Collective Action, Politics, and Protests: Difference between revisions

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(58 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
'''March 11'''
'''March 11'''


Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. Today we’ll start by looking at how anti-SOPA activists were mobilized on the Internet to effectively stop the implementation of this legislation. This will serve as a touchstone for other reading about use of the Internet in collective action, political protests, and the role of private corporations in protecting and facilitating this discourse across the globe.
Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. SOPA lead to what is often considered the high-water mark of American engagement online in domestic policy circles (so far). But the Internet has been used for collective action since its inception. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others?
 
Today will be an exploration of online protests and collective action, both in general and through the lens of some famous recent examples. Along the way we'll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.
 
Joining us this week will be [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aliciasn Alicia Solow-Niederman], a Berkman project manager who studies collective action online.  


<onlyinclude>
<onlyinclude>
Line 9: Line 13:
== Readings/Watchings ==
== Readings/Watchings ==


; Cast Study - The SOPA Protests
; Framing
 
* [http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media?] (skim)
 
* [http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~farrell/blogpaperfinal.pdf Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel, The Power and Politics of Blogs] (read introduction, "The networked structure of the blogosphere;" skim "How skewedness affects politics;" read "The constraints on blog influence" and conclusion)
 
* [http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1 Bruce Etling et al., Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing] (read introduction, "Digital Technologies, Information and Political Transitions," "Online Organizing and Contentious Politics," and "The Uncertain Future of Digital Organizing")
 
; Case Studies


* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (read 4-10, skim 12-38, read 39-46)
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953 Yochai Benkler et al., Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere: Mapping the SOPA/PIPA Debate] (read 4-10, skim 12-38, read 39-46)


; Case Study - KONY2012
:* You may also want to play around with the [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/mediacloud/2013/mapping_sopa_pipa/# controversy mapper] Media Cloud put together in connection with this report.
 
* [http://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/mapping-the-trayvon-martin-media-controversy Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy]
 
* [http://www2.scedu.unibo.it/roversi/SocioNet/AdamicGlanceBlogWWW.pdf Lada Adamic and Natalie Glance, The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog] (read introduction, analysis, and conclusion – i.e., pages 1-3 and 8-15)


* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]
* [http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/global-tech/social-media-protest-egypt-tahrir-square Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square]


* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]
* [http://technosociology.org/?p=904 Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading]
Line 21: Line 37:
; Observations, tactics, and methods
; Observations, tactics, and methods


* [http://www.thenation.com/article/new-study-liberals-more-open-conservatives-online%23 Ari Melber, New Study: Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]
* [http://civicmedia.info/ideas/aaron-swartz-theory-of-change/ Aaron Swartz, A Theory of Change]


* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]
* [http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2012/04/20/the-tweetbomb-and-the-ethics-of-attention/ Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention]
Line 28: Line 44:


* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA]
* [http://blog.socialflow.com/post/7120244932/data-viz-kony2012-see-how-invisible-networks-helped-a-campaign-capture-the-worlds-attention Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention]


* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]
* [https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Tale_Two_Blogospheres_Discursive_Practices_Left_Right Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right]


* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf  Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)
* [http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/files/PolicingContent.pdf  Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere] (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)
* [http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks_Chapter_7.pdf Yochai Benker, ''The Wealth of Networks''] (Chapter 7 - "The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere")


</onlyinclude>
</onlyinclude>
Line 38: Line 58:


== Links ==
== Links ==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA SOPA/PIPA Controversy] (wikipedia)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)] (wikipedia)
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_IP_Act PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)] (wikipedia
* CNET, [http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57349913-281/godaddy-bows-to-boycott-now-opposes-sopa-copyright-bill/ "Go Daddy Bows to Boycott, Now Opposes SOPA Copyright Bill"]
* Law Journal Papers on Copyright and Revenge Porn
** Rebecca Tushnet, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2402316 "How Many Wrongs Make a Copyright?,"] (2014) (SSRN)
** Derek E. Bambauer, [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2315583 "Exposed,"] (2013) (SSRN)
* [http://amash.house.gov/speech/amash-nsa-amendment-fact-sheet AMASH Amendment Fact Sheet] (house.gov)


== Class Discussion ==
== Class Discussion ==
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Asellars|Asellars]] 15:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)'''</div>
<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">'''Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution.  This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)'''</div>
 
 
 
----
 
Below is an interesting article on the "Internet of Things" where Business Insider estimates that by 2018, 9 billion household or utility devices will be operated by the internet from parking meters to home appliances.  The study predicts the revenue increase will be enormous but, on the other hand, it may drive many industries and jobs out of business.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-in-the-internet-of-things-market-2-2014-2?utm_source=trove&utm_medium=referral 
 
--[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 13:29, 12 March 2014 (EDT)
 
<blockquote>
He also explained that people who claim that technology is neutral have typically zoomed out so far that the relationship between the individual, society and the technology are lost. He used the argument that while it may be accurate to say that either a gun or a toothbrush can be used to kill, but this theoretical accuracy is so abstract that it loses credibility.</blockquote>
I really like this, reminds me of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence Emergent properties]
[[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 15:48, 9 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
Benkler et al's "Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere" defines the networked public sphere as "an alternative arena for public discourse and political debate, an arena that is less dominated by large media entities, less subject to government control, and more open to wider participation." Thinking about how other parts of the public sphere are subject to each of these forces of control certainly makes the "public sphere" sound a little less "public." While the mainstream American media can often look like a circus, particularly if you're looking at the 24 hour news networks, with Benkler's ideas about the networked public sphere in mind, they don't really feel like something the public engages in. Rather, it is something we can engage with. Less a participatory medium than one that we have the option to either consume or not.
[[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 12:01, 10 March 2014 (EDT)
 
:I enjoyed Benkler's descriptions as well, but I also found Jilian York's contrast of public versus private to be compelling.  She discusses the evolution of this "Quasi-Public Sphere" which Jkelly seems to capture to a certain extent what Jkelly mentions.  Privately owned platforms (such as social media) have become thrust into the public sphere.  This vast information exchange has prompted centralized platforms and York argues they also serve as public spaces in a "quasi-public sphere" that makes policing much more convoluted.  As discussed in class, York feels that the content is now being policed both by private controls as well as coming colliding into the sphere of public scrutiny/controls.  In essence, the private sector continues to engage its role in the public arena with increasing extension and (arguably) vice versa.  York brings up the point that this can both benefit and thwart society as she mentions how internet-goers in repressive societies can gain access to material once prohibited from them; however, a negative example she references is how companies can make their own private rules of engagement which may (or may not) be favorable towards the general public.  Either way, the article was extremely profound in the author's rendition of how the internet can impact life as we know it. --[[User:AmyAnn0644|AmyAnn0644]] 14:28, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
I found the article mapping the Trayvon Martin case particularly interesting as I grew up near where the incident occurred and it caused such a frenzy all over Florida (and all over the country, for that matter). I happen to know someone really high up in the DA's office in FL, so hearing the facts of the case in comparison to what the media was broadcasting was shocking. The media completely created a story to propel their own political agenda and made it fit what they wanted to say. This is not at all to say that the message regarding race relations wasn't important, but it is interesting how they would squash facts which came up on the opposing side and emphasize and exaggerate other aspects so that they're telling the story that they want to tell. It's especially fascinating when you consider the story of Travyon to that of Jordan Davis, another black teenager who was shot by a white man in Florida, which was CLEARLY a race issue. Unlike the case of Trayvon, Davis's case was cut-and-dry, yet the latter case didn't get nearly as much media attention despite the fact that it could've actually spoken more loudly and to a more severe degree about race relations.
 
