There is a whole lot of dialogue happening right now in regards to disruptive technology and it’s use. But how disruptive is it really?

I was fortunate recently to read an amazing piece by Bruce Marko titled “Constellations of Light and Shadow” (on Google+). In it, he states;

“We are the Daniel Boones and the Lewis and Clarks. Here, now, at this very moment we are the digital pioneers, trailblazing our way into places never before seen by the likes of man.”

As I sat on this thought (for nearly a week), I found myself inadequate in my attempts to add a value in resharing the insight and profound challenge he was putting forth in what he likes to call “MarkoKoolaid”. And while I continue still with this struggle, something hit me…

Digital Pioneers don’t use OLD MAPS
to get to NEW DESTINATIONS

That was the challenge, and why it resonated to my core. Technology — especially social media — empowers citizens.

First, technology increases the end user’s independence of centralized sources of information, such as corporate profit-driven newspapers, TV stations, and the websites of these established media channels.

Second, these applications enable end users, like myself, to find like-minded individuals, remote as they might be, and to forge communities with them, enhancing their capacity for action and change. That aspect is especially important for individuals and small groups previously marginalized and represented only as dispersed minorities. Technology enables such communities to congregate virtually and raise their voice.

Of course, on balance (and with exceptions), technology enables the state to monitor its citizens without managing to control them. Technology also gives citizens access to new services and more ideas. As a result, citizens become more demanding, insisting to be heard. Does this mean they become democrats? Not necessarily, because democracy requires two things of citizens:

1. Making their voices heard and,
2. Listening to those dissenting voices who disagree with them.

Quite simply, technology fosters the former far more than the latter. It empowers each and every person — and provides them with the individual as well as collective voices go against the status quo.

And while technology is just a tool, its functionality is determined by the intentions and capacities of the actors who use them. This means that technology can foster a public sphere that disintegrates into various enclaves of like-minded citizens who congregate around opinion leaders that reinforce their stereotypes. Technology can also foster a me-me-me society of individuals who want to be heard but refuse to listen.

But if it is deliberately put in the service of inclusion, technology can bring citizens together in ways that transcend group boundaries. To maximize that potential, both activists and program officers at agencies promoting democracy must understand that any media content they create will compete for the attention of their target audience with many other sources of information.

Their Web content must therefore be compelling and attractive. And to enhance the chance that their target audience keeps coming back for more, individuals and activists alike should integrate principles of social media with the quality web content they have generated.

Now, I am by far not a social media strategist, but I do understand these things. First off, you must listen. You must get know your audience and the social media they use. Second, when you understand what makes them tick and how you relate to each other — voices resonate.

Empowering disruption comes in connecting messages, stories and passions. So, technology by itself, this means nothing.

What must be done is to learn how to speak, be heard, and LISTEN.… In other words:

THINK DIFFERENT — DO DIFFERENT — BE DIFFERENT