Collective Action, Politics, and Protests

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

• MIT Communications Forum, What is Civic Media? (skim)

• 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)

• 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

• 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)

• You may also want to play around with the controversy mapper Media Cloud put together in connection with this report.

• Erhardt Graeff, Mapping the Trayvon Martin Media Controversy

• 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)

• Alex Remington, Social Media and Participation in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square

• Zeynep Tufekci, #Kony2012, Understanding Networked Symbolic Action & Why Slacktivism is Conceptually Misleading

Observations, tactics, and methods

• Aaron Swartz, A Theory of Change

• Ethan Zuckerman, The Tweetbomb and the Ethics of Attention

Optional Readings

• Aaron Swartz, How We Stopped SOPA

• Gilad Lotan, KONY2012: See How Invisible Networks Helped a Campaign Capture the World’s Attention

• Yochai Benkler and Aaron Shaw, A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right

• Jillian York, Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere (focus on the Introduction, and “Social Media: Privacy Companies, Public Responsibilities”)

• Yochai Benker, The Wealth of Networks (Chapter 7 - "The Emergence of a Networked Public Sphere")

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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)