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 12:07, 10 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
I thought the article on the KONY 2012 campaign and the concept of slack-tivism very interesting, especially since I remember very well watching the movement unfold and ultimately deflate. I do think that the internet can be effective in stirring debate and real change, but how we harness that power is ultimately unable to be controlled and can be easily manipulated, as we saw with the whole Kony movement. The organization was followed by scrutiny and met with a lot of accusations and controversy. However, the campaign did teach a valuable lesson: online movements can have real impacts and stir public conversation. The response from the video definitely brought Uganda to media attention as people investigated the message and the country.
 
There are some positive examples of collective action online, such as sites like Kickstarter that depend on action by strangers to support projects. It is a successful example, in a smaller and arguably more effective scale, on how the Internet is able to influence people’s lives and connect strangers. It would be interesting to see how sites like this can maintain it's audience and continue to inspire people to donate and participate.
 
[[User:Lpereira|Lpereira]] 19:51, 10 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
-----
 
 
I found the article “The Power and Politics of Blogs” by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel really interesting. I always wonder why blogging has such a big impact and influence on people and the media when as a matter of fact, there are not many readers. “Blogging is many things, yet the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on happenings in her life”, when now it has become an important media that could make a Senate Majority Leader resigns from the position.
 
[[User:Jolietheone|Jolietheone]] 02:26, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER BY DREZNER AND FARREL
 
The distribution graphs shown at the end of the paper are too academic and technical and serves no practical purpose.  They cannot be easily be interpreted.  There are no graphs showing relationship between skewness and the variables the authors were supposedly measuring.  No variables, political or otherwise, were explicity mentioned.
 
It also seems flawed to argue that politicians or the government should make decisions or "coordinate" their actions around a somewhat mysterious "Z" variable.  One won't get a majority vote or approval by making decisions based on such a "calculation".  And the problem of decision-making does not encompass a single "z" variable but more often an interplay of multiple factors.  Cognitive maps, stakeholder analyses, and game theoretic approaches, etc., taking into account multiple criteria may be more appropriate.
 
The importance of blogs may have been overstated and needs some qualification.  Generally, nobody is interested to read just anybody's blog.  But if an articulate, prominent and influential blogger continues to write and maintains his blog online, people may pay attention.  Some such blogs may get the attention of lots of people and lots of contributions.  But my bet is majority of individual blogs don't get significant attention.  It is true though, if one intends to get more attention, one would write on blogs of popular bloggers or blogs of popular online communities...and also link them to one's own blog.  The people who has the power and means to take action to improve our world do not have time to scour and read the blogs.  The need for more organized online information and data flow cannot be over-emphasized and blogs are not the appropriate medium.
 
[[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 08:33, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
I was in Cambridge when Aaron Swartz committed suicide last year, and witnessed how vocal the local community became during the weeks that followed. It was a pleasure to reread and rewatch some of his work today, and a wonderful reminder how much impact a person can have by mobilizing online communities, especially through the theory of change he described so well on his blog. --[[User:Seifip|Seifip]] 09:37, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
:Did he really committed suicide?  The Court seems to have treated him too harshly, perhaps to make an example of him.
:I noticed this on Youtube while watching "Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA":  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMGG3flGdk [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:07, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
::He did commit suicide, and while it's very, very hard to ascribe cause to something like that, he was in the middle of defending a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at the time. We'll talk a little more about the Swartz case in a few weeks. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 15:56, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
Ethan Zuckerman, "The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention" raises the awareness of another new social behavior because of the internet.  I will avoid Tweeter.  And how can I eliminate spam emails?  The "Block Sender" function doesn't seem to work most of the time!  In the old days, we can protect ourselves from nuisance or harm by staying at home.  But in our internet age, the technology cannot protect us from mischief and invasion of personal privacy.  So, if there's something really important which requires our attention and collective action, will we miss it?  [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:31, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 
 
TV AND INTERNET - NEW TOOLS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION AND DECISION-MAKING
 
Bills are passed depending on only a few votes in Congress.  With the internet, voting on Bills can be done online, so that every citizen can participate in voting, not just members of Congress.  Members of Congress may contribute by making their speeches and presenting their analyses online, with participation from the public.  The TV can be used in conjunction with the internet (with 2 screens, one for TV and one for a live focused blog) with Congressmen and/or panel of experts or thinkers to debate issues and organize the information.  The process can then involve virtual but live interaction with concerned bloggers.  The video of the open forum can be made available online for repeated viewing and sharing of further thoughts for several days or weeks, and culminating in a call for public online voting.  Every voter must be pre-registered and have his/her own government-issued secured password to vote. Some politicians may feel that illiterate people should not participate in voting? How can we be inclusive and yet make a good collective decision which will not ignore the needs of the illiterate? [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 11:46, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
CAN POOR PEOPLE THINK AND MAKE GOOD DECISIONS?  [[User:Ichua|Ichua]] 06:49, 12 March 2014 (EDT)
 
----
 
 
I found Adamic and Glance's paper "Divided They Blog" fascinating, given how the political blogosphere has developed 10 years on and the significant respect that political bloggers now command. According to the authors, in 2004 62% of Americans did not know what a web blog was- today I imagine that most internet users rely on targeted and well-curated blogs for news, information and reliable opinions on everything from national elections to NASCAR.
 
Another statistic that jumped at me was that in mid-2004, 63 million Americans used the internet to stay informed about politics. The Pew Charitable Trust 'Web at 25' Report published in 2013 found that 87% of American adults, roughly 178 million people, use the internet- and the majority of adult internet users had at least some exposure to information about state, local and national politics and elections. Given that level of exposure to the internet, the potential for the influence of news sources and individual voices outside of mainstream media outlets has never been greater.
 
The figures provided by Adamic and Glance demonstrate how citation of blogs with similar themes or supporting similar viewpoints compounds their reach and impact- as well as searchability and subsequent blog selection by the user seeking information about a given political party, politician or issue-- or to influence the searchability and online image of a given candidate. This brought to mind the campaign for the neologism "santorum" started in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a columnist and LGBT rights activist who sought to link then- U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's name with a sex act following homophobic comments made by the Senator, thereby significantly impacting the Senator's internet image. The power of the blogosphere and Savage's community of followers worked-- to this day, the first listing on Google when "Santorum" is searched for is the Wikipedia entry on Savage's campaign against Santorum. Given the number of hits on political blogs speculating about the 2016 Presidential race two years out, I imagine that Adamic and Glance's findings still ring true and are worth revisiting with a current data set. [[User:akk22|akk22]] 13:13, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
 
 
----
 


This may be more suited to the subject of the last two classes, but I feel since the general subject of this entire class is Internet regulation I believe it is relevnt.
Aaron Swartz' "Theory of Change" is one of the best essays I've ever read (and have to admit I'd read it prior to this course). Last night when I watched his video from 'Optional readings' for the first time... I felt inspired by him all over again. I can't believe he was so young to have achieved so much. Cambridge, and the Internet, feels less safe without him. [[User:Deluxegourmet|Erin Saucke-Lacelle]] 13:29, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


Having read several times Andy Sellers artful and very information article entitled "The In Rem Forfeiture of Copyright-Infringing Domain names several things strike he hard, bsaed in part of my own
experiences as a political scientist and criminal and constitutional trial and appellate lawyer.


