Is ICA good for revolution, but not governing? Hell yes.

http://profoundheterogeneity.com/2011/06/the-critical-question/comment-page-1/#comment-79

"While generally I am a cautious optimist when it comes to the question of does social media enable people to resist and coordinate against oppressive regimes (more on the side of Shirky on this, less on the side of Morozov), I am far more skeptical on the question of whether or not social media powered revolutions yield stability. They might be really good in the short term, but the attributes which make social media powerful in the short term, might also be a hindrance in the long term, not so good at long lasting stability."

I posted a response to this article:

I think you missed a couple of important points. First, the soul of democracy is that people have a voice, where they can expound on their views and opinions. This means there is a cacophany of ideas all around. but as Kevin Kelly shows, we do not need to fear chaos so much as we think. I learned this studying the group Anonymous. They shun anyone who would consider themselves a leader of Anonymous, yet the efficiently and creatively built a movement against the Church of Scientology. Argument and fighting are just considered a part of their process, not something to be avoided, because out of that arguing and fighting comes action. Your article almost sounds like you fear too many people having a voice.
Secondly, you should see getting rid of Mubarak as one action. Once that was done, that process closed, and the next action – organizing political parties and holding an election – is the next step. They are two different things that require completely different organizing. While the protests were essentially leaderless, you can’t really have a leaderless government, by definition. So I don’t think you should bemoan one process because it’s not like another process.