The evolution of revolution

Free the carrier pigeon, abandon Morse code, and overlook Radio Free Europe (RFE).

The fact is, a new type of communication is at the forefront of today’s political revolutions. Today, rebellions organized via social networking sites are emerging as the newest trend in conflict initiation.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and mobile phone text messaging have become breeding grounds for rebel and dissident movements worldwide. Now only a click away, supporting a coup has never been so easy.

While Canadian university students use Facebook to plan birthdays, charity bake sales, and bar nights, Moldovan students have used it to plan uprisings against their Communist government.

In countries where speaking out against the government is not tolerated, many young activists have been forced to find creative avenues to pursue aggressive action for their cause.

Interestingly, many have turned to the social networking sites they know all too well as a means to articulate dissent and to orchestrate revolt.

While this may appear groundbreaking, according to the Washington Post, throughout history, “Protesters have often used new technologies to evade government attempts to stifle dissent.” The Washington Post notes, even when the Soviet Union appeared on the verge of collapse, “Dissenters used underground fax services to spread information.”

New media technologies provide vital communication links. Exploiting such communication avenues, while evading governmental interference, is the key to raising awareness for a political cause. Undeniably, this is the future of revolution.

Moldova
In April 2009, political unrest bred outright civil disobedience in Moldova’s capital of Chisinau.



Activists, expressing discontent over the Communist Party’s recent re-election victory, overwhelmed the police presence and effectively stormed the country’s parliament buildings. Upon retreat, the dissidents left the government offices in ruins and the typically heavy-handed Communist government in utter bewilderment.

According to RFE, the entire act was organized and carried out using a combination of Twitter, Facebook, mobile phone text messaging, blogs, and e-mail.

RFE reports that even as online access to news organizations and opposition parties was blacked out by the Communist government, organizers simply switched to using Facebook to plan and spread information about upcoming demonstrations. The online organization made it impossible for the Moldovan government to monitor or control the students’ activities.

Iran
In the summer of 2009, Twitter was also a major player in Iran’s ongoing political drama. In June, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad claimed re-election victory, many took to the streets in protest. According to the Washington Post, these demonstrations were entirely prearranged via Facebook and Twitter.



The Washington Post reports that Twitter’s influence on the Iranian political situation was so profound that even U.S. government officials took notice.

In turn, the U.S. State Department asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance of their site, as to not disrupt communication between the dissident movement organizers and their supporters within Iran’s borders.

During the uprising, the mainstream media even grew dependent on Twitter updates as the Iranian government barred the press from entering the country. On some occasions, the Washington Post reports, “The predominant information [was] coming from Twitter.”

In light of this summer’s events, many in Iran have since coined the revolt “a Twitter revolution.”

Somalia
Terrorists, not to be left out of this new trend, have begun to use social networking technologies to their benefit as well.

The BBC reports that Al-Shabab, a radical insurgent Islamic group with reported links to Al-Qaeda, conducts all of its communication via text messages.



The group, operating within war-ravaged Somalia, reportedly organizes its troops, communicates between them, and issues threats to opposing parties using mobile phone text messaging systems.

According to the BBC, low-ranking military officers are given pre-paid phone cards by elite members of the group.

This way, the leadership of al-Shabab is allowed the disguise of complete anonymity and never even has to set foot in Somali territory.

America
The developing world, however, is not the only one getting in on the social networking action.

While hardly a rebellion, Barack Obama’s successful 2008 presidential campaign is an example of effective use of modern communication technologies.

(Segment relevant to this post starts at 1:45)


The Obama team hired Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes to promote the Democratic hopeful online.

It worked. Obama’s web campaign was revolutionary and unarguably successful in targeting the youth vote, which has traditionally been a difficult demographic to get out to the polls.

The aforementioned examples of digital activism are only a minute cross section of actual occurrences across the globe. In fact, to date, social networking sites have become a powerful political tool throughout the world.

As this technology continues to evolve, it may become better known for its revolutionary potential than its social networking capabilities.

My final project for this course is the blog The Evolution of Revolution. If you are at all interested in the field of digital activism, I encourage you to check it out. Ultimately, this blog will explore the social media revolution currently unfolding; a revolution that could craft our future world order.