First of all our government seems really ticked off to reduce this to simple language that the Internet has taken away our imperialistic policies going back before the Monroe Doctrine.  We always believe our way is the the best way and they try to communicate "It is our way or the highway," except the Information Highway is not what they mean.  This highway takes away sovereign and imperialistic powers all the countries of the world try to impose on their own people and each other. 
-----


The government's faulty and frivolous attempt to control the behavior of the rest of the world through Internet control is almost a case of 21st century McCartyism. There efforts are like throwing away the baby with the bathwater.  In criminal caes many states, particularly CA where I practiced have a process where a preliminary hearing is held to determine if there is probable cause to try an alleged criminal in a higher court. But the in rem process to shut down websites by enforcing forfeiture procedures is very different.  Here on evidence that would not even be admitted into evidence at a preliminary hearing is allowed to not only justify prosecution, but to try in absentia the alleged perpertrators and even their victimes without benefit of any enforcement of equal protection or due process.


Americans are blessed with "inalienable rights" that few, if any other peoples have. Yet because we do not have control of those in those other societies we penalize our own people by taking property and putting restraints on them other people do not have.  We give a competitive economic advantage, just as we do to companies that circumvent American labor and environmental laws who are allowed to hire individuals and companies in less restrictive countries. Our labor forces and manufacturers are penalized because they cannot compete.  
The internet can be a effective medium in education, timely updates, stirring debate. However, real change, occurs through activism that is either hands-on or encourages hands on activities. Activism in its pre-internet form included activities such as door-to-door networking, participating in telephone trees, and physical presence. The support by clicking "Like" seems silly and half-spirited.[[User:VACYBER|VACYBER]] 13:51, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


The Internet has taken away the powers of the American law enforcement officials and even the United States Supreme Court because they have no jurisdiction over foreign jurisdictions and people. Here again, it is a matter of those who design new technologies racing to benefit from it with little attention given to the effect of poor planning, The FDA works in the exact opposite way when certifying food or drugs by making the process so slow that by the time they certify a drug thousands who could have been free of pain or even having their lives saved lose out as it is too late.  We need a happy medium.  As long as technology means not the advancement of the society, but to those privileged few who benefit financially from it the entire society will crumble.
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 13:05, 13 March 2013 (EDT)


*****
----


I found the lecture by Yochai Benkler very interesting. The discussion of the evolution of the internet from a weak sphere to an extensive network of organizations influencing politics and government on many levels through technology, was intriguing to say the least. It helped me shape my final paper topic to be more specific in the way I was envisioning it. This reshaping of markets and how the internet influences everything is really changing the world and how we communicate around the world is seen in my business everyday and will only continue. The future could bring with it a world of information where creativity and innovation could lead towards unbelievable results, or the global powers can be can inflict regulation and their legal might to stunt the massive growth potential. [[User:Interestingcomments|Interestingcomments]] 05:40, 26 March 2013 (EDT)


*****
Ethan Zuckerman’s introduction to Athene (I had never heard of him either) covering the abuse of his friend Xeni on Twitter was of high interest to me from a corporate perspective. Although Athene has a large following, he clearly can’t manage the community well. Regardless if “celebrity bombing ” is tolerated on Twitter, Athene’s leadership abilities show a considerable amount of pure failure under the ethics of attention, simply by the way his followers reacted. If the American Cancer Society asked me to donate to their cause, and called me a whore for not doing so, I would think negatively of the entire community-not the person making the statement.


There is obvious controversy surrounding Kony 2012.  Some believe that donations were not used for a worthwhile cause; others question the validity of the campaign based on the outcome (Kony was not captured in 2012); and many believe that this movement represented a western point of view, too detached from the realities of rural Africa. Whether you support or negate this crusade, my objective with this post is to examine the Kony-movement from the perspective of online social media.  In other words, if we step-back and evaluate the facets of social media in this context, it’s easy to understand the power behind this mass-communication methodology.  In today's world, "word" travels at the speed of light!
Regardless if Athene’s community is helping reduce hunger in Africa, or preventing the next holocaust, the attitudes of his members will eventually limit his ability to lead effectively. I wouldn’t donate a penny to Athene causes, simply due to the awareness made of his affiliates by Zuckerman’s article. This leads to a peculiar thought: Will sites such as Twitter allow the public to visually see the rise and fall of individuals through their behavior versus reading secondary information and then needing to make an educated guess? Could we potentially learn far more by allowing everyone to be ones true self?
--[[User:Melissaluke|Melissaluke]] 14:02, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


To support my claims, I selected a few quotes from our readings:


''"['Slacktivists'] are acting, symbolically and in a small way, in a sphere that has traditionally been closed off to 'the masses....We are a highly-symbolic, group-oriented species and signaling our preferences—to others—is a key dimension of human action. Hence, there is no ‘activism’ that does not have a strong symbolic side.  [T]oday’s ‘meaningless click’ is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action" (Zeynep, 2012).''
----


This is a powerful concept from the social media perspective.  How much does a "click" really matter?  As we surf the web, we come across thousands of messages, stemming from diverse sources, across countless platforms. We often take little action, beyond the click of a mouse.  However, if we evaluate activism through a social media lens, awareness can ultimately make a positive societal impact, maybe not today, but down the road.  In other words, watching Kony 2012 caused millions of people to take action, from politicians, to celebrities, to everyday citizens.  The vast majority had never heard about Kony before this video went viral, even though he had been committing war crimes for 25+ years; and through social media, he became famous overnight.  This movement, therefore, epitomizes the Internet reality we live in today—anyone can build awareness through online venues, and through awareness masses of people can take action. 


