Network-based social structures are hard to control

   

.

Network-based social structures are hard to control

If demonstrations or protests are called to places by using social media. The number of people grows in who get the message will increase very fast. The thing called the fall of communist governments caused that the demonstrations grow too fast. And the reason for that was the SMS messages, which traveled from the phone to the phone. 

So in the early 1990s, social media was a primitive thing, but today more advanced, complicated, and diverse platforms allow that film and photographs can also share on those platforms. But modern social media makes people collect together to see what other people are publishing, and that thing makes them a very powerful tool for share information with large groups of people. And demonstration calls are also information. 

Social media has created a new type of political force that is based on network-based architecture. That thing means that people who have similar political objectives are coming together. But the thing that makes this type of network-based structure different from the political effects are been before is that those networks have not a single or remarkable leader and they might not even have a common ideology. 

The only thing, that makes those people working together is the purpose, which might be just to change the government. This is the thing, that makes it the police difficult to resist that kind of opposition. The traditional opposition is working from the principle that the people are associated with some strong leader. 

And then the demonstrations begin. Things like Al Queda and Taliban with other terror organizations are shown how difficult is to control the network-based organization. The Al Quaeda and Taliban are not regular military actors. They are networks that are hiding in cities, and then suddenly those people are starting to act. 

Even the fight against that kind of organization is won on the battlefield, there are small cells, that can continue their actions. And those organizations are terrorists, and attacks against terrorists are justified. But what if those organizations didn't use violence? Would the shooting of those people justified in that kind of case? 

When the side, that has less firepower starts the fight against dominating enemy. The weaker side will make the favor the more powerful enemy. The use of violence will justify the use of superior firepower. And sometimes I wonder, what could happen if somebody if the demonstrations, what caused the collapse of communism were violent. That would justify the use of deadly force against the demonstrators and protesters. 

When socialism collapsed in the 1990s the reason for that was the demonstrations, which could not be controlled. The problem with riot police is that those law-enforcement and paramilitary forces are not prepared for non-violent demonstrations. Police or military are prepared for the situations that somebody shoots them. But the main thing is that by using social media the network of people can call thousands of their supporters to the place. If the people are getting the message, they are starting to share that with their social network, and then the number of people will start to rise very fast. 

The reason why those demonstrations or riots just continued was that the people called to place. By using the SMS-messages. And that caused that all over the nations formed the network. The situation just escapes from the hands of the organizer. And the police couldn't control the situation. 

After that, the government starts the discussions with that leader, what is guarantee the contracts. But the thing is that the network-based campaigns are problematic because no leader can discuss for the people. That means that the other name for network-based demonstrations is chaos. Because there are no leaders the system will start to grow. Everybody who has something against the people who are standing against them can come to a place, where they start the demonstration.