As citizens unite in the digital public sphere, it appears that engagement with politics is changing. In countries where newspapers, magazines, and independent television stations are not permitted to exist freely, it seems that an especially active and engaged online population often emerges.

As the democratizing force of digital activism matures, and if the “spinternet” is kept at bay, it is plausible that those who assert themselves in the digital public sphere will see their actions transcend the blogosphere and engage a populace beyond that of even cyberspace.

While a new consciousness is unarguably emerging online, we must question whether it is powerful enough to curb citizen apathy toward political engagement. Does the digital public sphere have a future as a democratic staple? I hope to find out.

"Will the Internet Kill Magazines? Did Instant Coffee Kill Coffee?"

Today, print media obituaries are neither new nor all that surprising. In fact, it seems as though we have grown accustomed to the fact that print is dying and/or already dead.

Understandably, this prevailing narrative is deeply concerning to those in the relatively stable magazine sector of the print mediascape. In the face of this trend, many in the magazine industry are moving to take matters into their own hands.

While bloggers and pundits proclaim print as dead, these magazine industry insiders are preparing to officially discredit these statements - which they dispel as "merely myths".

For one, the heavyweights of the magazine industry recently joined forces to proclaim that while the rest of print media may be on their last legs, magazines are very much alive and well.

On March 1, a joint announcement was made that the largest print advertising campaign ever created to promote the vitality of magazines as a medium is in the works. Essentially, the "Magazines, The Power of Print" campaign will work to curb the general public’s relative acceptance of a complete death of the print media industry.



In the promotional video, the leaders of five major magazine companies – Charles H. Townsend, Condé Nast; Cathie Black, Hearst Magazines; Jack Griffin, Meredith Corporation; Ann Moore, Time Inc.; and Jann Wenner, Wenner Media – can be seen advocating for the future of magazines.

Interestingly, one insider even proclaimed: “As long as those media continue to evolve and provide an irreplaceable value,” they will survive.

The "Magazines, The Power of Print" campaign will kick off in May 2010. The advertising-awareness campaign is scheduled to launch in "nearly 100 magazines, reaching 112 million readers per month, to promote the strength of-and consumer commitment to—magazines."

In order to achieve the utmost exposure, the advertisements will debut as full-colour spreads, strategically placed in May issues of the aforementioned publishers' most popular publications with attention-grabbing headlines: "We Surf the Internet. We Swim in Magazines." And "Will the Internet Kill Magazines? Did Instant Coffee Kill Coffee?"





In light of this latest undertaking, we must ponder both the logic behind and merit of such a public relations stunt. Further, we should be questioning why the magazine industry feels that it is necessary to proclaim their wellbeing while their fellow print media peers fall by the wayside.

Is an elitist personality emerging in the print mediascape? If so, is it warranted?

The so-called "Fox Effect"

Upon graduation from a radio and television program at Ohio University, Roger Ailes went on to work for The Mike Douglas Show. On the show's set in 1968, at the age 27, Ailes met then-presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon - a Republican.

According to The New York Times, Ailes told Nixon: "The camera doesn’t like you." In response, Nixon said that "It’s a shame a man has to use gimmicks like this to get elected." To this, Ailes offered a warning. "Television is not a gimmick," he said, "and if you think it is, you’ll lose again." Nixon's campaign team hired him within days.

Today, Ailes is the president of the remarkably successful Fox News Channel (FNC) and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. As of late, this network news broadcaster is known best for its unmistakable right-wing stance and "fair and balanced" slogan - which appears to exist solely for the purpose of infuriating Democrats.

Regardless of FNC's questionable antics, the network continues to draw the highest ratings of any American news network. This statistic begs the question: Is it possible for a cable news network to shape the politics of a nation?

For one, U.S. President Barack Obama seems to think so.

In October 2008, after his successful election win, Obama told The New York Times Magazine that the so-called “Fox effect” had robbed him of a couple of points at the polls.

Further, liberal pundit James Carville also noted that if Ailes were a Democrat, “there would be 67 Democratic senators right now.” Currently, there are 60.

So, what is this "Fox Effect"?

Well, this term speaks of the major impact the FNC's introduction into the American mediascape has had on the practice of domestic politics throughout the United States and news coverage by other industry competitors.