''"It would not be surprising if the intensity of the attention to this video—as well as the intensity of the backlash—did not become just such a moment for many future leaders. The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause. But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences" (Zeynep, 2012).''
Internet is very powerful tool in civil society. The necessary elements of civil society can be freely established and developed through internet: various civil communities, trade organizationts, non-governmental organizations, non-political organizations, groups, bloggers and etc. In coming decades, with support of state agencies (electronic notary, electronic state registry on judicial persons, electronic state registry on real estate  and etc.)the enterprises, associations, trade organizations can registered (even on the basis of legislation of foreign country) which will lead to development of business and trade. Nevertheless, the impact of Internet in politics should be minimum. The politics is the sphere which is directly related to governance and state. Only certain category of people, who meet the requirements in terms of background and experience, may have access to politics. Let us assume that ordinary people without appropriate background can vote "for or against" passing bills at Congress?How can they properly assess the significance of the bills discussed? Isn't it dangerous? Additionaly, the role of Internet in protets activity is still not effective as the governments can control the content of published posts. Aysel Ibayeva ([[User:Aysel|Aysel]] 14:32, 11 March 2014 (EDT))


Symbolic power can undeniably lead to other types of power, which, as noted above, can stem from social media.  Online messaging generates new realizations for those who live in shutoff realities.  Before the Internet and social media communication, teenagers living in small towns throughout the U.S. were not necessarily over-exposed to global societal visions, as outlined in the Kony video; and if they were exposed to movements such as this one, it happened at a much slower pace. Today, social news travels quickly, world controversies ignite overnight, and societal uprisings can be witnessed in real-time.  As a result, we have become more interconnected, and the foundation of this unification is social media.  Does this mean people will now become more open to differing perspectives?  Does this mean those who live in non-cultured worlds will soon become more cultured? Will social media ultimately bring more diverse groups together, on a common ground? 


An important chain-reaction from the Kony video is worth highlighting: building awareness through social media leads to a broader audience that wishes to generate change; a broader audience is thus motivated to contact elected officials; based on mass influence, elected officials find the need to place new controversies on the public agenda; and as a result, action is taken (e.g., Obama sent troops to Africa to work with Uganda's soldiers).  Although online communities may differ among parties and groups, as outlined in the article [[Liberals More Open Than Conservatives Online]], people are inevitably taking action when influenced online.  Therefore, in reference to the "slaktivist" connotation above, action can, and often does emerge through online awareness.  Creating a "switch" in people’s minds begins through influence; influence expands when masses unite behind a common cause; and causes spread quickly through online social media. [[User:Zak Paster|Zak Paster]] 09:41, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
----




****
It's interesting to see some of the older documents covering blogs, suck as the 2004 paper quoting the NYT with “Never have so many people written so much to be read by so few.” Clearly, a ton has changed  in the last decade--one of the big changes is the intersection between social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook) and the blogosphere.  Prior to the prevalence social networking sites, blog posts were definitely funneled from the most-trafficked sites to smaller blogs (and similar effects, such as the the creation of red/blue partitions around political blogs).  I wonder how much social networks have changed a lot of this.  It seems to me that I see posts in my Facebook timeline from a wider variety of political attitudes than would happen in the tightly-controlled universe of blogroll-linking. 
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 15:50, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


Free speech like so many of the "inalienable" rights that the United States Constitution guarantees to those within the jurisdiction and influence of the United States is always a two-edged sword.  It is sometimes  a shield to protect and hide a sword. Wherever and whenever a right or even in some cases merely a privilege is given, there will always be factions that abuse it. The social media is not always very social and has in many cases become tools for those without necessarily having roles that benefit the society or societies in general.  Back when it started there were many and probably still are today who believed that it was simply a screen for pornography.  I am current doing my Final Project on Wikipedia and while my research is early and very incomplete I have already formed an opinion that I reserve the right to change as I obtain more data that in many ways it is hypocritical and a vehicle under color of free speech and free content for those with their own agenda. You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar and many of these social networks and communities are skilled at doing just that.


This particular controversial film is an exercise of free speech, but no more so that the millions who protested against the Czar in Russia a century ago. However, today it does not always take such a demonstration or one in Tiananen Square in 1989 to get results and even spark a revolution. The Internet has become a mighty sword and those who fear challenged by what they perceive as evilness behind it must standup and be heard and counter anything they disagree with or else that will be considered the conventional wisdom and prevailing beliefs.
----
[[User:Rich|Rich]] 10:19, 26 March 2013 (EDT)


*****


When reading (and re-watching the video) the Kony controversy, the full impact of the Internet once again permeated. I hadn't realized that it had only taken 6 days for the YouTube video to go viral - I knew it was quick but hadn't logged the short time frame. 
First off, I absolutely loved the readings this week. As I stated in introductions, my research focus on the issue-framing processes of social movements, so this module jibes nicely with my interests. At the same time, most of these sources were new to me, which means I’ve been able to add to my arsenal of quality sources.  
How we use the web and its far reaching effects has gone beyond what most of us imagined.  With the need to be heard, societies have taken to online communication.  Asking ourselves  what the value of the economic impact to that video was - and the negative impact of what happened afterwards - we ponder how the impact of that free speech is worth while.  Group think in a situation like that can, and often is harmful and doesn't achieve purpose in its purest form.
Push and pull is inevitable in societies -- and having complete "freedom" is a utopian view point to say the least.


However the construct of the web at it's best allows ideas and discourse to be presented allowing for constant conversation of how to make things better/fair/just etc.
With respect to the “What is Civic media?” piece, the presenters begin discussing the work of Robert Putnam, which highlighted declining rates of civic engagement among Americans toward the end of the 20th century; Putnam attributes some of this decline to increased use of technology. While this work was groundbreaking, there was another scholar who presented a counterargument to Putnam’s theory, and perhaps ironically, she is also with Harvard.  


The downfall is that, to quote a very old philosopher, "Happy is the country that has a hero, unhappy is the country that needs one."(Plato)    Millions of people piled on the "Get Kony" objective,  and the pureness of the objective, to raise the profile of the invisible children of Uganda,  became a moment in time after the creator of the video had a very public meltdown. That became the story, not the plight of the children...Another example was whe Iran was making some progress with the green revolution, Michael Jackson's untimely death all but wiped the plight of that country off the front page and did a great deal to oppress that movement ....  the point being that sometimes sensationalism seems to overrule the true freedom of how we could be using the web to advance change.
In “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy,” Theda Skocpol points to members only clubs such as the AARP, which has existed since 1958, and though it maintains 36 million members, these members’ participation requires little more than mailing a check. Skocpol uses this example to support her claim that there is far more to blame for declining civic engagement than simply technological determinism.  
[[User:Caroline|Caroline]] 12:06, 26 March 2013 (EDT) Caroline


*****
I think that the “What is Civic Media?” piece does a great job of analyzing this perceived tension between technology and civic engagement. I especially liked Beth Noveck’s point that civic engagement does not necessarily translate into increased political participation. I think this point adds another important layer to the overall argument. [[User:Vance.puchalski|Vance.puchalski]] 15:51, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


The lecture about the evolution of the Internet in contrast with SOPA and PIPA was quite interesting to listen. The PIPA act is viewed as a grant to the social and political reforms that enables the facilitation of piracy. Although many are opposed to both SOPA and PIPA Act, there is ample benefit that implements the decrease of the piracy rate in the United States along with the careful consideration of copyright effect. In my view, SOPA and PIPA would make diverse websites more inaccessible, which would prevent users for exercising their freedom of speech.  Social problems would ultimately cost millions of dollars to support new technologies. These bills do portray an infringing benefit for copyright and pirated material that could distress the entertainment industry within the www.  Most Internet users enjoy the freedom to surf, post, and explore the Internet, however online piracy is a real problem that Congress sees it as an issue. The debate about censorship involves diverse major bills that are designed to stop the copyright and piracy, but is it enough? Ample companies seek protection rights to their product or good, how limited the implication of censorship could come along? The vast majority of users seem to react on serious revisions to protect our rights as citizens, which will introduce a new prospective premise within the usage on free knowledge, and “limited” expression of speech. [[User:User777|user777]] 12:15, 26 March 2013 (EDT)


*****
----


Today the readings were fabulous; if I do say so myself. I thought about a lot. This deepest thoughts I had were about the power of the doctoral degree. I just realized that there is always competition and that a doctoral degree makes a person better to socialize with others of the same dignity.


