Did Facebook’s U.S. creators realize their social networking site where friends shared jokes, photos and personal messages would become a powerful organizational tool for political groups worldwide?

Web sites like Facebook can be edited by anyone anywhere – one of its 69 million users worldwide can create a group to meet fans of a favorite film and invite people to a house party, while another can set up a group with a political agenda to raise funds from thousands of donors and organize mass demonstrations.

Early on a January afternoon, a young Colombian civil engineer frustrated over the violence in his country created a Facebook group to protest the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). By the time he got home that evening 1,500 people had joined his group.

Discussions in that Facebook group during the next few weeks led to the February 4 “One Million Voices Against the FARC” march that drew thousands of participants and made international headlines.

Arab League information ministers approved the “Principles for Organizing Satellite Radio and TV Broadcasting in the Arab Region” at February meeting.  The charter forbids satellite television from offending Arab leaders, and national and religious symbols.  Many media rights activists and advocacy groups say the charter is an attempt to censor one of the Arab world’s main nonstate media sources.

The International Press Institute’s David Dadge said the charter “represents a step backwards for press freedom in the entire region, and threatens to undermine the significant strides recently made in some of the Arab world’s individual countries.”

On April 1, Egypt’s state-controlled satellite television operator Nilesat cut its transmission of London-based Al-Hiwar, believed to have ties to Egypt’s main opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood.  It also cut transmissions of Al Baraka and Al Hikma.

A statement from Reporters Without Borders said “Nilesat’s decision confirms the fears we expressed” over the charter and the organization worried of “a wave of censorship measures against satellite television stations that criticize Arab governments.”

Nilesat president Amin Bassiouni denied the new charter triggered the measures, and international communications expert Marwan Kraidy told journalist Magda Abu-Fadil that having some kind of regulatory framework to cover the more than 400 satellite channels “is not in itself a bad idea.”

However, Kraidy also said it is unclear whether the charter is a symbolic gesture or a concrete step by Arab governments to inhibit broadcasters, adding the governments’ collective track record in repressing the media “is legend.”

What do you think? Is the charter responsible regulation, suppression of press freedom or something in between?

One important lesson politicians can learn from Malaysia’s March 8 election is that candidates can’t rely on just traditional media like television, newspapers and radio to deliver their messages to voters. As more people get access to the Internet, often privately and conveniently in their own homes, they are using a lot of different news sources.

The Internet also is changing journalism. Anyone can start a blog, and posting items online – easily and anonymously – allows free expression without risking punishment or unwanted government attention. But anonymity can open the door to false or misleading postings by bloggers who don’t have to worry about personal repercussions when the truth comes out.

However, as a blog’s readership increases, so will the level of scrutiny. Inaccuracies are more likely to get noticed and called out. Much of a blog’s popularity relies not just on topics and political viewpoint but also on credibility, so a blogger has a vested interest in building and maintaining a credible platform for discussion. That interest keeps most bloggers honest with their readers.

Find out more about blogs and elections in “Malaysia’s Alternative Media Become Decisive Political Factor.”

Do you have any questions or comments about the growing importance of blogs in politics? Send them here.