From #Slacktivism to #Activism: How Social Media is Changing the Face of Political Protest Around the World.

26/04/2010 Jax 42 comments

Social networking (SN) and Web 2.0 applications, commonly known as “social media”, are an inherent part of most activist campaigns today due to the fact they are, as Clay Shirky (2009) states: “global, social, ubiquitous and cheap”. Social media platforms allow activists to not only create, but also tap into networks of people to promote an issue or cause, and are an excellent way to create action and send issues global. The premise of this paper is that much more effective campaigns are organized now that activists and organizers are more adept at employing the characteristics inherent in these social media platforms, such as tags and their ability to spread a message virally and more importantly, send the message global. To illustrate this, this paper will concentrate on social media platforms that have come to the fore in the last five years: Facebook, Twitter and Weblogs (blogs) and will also outline events from inside authoritarian regimes, where these tools have been used successfully to either highlight issues or instigate real change. The concept of ‘citizen journalist’ is discussed in depth in the paper and emphasizes the link between traditional mass media, and online social media and the changes brought about by local people being able to report on local events using social media. As a counterpoint to the positive aspects of online activism, this paper will also highlight and respond to some of the negative perceptions.

Historically, activism in the offline world has often taken physical form; street marches, strikes and protests – even full-scale revolution to force change of political ideologies. For many years, as seen in the successful campaign against the Vietnam War, campaigns were conducted with a “take to the streets” mentality (Critical Art Ensemble, 1994, p.10), usually around large monuments which were seen as the physical manifestation of the locus of power of the state. Clay Shirky discussed the fact that pre-internet, citizens who were not part of mainstream media had to hold up signs and wave placards in the street to get their protest heard. Then, the protest was only really effective if the media picked up the story (Shirky, 2010). This is also reinforced by Rucht (2004) in his proposal that movements need the media, but the media does not necessarily need movements and: “without the media, a movement remains unknown to a large audience” (p. 29). Pre-internet, most protest and political activity had limited scope and was localized, unless reported by mass media such as television, radio or newspapers.

The internet was seen to change the nature of activism, protest and causes when it began to become mainstream and effects have increased exponentially as the technologies have become more advanced, networked and social. Gurak & Logie (2003) state: “From the earliest days, the internet has been about networking: not just wires and hubs, but people. Protest too, is always about networks, usually networks of people who have a common interest or concern and come together”. Earliest protests employed newsgroups and email to disseminate information and lobby for change. As discussed by Nip (2004), some successful non-political campaigns using these methods were seen in the early 1990′s when internet based petitions were signed and emails sent about an ill received product – the CEO, overwhelmed by the volume of emails received, withdrew the product.

At the forefront of early online political activism, the Zapatista (EZLN) movement based in Chiapas Mexico alerted the world to the plight of indigenous Mexicans via the internet, and spurred “a world-wide network of solidarity groups, which helped to produce an international public opinion movement that deterred the Mexican government from using large-scale repression” (Nip, 2004). Nip states that the dissemination of this information was instant, although it could not replace human contact and lobbying. The internet was integral in making the message heard globally, very rapidly.

When new social media tools are released, activists are some of the early adopters of these tools, as they enable communication amongst actors which doesn’t rely on a hierarchy or state controlled media (BBC & Krotoski, 2010). This was seen in the EZLN movement. However, it could be said the most significant enabler for activists is that these tools allow for anonymity, which is especially significant in countries where freedom of speech is restricted and foreign news sources are banned (Vegh, 2003). Poster, (as cited by Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, and David, 2004, p. 377), claims the most important aspect of mediated communication (such as that which the internet enables) is that it is “undetermined, versus fixed forms of print and broadcast media”, which makes it difficult for governments to shut down the source of dissent or curtail freedom of speech. This is extremely empowering for individuals in countries that did not previously provide a means to espouse their views, allowing “flexibility in identity, presence” and thus: “avoidance of strict social control” (Van Aelst & Walgrave, 2003 p.97). Unfortunately this strict social and political control is ongoing for many citizens around the world and subsequent examples outline events in authoritarian regimes where citizens, using social media are challenging this control.

Blogs, using both text and images, are used widely to illustrate these battles against authority and prescient examples have been seen recently in China. China is well known for censorship and state-controlled media. Moreover, the state is well aware of the power of social media and the power that anonymity affords protesters in the bid for freedom of speech. They have placed restrictions on global sites and information coming into the country by way of massive investment in technological infrastructure in their “great firewall of China” and employing an army of Chinese people or “internet police” to monitor dissent in the blogosphere and introduce pro-Chinese propaganda into online discussions (MacKinnon, 2009).

This investment, however, was seen to be largely ineffectual when the Sichuan earthquake struck killing over 70,000 people in Northern China. Many children were killed when schools collapsed; allegedly Communist Party buildings survived. A 2009 Amnesty International report on the event describes how initially Chinese authorities were praised for their openness in allowing journalists greater access to the affected area, but when it was leaked that much of the money destined for earthquake strengthening these schools had been diverted into other areas and reports were made criticizing the lack of advance warning given for the quakes, traditional media control was reinstated. The report states: “The Foreign Correspondents club of China listed 18 cases involving dozens of foreign journalists and photographers who were prevented from reporting or were briefly detained for attempting to cover efforts by parents to hold officials responsible for the collapse of schools” (p.6); many of the parents were also detained. In the absence of traditional media, renowned artist Ai Wei Wei, sent 50 volunteers to Sichuan to compile their own death toll and within days they had compiled names of the dead children on their blogs (Reynolds, 2009). The story gathered so much momentum because of the use of names and images of the children that many others were inspired by the action and went to the region to find out the truth (BBC & Krotoski, 2010). It can be assumed that pre-internet and social media, the cover-up by Chinese officials would have had some success and there would have been little or no accountability.

“Citizen journalism” is a phrase often used to describe the actions of citizens as seen in the aforementioned Chinese earthquake. The power of it cannot be underestimated. In the absence of mainstream media and in the face of cover-ups by officials, citizens, using social media tools they use everyday for socializing and entertainment, take on the role of watchdog to get the facts out to the world. Moreover, these tools are perfect for this due to their decentralized nature and ability to extend local information into the global arena very rapidly. It is very difficult for these countries such as China to close down these services and if they attempt this, proxy servers can be used to mask IP addresses and therefore identity. In China’s case, many incoming links are banned, but it is very difficult to control the abundance of the information coming out of the country (Shirky, 2009) and an anonymous person with a cell phone taking photos or video and uploading them to YouTube or their blog can make the facts undeniable, as seen in the Sichuan earthquake.