Now, with this having been said, read the following:
Another item of note from the recent reading is how vulnerable free speech is when it is centralized around particular websites; this echoes similar comments I made on the second lecture pertaining to how the "architecture" of the net is becoming increasingly interdependent on a few large-scale APIs and SaaS components (which leads to centralized control and/or single points of failure).  Right now, we're seeing a lot of blog traffic being absorbed into newer blogging platforms (tumblr, medium.com, etc.) that centralize blogging in a similar way, which defeats the argument mentioned in some of the papers about how the blogosphere might be an antidote to government shutdowns of centralized sites. 


"There was an apple that was a mango, it said to a comma, "Where is your period?". The comma said, that period is not required, because we are all useful"
I'm wondering if more peer-to-peer stuff is an answer.  I did a little bit of searching and did find that there's at least one microblogging platform that uses p2p technology to provide a twitter-like experience without the centralized point of failure.  Google on "twister p2p" and you'll find it.
[[User:Jradoff|Jradoff]] 15:55, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


- the previous quotation is not the opinion of this author, yet is used to illustrate nothing, since it is a translation of thought, to media, then reanalyzed by a different person's virtual "avatar", if we may.


Does this require a doctorate of English? Is computer language actually censored, or is it sentured? This type of problem, the articles discussed, but the metaphysics of this diaspora is not implicitly "bit for bit".
----


I am excited for lecture today, and above all, and not a supremacist. [[User:Johnathan Merkwan|Johnathan Merkwan]] 12:55, 26 March 2013 (EDT)


****
I particularly enjoyed the approach that Etling et al. take in the Political Change in the Digital Age reading by analyzing the cost-benefit relationship between access to information and control. The paper portrays the tradeoff between empowering individuals and repression from authoritarian regimes (which extends in many ways to democracies as well); a point of view that might not be very obvious to many at first. Information Communication Technologies have most often only been analyzed for their benefits to society but we, as civic society, must remain aware of their limitations and threats.
[[User:Luciagamboaso|Luciagamboaso]] 15:53, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


It was enjoyable listening/watching Yochai Benkler describe how all the smaller efforts to stop SOPA, while not all duplicate of each other, managed to support each other and created a synergistic effect that had an impact on public policy and public perception of that policy. However, I am still struggling a bit to understand the ultimate goal of Benkler and those who share his point of view. In terms of what he (and similar activists) are trying to achieve, where is the demarcation line between people's ability to speak and other's ability to choose to ignore or listen to them? Benkler referenced Wikipedia and the question they posted on their site: "Imagine a world without free knowledge." In terms of knowledge, what exactly is free and what can be protected and retained as private? Is the end state where everyone has absolutely equal voices, nobody with a greater voice than another? At the end of his talk, Nemkler mentions a large, diverse group of players all developing individual efforts which collectively to prevent their message from being shut down "by those with the money"? Is he simply attempting to restore some semblance of balance between the voices of those with money and the voices of those with little money? I can't seem to put my finger on any clear line to get a better understanding of what the goal is.
----
I have been fascinated by the use of social media and its role in the Tahrir Square protests. Aside from the very good statistics about its actual usefulness in today's reading, I recommend everyone to go on to Netflix and watch the documentary The Square. You'll see footage of the protesters going back to their homes, or base, and uploading footage to facebook. Protesters would also use the footage on Facebook to get caught up with the events they had missed. The usefulness of social media in protest and collective action can then probably be assumed to fall into two categories: purely online, and aiding real world protest.
[[User:MikeJohnson|MikeJohnson]] 15:59, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
----


While I do remember the Kony uproar when it happened, the readings and video provided more detail and context. While it obviously would have been satisfying to see something tangible come from the effort to bring attention to him, it appears that, unlike the successful anti-SOPA effort, sometimes these crowdsourced, online efforts allow for many efforts to augment each other and create a synergistic effect and other times they can compete with each other and even become adversarial in their relationships.


[[User:CyberRalph|CyberRalph]] 13:32, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
I think that it would be dangerous to centralize free speech in certain interest groups who do not always voice out the needs of others. Sorry that I don't have much more to say because Jradoff already articulated my points very clearly. Thanks for that by the way.


