MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. Later in the broadcast, our graying globe, how countries are adapting and innovating as the planet gets older.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIBut first innovation of a different sort, the kind that's been credited with sparking revolutions. We're talking about the internet and more specifically, sites like Twitter and Facebook. We've been hearing a lot in recent days about the role these websites have played in Egypt and Tunisia. Digital enthusiasts say the internet is providing extra fuel to the revolutionary fires burning in the Middle East.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIBut not everyone agrees. Evgeny Morozov studies the internet and its impact on society and he sees a more complex picture, one where technology may help dictators as much as it helps the protestors trying to overthrow an oppressive regime. He joins us from the studios of WNWC in New York City. Evgeny Morozov is a fellow at the New America Foundation, contributing editor to Foreign Policy and Boston Review and author of the new book, "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom." Evgeny Morozov, thank you for joining us.

MR. EVGENY MOROZOVGood to be back, Kojo.

NNAMDIOver the last few years whenever we see a student uprising or a protest movement anywhere in the world, the media has been quick to give it a nickname or shorthand. First, we call them by a certain color. In the Tunisian case, they're calling it the Lavender Revolution. Egypt is being called The Jasmine Revolution. Then we also start talking about the pivotal role of social networks, calling these things Twitter Revolutions. You tend to be skeptical of these catchphrases, why?

MOROZOVWell, because I think whenever you use a phrase like Twitter Revolution or WikiLeaks Revolution, which is a label that has been applied to describe events in Tunisia, I think you tend to give these technologists a greater role than they actually deserve, than they actually played. And I think in many cases, you actually create expectations that once there are enough young people on these sites in other countries, similar outcomes will follow and they will not, just because there are enough people on Twitter or Facebook. It's all driven still by the complex forces of politics and economics. Technology is playing an enabling role, but it's by any means not the determining one.

NNAMDIWell, these recent examples do seem to show the power of new media. If not the dominant role, what role do you think it is playing?

MOROZOVWell, it certainly helped, I think, in Egypt, especially to get the word out that there were protests scheduled for January 25th and that was still before the Egyptian government cut off the internet, which is an unprecedented move in the history of the internet. But I think, again, if you look at what happened in Iran, which was the first case when so many pundits and so many people in the media pronounced the events to be a Twitter Revolution.

MOROZOVI think we actually are getting somewhat better. I think the reaction to events in Tunisia and Egypt has been more measured and I think there is also, you know, an increased desire to actually look at the dark side. What happened in Iran, I think, was somewhat under-reported because what happened was that the government actually went and collected information about many of the protestors. They turned to social media sites, like Facebook, like Twitter. They turned to sites like Flickr where they found a lot of photos with, you know, photos of protests, where they could actually identify some of the people who were participating in protests.

MOROZOVSo, again, it also empowered the government and it enabled them to be much more sophisticated when it came, you know, to a crackdown.

NNAMDII'd like to invite our callers to join this discussion. What role do you think the internet is playing in political change in the Middle East or elsewhere? You can call us at 800-433-8850. Do you think Twitter is revolutionizing the way people communicate? Do you think internet technology can help democratize authoritarian regimes? 800-433-8850 or you can send us a tweet at kojoshow. Go to our website at kojoshow.org and join the conversation there. How has the Egyptian government used technology over the past few years? Because information technology is basically a tool and it can be used for good or for very bad purposes.

MOROZOVWell, the Egyptian government actually stands out from other governments in the Middle East in the sense that they actually didn't censor the internet. They did not ban access to websites the way some of their colleagues, you know, in Syria or Iran did. So it was actually very positive. It wanted to embrace information technology because it enabled their economy to grow. But, again, once they entered this revolutionary phase, I think even the Egyptian government could no longer afford to keep its networks operational and functional. So they had to shut them down as they did last week.

MOROZOVAnd not just the internet, they also shut down the mobile networks. You couldn't send SMS. You couldn't send text messages, which, again, greatly, you know, inconvenienced many people who not only wanted to organize, they actually wanted to stay in touch with each other and figure out, you know, what was happening in the country. So again, in the case of Egypt, the government has been very receptive to the promises of the internet. They, you know, hosted an internet governance forum recently. But again, you know, when the revolutionary situation develops, they don't want to allow these networks. They don't want people to use them to organize.

NNAMDISecretary of State Hilary Clinton has made internet freedom a pillar of U.S. foreign policy. You have been critical of this approach. I'm curious as to what you think the U.S. should be doing?

MOROZOVWell, I mean, there are certainly a lot of good and noble ideas behind this, you know, the internet freedom agenda. The problem is that once you start talking about it and once you start, you know, delivering speeches about it without following up with concrete actions, different governments tend to interpret this agenda differently.