The disputed result in the Iran Election of June 2009 is another case where citizen journalism was employed to get facts out to the world when mainstream media had been banned. It is also here that we start to see the creativity employed by people in the use of social media tools, designed ostensibly for the purpose of socializing, now being enlisted for a political purpose. Demonstrations erupted because of a perceived rigged election result and because of the media ban the only information coming out the country at that time was through Twitter ‘tweets’ and photos and video posted to various blog platforms and YouTube (Carr, 2009). This served to connect the outside world with what was happening in real-time, which was especially significant for the many Iranians watching events from outside of Iran. When interviewed about the events in Iran, Clay Shirky (2009) stated “reading personal messages from individuals on the ground prompts a whole other sense of involvement”. He also discusses the design of Twitter being such that it is impossible for authorities to shut it down. In the Iran conflict, a worldwide community came together to try and keep the service open by providing proxies and proxy information via Twitter. This indicates that these social media enable involvement by those outside of a conflict and a solidarity that otherwise would not be possible.

Along with real-time information dispersal at political events, Twitter has been used to organize direct action prior to events. This was seen in Moldova in 2009 and this event was subsequently named “The Twitter Revolution” (WNYC & Garfield, 2009). Moldova, one of the last communist countries from the USSR held elections and the protests were organized by Moldovan Twitter users. Twitter was used for the initial organisation and subsequent spread of information, tied in with Facebook status updates, word-of-mouth and mobile phones. As stated in a blog about the event on the DigiActive website: “People have realized the ability of the tool not only to draw people to your cause, mobilize efforts or provide information, but they were able to harness its ability to spread information with the explicit goal of attracting attention to a particular event that otherwise may have gone largely unnoticed”; the blog goes on to say: “this means international pressure on a government and an election that determines their very well-being” (Michael, 2010). Thus, if the world is watching, there is less likely to be reprisal from the state.

Facebook too has been used extensively in the area of protest organization and direct action and the anti-FARC rallies that occurred globally in 2008 are a good example of this. It is thought that the Colombian rebel group FARC is responsible for many kidnappings, deaths and terrorist activities in their bid to rid the country of the neo-liberal leadership and influence by the United States (Neumeyer & Raffl, 2008). The Facebook group “A Million Voices Against FARC” was created in response to their activities. More than 300,000 people worldwide joined the group and rallies were organised and occurred in many cities around the world, drawing attention to the issues within the country. Newspapers around the world reported the Facebook protests because of the massive amount of people the group had attracted. This illustrates how these causes are suddenly deemed newsworthy by traditional media when public sentiment grows to a critical mass, gauged by SN platforms such as Facebook. Traditional media outlets then spread the message further afield.

These examples give an indication of how the inherent qualities of social media have been utilized to shape political events around the world, i.e. their viral ability to send a message quickly, anonymously and globally with the use of tags and using existing networks of people. Activists are only just beginning to realize the potential of social media, given that these technologies are relatively new, and are inventing new and creative campaigns where the use of social media tools are integral to the campaign. Some of these campaigns are listed on the “Global Voices Online” website – a website providing a forum for 200 bloggers who claim their aim is to: “aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online – shining light on places and people other media often ignore” (GlobalVoices: The world is talking. Are you listening?, n.d.).

Some successful examples featured on the Global Voices website are: “adopt a local politician” in Brazil, whereby a call was made to bloggers to pick up and follow a politician and hold them accountable for their actions. So many people responded that a central site was organized to follow these blogs (Sasaki, 2010). Another case in Mexico was labelled the “twitter tag protest”: A decision to introduce an internet tax was reversed by the government within days after the public employed different social media tools such as Twitter, Flickr and Facebook to voice concerns with the tax by tagging posts “#InternetNecesario” (the internet is a necessity). These tweets were subsequently aggregated onto a single site and sent via email to all 628 congress members of the Mexican Government, prompting the reversal (Sasaki, 2009). These cases, having had successful outcomes, could also serve as templates for subsequent protest and political action.

Despite the aforementioned successes, online activism has some detractors and it is important to acknowledge their claims to see if the outcome for activism using social media tools can be improved. It is clear that merely joining a Facebook group is not going to make real change when people join with no intention of doing anything more or when regimes have no intention of listening. Evgeny Morozov, well known social media commentator and author, describes this as “feel good and useless internet activism”, or “slacktivism’ and suggests people need to be meaningfully engaged in actual tasks to really make a difference. He also suggests the so-called “Twitter Revolution”, as seen in Iran and Moldova was overstated and was nothing more than “cyber-utopianism” when really, all it offered was noise from a young, mainly middle class Iranian population, not representative of Iranians at large (Morozov, 2009). However skewed the view was coming out of Iran, it is clear that some communication was better than no communication in an environment where no other media could report on events. Moreover, the video and photos coming out via social media tools such as YouTube were invaluable in providing an accurate picture of events and the facts could not be denied when provided in real-time.

To summarize, the very least achieved in the use of social media tools for activism is that they are useful in gauging public sentiment for local causes and issues, which can garner the attention of traditional mass media. However, for “citizen journalists” in authoritarian regimes, social media platforms, commonly used for personal information sharing and socializing, have been commandeered as political tools and are invaluable. Because of their design, the interconnection of these platforms and the fact they do not rely on a single organization, a message or cause can go viral and global in a very short space of time and this is difficult to control. There is a way to go in truly refining how these tools can be used for activism and sometimes their use in events can be overstated. However, the examples this paper has described show that campaigns can be very successful when creatively designed to employ the inherent characteristics of social media tools to communicate, advocate and organize action.

Author: Jacky Dwane

Hi! Thanks for taking the time to read this paper. Any thoughts, whether it be one line or one hundred, please use the comments section below. Thanks, Jacky

Bibliography

BBC (Producer) & Krotoski, A. Dr (Presenter). (2010, March 1). The Virtual Revolution: Enemy of the State: [Podcast radio program]. London: BBC World Service. Retrieved March 10 , 2010 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2010/03/100301_the_virtual_revolution_part_two.shtml

Carr, J (2009). Chapter 10: Weaponizing Malware. In M Loukides (Ed), Inside Cyber Warfare: Mapping the Cyber Underworld (pp. 141-160). Sebastopol, CA, USA: O’Reilly.

Critical Art Ensemble. (1994). Chapter 1: Electronic Civil Disobedience. Electronic Civil Disobedience and Other Unpopular Ideas . Autonomedia. Retrieved March 15, 2010, from Critical Art Ensemble: http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/

GlobalVoices: The world is talking. Are you listening? (n.d.). Retrieved March 26 2010 from Global Voices Online: http://globalvoicesonline.org/

Gurak, L., & Logie, J. (2003). Internet Protest, from Text to Web. In M. McCaughey, & M. Ayers, Cyberactivism: online activism in theory and practice (pp. 26-235). New York, New York, USA: Routlege.

Katz, J. E. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371). New Jersey, USA: Rutgers University.

MacKinnon, R. (2009). China’s Censorship 2.0: How companies censor bloggers. First Monday [Online] , 14 (2). Retrieved March 25, 2010 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2378/2089

Morozov, E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the “Twitter Revolution. Dissent , 56 (4), 10-14.