****
[[User:cheikhmbacke|cheikhmbacke]] 15:59, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
The articles discussing techniques of how the Kony online video made so many hits with YouTube and Twitter in such a short period of time were facinating. The first thing that came to mind was Tweetbombing, and to me the success of the Kony video was that it excelled in production professionalism, and the producers were able to latch on to the most popular celebrities in the Twitterverse such as Oprah, Rihanna, and Justin Timberlake. Support of those whom are popular among the young and technology savvy in 'pop'culture means immediate credibility to at least get a look at a product. The Kony video seemed to really be a first mover for using 21st century promotion tactics leveraging technology able to be accessed by the majority of the worlds literate population. Now those who watch music videos on YouTube and read tweets from celebrities had something of substance to grab hold of and simply re-tweet or post to their YouTube account,Like, and create a perfect storm of publicity in a very short time period. Understanding that a popular video on YouTube will show up as a recommended video on the home page helped tremendously. I do not know if the Kony producers were able to pay to promote their video, or get YouTube or Twitter to promote the video as a documentary charity or non-profit, but this would have also helped. Some of the celebrities pay to have their accounts on Twitter and or YouTube artificially promoted, and when Kony was endorsed by them on social media, this pay for promotion scheme worked to their advantage. The content itself is shocking, and simply promoting a bad video would not account for all of the views and re-Tweets. Human rights activism has come of age on the new social media, and the Kony video is a fantastic example of how that is happening. Some critics had said that it did not do much to combat child soldiers in general, but I disagree. The topic is now part of the global discussion of whether the United Nations and related international organizations may back loans for individual countries, and light shed on the subject put pressure on those using child soliders that they may someday be the next Kony video with them in the starring role. Bravo, producers of Kony2012.
----
Daniel Cameron Morris[[User:Daniel Cameron Morris|Daniel Cameron Morris]] 15:59, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
````
*****


@ZakPaster: Like many, I criticized the Kony2012 video for oversimplifying and emotionally manipulating viewers. I didn't like how the video ignored the voice of the Ugandan people, how it portrayed them as helpless, and how it aimed to "make Kony famous" by making him a celebrity. I would say after returning to these articles, I am a bit more conflicted, mainly because I am unsure about the value of "symbolic power."  Tufekci writes, "today’s 'meaningless click' is actually a form of symbolic action which may form the basis of tomorrow’s other kind of action." But as we see from Lotan, Invisible Children spent extensive resources into creating pre-existing networks that fueled the spread of the Kony message. An awareness campaign requires a built in infrastructure. And that kind of campaign costs money. In this case it worked. But while people may know who Kony is, what good is that awareness to the ultimate cause? Are we better off now than before?
Mapping Internet use is a major area of study today. It’s amazing how influential and yet insignificant a blog can be. “The Power of Politics of Blogs” observes how various blogs can use links to work together to achieve greater results then they ever could on their own. Embedding links and maintaining a “blogroll” can help boost the viewers of a blog, but viewer distribution trends create a power law making the “rich blogs get richer”. By linking websites and blogs one to another, seemingly insignificant topics could potentially be used to alter powerful legislation. A Russian police officer fought corruption through a YouTube video, and while it seemed to be a slow process, the end results were enormous. As we saw in the SOPA-PIPA controversy, even though it took a few years, persistent work by a few dedicated individuals eventually amassed a huge Internet following including the major Internet players, and prohibited the enacting of government legislation.  
Tracking, tracing and organizing all the information is humanly impossible. This can be seen most prevalently with the case of Twitterbombing. That allows even the most casual internet user to be a social activist on a major scale. [[User:Emmanuelsurillo|Emmanuelsurillo]] 16:22, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


If I'm donating to a cause in Africa, I would prefer the funds be used where it is most helpful (like on the ground in Africa or supporting research in the field) and not towards gaining public awareness. Because what good does that awareness and attention do, really? What are the implications when people think helping a cause means simply sharing its message? It's more than they would have done otherwise, yes, but is it enough to justify the money spent towards promoting that action? Tufekci says "The kids are listening, maybe to a simplistic message, maybe to a misguided cause.  But some portion of them will keep looking, listening and learning. Such moments have long-terms consequences." I'm left wondering, "will they only listen to a simplistic message then? Will they only look for a message that emotionally compels them to share a video? Is that what they will expect from human rights advocacy? Or will they look deeper for the full, less dramatic context that's not so spreadable?" If we believe that tweet bombing a celebrity is a form of "symbolic power" and therefore we have done our share, what good is participating in more meaningful ways like listening to African citizens and supporting local, African-led organizations? I'm not saying awareness is bad, I just worry that the goal of these campaigns (and the money required to support that goal) will be focused on earning attention from the people who actually won't help in the most effective ways. [[User:Asmith|Asmith]] 15:21, 26 March 2013 (EDT)
----


****
HAPPY 25TH BIRTHDAY TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB!
With this anniversary, there have been many news reports today celebrating the history of the world wide web and also discussing the newly proposed Internet Bill of Rights, which calls for more privacy for internet users and has a major supporter in Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the WWW. Hopefully this will get some widespread conversation going about internet privacy!
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2014/0312/As-Web-turns-25-founder-calls-for-Internet-Bill-of-Rights
[[User:Castille|Castille]] 15:42, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 15:29, 18 March 2014

Syllabus


March 11

Last class we learned about SOPA, and the fear that it engendered in many Internet commentators. SOPA lead to what is often considered the high-water mark of American engagement online in domestic policy circles (so far). But the Internet has been used for collective action since its inception. When does this work? When does it fail? Who gets included and who are we leaving behind? Does the Internet serve as a better facilitator to protests in some areas versus others?

Today will be an exploration of online protests and collective action, both in general and through the lens of some famous recent examples. Along the way we'll grapple with limitations of online protest activity, the criticisms weighed against online protest behavior, and some of the ethical questions that come up when different organizations fight for attention to their specific causes.

Joining us this week will be Alicia Solow-Niederman, a Berkman project manager who studies collective action online.


Readings/Watchings

Framing
Case Studies
  • You may also want to play around with the controversy mapper Media Cloud put together in connection with this report.
Observations, tactics, and methods

Optional Readings


Videos Watched in Class

Links

Class Discussion

Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: Andy 11:51, 11 February 2014 (EST)


Below is an interesting article on the "Internet of Things" where Business Insider estimates that by 2018, 9 billion household or utility devices will be operated by the internet from parking meters to home appliances. The study predicts the revenue increase will be enormous but, on the other hand, it may drive many industries and jobs out of business.

http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-in-the-internet-of-things-market-2-2014-2?utm_source=trove&utm_medium=referral

--AmyAnn0644 13:29, 12 March 2014 (EDT)


He also explained that people who claim that technology is neutral have typically zoomed out so far that the relationship between the individual, society and the technology are lost. He used the argument that while it may be accurate to say that either a gun or a toothbrush can be used to kill, but this theoretical accuracy is so abstract that it loses credibility.

I really like this, reminds me of Emergent properties Erin Saucke-Lacelle 15:48, 9 March 2014 (EDT)



Benkler et al's "Social Mobilization and the Networked Public Sphere" defines the networked public sphere as "an alternative arena for public discourse and political debate, an arena that is less dominated by large media entities, less subject to government control, and more open to wider participation." Thinking about how other parts of the public sphere are subject to each of these forces of control certainly makes the "public sphere" sound a little less "public." While the mainstream American media can often look like a circus, particularly if you're looking at the 24 hour news networks, with Benkler's ideas about the networked public sphere in mind, they don't really feel like something the public engages in. Rather, it is something we can engage with. Less a participatory medium than one that we have the option to either consume or not. Jkelly 12:01, 10 March 2014 (EDT)

