Carlson 1). And it isn't just Tunisians who are making use of this technology. Demonstrators in Egypt have been online as well. Much like in Tunisia, the Egyptian government has been arresting and blocking activist bloggers, and much like Tunisia, activists have been online all the more. For example, a Facebook page dedicated to protests in Egypt had over 80,000 followers the day before the protests were scheduled (Lister and Smith 3). The day before that only 20,000 people had been following it. How could it have been possible to reach 60,000 people in one day without the Internet? No television or radio station seems likely to broadcast the time and place of a planned mass anti-government protest. The power of these social media websites certainly added to the power of the people. Communication and logistics aren't the only ways that the Internet helped these uprisings succeed. The huge amount of attention the demonstrators brought to themselves via social media translated into traditional media coverage. In addition to the previously mentioned Al Jazeera coverage, the news and video coming in from many participants made for better and more plentiful material than any on-scene journalist could have provided. Revolutions are often more dependent on politics than violence, and heavy international coverage can put pressure on leaders in these situations. In Egypt, this pressure is what led to the success of the revolution. After more than two weeks of widespread protesting, the leadership of the military, an important part of the Egyptian government, pushed for the President's resignation. Soon after, they announced that the military would ensure a transition to civilian rule. There was no need for a display of military force, it was the political pressure from such a large and important branch of the government siding with the protesters that led to the President's resignation. Without the extensive news coverage of the protests worldwide, one cannot say for certain whether the revolution would have gained enough momentum to lever such political pressure. However, amid the "Twitter Revolution" headlines, some reporters and scholars are insisting that it was first and foremost a revolution of the people, not of the technology. They want to make sure that the human aspects, the thoughts and emotions that lead to such a popular uprising, do not get lost in all the talk about social media. As one on-the-scene journalist said, "This didn't have anything to do with Twitter and Facebook. This had to do with people's dignity...People are not able to feed their families("Rachel Maddow show for Friday, Jan 28th 2011). He was referring to the cause of the uprising the true reason people were in the streets. While this reporter went on to mention that ...Twitter and all the social networking stuff helps", he wants to make sure that the people are credited, and rightfully so, for the reform. While this seems obvious, it is important to keep in mind, because social media and other Internet technologies are no more than tools that people can use. They bear no allegiances and are useful to any party who knows how to use them; they have no predisposition toward democracy or justice. Another writer states that, 'surely the least interesting fact about the Egyptian protesters] is that some of the protesters may or may not have at one point or another employed some of the tools of the new media to communicate with one another... People protested and brought down governments before Facebook was invented.(Gladwell 1)" But, then again, perhaps that is the very reason why their use of this media is interesting, it is a new variable in an old equation. It is understandable that these people don't want the plight and the courage of the Tunisian or Egyptian people to be minimized by the notion of social media toppling dictators, and it does seem unreasonable to think that the advent of social media caused these protests to occur or was the deciding factor in their success. But as turmoil in the Middle East grows, perhaps the tool of social media is significantly helping to arm citizens with the power they need to stand up to authoritarian governments and corrupt officials. All of the attention on the impact of social media in countries with popular uprisings seems to be focused on these Internet technologies as a tool for the public to use in their quest for democracy and justice. However useful social media may be for this cause, one must realize that social media is not inherently disposed toward it. Although the public image of social media seems to correlate it with the young liberal, activist type, it is just as easily the mouthpiece (and hearing aid) of a shrewd authoritarian government. For example, the North Korean government, one of the strictest dictatorships on the planet, created a Twitter account last July and use it to post pro-North Korean news and information. Almost no North Koreans have access to the Internet, so this propaganda is probably not aimed at them, and the vast majority of people around the world realize that almost anything said that is pro-North Korea is propaganda But the North Korean government doesn't keep its power by being ignorant, and it has realized that keeping control over the country's social media connections is important, even if the general public has no way to challenge it. Now, if North Koreans were to ever gain real access to the Internet, it is likely that their postings would easily drown out the government's words. In a country that is widely recognized as a dictatorship, the