Michael, M. (2010, March 23). Google’s Stand on Uncensored Search: Irrelevant to China’s Internet Experience. [Web log message] Retrieved March 25, 2010, from DigiActive: http://www.digiactive.org/2010/03/23/googles-stand-on-uncensored-search-irrelevant-to-chinas-internet-experience/

Neumeyer, C., & Raffl, C. (2008). Facebook for Protest? The Value of Social Software for Political Activism in the Anti-FARC Rallies. DigiActive, ICT&S Center. Salzburg: University of Salzburg.

Nip, J. Y. (2004). The Queer Sisters and its electronic bulletin boards; a study of the internet for social movement mobilization. In B. D. W. Van De Donk (Ed.), Cyberprotest, New Media, Citizens and Social Movements (pp. 233-258). New York, NY, USA: Routlege.

Reynolds, J. (2009, May 12). Still Searching for answers. [Web log message]. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from www.bbc.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jamesreynolds/2009/05/ive_just_been_down_to.html

Rucht, D. (2004). The Quadruple ‘A’: media strategies of protest movements since the 1960′s. In W. Van De Donk (Ed.), Cyberprotest, new media, citizens and social movements (pp. 29-56). New York, NY, USA: Routlege.

Sasaki, D. (2009, October 19). Technology for Transparency Network. (G. Voices, Producer) Retrieved March 27, 2010, from Global Voices Online: http://transparency.globalvoicesonline.org/project/internetnecesario

Sasaki, D. (2010, March 2). The Technology for Transparency Review, Part I. Retrieved March 27, March, from Global Voices: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/03/02/the-technology-for-transparency-review-part-i/

Shirky, C. (2009, June). Clay Shirky: How social media can make history. [Video file] Retrieved March 12, 2010, from TED: Ideas worth spreading: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html

Shirky, C. (2009, June). TEDBlog. Q&A with Clay Shirky on Twitter and Iran [Web log message]. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from: http://blog.ted.com/2009/06/qa_with_clay_sh.php

Van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2003). New media, new movements? In W. B. van de Donk (Ed.), Cyperprotest: new media, citizens, and social movements (pp. 97-122). New York, NY, USA: Routlege.

Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests against the World Bank. In M. McCaughy, & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: online activism in theory and practice (pp. 73-96). New York, NY, USA: Routlege.

WNYC (Producer) & Garfield, B (Presenter). (2010, April 17). The Twitter Revolution: WNYC. [Podcast radio program] Retrieved March 0, 2010 from http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/17/04

Justice Denied: Harrassment of Sichuan Earthquake Survivors and Activists (2009). London: Amnesty International Publications.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.

Provided by website-hit-counters.com hit counter site.

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by Matthew Allen » Blog Archive » Examples of authentic learning in Internet Communications III: NET204 – Researcher, Educator and Net Critic about 1 year ago.

[...] paper on Activism, much more commenting, quality [...]
Written by KiYanC about 2 years ago.

Hi Jax,

A good paper, I’m also very interested in this topic. I’m especially interested in the case in China because I come from Hong Kong (Part of China). Indeed the earthquarke in 2008 was an good example of showing the power of information technology in terms of press freedom issues.

In terms of online activism, Chinese Internet users are being quite active on fighting their freedom on the Internet. In recent years, Chinese government started to put more limit on the Internet. In 2009, every computer sold in China has to install a software called “Green Dam Youth Escort” under the name of protecting the youth from sexual information on the Internet. However, this campign was seemed as another tactic of Internet sensorship. To voice out their anger on the campign, some of the Internet users created a numbers of video of “Green Dam Girl”, a manga styled character, to signifer Chinese government’s attempt of controlling free speech on the Internet (Xin, 2009). The video was soon spread on websites like YouTube and attracted the New York Times to report on it. I find this is very interesting because I think from this case we can see the Internet is playing a role to help people who are in countries that have limited speech freedom to share their political opinion. What do you think?

Reference:
Xin, H. (2009). China: After Outcry, Government Backpedals Over Internet-Filtering Software. Science, 324(5934), 1500-1501. Retrieved from http://scienceonline.org/
Written by murrayw about 2 years ago.

Hi Jax, great paper, thanks for the interesting read.

As Web2.0 permeates deeper into our existence, society is experiencing and has already seen a change and move toward technology from traditional methods. You have explained this concept well and I examine a similar idea in my paper, looking at traditional dating methods such as newspapers and social events, and the impact that virtual communities have had on these. Changing them from a traditional community into a virtual one.

I particularly liked the quote from Gurak & Logie (2003) “From the earliest days, the internet has been about networking: not just wires and hubs, but people”. I never really thought of it this way. While we are only beginning to embrace the social aspect of the internet, that is essentially all it is. A method for people to connect in an ever increasing number of ways.

At the same time as enabling people and communities, I believe the Internet can also hinder us, in regards to blacklists. Websites such as wikileaks expose these lists. This is where citizen journalism comes in. It’s one thing to prevent access to a particular website or genre of sites, but to monitor internet traffic and individuals comments will be a challenge.
A few thoughts, thanks for the read.
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Thanks for your comment Ted. Sad to hear about Dr Kurtz. I have just watched a YouTube video about it “Steve Kurtz Waiting” (2007) and it just shows how paranoid the American Government is since 911 and the lengths the FBI have taken to frame Dr Kurtz. It looks like Dr Kurtz has been vilified because of his ‘timing’ – the arrest happened when the US was extremely jittery. I think being part of the Critical Art Ensemble collective – a group with fairly extreme views, using their art to voice dissent – he would have been on an ‘extremist’ watch list of some description and just needed a small excuse to pick him up. Luckily the case was dropped in 2008 which at least shows that there is some justice.

I don’t doubt that current trends towards censorship and control of the internet will continue and we will end up with something much more controlled than now. We’ll probably look back on these days as the ‘good old days’. However, if you look at China, this is already an example of where as you say “massive state/corporate control”, and people are still finding ways to voice dissension or at least hold authorities to account, as with the Sichuan earthquake example.

Cheers!

Steve Kurtz Waiting (2007) [Online video file]. Retrieved May 16 2010 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bExpRb7vryA
Written by ted mitew about 2 years ago.

Hi Jacky, this is a very interesting and pertinent paper, considering the massive global trend towards greater control on and offline. Unlike you however I am pessimistic about our prospects in keeping the net open and free from massive state/corporate control. It is sadly relevant that one of the founding members of the Critical Art Ensemble whom you quote – Dr Steven Kurtz – is now in jail facing bioterrorism charges from the Department of Homeland Security.

