> [WS:] I think a more accurate view is that they are neither
> revolutionary nor counter-revolutionary. Per se, they do not matter.
> What matters is the social context in which they are being used, and
> depending on that context, they can be either revolutionary,
> counter-revolutionary, or neutral.
>
> Couldn't agree more. True historically of all media. They're instruments, like other weaponry.
>
But criticizing Twitter for not being of more utility in the organizing of political opposition is like criticizing a screwdriver for its clumsiness at hammering nails. There are better tools for that job: e.g. skype or encrypted email. That's a sense in which technology is not neutral. Public technologies like Twitter do encourage quietism, in radically opposed social contexts: say, in liberal democratic communicative capitalism, where tolerant powers-that-be encourage passive fantasies of participation; or in the context of networked authoritarianism, in which authorities regard social media as a serious threat and respond with despair-inducing reprisals and propaganda (see: http://tinyurl.com/social-media-azerbaijan ).
The problem with the FT article is that it broadly asserts that computers encourage quietism and immobility. Computers do reduce socially-necessary mobility - if you can work, shop, socialize or plot a revolution from home, obviously you don't have to leave home as often. The article doesn't make a distinction between tools that can be used for publicity (with the risk of quietism) and tools that are more appropriate to behind-the-scenes organizing (with the risk of failing to engage sufficient numbers of people), or that perhaps in a context where you can stay home more often, your participation in a demonstration or occupation can become more significant.