Over the last few years we’ve been treated to a number of “Facebook revolutions,” from the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street to the squares of Istanbul, Kiev and Hong Kong, all fueled by social media. But once the smoke cleared, most of these revolutions failed to build any sustainable new political order, in part because as so many voices got amplified, consensus-building became impossible. Question: Does it turn out that social media is better at breaking things than at making things?

With the approach of the Lunar New Year, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) yesterday released a karaoke-style music video featuring its first self-composed song to wish the people of Taiwan an auspicious and prosperous Year of the Monkey.

Representatives from major tech firms Google, Facebook and Twitter have denied their digital platforms are "instrumental" in spreading terrorist ideology across the internet and stressed a firm commitment to combating online crime. 

Ever wondered which world leader is most followed on Facebook, or Twitter? Should we care? Well, it would seem that the explosion of social media in the last few years and its ability to reach previously inaccessible audiences has not escaped the attention of government leaders.

This dearth of policy stands in stark contrast to the role played by an influential State Department policy maker turned Google executive, Jared Cohen, in formulating and facilitating a form of "soft" regime change policy in Egypt during the "January 25 Revolution" known as "digital democracy." 

The study, World Leaders on Facebook, is Burson-Marsteller's latest research into how world leaders, governments and international organisations communicate via social media. Over the past eight years, Facebook has emerged as the platform of choice for world leaders and governments to engage with their constituents.