Wael Ghonim, a Google executive and Egyptian citizen, persuaded Google to allow him to return to Egypt once the protests began. He subsequently was arrested and detained for 11 days for his role in online protests. Upon his release, Ghonim became the reluctant face and voice of the revolution.

He assumed this role not because of his online petitions or Facebook protests but because he spent 11 days in custody. His legitimacy is derived from his time spent in jail. Action, bravery and the hardship Ghonim endured led people to view him as an impromptu leader. Ghonim is a symbol of what made this revolution so successful: its people.

The Internet might have played some role, but the battle was not fought and won by bloggers in cyberspace but by everyday citizens on the streets of Egypt.

The Internet exists as a neutral and highly versatile force. A class or certificate isn’t necessary to use it. The only prerequisite for usage is access, which has become nearly universal.

People who view social media and the Internet as a benevolent force for good are as wrong as those who decry its proliferation as the end of days.

Social media websites, such as Facebook, can act as a forum for the oppressed as often as they act as platforms for hatemongers to espouse demented worldviews.

Social media websites are neutral — their purposes are defined by the user. The Internet is a malleable force that by itself is incapable of accomplishing anything.

As it stands, the digital world is solely a reactionary force feeding off the actions and events of the real world. While the digital community must remain plugged into the real world, the real world does not require cyberspace.

People — not technology — triumphed in Egypt. Passionate protesters came together to call for change and staunchly refused to accept anything less than complete regime change.

In only 18 days, Egyptian protesters succeeded in overthrowing a president who had been in power for nearly 30 years. That alone is an amazing feat. People determine the fate of nations and history.

Technology aided them, but no amount of tweeting can ever replace the actions of real human beings.

“Liking” a cause to help fight hunger on Facebook never will be tantamount to volunteering time at a homeless kitchen. The Internet is a way of expression and exchange, but action remains with the individual. Technology might shape our lives, but it certainly doesn’t control them.

People made the revolution in Egypt possible. Technology can augment or make a revolution easier, but people remain at its center. The invention of the printing press allowed the mass production of Bibles and other religious pamphlets, ushering in Protestant Reformation and changing the face of the planet.

However, while the printing press might have acted as a catalyst, the ingredients had long been mixing — people and a desire for change still were at the center of the Protestant Reformation.

Technology can change our lives, but our world still revolves around action. The Internet did not cause the revolution in Egypt. Brave, young revolutionaries brought down former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak — not Twitter or Facebook.

Without the people in the streets, the people in the basements would be useless.

Matt Manning is a State News guest columnist and an international relations and Russian senior. Reach him at mannin84@msu.edu.