Cheers
Ted
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Yeah, I agree with you there. I responded to Bobby below that there are many mass media journalists write for blog sites, and are no longer restrained by the brief they are given in the particular paper/magazine they write for. They tend to be alot more free and informal, and I really enjoy their writing. A favorite journalist I will follow no matter where they write..it is their thoughts and how they articulate them that I respond to.

Blogs sites, as with mass media, get a reputation for quaility contributors and a following from that, but I usually like to read from authors that I respect and write properly, quote good sources, and not opinion pieces on subjects that I am interested in, which as you say, don’t always make it to traditonal media. I am aware from my research how popular opinion can be shaped via headines and presenting a certain view, which then gets taken as gospel by the public i.e. “Facebook increases isolation”, “The Twitter Revolution”, “Facebook bullying causes suicide” etc etc.

Politically speaking though, the role of the citizen journalist is much more powerful in these authoritarian regimes while in the west, unfortunately mass media still rules.
Written by TomEvans about 2 years ago.

Hi Jax,

I can see a role for citizen journalists outside of authoritarian regimes in fact, just about anywhere where there is an important story that is not being told, even here in Perth. In any context, there are always stories that are overlooked by the traditional news outlets because they are not high profile or don’t support a particular point of view.

I think that traditional news outlets are concerned about the rise of citizen journalists. I have certainly heard a few debates on radio with journalists defending their professional credentials saying that they do their research and authenticate their sources and that this makes them better at what they do. But that doesn’t mean that they write with no bias and it is arguable that because they are paid to do the job, they have lost some of their independence. Few people are going to bite the hand that feeds them. The sheer volume of citizen journalists out there, means that there is more than a few news sources which means we can put a more comprehensive picture together of what is going on. It may mean that we have to read a bit more widely to get to the ‘truth’ but the truth is never one dimensional any way.
Written by Jax about 2 years ago.

Unsure what you mean by “governments controlling online activism by ‘traditional measures”. However, if I am to guess, I would say you are talking about cases such as China, whereby they are attempting to control the internet and blogosphere and social media and what people can google, and the people are using those very same tools to criticize their government or hold them accountable.

There will always be a tension in those countries between the would be controllers and those that wish to subvert and strive for freedom of speech. Social media tools are the most obvious choice – as I covered in my essay – they allow for freedom of speech because of the anonymity they afford users, which if the Chinese Government has their way, won’t for much longer. They are trying to change the law so that internet users have to register their real names, (Foster, 2010) which I believe will have major implications for freedom of speech.

Foster, P (May 5, 2010). China to force internet users to register real names.
Retrieved May 2010 from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7681709/China-to-force-internet-users-to-register-real-names.html
Written by Jax about 2 years ago.

Thanks for your comment Carl.

Yep, there is that danger of people ‘joining’ a cause and doing nothing more. My personal belief however is that those type of people that have never done anything substantial for a cause anyway. The internet isn’t going to make people motivated to do something if they’re not that way inclined. For those people, perhaps it just increases public awareness.
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

Thank you for the Morozov article – (the l is missing from the html

http://www.evgenymorozov.com/morozov_twitter_dissent.pdf

I have printed out for bedtime reading
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Cool, Andrew thanks for those links. Had a quick look…..

This is purely my opinion, and I havn’t done much research as it’s not really what my paper was concerned with. However, I suggest that news outlets have look for different economic models, which most are doing. Some, such as Murdoch are already trying to do this with regard to charging a subscription for content; however, they will have to offer something that sets them apart from other online services offering free news. I think there will be a place for newspapers and great journalism – along with magazines and books. However, they really need to be more creative about how to make money as there is so much more competition and people have so much more choice about where they get their news from and how they get it. It’s fabulous for the consumer, but not great for traditional mass media. The examples already exist in the music industry
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Hi Tom, Evgeny Morozov does have a more dystopian view of social networks and their role in politics and he brings up some important points. I think if activists know that they are potentially traceable via these technologies, then they will devise more ways of masking their true identities from within these regimes. There is software that does this already; “Haystack” which helps mask identity in heavily censored and monitored states. There is also a book out that outlines ways in which to do this. I read about it on a website and can’t find my bookmark (!). So there is basically a worldwide solidarity movement that are helping people in these countries to subvert authorities. However, it will always be a game of cat and mouse I believe.

As to you second point on journalism. I direct you to Eliot’s comments in this section below whereby he claims you can’t beat good old fashioned mass media if you want to attention for your cause. There will always be a place for good, old fashioned, well researched, well written, professional journalism. They are paid professionals and they are professional because they have been trained and have reputations. Where citizen journalism comes into play is when traditional mass media is banned – usually in times of massive civil unrest in authoritarian regimes.

Haystack, a project for Iran. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from Haystack.com http://www.haystacknetwork.com/
Written by TomEvans about 2 years ago.

Hi Jacky,

I enjoyed reading your paper. I also wrote my paper on the effect of social networking platforms on politics but emphasised different aspects. I am interested in your argument that what makes social media platforms attractive to activists is that they are anonymous. You refer to Evgeny Morozov as a critic of the power of social networking in politics and reference his article “Iran downside to the Twitter Revolution”. He seems to be of the view that far from being anonymous, social networking platforms are very dangerous for activists and that “both Twitter and Facebook give Iran’s secret services superb platforms for gathering open source intelligence about the future revolutionaries, revealing how they are connected to each other. These details are now being shared voluntarily without any external pressure. Once regimes used torture to get this kind of data; now it’s freely available on Facebook.” (Morozov 2009)

What are your thoughts about this?

I really enjoyed your commentary about citizen journalists who “shine light on places and people that other media often ignore”. The use of social media to expose information that would otherwise not be seen shows the real power of the medium. The fact that in some instances, the stories are picked up by traditional media really highlights that. Instead of being passive recipients of news broadcasting, ordinary people can drive it. I wonder what the impact of this will be on professional journalism in the future.
Written by Andrew Pettigrew about 2 years ago.

Hi Jacky,
I really enjoyed reading your paper and the examples cited. Last year I focused on the political uses of Web 2.0, and how it was used in campaigning in Australia and the United States. In the Kevin 07 and Obama 08 campaigns the parties in opposition used citizen journalism and Web 2.0 to advantage by giving those in opposition a public voice and recruiting followers. (A process China is very frighten of). Again is another example of how the Internet draws like minded individuals together to fight a common foe.

Closer to home, consider the counterargument against blogs and citizen journalism in a speech by John Hartigan, the CEO of News Limited, to the National Press Club in Canberra last year (Hartigan, 2009). Listening to his speech I began to understand the effects of citizen journalism and political blogs have on traditional democratic societies, but more importantly the distress they’ve caused to traditional print media channels. Upon reflection after listening to Hartigan’s speech, and reading the transcript, his attack was not about limiting free speech, or miss-informed public comment, it was all about selling newspapers, or the lack there of!