MOROZOVAnd I think many governments listened to Hilary Clinton and what they took her speech to mean is that the United States will actually be using new media and cyberspace to push for democracy promotion and to push for, you know, regime change and many of them actually took countermeasures. They became much more vigilant when it came to the power of new media. They became much more willing to crack down on bloggers. They became much more suspicious about the role that American companies were playing in their own backyards.

MOROZOVAnd I think in some sense it actually backfired. Again, the United States could be helping dissidents to defend against cyber attacks. They could be working in twos to defeat censorship. Whether it has to be, you know, lumped on to this banner of internet freedom is a different question because it's just such an ambiguous term that many governments take it to mean completely something else. They don't interpret it as the United States campaigning to defend the freedom off the internet. They think the United States wants to promote freedom via the internet, which creates a completely different response from the governments.

NNAMDIEvgeny Morozov is a fellow at the New America Foundation and contributing editor to Foreign Policy and Boston Review, author of the new book, "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom." He joins us from studios in New York City. Let's go to Dan in Brookland in Washington. Dan, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

DANYeah, I'm really interested in this topic specifically as it relates to Cuba and the way in which the government there has, you know, really tried to limit access to bandwidth and how a lot of the blogging that's happening in Cuba is really allowing sort of new voices to come out. Just last week, an Afro-Cuban dissident was arrested by the local police and the only news that came out of it, you know, was really through Twitter, mainly because the United States or the American media is so bad about sort of doing coverage and most of it was either Spanish language or European news sources. But I think, in a lot of ways, these new technologies can connect communities that are basically in sort of tied-down, you know, controlled societies to get the word out.

NNAMDICare to respond to that, Evgeny?

MOROZOVSure. I mean, Cuba has been one of the laggards when it comes to the internet. They've been really slow to adopt. They've been really slow to take on activities like blogging. However, in the last few years, we do see some kind of a thaw in Cuba where the government is, you know, if not encouraging, at least not preventing people from buying computers. I think access to the internet has become somewhat easier, even though still complicated. And what I begin to see in some of the official Cuban media is actually calls from the government to create their own army of bloggers who then go and debate with anti-government bloggers and (word?) bloggers of which there are many in Cuba.

MOROZOVAnd I think this is actually very much in line with what some other governments are doing. You know, we see similar stops and moves in Russia and China where their own governments want to create their own army of pro-government bloggers who will then be actually debating with dissidents and anyone who opposes the government online. So we see Cuba, you know, slowly embracing new media, but also trying to manipulate and control it.

NNAMDIDan, I'm intrigued by the fact that you characterize the activist who was arrested as Afro-Cuban. Did that activism have anything to do with the race issue in Cuba?

DANWell you know, I definitely think that, you know, the presence of black dissidents, you know, black Cuban dissidents has sort of changed the conversation in a lot of left circles, certainly, you know, that I participate in here in the United States about sort of the continuing need for reform and more diversity in Cuba.

NNAMDIOkay, thank you very much for your call. And you, yourself, Evgeny, hail from Belarus, which has its own issues with authoritarian control and internet freedom. Care to share your personal experience with that?

MOROZOVSure. I mean, Belarus is also a very interesting case because, again, just like in Egypt, there is no formal internet filtering. I mean, they do not ban access to particular websites. There is still quite a bit of internet control. I mean, I do think that the government and particularly the secret service in the country, which is still called the KGB, they actually very actively are looking at what activists are posting online. They are trying to map connections between dissidents on many of the social networking sites.

MOROZOVYou know, just last month, we had presidential elections and there were huge protests in the streets of the capital. And now there are reports that the government may actually be asking mobile phone operators for information about any of their customers who showed up on the square because you can now easily trace that through mobile phones.

MOROZOVSo again, the government is very, you know, very strategic and is very aggressive in pursuing new media and then pursuing the opportunities it gives to spy on dissidents and to also intimidate people. Because now that everyone fears that, you know, their mobile phones may be traced, they'll probably be more likely to leave them at home during times of protest. So again, a very smart move on behalf of, you know, the authoritarian government.

NNAMDIYou've looked closely at the internet in Iran where protests have not led to regime change. Talk a little bit about the relationship between the internet and power in that country?

MOROZOVYes. Iran is fascinating because I think we mostly hear about the dissident (word?) and secular bloggers in Iran. And they also have a large community of conservative bloggers who are actually much more conservative than President Ahmadinejad. So if you look at the Iranian blogosphere, it's not all monolithic you have different, you know, people with different ideologies and different stands on religion and politics fighting it out.