I enjoyed Benkler's descriptions as well, but I also found Jilian York's contrast of public versus private to be compelling. She discusses the evolution of this "Quasi-Public Sphere" which Jkelly seems to capture to a certain extent what Jkelly mentions. Privately owned platforms (such as social media) have become thrust into the public sphere. This vast information exchange has prompted centralized platforms and York argues they also serve as public spaces in a "quasi-public sphere" that makes policing much more convoluted. As discussed in class, York feels that the content is now being policed both by private controls as well as coming colliding into the sphere of public scrutiny/controls. In essence, the private sector continues to engage its role in the public arena with increasing extension and (arguably) vice versa. York brings up the point that this can both benefit and thwart society as she mentions how internet-goers in repressive societies can gain access to material once prohibited from them; however, a negative example she references is how companies can make their own private rules of engagement which may (or may not) be favorable towards the general public. Either way, the article was extremely profound in the author's rendition of how the internet can impact life as we know it. --AmyAnn0644 14:28, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



I found the article mapping the Trayvon Martin case particularly interesting as I grew up near where the incident occurred and it caused such a frenzy all over Florida (and all over the country, for that matter). I happen to know someone really high up in the DA's office in FL, so hearing the facts of the case in comparison to what the media was broadcasting was shocking. The media completely created a story to propel their own political agenda and made it fit what they wanted to say. This is not at all to say that the message regarding race relations wasn't important, but it is interesting how they would squash facts which came up on the opposing side and emphasize and exaggerate other aspects so that they're telling the story that they want to tell. It's especially fascinating when you consider the story of Travyon to that of Jordan Davis, another black teenager who was shot by a white man in Florida, which was CLEARLY a race issue. Unlike the case of Trayvon, Davis's case was cut-and-dry, yet the latter case didn't get nearly as much media attention despite the fact that it could've actually spoken more loudly and to a more severe degree about race relations.

Castille 12:07, 10 March 2014 (EDT)



I thought the article on the KONY 2012 campaign and the concept of slack-tivism very interesting, especially since I remember very well watching the movement unfold and ultimately deflate. I do think that the internet can be effective in stirring debate and real change, but how we harness that power is ultimately unable to be controlled and can be easily manipulated, as we saw with the whole Kony movement. The organization was followed by scrutiny and met with a lot of accusations and controversy. However, the campaign did teach a valuable lesson: online movements can have real impacts and stir public conversation. The response from the video definitely brought Uganda to media attention as people investigated the message and the country.

There are some positive examples of collective action online, such as sites like Kickstarter that depend on action by strangers to support projects. It is a successful example, in a smaller and arguably more effective scale, on how the Internet is able to influence people’s lives and connect strangers. It would be interesting to see how sites like this can maintain it's audience and continue to inspire people to donate and participate.

Lpereira 19:51, 10 March 2014 (EDT)



I found the article “The Power and Politics of Blogs” by Daniel Drezner and Henry Farrel really interesting. I always wonder why blogging has such a big impact and influence on people and the media when as a matter of fact, there are not many readers. “Blogging is many things, yet the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on happenings in her life”, when now it has become an important media that could make a Senate Majority Leader resigns from the position.

Jolietheone 02:26, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



A CRITIQUE OF THE PAPER BY DREZNER AND FARREL

The distribution graphs shown at the end of the paper are too academic and technical and serves no practical purpose. They cannot be easily be interpreted. There are no graphs showing relationship between skewness and the variables the authors were supposedly measuring. No variables, political or otherwise, were explicity mentioned.

It also seems flawed to argue that politicians or the government should make decisions or "coordinate" their actions around a somewhat mysterious "Z" variable. One won't get a majority vote or approval by making decisions based on such a "calculation". And the problem of decision-making does not encompass a single "z" variable but more often an interplay of multiple factors. Cognitive maps, stakeholder analyses, and game theoretic approaches, etc., taking into account multiple criteria may be more appropriate.

The importance of blogs may have been overstated and needs some qualification. Generally, nobody is interested to read just anybody's blog. But if an articulate, prominent and influential blogger continues to write and maintains his blog online, people may pay attention. Some such blogs may get the attention of lots of people and lots of contributions. But my bet is majority of individual blogs don't get significant attention. It is true though, if one intends to get more attention, one would write on blogs of popular bloggers or blogs of popular online communities...and also link them to one's own blog. The people who has the power and means to take action to improve our world do not have time to scour and read the blogs. The need for more organized online information and data flow cannot be over-emphasized and blogs are not the appropriate medium.

Ichua 08:33, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



I was in Cambridge when Aaron Swartz committed suicide last year, and witnessed how vocal the local community became during the weeks that followed. It was a pleasure to reread and rewatch some of his work today, and a wonderful reminder how much impact a person can have by mobilizing online communities, especially through the theory of change he described so well on his blog. --Seifip 09:37, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

Did he really committed suicide? The Court seems to have treated him too harshly, perhaps to make an example of him.
I noticed this on Youtube while watching "Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMGG3flGdk Ichua 11:07, 11 March 2014 (EDT)
He did commit suicide, and while it's very, very hard to ascribe cause to something like that, he was in the middle of defending a criminal charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act at the time. We'll talk a little more about the Swartz case in a few weeks. Andy 15:56, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



Ethan Zuckerman, "The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention" raises the awareness of another new social behavior because of the internet. I will avoid Tweeter. And how can I eliminate spam emails? The "Block Sender" function doesn't seem to work most of the time! In the old days, we can protect ourselves from nuisance or harm by staying at home. But in our internet age, the technology cannot protect us from mischief and invasion of personal privacy. So, if there's something really important which requires our attention and collective action, will we miss it? Ichua 11:31, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



TV AND INTERNET - NEW TOOLS FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION AND DECISION-MAKING

Bills are passed depending on only a few votes in Congress. With the internet, voting on Bills can be done online, so that every citizen can participate in voting, not just members of Congress. Members of Congress may contribute by making their speeches and presenting their analyses online, with participation from the public. The TV can be used in conjunction with the internet (with 2 screens, one for TV and one for a live focused blog) with Congressmen and/or panel of experts or thinkers to debate issues and organize the information. The process can then involve virtual but live interaction with concerned bloggers. The video of the open forum can be made available online for repeated viewing and sharing of further thoughts for several days or weeks, and culminating in a call for public online voting. Every voter must be pre-registered and have his/her own government-issued secured password to vote. Some politicians may feel that illiterate people should not participate in voting? How can we be inclusive and yet make a good collective decision which will not ignore the needs of the illiterate? Ichua 11:46, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

CAN POOR PEOPLE THINK AND MAKE GOOD DECISIONS? Ichua 06:49, 12 March 2014 (EDT)


I found Adamic and Glance's paper "Divided They Blog" fascinating, given how the political blogosphere has developed 10 years on and the significant respect that political bloggers now command. According to the authors, in 2004 62% of Americans did not know what a web blog was- today I imagine that most internet users rely on targeted and well-curated blogs for news, information and reliable opinions on everything from national elections to NASCAR.

Another statistic that jumped at me was that in mid-2004, 63 million Americans used the internet to stay informed about politics. The Pew Charitable Trust 'Web at 25' Report published in 2013 found that 87% of American adults, roughly 178 million people, use the internet- and the majority of adult internet users had at least some exposure to information about state, local and national politics and elections. Given that level of exposure to the internet, the potential for the influence of news sources and individual voices outside of mainstream media outlets has never been greater.

The figures provided by Adamic and Glance demonstrate how citation of blogs with similar themes or supporting similar viewpoints compounds their reach and impact- as well as searchability and subsequent blog selection by the user seeking information about a given political party, politician or issue-- or to influence the searchability and online image of a given candidate. This brought to mind the campaign for the neologism "santorum" started in May 2003 by Dan Savage, a columnist and LGBT rights activist who sought to link then- U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's name with a sex act following homophobic comments made by the Senator, thereby significantly impacting the Senator's internet image. The power of the blogosphere and Savage's community of followers worked-- to this day, the first listing on Google when "Santorum" is searched for is the Wikipedia entry on Savage's campaign against Santorum. Given the number of hits on political blogs speculating about the 2016 Presidential race two years out, I imagine that Adamic and Glance's findings still ring true and are worth revisiting with a current data set. akk22 13:13, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