Such has become the popularity of political blogs and online news sites, that many traditional newspapers have closed. Some have managed to move online, however there is no denying that traditional broadsheets are in decline (Kishtwari, 2009). Hartigan’s attack on blogs and citizen journalism is all about protecting newspaper sales, protecting the role of professional journalists and delivering quality and professional editorial.

Another short piece that may be of interest is this YouTube clip on New Media vs. Old Media by Stephen O’Doherty (O’Doherty, 2009).

Hartigan, J. (2009). Hartigan: the blogosphere is all eyeballs and no insight. Speeches at National Press Club Lunch, Retrieved May 8, 2010, from http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/07/01/hartigan-the-blogosphere-is-all-eyeballs-and-no-insight/

Kishtwari, S. (2009). Another US newspaper closure: Tucson Citizen prints its last edition. World Editor Forum Retrieved May 8, 2010, from http://www.editorsweblog.org/newspaper/2009/05/another_us_newspaper_closure_tucson_citi.php

O’Doherty, S. (2009). Sky News – New media vs. Old Media. Sky News Australia. Retrieved May 8, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBE5A5Gtq_Y
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Cheers Bobby!

The Global Justice Movement and associated NGO’s and activist groups – and indeed everyone in the world with information or a cause they want to get out to the rest of the world – have definitely benefited from the fact that with the internet, barriers to entry with are very low. This is one of the characteristics that have ensured not only it’s initial use in campaigning, but it’s continued use and success. Unfortunately, and as Eliot stated below, mainstream media still appears to be the most effective way of getting a message out, or getting the attention of the public. Therefore, only the really well organised, well funded groups with money can do this if they want to pay for advertising i.e. groups such as Amnesty International or Greenpeace, or topic

However, as you state, it means that anyone can create publicity for a cause, which doesn’t rely wholly on money and mass media or, more importantly, a hierarchy or funding. Creating a one dimensional cause on Facebook and getting users to join it, isn’t really going to make a difference though either. The answer lies in using the technology creatively and preferably, somehow getting the attention of mass media in the process. Aggregating and combining the efforts of different groups and contributors i.e. slick organisation.

To your comment about investigative journalism and whether it is dying out with the advent of the citizen journalist; I think there will always be a place for good journalism. The point of difference will be how it is delivered. i.e. via a blog, or via a mass media. There are countless blog sites that have journalists that write for them, (tumeke, norightturn); many of these journalists are regular contributors to mass media i.e. they write for papers and magazines and host TV shows. I am thinking of Russell Brown, David Slack and the like (NZ social commentators). I think quality will always prevail, of course, there’s a hell of a lot of pap as well, but we will get better at filtering this out – we are adapting to these new technologies all the time without even knowing it, but also we are adapting the technologies to fit our needs.
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Great points Rob – you have the gift of the blab!

Regarding the influence of social (new) media over traditional media in publicizing a cause; I think a well designed campaign that uses social media AND mass media to be the most effective. They key is how to get the attention of mass media. As I stated in my paper, sometimes a protest that begins online can get enough people signed up to ensure that mass media then get interested. However, I would imagine the cause would have to be deemed topical and newsworthy and the story have something that would set it apart from anything else competing for mass media attention – the notion of the ‘emotional handhold’ (Croeser, 2008) comes into play here.

I mean, how many Facebook causes have you seen lately and how many have you joined? The ones that get my attention usually have been in mass media and I already have information provided from other sources. Either that, or the issues are local and affect me directly, or could potentially in the future.

Therefore, I think the key for social media – and I guess this could be said about internet marketing in general – is trying to connect the issue with the groups that would be most interested and likely to actually ‘do’ something about it, whether it be march on parliament or sign a petition or make submissions to the council.

Yep, on a fundamental level, as you say, social media are tools for communication, but as discussed, the inhrerent characteristics of these’tools’ now mean they allow for an unprecedented number of interconnections between people, and it is these people and their ideas (good and bad) that can now shape the world we live in and as you say userfulness of the tools.

Croeser, S (2008). Contested Technologies. The global justice movement and emerging constraints on activists’ use of information and communications technologies Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://myresearchspace.grs.uwa.edu.au/files/folders/skys_folder_public/entry23833.aspx
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

I agree Elliot. From reading about this in the course of my research, it would seem that most organisers are not using social media to maximum effect. They use it as a communications medium, but have very little idea about how to turn that interest into action that will make the change. I have already quoted Sky Croeser’s paper elsewhere in these comments which suggests that causes need to provide “emotional handholds” (Croeser, 2008) with which to hook people into a cause. This is a great paper by the way and really addresses the way in which the Global Justice movement is using technology and the wider implications of this.

However, I re-iterate my point, that protests or causes need media attention and social media is one way of getting an overall picture of public sentiment about a cause. I think social media needs to be used in conjunction with traditional methods. We also have to remember, not EVERYONE uses social media regularly and it would take much longer to get to the 40,000 people to sign up, it’s also easier to ignore things online, given that we get so much of it pushed out

On the streets you would get a range of people and many over the age demographic of social media users who are comfortable with the technology. I would imagine, nothing would be more effective in garnering interest to a cause than seeing someone on the streets representing well known organisation such as Greenpeace or Amnesty that have already done the hard yards and have huge profiles and reputations.

Croeser, S (2008). Contested Technologies. The global justice movement and emerging constraints on activists’ use of information and communications technologies Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://myresearchspace.grs.uwa.edu.au/files/folders/skys_folder_public/entry23833.aspx
Written by Bobby about 2 years ago.

Great paper Jax, really interesting and informative.

One thing I wonder about is the economic model (or lack of one) for online media and how that has affected online activism. Traditional media (especially print media) are currently undergoing a catastrophic downturn in revenue due to their inability to translate the platform of the internet into profit. Newspapers are rapidly losing readership and while their online versions are growing, most papers aren’t charging for content online meaning that their sole source of online revenue comes from advertising which has been woefully inadequate in terms of meeting costs. Some are saying that it’s too late to change the model because people now expect free content on the internet and that the precedent of charging for content or charging advertisers as much as they do in print should have been set at the start. However, if this had been the case, do you think the NGO’s and others who use the internet to raise awareness about political issues would still be using the internet as much as they are today? It seems to me that one of the main benefits of the internet for activists is the ability to reach audiences comparable to that of TV and radio but without having to pay the huge advertising costs that would entail. If corporate media had a monopoly on the internet the way they do on traditional media (here in the West at least), would it be as easy for activists to garner as much online attention via free content or would they have to pay for online advertising?

It seems to me that the negative side of having an internet where almost all content is free is that investigative journalism may be dying out. While citizen journalism is great in terms of providing more points of view, there is something to be said for having journalists with the time, money, inclination and experience to delve deeply into a case and uncover something that the rest of us amateurs may well miss. What do you think?
Written by Rob S about 2 years ago.

Nice article Jacky, and as you’ve obviously noted, raises some questions and discussion!