MOROZOVAnd the government itself, I think, after they saw the power of new media or they were alerted to the power of new media by Western media mostly in the summer of 2009, they became much more strategic about cyberspace. Now they have all sorts of units of virtual police. People who basically only look and study what's happening in cyberspace. You have very sophisticated system of internet filtering. And now, you know, the government -- actually the revolutionary guard, you know, the entity very close to the government, actually purchased and established control over the leading internet service provider in the county after the protests. Because, I think, they want to have full control over the networks.

MOROZOVJust like, you know, the Egyptians do. So the government, I think, has smartened up. I mean, they have been very active. They have also been training a lot of bloggers. Particularly religious bloggers in places like Quam (sp?) to actually, you know, to train them and to make sure that they control the religious discourse in cyberspace, which, again, is a very important objective for the government. So by any means, it's not just, you know, naive people sitting there and trying to run websites.

MOROZOVIt's very strategic. These governments are aware of the stress that it poses and they have found ways to control the internet, that, you know, we could barely imagine ten years ago.

NNAMDIHere is Ervin in Silver Springs, Md. Ervin, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

ERVINHi, Kojo, how are you doing?

NNAMDII'm well.

ERVINGood. I take issue a little bit with your caller's point of view about Hillary Clinton's (word?) and pillar of her policy being greater access to the internet because, I think, not only does it bring political freedom and political expression to the mass of the people, I think, also, it brings economic parity. For instance, in developing countries, a small farmer can take his -- can sell his crops online or through a mobile phone. It can -- they can bank it in rural areas through the mobile devices. So, I think, it's an equalizer. Governments were going to catch up with the technology here and there, no matter what.

ERVINAnd I think that, you know, to be reactionary like that is not serving the good of the total popular use of the internet.

NNAMDIWell, let me pile on a while in addition to your economic arguments, Ervin, we had Alec Ross on the show who used to be an advisor to the Clinton administration, who still is to Secretary Clinton, who talked about the importance of this and then the Afghani Roger Cohen of the New Times challenged your argument in a Op-ed last week. He wrote quoting here...

MOROZOVYes.

NNAMDI"There's no question that people running repressive systems are quick studies who've learned to exploit or suppress a revolutionary technology that challenges them. Still, they're swimming against the tide. The freedom to connect is a tool of liberation and it is powerful." Your response, both to that and the economic arguments that Ervin makes?

MOROZOVSure. Again, you know, I think you tend to misunderstand what it is I'm arguing. I'm not saying that the United States should not speak up on, you know, behalf of people whose internet access is curtailed or limited. All I'm saying is that there has to be some coherence to what the United States does in this space. You know, on the one hand, you have American politicians who are going after Wikileaks and who are going after, you know, all sorts of, you know, actors online. They don't want to have cyber criminals. They don't want to have, you know, cyber warfare. They want to go and basically convince Silicone Valley to build secret backdoors into their software.

MOROZOVThey want more control over cyberspace. Domestically, what the United States government wants to do, looks like the opposite of internet freedom. It looks like an agenda of internet control. So when we go and we try to promote internet freedom abroad while trying to curtail it at home, it makes United States look very hypocritical. And, you know, many governments in Iran and in China pick up on that. And they say, "Hey, why do you want to limit our internet freedom? You know, while at the same time, you want to limit yours?" Right? So again, it's not that the policies are (word?) , it's the way in which this policies are aggregated.

MOROZOVWhich, I think, in a way, we have to think a little bit more carefully about. Again, there was nothing wrong with some of the positions and goals behind -- you know, George Bush's freedom agenda, promoting democracy in the Middle East, you know, good idea. But the way in which it was all put together, under this banner of freedom agenda, when we had two wars, you know, when we had a lot of other problems with, you know, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It didn't, in the end, make America promote this interest as powerful as it could be.

MOROZOVSo what I'm arguing is that, there are a lot of traps. When it comes to issues like internet freedom, you know, and Wikileaks, just revealed so many of them, that we have to be very careful not to do more harm while trying to, you know, accomplish all of the things which look good on paper.

NNAMDIEvgeny, you expect coherence in Washington? Pretty soon you'll be calling for bipartisanship in Washington. You do live here.

MOROZOVYes. Well, you know, ideally, you know, that's what you want, right?

NNAMDIYes, indeed. I'm afraid we're out of town. Evgeny Morozov, thank you so much for joining us.

MOROZOVThanks so much for having me, Kojo.

NNAMDIEvgeny is a fellow at the New America Foundation, contributing editor to Foreign Policy and Boston Review. He is author of the new book, "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom." We're going to take a short break. When we come back, we will look at our Graying Globe and how countries are adapting and innovating as the world or the people in it grow older. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.