Aaron Swartz' "Theory of Change" is one of the best essays I've ever read (and have to admit I'd read it prior to this course). Last night when I watched his video from 'Optional readings' for the first time... I felt inspired by him all over again. I can't believe he was so young to have achieved so much. Cambridge, and the Internet, feels less safe without him. Erin Saucke-Lacelle 13:29, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



The internet can be a effective medium in education, timely updates, stirring debate. However, real change, occurs through activism that is either hands-on or encourages hands on activities. Activism in its pre-internet form included activities such as door-to-door networking, participating in telephone trees, and physical presence. The support by clicking "Like" seems silly and half-spirited.VACYBER 13:51, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



Ethan Zuckerman’s introduction to Athene (I had never heard of him either) covering the abuse of his friend Xeni on Twitter was of high interest to me from a corporate perspective. Although Athene has a large following, he clearly can’t manage the community well. Regardless if “celebrity bombing ” is tolerated on Twitter, Athene’s leadership abilities show a considerable amount of pure failure under the ethics of attention, simply by the way his followers reacted. If the American Cancer Society asked me to donate to their cause, and called me a whore for not doing so, I would think negatively of the entire community-not the person making the statement.

Regardless if Athene’s community is helping reduce hunger in Africa, or preventing the next holocaust, the attitudes of his members will eventually limit his ability to lead effectively. I wouldn’t donate a penny to Athene causes, simply due to the awareness made of his affiliates by Zuckerman’s article. This leads to a peculiar thought: Will sites such as Twitter allow the public to visually see the rise and fall of individuals through their behavior versus reading secondary information and then needing to make an educated guess? Could we potentially learn far more by allowing everyone to be ones true self? --Melissaluke 14:02, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



Internet is very powerful tool in civil society. The necessary elements of civil society can be freely established and developed through internet: various civil communities, trade organizationts, non-governmental organizations, non-political organizations, groups, bloggers and etc. In coming decades, with support of state agencies (electronic notary, electronic state registry on judicial persons, electronic state registry on real estate and etc.)the enterprises, associations, trade organizations can registered (even on the basis of legislation of foreign country) which will lead to development of business and trade. Nevertheless, the impact of Internet in politics should be minimum. The politics is the sphere which is directly related to governance and state. Only certain category of people, who meet the requirements in terms of background and experience, may have access to politics. Let us assume that ordinary people without appropriate background can vote "for or against" passing bills at Congress?How can they properly assess the significance of the bills discussed? Isn't it dangerous? Additionaly, the role of Internet in protets activity is still not effective as the governments can control the content of published posts. Aysel Ibayeva (Aysel 14:32, 11 March 2014 (EDT))



It's interesting to see some of the older documents covering blogs, suck as the 2004 paper quoting the NYT with “Never have so many people written so much to be read by so few.” Clearly, a ton has changed in the last decade--one of the big changes is the intersection between social networking sites (Twitter, Facebook) and the blogosphere. Prior to the prevalence social networking sites, blog posts were definitely funneled from the most-trafficked sites to smaller blogs (and similar effects, such as the the creation of red/blue partitions around political blogs). I wonder how much social networks have changed a lot of this. It seems to me that I see posts in my Facebook timeline from a wider variety of political attitudes than would happen in the tightly-controlled universe of blogroll-linking. Jradoff 15:50, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



First off, I absolutely loved the readings this week. As I stated in introductions, my research focus on the issue-framing processes of social movements, so this module jibes nicely with my interests. At the same time, most of these sources were new to me, which means I’ve been able to add to my arsenal of quality sources.

With respect to the “What is Civic media?” piece, the presenters begin discussing the work of Robert Putnam, which highlighted declining rates of civic engagement among Americans toward the end of the 20th century; Putnam attributes some of this decline to increased use of technology. While this work was groundbreaking, there was another scholar who presented a counterargument to Putnam’s theory, and perhaps ironically, she is also with Harvard.

In “The Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American Democracy,” Theda Skocpol points to members only clubs such as the AARP, which has existed since 1958, and though it maintains 36 million members, these members’ participation requires little more than mailing a check. Skocpol uses this example to support her claim that there is far more to blame for declining civic engagement than simply technological determinism.

I think that the “What is Civic Media?” piece does a great job of analyzing this perceived tension between technology and civic engagement. I especially liked Beth Noveck’s point that civic engagement does not necessarily translate into increased political participation. I think this point adds another important layer to the overall argument. Vance.puchalski 15:51, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



Another item of note from the recent reading is how vulnerable free speech is when it is centralized around particular websites; this echoes similar comments I made on the second lecture pertaining to how the "architecture" of the net is becoming increasingly interdependent on a few large-scale APIs and SaaS components (which leads to centralized control and/or single points of failure). Right now, we're seeing a lot of blog traffic being absorbed into newer blogging platforms (tumblr, medium.com, etc.) that centralize blogging in a similar way, which defeats the argument mentioned in some of the papers about how the blogosphere might be an antidote to government shutdowns of centralized sites.

I'm wondering if more peer-to-peer stuff is an answer. I did a little bit of searching and did find that there's at least one microblogging platform that uses p2p technology to provide a twitter-like experience without the centralized point of failure. Google on "twister p2p" and you'll find it. Jradoff 15:55, 11 March 2014 (EDT)



I particularly enjoyed the approach that Etling et al. take in the Political Change in the Digital Age reading by analyzing the cost-benefit relationship between access to information and control. The paper portrays the tradeoff between empowering individuals and repression from authoritarian regimes (which extends in many ways to democracies as well); a point of view that might not be very obvious to many at first. Information Communication Technologies have most often only been analyzed for their benefits to society but we, as civic society, must remain aware of their limitations and threats. Luciagamboaso 15:53, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

I have been fascinated by the use of social media and its role in the Tahrir Square protests. Aside from the very good statistics about its actual usefulness in today's reading, I recommend everyone to go on to Netflix and watch the documentary The Square. You'll see footage of the protesters going back to their homes, or base, and uploading footage to facebook. Protesters would also use the footage on Facebook to get caught up with the events they had missed. The usefulness of social media in protest and collective action can then probably be assumed to fall into two categories: purely online, and aiding real world protest. MikeJohnson 15:59, 11 March 2014 (EDT)


I think that it would be dangerous to centralize free speech in certain interest groups who do not always voice out the needs of others. Sorry that I don't have much more to say because Jradoff already articulated my points very clearly. Thanks for that by the way.

cheikhmbacke 15:59, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

Mapping Internet use is a major area of study today. It’s amazing how influential and yet insignificant a blog can be. “The Power of Politics of Blogs” observes how various blogs can use links to work together to achieve greater results then they ever could on their own. Embedding links and maintaining a “blogroll” can help boost the viewers of a blog, but viewer distribution trends create a power law making the “rich blogs get richer”. By linking websites and blogs one to another, seemingly insignificant topics could potentially be used to alter powerful legislation. A Russian police officer fought corruption through a YouTube video, and while it seemed to be a slow process, the end results were enormous. As we saw in the SOPA-PIPA controversy, even though it took a few years, persistent work by a few dedicated individuals eventually amassed a huge Internet following including the major Internet players, and prohibited the enacting of government legislation. Tracking, tracing and organizing all the information is humanly impossible. This can be seen most prevalently with the case of Twitterbombing. That allows even the most casual internet user to be a social activist on a major scale. Emmanuelsurillo 16:22, 11 March 2014 (EDT)

HAPPY 25TH BIRTHDAY TO THE WORLD WIDE WEB! With this anniversary, there have been many news reports today celebrating the history of the world wide web and also discussing the newly proposed Internet Bill of Rights, which calls for more privacy for internet users and has a major supporter in Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the WWW. Hopefully this will get some widespread conversation going about internet privacy! http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2014/0312/As-Web-turns-25-founder-calls-for-Internet-Bill-of-Rights Castille 15:42, 12 March 2014 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2014/?title=Collective_Action,_Politics,_and_Protests&oldid=1415"