Guess some of my comments would be around qualitative data: measurables in terms of how much real activity was generated from an internet petition, to how much more activity was generated on the petition, once the traditional media picked up on an issue. This could be simply measured, in a variety of ways I think, depending on the situation. These types of messages would partially answer some of the questions i.e. what influence do traditional channels vs. new channels have.

Which is not, I think, the most important question here. Most important question is getting bums OFF seats, and out onto the streets. And a lot of that just revolves around the sexiness, or the immeadiacy of the issue: you’re always going to get more reaction to the invasion of a middle eastern nation by an irresponsible western government a few days before the invasion occurs, as opposed to months after it. People are always going to be motivated to get out on the streets if the issue is something that is happening now, today or tomorrow, that appeals to them on an emotional level – as opposed to an issue that has been going for months or years. Potential invasion vs. say, yet another bit of rainforest disappearing.

So the key is to find that hook, as always. One for the clever marketing mavens, not me. Although, I do vaguely remember a term from my old Psychology days – Locus of Control. In this case, if people feel they can have an influence, they are more likely to get involved. At least I think that’s what it means!

And I think, as you illustrate, these new technologies do have some real high value, high impact where access to information is restricted, absolutely. Whether it’s effect has been overstated or not in some of those cases I can’t truly comment. Anonymity, and the ability to make easy contact with like-minded people in that sort of situation – extremely important!

Maybe it’s an argument that’s not worth having in a way: I suspect that it will always be that there is no better way for humans to motivate each other than face to face, together; technology, old and new, is just a way of informing people – each is a tool in a toolset that can be put to good use by anyone wanting to make contact with people, and each element of that toolset can be rightly put to good use. As new tools are added to that toolset, they will for a short time be seen as the “big fix”, until they are truly bedded in, and given a context.

I’m blabbing…
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

To your question as to whether social media tools are only effective for political activism if they can be accompanied by ‘traditional’, people-in-the-street protests..

I believe it depends on what the protest is trying to achieve and more importantly ‘where’ the protest is happening (i.e. what country and how authoritarian and hard line it is)

e.g. the “Twitter Tag Protest”, as described in my paper. You can see here that the outcome that the protest organizers were trying for was accomplished, using just social media.

Also, the Brazilian blogging example. If politicians are aware they are being ‘watched’ and being held accountable, one could assume that this must result in a behavioral shift in these politician.

However, and again, depending on what the issues is and where it is, I think the best results will be seen where the use of Social Media is just part of the process: i.e. to advocate, communicate and most importantly mobilize a group of people to get on the streets and protest. Street protest is often the public and visible side of online protest, but necessary as it gets the attention of mass media and often gets reported on overseas if big enough.

The question is, does even street protest make a true difference? Again, it depends on the passion and temerity of the organizers and how they then follow through and push that public sentiment to further lobby government for constitutional change AND how governments respond – in a democracy, change is probable if enough people get behind a cause. In a military dictatorship, it’s doubtful unless there are world-wide sanctions and pressure.
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Thanks Nicola. I have been looking around NZ web, and can’t find anything similar here! Hmm….maybe an opening !

I particularly like their story and how they describe the need to get to a wider audience after public FtF (Face to Face) meetings turned up only those passionate about the issue at hand, or vehemently ‘against’, which is a similar story to activism topics.

Social Media and websites like this one, are a way to get to the public that don’t fit into those two categories, but are still interested nonetheless.
Written by Sky about 2 years ago.

Thanks for the reply, Jax, and for taking the time to read my paper. I like your optimism that we’ll manage to keep the Internet free, or that at least a few people will manage it. Like you, I’m optimistic, but cautiously so. I suspect that if apathy prevails and we don’t manage to retain a relatively free and open Internet, it might end up being only those with better technical skills or with a strong motivation who end up being able to bypass controls.
Written by Eliot about 2 years ago.

Find this topic very interesting as I work in a campaigning group and the whole area of using internet is changing the way things are done. But I have also found (like first post here) that it hasn’t yet changed the basics of being on the street or talking to people or getting into mainstream media. It seems like it’s still new and evolving and I don’t know if it’s really being used to maximum effect.

Just recently we went through a petition process and got heaps more signatures through face to face than from website or facebook. Also noticed that greenpeace is finding similar thing, 40,000 on the street against mining but only 14,000 signatures so far. In theory the internet should mean that thousands more would be able to sign up immediately.
Written by KirstenD about 2 years ago.

Thanks Jax – my key question after reading your paper is whether social media tools are only effective for political activism if they can be accompanied by ‘traditional’, people-in-the-street protests?

My assumption would be that online activism is only really effective if it carries a threat – for a Government that’s concerned about public criticsm, this may be a sufficient threat, but I think that public, placard-waving protest still plays a crucial role and has a greater ‘threat’ to governments. The ongoing protests in Thailand are one example – no doubt they’re also accompanied by tweeting, blogging etc – but the street protest is what has the key impact, particularly for the media.

It seems that the key impact of social media is to be more effective at organising and creating support for such public protests, rather than replacing these traditional forms of activism.
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Paul, just thought I’d add this passage from a research paper posted by Sky, another commenter (and tutor to this course). It touches on your question regarding the desensitization of people due to the abundance of ‘worthy causes’.

It reinforces my point (see comment above) that: “Campaign organisers will hopefully become more adept at designing campaigns that have a greater reach and greater impact”.

Anyway, this is what Sky’s research paper says:

While we increasingly have access to huge amounts of information, it seems probable that ‘the capacity of individuals [particularly in the developed world] to process, sort, select and use appropriate information may have been diminished’, in part because of the sheer volume we receive each day (Schultz 1994, 113). Facts about sweatshop wages are easily submerged among pictures of famine in Africa, local news, ever-present advertisements and the barrage of popular culture. Gaining attention, then, not only relies on the construction of ‘causal stories’ to explain facts and prompt action (Keck and Sikkink 1998, 17), but also the ability to entertain and provide emotional handholds.

In other words, in an “attention economy” – the phrase often associated with the internet which suggests that people’s attention online is a valuable commodity – you have to have a point of difference to draw people to an issue. What this paper is suggesting therefore, is that that campaigns need to be designed to affect people on an emotional level, or have some other aspect that would gain their attention and prompt action. This is other than just a Facebook Group that people join, which Carl says in his above comment would: “have them feeling good about themselves for the rest of the day!”

Croeser, S (2008). Contested Technologies. The global justice movement and emerging constraints on activists’ use of information and communications technologies Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://myresearchspace.grs.uwa.edu.au/files/folders/skys_folder_public/entry23833.aspx
Written by BromwichR about 2 years ago.

Indeed a conflict exists on how governments can ‘control’ online activism via traditional measures and those concerned about using online mechamisms to raise awareness of the same issues. Society is still working through how to balance these competing demands – sometimes with success, sometime not.
Written by Carl Steward about 2 years ago.