When directly questioned on the notion of a "Fox Effect", Ailes responded, even with all of the vast options for news sources in the American mediascape, "This little cable channel called Fox is somehow ruining your life?"

(Note: This post pertains to Segment 3 of 5. Segment 3 starts at 14:15).


Regardless of Ailes's opinion on the issue, according to The Telegraph, he remains on the 100 Most Influential Conservatives in America. In fact, on the 2010 list, he came in at an impressive seventh.

Interestingly, despite hefty criticism from the more liberal-leaning members of the American media, David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, only had kind words for Ailes.

"Regardless of whether you like what he is doing," Gergen said, "Roger Ailes is one of the most creative talents of his generation. He has built a media empire that is capable of driving the conversation, and, at times, the political process."

While the work of citizen media is certainly up and coming, it is clear that the mainstream news networks continue to maintain a grip on public opinion. This is because even today it appears that their broadcasts continue to have success in swaying the masses one way or the other.

Undoubtedly, such a reality only reinforces the need for the voices of citizen journalists in the public sphere.

A win for citizen journalists everywhere

In 1948, George W. Polk, an American journalist and CBS correspondent, was slain while on assignment in Greece. At the time, Polk was covering the country’s tumultuous civil war. It was in Greece that Polk’s "status as a symbol of journalistic integrity" was solidified by his critical reporting on both of the warring parties – the right-leaning Greek government and the Communists.

In 1949, in commemoration of Polk’s death, Long Island University unveiled the George Polk Award for outstanding radio and television journalism. The Polk Award was intended to compliment the Pulitzer Prize – which honours outstanding print journalism in newspaper publications.

Since this time, the Polk prize has grown to represent one of the highest honours in American journalism. One does not have to look beyond the likes of past Polk prize winners - Christiane Amanpour, Walter Cronkite, and Carl Bernstein, to grasp the quality of journalism that this award honours.

This February, decades after Polk’s death, the 2009 award winners were announced. Interestingly, among the numerous honours, the George Polk Award for Videography was given to a work produced anonymously.

The feat sent shockwaves through the journalistic community. In fact, one critic wrote, ““Anonymous” wins a Polk Award? What’s going on here?”

The answer is citizen journalism.

Following the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2009, dissenters took to the streets of Tehran. In the midst of one protest, 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan was shot dead. Reportedly, Agha-Soltan was targeted by a pro-government militant.

Thanks to the quick thinking of one bystander, the entire incident was captured on a cell phone. In the Polk prize-winning clip, Agha-Soltan lays dying on the street as fellow protestors rush to her aid.

(WARNING: The video does contain graphic content).


Neda Agha Soltan Shot in Iran
Uploaded by ART1988. - News videos from around the world.

In the peak of last summer’s digital activism movement, the video was uploaded to the Internet and went viral as it was shared across cyberspace. Soon after, this work of a citizen journalist was picked up by traditional mainstream media institutions across the world - who were barred from entering the country by the Iranian government.




The overwhelming international exposure granted Iran's pro-democratic Green Movement the attention of the world community. As well, the video succeeded in elevating the status of citizen journalists amongst skeptics.

However, there will always be critics. In this case, they are traditionalists who believe that the individuals who participate in this type of reporting are actually “bystanders — not journalists. Just good bystanders.”

However, upon recognition of the intensity and resonance of the video, John Darnton, the new Curator of the Polk Awards, defended his choice. Darnton said, “Isn’t that the definition of news? Something that gets people talking and thinking and reveals something?”

Interestingly, this debate comes at a time when the professional status of journalists is being called into question by advocates of citizen–generated media.

Despite the contention, this Polk Award is an undeniable win for citizen journalists everywhere. The prize, founded on the principle of journalistic integrity, brings credibility to the citizen media movement and grants it official recognition as a legitimate journalistic force.

They say YouTube; we say WhoseTube?

It was a textbook case of a video gone viral.

In 2006, the American band OK Go made their now unmistakable “Here It Goes Again” music video and posted it on YouTube. The video, filmed in a single continuous take, featured the band performing an elaborately choreographed dance on treadmills.

