Clay Shirky writes on Foreign Affairs this week

Arguing for the right of people to use the Internet freely is an appropriate policy for the United States, both because it aligns with the strategic goal of strengthening civil society worldwide and because it resonates with American beliefs about freedom of expression
By switching from an instrumental to an environmental view of the effects of social media on the public sphere, the United States will be able to take advantage of the long-term benefits these tools promise.

Oooh – I just love this stuff “resonates with American beliefs” and “environmental view of the effects of social media on the public sphere”

“Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them.”

George Orwell

Twitter and Facebook are communication tools. Not values.

It is the height of foolishness to assert that a communications tool like Facebook and Twitter is a substitute for values. Sure it makes it easier for 80,000 people to attend demonstrations someone else is funding, but don’t forget the agendas of the people funding the demonstrations.
The US will not be able to “to take advantage of the long-term benefits these tools promise” unless it takes a moral and value position, clearly delineating the basic dos ( for starters – honor your parents, honor freedom of religion) and don’ts (not killing your citizens, not raping your women, not chopping off hands of thieves, not funding Muslim terrorists, not holding the world at gun-point over the price of oil).

There is no evidence that social media changes government policy

Look at Egypt. Look at Israel. Look at Wall Street.

Social media hype is escapism from dealing with fundamental issues

Let’s assume that the US has an agenda and responsibility to make the world a better place.
Green / clean energy.  Healthy people.
I think we can all agree these are  good thing for the world. Did social media play any kind of role at all in the blunders of  the Obama administration in their energy or healthcare initiatives? Does the administration have a good record or a bad record with these initiatives?
Solyndra is an illustration of how a major Obama contributor took half a billion in loan guarantees and walked away without exposure.   The factory employed about 150 people and stimulated the pockets of a small number of wealthy people.   And, do not forget, Solyndra is kids stuff compared to the $80 Billion in real money that the US government squandered on Afghan electrification projects with no oversight on the cost-plus contractors that delivered zip to Afghanistan.
Mr. Obama and his yea-sayers like Clay Shirkey need the hifalutin talk about the importance of social media and free speech, to deflect voter attention from  rewards to their campaign contributors, financial service institutions, government contractors and Beltway insiders and winning the next Presidential election.