message of the people is easily picked out and supported over the blatant propaganda. And in the case of Egypt or Tunisia, it is hardly likely that starting a Twitter account would have suppressed the demonstrations and rioting. However, consider a government such as China's, whose image is not that of a totally corrupt dictatorship, nor is it a beacon of democracy and justice. Such a government would want to retain its power and keep its citizens in check with as much tact as possible. To this effect, China employs a group of people known as "Internet commentators", or more commonly by the pejorative "50 Cent Party" due to reports of the commentators being paid half a Yuan per post. These people are paid by the government to post as regular users on popular news sites and forums. They generally target discussions of political significance, and post in such a way that it does not appear to have come from the government. This is a cunning approach to propagating state views online. If the Chinese government simply made an account on a website (such as North Korea did on Twitter), its opinion on political news, however large or small, would essentially not matter. This is for a couple of reasons. First, it is clearly coming from the government, and as such, it will obviously support the government's views and ideals. People will immediately dismiss it as propaganda. Second, and more interesting, is that the government cannot speak candidly. In an argument online, users can say anything they want. If a user were to comment on how poorly the government (national or local) handled an issue, or that it was corrupt, the goverment could not propel the other side of the argument by saying candid things such as it is not a big issue or even the government did its job well", because then it becomes an official statement. For example, if the incident in question is an accusation of a bribe, the Chinese government could hardly stand to be seen simply dismissing bribes as "no big deal". However, by paying a group of people with no government affiliation to say these things, and even to attack the original posters (as would be common for ordinary users on an Internet forum), the government can quellsuch dissidence and propagate the image of a majority of citizens supporting the government and its actions. The success of this method was shown in a document released by the public security bureau of Jiaozuo, a city in Henan province. An unhappy citizen posted a negative comment about the police online, and within ten minutes, one of the employed Internet commentators reported this to the bureau, The bureau then used over 120 people to post in the thread, supporting the police and even condemning the original poster, until eventually the majority of posts was in the government's favor(Bristow 1). Though the true number of employed "Internet commentators" is unknown, estimates range from thousands to hundreds of thousands. It is prevalent enough that users who take the Chinese government's side or post pro government or pro-communist comments are frequently accused of being in the "50 cent party" or "50 cent army. As is common on the Internet, it is often difficult to tell whether these comments are meant literally, or if they are just derogative terms used to demean people who are taking the side of the Chinese government. However, since it is also difficult to determine if a poster is genuinely expressing his or her views or acting as an online mercenary, it is likely that most users do not care which it is and are trying to fight propaganda from any source. Interestingly, this sly technique is so much more effective than direct promotion that it is also commonly used in the United States. Not by the government (as far as anyone knows), but by commercial organizations. Companies will use employees or hire freelance writers to post comments on forums and articles about their products, all in the guise of a regular user. Some of these are obviously paid for; others are better crafted and pass off well as a normal person supporting a brand they like. Unlike governments, there is generally not such a large public distrust of a company such that anyone who supports it is immediately suspicious, which makes these online endorsers more believable. However, as shown in China, this infiltration strategy is a very effective one, and one that uses the anonymity and social networking of the Internet to great effect. There are undoubtedly many ways to use the Internet and social media to push a government (or corporate) agenda in the range between North Korea's tweets of bald-faced propaganda and China's regiment of anonymous commentators. The difference between a social media revolution and a social media dystopia lies in skill and timing. By the time protestors were uniting and calling for demonstrations by the thousands online, it was too late for the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. They only made their lack of understanding more obvious by attempting to block websites and cut Internet access. The demonstrators had the skill and willpower necessary to use the online tools at their disposal to gain momentum for their cause. However, in China, a government infamous for committing and then simply denying the occurrence of human rights infractions displays similar skill in using technology to keep power seated firmly in its hands. While neither the fate of the Middle East nor that of China will be decided on the digital front alone, the power of the Internet will be very valuable to those who can effectively use it