At the time, the band knew their actions were in clear violation of their contract with EMI – one of the four “major labels” that dominate the recorded music industry. Regardless of the obvious breach of contract, the band was not willing to let EMI dictate their doings and chose to go ahead with the project. Amazingly, the video went viral.

Just six days in, the video had 1 million views. Not soon after, the infectious work inspired others in the global cyberspace community to get in on the action.



As of today, the original video posted stands at nearly 50,000,000 views.

Damian Kulash Jr., OK Go’s lead singer and guitarist explained that “To the band, Here It Goes Again” was a successful creative project.” However, “To the record company, it was a successful, completely free advertisement.”

Greed is an attribute the world’s media conglomerates are typically aligned with. In light of the economic hardship plaguing the industry today, EMI grew to envision the music video – once only valued for its advertising potential, as a prospective source of revenue.

Immediately, the major labels began demanding cash from YouTube for the use of ‘their’ contractually-endowed material. In the end, YouTube agreed to pay EMI a stipend for each video stream; however, there is a catch. Once these videos are embedded elsewhere, EMI receives no such revenue.

For this reason alone, the feat of the viral video may become a rarity in the near future. At least if EMI gets its way.

As of late, the global media conglomerate has adopted a pragmatic approach to the situation at hand. Quite simply, according to Kulash, “YouTube and EMI have actually made it harder to share videos.”

How? A little something they like to call non-embeddable videos.

This means that while one can still watch OK Go’s music videos on YouTube, one can no longer embed these videos onto their own sites, blogs, etc. (Note: Due to the “embedding disabled by request” function on YouTube, I was unable to embed OK Go’s video into this blog).

In his Friday Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Kulash expressed concern in regards to his label’s hardliner stance.

He feels that by outlawing the spread of this content, EMI is singlehandedly violating the founding principles of Web 2.0.

“This isn’t how the Internet works. Viral content doesn’t spread just from primary sources like YouTube or Flickr. Blogs, Web sites and video aggregators serve as cultural curators, daily collecting the items that will interest their audiences the most. By ignoring the power of these tastemakers, our record company is cutting off its nose to spite its face.”

By discounting the power of a Web 2.0-empowered audience, is EMI making a huge mistake? Kulash seems to think so.

“[EMI] needs to recognize the basic mechanics of the Internet. Curbing the viral spread of videos isn’t benefiting the company’s bottom line, or the music it’s there to support. The sooner record companies realize this, the better — though I fear it may already be too late.”

Is a backlash already brewing? Will the people rise up to reclaim YouTube? Only time will tell.

Watch what you tweet

Just this week, Russia’s envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, got himself into a little hot water over comments he posted to his Twitter account. While the international community may have grown accustomed to Rogozin’s antics at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels, which include hanging a poster of Joseph Stalin in his ambassadorial office, his latest anecdotes in the “twittersphere” are raising new concerns.

In reference to the planned U.S. installation of anti-missile interceptors in Romania, Rogozin tweeted, “The Americans and their allies again want to surround the den of the Russian bear? How many times must they be reminded that this is dangerous?”

However, Rogozin did not stop there.

“The bear will come out,” he furthered, and “kick the ass of these miserable hunters.” Undoubtedly, the “hunters” Rogozin is referring to are the United States, NATO, and their allies.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Rogozin has engaged in such tactics via-Twitter. In fact, Rogozin is infamous for tweeting insulting comments in respect to others in the international community.

On the micro-blogging site, Rogozin has consistently pointed out NATO failures, has labeled the thinking of Western leaders as “irrational,” and even called former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko a “loser.”

The politics of Twitter are undeniable.

The New York Times reported that from PR to trash talking, many believe Rogozin’s Twitter activity is all part of a greater scheme cooked up by the Kremlin. Revaz Beshidze, the Georgian representative to NATO, is one of those who believe this is the case.

According to Beshidze, “he is implementing strict instructions from Moscow.” The Georgian diplomat implied that Rogozin’s sole purpose is to bully the West in its own institutional backyard.

David J. Kramer, the former deputy assistant secretary of state in George W. Bush’s administration described Rogozin’s actions saying, “His job is virtually to drop rhetorical bombs on NATO. As for where Rogozin’s tweets fit in, Kramer said, “His public profile runs counter to any sense that Russia is serious about improving relations with NATO.”

