Around 800,000 people were murdered over the span of 100 days beginning in April 1994 in Rwanda. It was one of, if not, the greatest genocide to afflict humankind, but now 20 years later questions are being asked over the role of social media in averting similar situations.
Tech Times spoke with a number of activists, journalists and social media observers, who almost unanimously declared that the increase past and access to mobile media and social networking sites has done wonders in helping to reduce the ability of militaries, militias and governments from employing even more violent "solutions" to issues.
However, they did point at the Syrian Civil War, where tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions displaced in years of fighting that began shortly after the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings displaced their longtime dictators, with much help given from social media.
"I do believe that if the world had not been watching what the government and police were doing to people in Egypt it would have been much, much worse," said Ahmed, a former member of the popular activist organization 6th of April, which was instrumental in getting people to the streets in January 2011.
"But at the same time, we have to be aware that even though we can stop some, the government can also shut down access, like what happened here and what happened in Syria. That then becomes a past situation and extreme violence can happen."
But overall, there was a real sense that the success of Facebook and Twitter in helping to publicize events as they unfold on the ground across the world, can help to stem off violence in mass proportions.
In the Rwandan case, where international governments were aware of what was happening, at least according to recently declassified American documents that showed the Bill Clinton administration was aware of the carnage, but chose instead to refrain from referring to the violence as a "genocide" for fear it would be the international community's responsibility to intervene.
With social media, however, the world almost instantaneously becomes aware of events in real time, thanks in part to the posting users who detail violence and other events as they happen. This has changed the way media report on news, one San Francisco journalist said.
"Being at the frontlines is easy, but decades ago, especially when Rwanda was happening, it took hours, even days before we knew what was happening on the ground. By then, it is too late," Salima Yussif, a Pakistani-American independent reporter, told Tech Times. "If the world saw immediate images of what happens, then there can be a real outcry and pressure put on governments. Social media has made this happen so quickly that governments are constantly watching what is happening on those sites."
Would social media have saved hundreds of thousands of Rwandans? That is a question people like Ahmed prefer not to answer, saying instead that at least today, "we can see social media not as the savior but for giving people the access to know about other places and help to come together to stop bad things from happening."