Great article Jax, and you’ve had some really thoughtful comments.

Reading the article I shared Vlatski’s concerns. A well-crafted Facebook group name could end up with large numbers of people signing up to an oppressive ’cause’ – AND have them feeling good about themselves for the rest of the day!
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

Thanks checked it out tonight briefly very good. It talked about an online campaign against Nestle which was pretty shocking the practices Nestle do, so it did its job and made me aware of things I would have never known.
Written by jax about 2 years ago.

Crikey! I am just trying to digest everything in your research paper Sky. Really interesting and wish I’d read it prior to writing my paper. It’s like the paper I WANTED to write, but which time, word-count and ability prevented . Thanks providing the link.

Anyway, prior to reading your paper, and not knowing much about the situation in Australia (given that I am in NZ and we have NO censorship), I would have said that SURELY in a open democracy where freedom of speech is valued – such as Australia – the aim of censorship would not be to police political dissent. From what Chris has said it sounds as though these new measures are to appease the political right, in their desire to have porn and ‘objectionable’ material policed – which of course is highly subjective, thus a problem in itself. Therefore curbing political dissent may not be the predominant aim, but after reading your paper and finding out about cases such as the one in Finland, in which a website criticizing the blocking system was added to blacklisted sites (that contained the porn sites), it would appear that this could easily happen, and this is a worry. It’s also insidious and can be implemented surreptiously. At least in China, blocking and censorship are widespread and it is a well-known that the authorities do this.

Also worrying is your Canadian example whereby the Telecomms workers union site was blocked by the ISP. What about Freedom of Speech. I would like to research what the outcome of that was as that has huge implications if it was allowed to continue in a democratic country.

In the main, I believe people in democratic countries are fairly complacent, relaxed and trusting of their governments with regards to censorship and dare I say it – ignorant of far reaching implications of it. Luckily it sounds like there are quite a few people making a lot of noise in Australia, and this has bought the debate out into the mainstream.

Sky, your paper says it much more eloquently than I, but I feel that the internet has had such massive impact, politically, economically and socially, and in such a short space of time, that governments (often lobbied by the private sector) are forever playing catch up and trying to ‘tame’ it, or our use of it at least. Hopefully that will always be so. I do believe we do shape the technology and as you allude, technology does not exist in a vacuum and we often use technology for reasons other than those for which it was intended and mould it to fit our needs.

If the worst is to happen, and our apathy and lack of action means that our governments are successful in implementing censorship and network neutrality becomes an issue, I am hoping like hell that the anarchic, hacker, open-source mentality will prevail on some level and provide ways around any barrier. Who wants to live in a nanny state where what we view and read is controlled…ugh!
Written by Nicola Young about 2 years ago.

Nice work Jackie. There are some internet-based community engagement and consultation services and I’ve met the MD of one in Australia that seems like a really good set up. CHeck out bangthetable.com.au and see if there’s something of interest there. It’s a success business!
Written by Chris Johnson about 2 years ago.

Sky
To further support my comments here is the Family First Policy on Internet Filter.
http://www.familyfirst.org.au/documents/INTERNETPORNOGRAPHYANDCHILDREN.pdf

Its clear Senator Fielding is the swinging voter and without his support then the Labour Government would fail.

This is the real reason for the Internet Filter. Not the propaganda put out my Senator Conroys Office.

Still trying to find the stuff I studied last year on this.

The Chriso
Written by Jax about 2 years ago.

Thanks Janette.

Yes, really important to get the facts from the source, thus social media allows an immediacy to an event or crisis that has up to now been unavailable, without the (often) skewed information being reported via mass media eager to grab headlines, or as you state, have a political agenda.

However, these technologies are so new in the use of events that headlines tend to be made when they are used in events – headlines such as “The Twitter Revolution”, which can overstate their actual role in the event when you really look at the detail of the event. I am not arguing against the premise of my essay, but reinforcing the fact that activists and organizers need to be adept at using these tools in order to have success and also be aware of their limitations and how authorities might counter their strategies by introducing their own campaigns using these same tools.

Evgeny Morozov’s article “Iran: Downside to the Twitter Revolution “ in Dissent is a brilliant piece of writing about this. If you are interest, it’s a PDF you can get from here

http://www.evgenymorozov.com/writings.htm
Written by Paul about 2 years ago.

Great answer ! thanks for taking the time to reply and yes I think you are right about people living in “free” societies take their freedom for granted to the point of political apathy, it’s this sort of blind assumption that their elected governments will fundamentally do the right thing combined with the luxury to be apathetic that creates a slippery slope to losing any real say in things, one day you wake up and realize that your government has sold your counties assets hiked up your taxes and privatised education etc all whilst you were busy buying shoes online
Written by Jax about 2 years ago.

Totally agree Vlatski.

One of the downsides IS the fact that existing power structures will always use whatever the communication technology of the day (as one of the tools) to reinforce their power, in the case of China, as you say their internet police monitor dissent and spread propaganda and they censor their internet (and mass media in general). However, the really positive thing, is finally people have a way to fight back if they don’t agree, get to other sources of information and not rely on the traditional mass media to get their story out (or in). I believe there will be limitless techniques of getting round censorship in these countries, yes, there will be many people arrested in the mean time as they’ll be able to be traced, but authorities will always be playing catch up. That is unless they close the internet down completely, which they won’t do because of business.

And thanks for the articles. The Guardian article was especially interesting. I watched the Stephen Soderberg movie “Che” recently which was a factual account of events leading up to Che Guevara’s death in Bolivia. Outlined in it was America’s involvement and interference in the politics of that country and the fact that the US helped in Guevara’s capture and subsequent death, with supply of arms and training. Of course it is relatively well known that the CIA was involved in many such operations in South/Central America and beyond. It would appear from this article that the US is still ‘interfering’ although the guns and soldiers have been replaced by technology and young tech savvy youth.
Written by Chris Johnson about 2 years ago.

“I’ve heard a few people voice concern that this might be used to silence political dissent, but I’m not convinced that’s the aim.”

Sky I am one such person. The balance of power is with the Family First Party. Without there vote the labour party could not maintain power.
In 2003, The Australia Institute’s Clive Hamilton and Michael Flood publicised a report advocating moral panic about children’s exposure to online pornography.(Brasch,2010)

This is what started the who censorship debate.

Clive Hamilton is a strong political campaigner on social science. http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=speeches

There is some good information on this when I get a chance I will share it with you.

The Chriso

Brasch, A. V. (2010). Internet filtering debate: history and where to go in the future. Retrieved 28th of April 2010, from http://www.censorfree.com.au/issues/index.php/internet-filtering-debate-history-lbr-gand-where-to-go-in-the-future
Written by Sky about 2 years ago.

Great paper!