While Rogozin is undeniably pushing the boundaries of Twitter, there are slim to no guidelines which specify only “diplomatic niceties” are allowed.

While we struggle to understand the politics at work behind the scenes, this instance remind us that public social networking sites are always open to the manipulative forces of governments.

Tea and the future of print media with Jay Rosen

Apple’s newest gadget – the iPad, was unveiled on Jan. 27. The hype and hope surrounding this latest Apple product was infectious to say the least.

Everyone from tech-savvy fanatics to die-hard advocates of traditional print media were cheerleaders at the iPad’s introduction into the mediascape.

However, when Jay Rosen sat down with The Economist for tea, and to discuss the glorified potential of this newest technology, he seemed relatively immune to the buzz.



Rosen is a journalism professor at New York University (NYU). As well, he is a highly sought-after blogger and media critic whose opinion is not taken lightly.

As Rosen unpacked and subsequently debunked the hype and hope of iPad romanticism during his interview, it became very clear very quickly that perhaps too much greatness was expected of this medium.

This defeatist sentiment was only reiterated as Rosen offered his take on the burning question on the mind of every journalist and publisher: Will the iPad save the ailing print media industry that is desperate for a payday?

Interestingly, Rosen doesn’t seem to think so.

But why?

Well, according to Rosen, a significant amount of the iPad’s success “depends on the network of people who become the users.” Essentially, the user has to like it.

In regards to this, Rosen is unsure of how the tech-savvy masses, who have blossomed in their active role in modern social media, will react to the iPad’s old school ‘sit back, relax and enjoy the media’ feel.

Moreover, today, user-generated content ranks among the most popular content on the web. As well, along with user-generated content comes: user-generated filtering, user-generated organization, user-generated distribution and user-generated commentary. It is clear that internet users are making use of the power granted by social media.

Furthermore, the iPad is without a camera and videotaping capabilities, and only equipped with a barely workable keyboard. Thus, this ‘new’ technology is very unlike the Web 2.0 world we’ve grown accustomed to.

For this reason, Rosen believes that the iPad “is taking us back in web time to the read-only web.” He said that this newest tablet is “restoring people to the days when they were just the audience… when they were just the consumers of content.”

While the traditional print and publishing media are enthralled to “bring back the experience of sitting back with the media and enjoying the wonderful productions,” one must question whether this logic is outdated and if the media industry is out of touch with consumers.

Ultimately, Rosen is skeptical of whether the masses will respond positively to their demotion to merely a passive audience member.

What it comes down to is that the media is hoping the iPad, which has the capacity to charge users for content, will help the floundering traditional print media corporations - who have witnessed the internet take a sizable bite out of their profits.

However, with all the free content online, Rosen said that the media should concern itself with having the highest quality of content that is of value to its readers, rather than the presentation of that content - on e-readers, the Kindle, or the iPad.

According to Rosen, the media resorts to “magical thinking, deliverance by new devices, and business models” because “actually producing high quality content is a lot harder.”

Haiti: Social media failure?

In last week’s post, I pondered the possibility of a new media takeover.

Typically, however, that same day I came across a particularly persuasive editorial column that debunked my prior musings entirely.

Joshua Keating’s article in Foreign Policy marks a personal moment of realization that perhaps social media is not the saviour the journalistic profession has been waiting for. Oh great.

In the article, Keating deflated the hype surrounding the social media coverage of the ongoing Haiti crisis.

While Keating praised the micro-blogging site for its profound influence on the tumultuous Iranian political scene in June 2009, which many have since coined “a Twitter revolution,” he is far less gracious in regards to this latest coverage. In fact, Keating even goes so far as to dub the Haitian earthquake reporting as the first “Twitter Disaster.”

Keating explained that while the media circus surrounding Haiti is surely an interesting phenomenon, those contributing to social networking sites today are failing to provide valuable, let alone credible, newsworthy updates.

Keating said, “Haiti-related tweets seem to consist of either expressions of personal sympathy for the victims of the quake or links to news articles from other sites.” At the end of the day, Keating explained that the sheer manpower and professional capabilities of news organizations appeared to beat out Twitter’s volunteer base in the reporting of ‘real news’.

Interestingly, this is very different than what happened in Iran.

