Revolution still being tweeted

Celebrations of independence and deaths, in many forms, have dominated the news for the past few weeks.

Given the hundreds of years that have passed, it's easy to forget that arguably the greatest war of independence was in the New World, the Americas.

Much of our modern understanding of freedom was achieved by a bunch of ideological pioneers who wanted to be free from being told what to do by someone an ocean away (and paying taxes, lest we forget how revolutions come about).

The US constitution remains one of the greatest modern documents on freedom the world has seen.

It influences much more than the citizens of its own country and enshrines rights seldom seen before: to freedom of speech, to bear arms (its most controversial provision), to systems of law and government that are equitable and just, and to freedom of the press and of religious belief.

There has been much hand-wringing about the demise of the News of the World, which appeared for the last time yesterday. Sunk by its scurrilous disregard for ethics, I always bought a copy of this iconic Sunday newspaper when in the UK.

The "Screws of the World" - as it was colloquially known - was a barometer of a section of society and its content told you what those people were thinking and feeling.

Admittedly, reading that special brand of tabloid journalism was a treat for most journalists, with its pun-heavy, slang-laden, popularist treatment of current affairs. It was the Homer Simpson of journalism.

As this 168-year-old newspaper was dying, a new state was being born: South Sudan is the world's first new country in some 50 years.

As far as I can tell, Facebook has had very little involvement in this all-important revolution.

Declaring independence is something we South Africans should know well, having done it many times in our history. especially since the warring European factions arrived in about 1820.

Independence is not just from an absentee landlord like the 19th century colonial powers (persecution and taxes too) but from the mindset and cultural confines of belonging to someone else's "corporation" - to use the 20th century equivalent of the previous century's global-spanning empires.

Technological choices, like it or not, are just as much about choosing to call yourself a subject of the British Empire or a user of Microsoft's versus Apple's computers (and their underpinning way of working).

The same is true of the smartphones and operating system we choose. We're effectively paying the taxes of our day - software licence fees or patent royalties - to a distant overlord.

Using an online service like Facebook or Google+ is like agreeing to a constitution written by a colonial master (even if you live in the same country), which you have to agree to no matter what if you want to use their service.

We just call it "terms and conditions" these days.

It's buying into their world view of what information is most important and surrendering your privacy, like serfs did to their feudal overlords in the middle ages).

We live in a technologically advanced world but our underpinning ideologies are dictated by end-user licence agreements, which most of us never read, never understand and are invariably enraged about when our privacy is violated.

There are no Boston Tea Parties when Facebook suddenly decides everyone should see your private posts without your permission or prior knowledge.

The great independence revolutions of the 18th and 19th century were fought for freedom from oppression and taxes (lest we forget, the world is about money and how to make it).

Revolutions of the 21st century are still under way. They just look different. And the stakes are just as high.

• Shapshak is the editor of Stuff magazine