I’ve argued elsewhere (http://myresearchspace.grs.uwa.edu.au/files/folders/skys_folder_public/entry23833.aspx) that governments around the world have recognised this disruptive power of the Internet and are trying to bring it under control. You’ve focused on authoritarian goverments’ attempts to limit the power of citizen journalism…do you think that similar efforts are being in the made? I’m particularly interested in what you think of Conroy’s proposed censorship of the Australian web…I’ve heard a few people voice concern that this might be used to silence political dissent, but I’m not convinced that’s the aim.
Written by Jax about 2 years ago.

Thanks Paul, I appreciate your well-thought-out comments and in response:

I think it is difficult to compare internet protest in western ‘free’ societies and authoritarian states. The stakes are much higher of protest and speaking out against the state for those in authoritarian regimes, thus the impact of social media (blogs, YouTube, Twitter) for this purpose are far greater, as are the consequences of being caught. In NZ mainstream society, where freedom of speech is a given and most people live comfortable lives, the extent of most internet protest is joining a group on Facebook, UNLESS you are already politically aware and interested in particular causes or something affects you directly. We have the ‘luxury’ of apathy, which of course is also a curse – and yeah, unfortunately shopping and ordering pizza is as far as it goes for many internet users and I really don’t know if that will change because of social media.

Which leads me to your second question about whether we are saturated with ‘worthy causes’ and therefore desensitized.

I think there is a danger of having too many causes, not enough action. This often what I have wondered about the internet – too much information, too much noise and this in the end this could be it’s downfall; important messages get lost because people switch off. Either that, or (and this is more to my way of thinking) we will become more adept at filtering what is ‘worthy’ and important, and what is not. Campaign organisers will hopefully become more adept at designing campaigns that have a greater reach and greater impact; campaigns where the message can’t get lost, as it comes from more than one source i.e. Facebook. They need to cover all bases to get a message or cause out there; from mainstream media to online social media and then work out how to demand action of those participants.
Written by Vlatski about 2 years ago.

Very good article! It describes well the potential of the use of social networking tools for political struggle and activism. The positive points are quite clear and well enunciated, however i feel that there is a potentially negative side other than slacktivism that could be more developed.

Namely, the fact that internet activism is anonymous also makes it easier for anyone to use the same tool for their own agendas, as in the case of the Chinese internet police you describe.

A good example of this are the colour revolutions of the early 2000′s where “modern” activism techniques were used to overthrow various regimes opposed to the U.S., which were not always “authoritarian” in the common sense. Ultimately it appeared that the organizers of these revolutions had received funding, training and organization from the U.S. government
(1, 2), presumably for some purposes of their own.

In my view, being so effective in political struggles, internet activism is bound to eventually become another tool in the arsenal of power. If it was not initially developed as such, that is.

(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18395-2000Dec3?language=printer
(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa )
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

Very interesting read. I agree that something done is better than nothing. If people are suffering oppression, it is the responsibility of those who can, to do something. And to do something we need to know what is happening from the people to whom it is happening.

Can we trust the traditional media – newspapers, radio, and television? Traditional media appear hampered by their political agendas, their need to produce profit and to guard against legal action, and as a result celebrity and sensationalism often appear to dominate at the expense of real information.

Kudos to those in oppressed situations, finding inventive ways around online networking, getting out the message, getting support, making accountable those who misuse their power and authority. And even if it is the privileged rich, as in Iran, who start sending out the message, the ripples will start and fan out to reach everyone.
Written by Paul about 2 years ago.

Hi Jax, this was a really interesting read, I had no idea that social networking has played such a role in various political struggles around the globe. I wonder if the impact of internet protest is lessened in (westernized?) cultures that have been using these tools for longer and for more banal things like shopping and ordering pizza?
Do you think in a culture that is saturated with “worthy causes” on a daily bases through things like facebook petitions that we are somehow desensitized and less outraged by unjust events?
Written by Jax about 2 years ago.

Thanks Mike. Yep, you hit the nail on the head when you say any communication technology has the ability to alter the course of an economy or topple a regime, it’s the speed at which this happens that is different now.

Pre-internet, TV has probably been the biggest example of this as it allowed people to actually ‘see’ what was going on, which is really emotive. If you see actually see people dying, you are more likely to act, hit the streets and actually become “active” to make change.

Speaking personally – and I guess I can only state that in my sphere of friends and socialization, it would appear that having causes on Facebook and the like has bought about a different level of awareness about issues and causes, as it is not relying on newspapers (alot of my friends don’t even read them!) or other mass media, but they’ll join a ’cause’ and read about it on FB. It seems we are much more political now and have many more conversations about things we’ve read or joined on FB. Off the top of my head and with regard to things in NZ; issues such as the mining of our national parks and whether Wellington should have WELLYWOOD (nooooo!) sign (17,000 members against and counting). As I proposed in my paper, that’s the very least that can happen, but devising a strategy on how to get members to make submissions or turn it into offline protest is the challenge. I think activists are starting to become more adept at this and demanding more of people…and if people could only get off Facebook for long enough, they might change from being the slacktivist (myself included ) – but hey, before the timewasting web came along, it was TV right ?

…and the Global Voices Website IS really interesting, as is the DigiActive site: http://www.digiactive.org (if you havn’t checked it out). Really quite inspiring to see how people are using the web 2.0 technologies for protest and campaigns.
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

You have argued very well and convincingly about the potential for social media to make a difference. There is evidence to suggest any use of technology to transmit messages can alter the course of an economy or topple a regime. Putting aside the ethics and motivations for a moment of those involved, a good past example is Live Aid and Live 8. Long term change is possible, for example Midge Ure speaks on Loose Women http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzoFjdBWPuE about how Live Aid did make a difference after twenty or more years of transmitting messages of how to make areas of Africa sustaining. I am not saying it solved 100% of the problem, but as your title suggest it made people in the 80′s who were slack become activists because the technology, satellite and syndicated television, made the images available to all. Bob Geldof was able to use these images to transmit to audiences well beyond England, hence the concerts were organised.

I suggest that this is what social media does. The ethos of Global Voices (n.d) you quote is indicitive of the potential to bring causes to public knowledge. It may result in overload and a sense of overwhelming concern. But even in trival matters, it informs and bypasses much censorship and fetting of commercial news networks. Even something as trivial as gettting a band to tour or having a store open, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dangerfield/30271576416?v=feed&story_fbid=188404865179&ref=mf as an example of the ongoing protest to get Dangerfield to open a store in Brisbane, prove the potential to make people aware of any issue. I believe you have to be aware to start changing anything no matter how powerful any issue may be.

Well argued, lots of evidence of cases to support the premise that activists have the ability to spread messages virally and globally hence increasing the chances of protest and change.

GlobalVoices: The world is talking. Are you listening? (n.d.). Retrieved March 26 2010 from Global Voices Online: http://globalvoicesonline.org/