Where, as the Iranian government barred the press from entering the country, the mainstream media grew increasingly dependent on Twitter updates. On some occasions, according to the Washington Post, “The predominant information [was] coming from Twitter.”

In light of this summer’s events, and pandering to an overeager public craving up-to-the-second coverage, Twitter made the decision to rebrand itself as a news and information source in Nov. 2009.

The site did this by a seemingly simple change. Instead of asking users, “What are you doing?” when updating their statuses, the site now asked, “What’s happening?”

While the rebranding of Twitter as a news and information source has been reasonably successful, at times, it appears as though the site cannot live up to the standards we demand of traditional media.

This is something that any regular Twitter user, who undoubtedly experiences headaches stemming from site outages on a near weekly basis, can attest to.

For example, after word of aftershocks in Haiti, I hoped to see the drama unfolding first hand via #Haiti in the early morning hours of Jan. 20. However, upon attempting to log into my own Twitter account, I received the all too familiar “whale fail” image of the Twitter over capacity page.

"Too many tweets! Please wait a moment and try again"? Traditional media certainly would never get away with such a thing.

This was precisely the point Keating was hinting at in his article.

"In the past two decades, the news cycle has gone from the daily updates of newspapers to the up-to-the-minute coverage of cable news and the blogosphere to the up-to-the-second updates of Twitter. It's possible that we may have reached a point where information is being provided faster than users can process it, and the "news" ceases to inform at all.”

The Haiti crisis proved that social media cannot trump traditional news media just yet. However, in light of this latest exposure of social media’s current limits as a news medium, we can rest assured that the field will only better itself in the meantime.

Blogging 101 with Bryan Murley

I’m going to be honest; it took me a while to wrap my head around the concept of blogging. In fact, I found myself very disillusioned with the whole blogosphere for some time.

As a news junkie, I believed that citizen media was responsible for the downfall of traditional journalistic institutions. More simply, I believed bloggers did not possess the knowledge or the credibility to do what ‘real’ journalists did.

While my views were unarguably cynical, I wasn’t alone. In 2002, no one thought bloggers were akin to journalists. Today, however, everything has changed.

After becoming involved in the world of journalism, I have come to see the change happen before my eyes. Not only has social and participatory media become more prevalent over my few short years as a student journalist, it has become nothing short of an industry essential.

The swift shift is evident in everything from: prominent journalists tweeting and established newspapers setting up Facebook fan pages, to the normalization of blogs affiliated with major news organizations.

Last week, I was a delegate at the Canadian University Press (CUP) conference in Edmonton, Alberta. Not surprisingly, many of the sessions were on participatory, social and new media.

One conference session in particular, was purely on blogging.

The session was led by Bryan Murley, an assistant professor of new and emerging media from Eastern Illinois University. Murley made a number of interesting points which I think any blogger, whether they choose to be a “linker” or a “thinker,” should be aware of.

What I found most interesting, was Murley’s assertion that while “news used to be a lecture, now it’s a conversation.” This could not be closer to the truth.

Murley went on to explain that blogging should be second nature for journalists today. He pointed out a number of situations where a blog could help a journalist to: break news, converse with their audience, or leverage sources.

Furthermore, blogs are updated more frequently than newspapers print. Therefore, having a blog can help a writer break free from their production schedule slump.

According to Murley, in the future of journalism, bloggers will function as curators. Murley said, “As a blogger, you want to be a hub where people go to be sent away.”

Above all, according to Murley, hyperlinks are crucial to any blog. He explained, “If you don’t have any links, then you aren’t doing it right.” This is because, Murley explained, your blog is “not a newspaper on the web.”

Lastly, Murley made it very clear that “a blogger can’t tell you everything.” However, he said, “They can link to places where you can find more.”

After all of this, one is left pondering the day when blogs replace newspapers altogether. As farfetched as it may sound, this day may not be as far off as print journalists would like to think. A recent blog post on Innovation in College Media suggests that this very scenario is already underway on American college campuses.

I can’t tell you whether blogs will take over as the next journalistic medium. However, every time I see CNN’s Christiane Amanpour update her Facebook fan page, view a tweet from The Economist or scan The New York Times posts to their "At War" blog from major conflict zones, I can’t help but think a new media takeover is already upon us.