Speech, Day 2: Collective Action, Hacktivism, and Social Movements

From Technologies and Politics of Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Syllabus


March 24

Just before the break we started exploring speech online. Today, we look at what happens when speech is aggregated into social movements. 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? We’ll also look at a particular new form of online protest – hacktivism – and the special considerations that come into play when people engage in protest through altering or disabling websites. 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 Dalia Othman, a Berkman fellow and expert on civic engagement.

Download slides from this week's class


Readings/Watchings

Framing
Defining hackers, hacking, and hacktivism
Case Studies

Optional Readings


Videos Watched in Class

Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn9-80ObGA8

Video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRW2BJOewcc

Links From Class Discussion

The counterspeech Department of State Twitter account: https://twitter.com/thinkagain_DOS

Anonymous and Kanye: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/hacker-group-anonymous-kanye-west-video-warning-article-1.2147756

Media Cloud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Cloud

Kate Krontiris' Berkman Lunch Talk: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2015/03/krontiris

Here's a little more on Kate's talk today: https://civic.mit.edu/blog/erhardt/americas-interested-bystander-new-research-from-google-on-civic-duty

Arab Spring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

Marshall Ganz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Ganz

Radio Swan for Cuba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Swan

Ethan Zuckerman's Rewire, which is a leading book on filtering and homophily online: http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/rewire-digital-cosmopolitans-in-the-age-of-connection/

This is the work of Willow Brugh: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/wbrugh

1999 Seattle WTO Protests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

For comparison (re use of cameras): http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/03/comparison1.jpg

Indy Media: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Media_Center

Indy Media's site: https://www.indymedia.org/or/index.shtml

2004 RNC Protests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity

Sasha Costanza-Chock: https://civic.mit.edu/users/schock

You can still text-to-tweet: https://support.twitter.com/articles/14226-tweeting-via-text-message

BART shuts off wifi to stop protests: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php

Timothy Zick publication: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&context=facpubs&sei-redir=1

The Guardian Project: https://guardianproject.info

Global Voices: http://globalvoicesonline.org

GV's executive director is Berkman fellow Ivan Sigal: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/isigal

Arab Blogosphere Paper: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2009/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere

Neda Agha-Soltan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan

Green Revolution Iran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Green_Movement

The US State Department asked Twitter to stay up during the protests to help the protestors: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/17/obama-iran-twitter

Wikileaks: https://wikileaks.org

Julian Assange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

Fifth Estate Movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Estate_(film)

TheCollateral Murder video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Guy Fawkes mask,made famous from V for Vendetta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_mask

Denial of Service Attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

Low Orbit Ion Cannon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Orbit_Ion_Cannon

Molly Sauter's book, The Coming Swarm: http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-Swarm-Hacktivism-Disobedience/dp/1623564565

Andy Carvin on Egypt Revolution and Twitter: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170765393/distant-witness-social-medias-journalism-revolution

The Tunisian Revolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution

Zeynep Tufecki's TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_how_the_internet_has_made_social_change_easy_to_organize_hard_to_win?language=en

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)


Hope everyone had a great break! This is not class related specifically - I just wanted to pop in and post about Facebook's new changes in service regarding the banning of certain content. I can certainly see where some people's freedom of expression would be insulted. "How dare they censor me!" are the cries being heard.

That said, Facebook is a private enterprise (as in not a government agency paid for by tax dollars) and can therefore do whatever they please. You don't like it? Go use Twitter. Go make your own forum, go do your own blog, pound sand, you certainly are not required to use Facebook.

What do you all think?

Soundbites from the NYTimes Article: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/facebook-explains-what-it-bans-and-why/?_r=0

Facebook Clarifies Rules on What It Bans and Why

On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.

“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”

Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.

Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.

“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”


And another writeup: http://pontiactribune.com/new-facebook-rules-sharing-this-article-might-get-you-banned/


Just to add my viewpoint, this was my response to a friend that posted the above Pontiac Tribune link on Facebook. I may of course only be in the minority.:

I was reading this, and as someone who does not usually post anything controversial unless it's about which hard wood is better for making a portable bar, I thought this was interesting enough to take a devil's advocate stand on. Facebook is not a government agency. It's a private enterprise (I don't mean private company in relation to I know it's 'publicly traded').

Therefore what they allow and don't allow is completely and utterly their choice. We don't have to use Facebook. We can go create our own blogs, our own sites, post our own content on a forum that we own and control, without risk of being "banned". Now depending on what you are posting, you may or may not run afoul of the government, but that's between you and the government, and maybe the terms and conditions of wherever you are hosting said content.... but overall, I don't see this as a "freedom of speech" argument.

This quote from the article is rather disingenuous. "Facebook has decided to become the world’s censor. This may end up being the final nail in the coffin of a social media outlet that has seen users flee from other idiotic policies." (I doubt it by the way - the nail analogy)

Facebook is only becoming the thought police FOR THEMSELVES. If they don't want certain content on THEIR servers, being fed to the masses that are THEIR users, then that is THEIR prerogative, not ours.

Will people abandon Facebook because their feelings are hurt that they can't share that rape video? Or that gang beating? Or that gorgeous naked man with the sculpted 6-pack? Or whatever else pissed FB off? Of course. So be it. Get out of the sandbox and go build your own.

ErikaLRich (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2015 (EDT)



Hi Erika (and everyone else)! Interesting what you wrote. I liked the quote from Mr. Zuckerberg; “It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t...”, because that is something I believe often is forgotten in the debate about free speech. In my opinion is protecting the freedom of expression not the same as letting everyone say exactly what they want. Because that can limit the freedom of others. Here are some examples of why freedom of expression is not black and white:

1. If someone threatens you, you might not have the courage to express yourself, and your freedom is therefore limited. (In some cases can threats even effect all aspects of your life.) 2. If you get triggered through pro-eating disorder material (like you talked about Erika), you will also be silenced since someone who is suffering from an eating disorder have a hard time focusing on anything else than food and weight (and therefore probably won´t be very active in debates). Consequently is such material limiting the expression of others. 3. If you bully someone online (or offline), you mentally break down the other person. That can result in lower self esteem of the bullied and he or she might no longer have the courage to speak up and express him/herself.

It is hard to know what should be censored and what should´t. But it is important to reflect upon the fact that freedom never is black or white, and that liberalism isn´t a synonym to letting everyone do exactly what they want.

JosefinS (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (EDT)


This week's readings were wonderful and engaging but internet activism and online social movements cannot always be categorized in the same way as traditional activism. I feel that there is a heavy emphasis placed on an assumed laziness (perhaps the wrong phrasing) on the part of the blogger, online organizer, what have you. Yes, traditional organizing like real life marches or on the ground activism translates to a certain kind of activism and can lead to social and political change that cannot be achieved if the efforts remain online, as articles like Ethan Zuckerman’s, “New Media, New Civics?” point out. But we cannot define online activism in the same framework we use in examining our traditional notions of activism. The Internet, this still relatively young space, doesn't yet have as much of a "status quo" of sorts - - meaning, space can be taken up by more people than before (granted, exceptions for places that don't easy access to the internet or their internet is censored and/or blocked). In this way, saturating this new media with a marginalized viewpoint, perhaps from members of of traditionally marginalized groups is a strong political act within itself. Making it so that new media is not the same as what you would get by turning on the regular news, this is an action itself. For example, I found the "Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere" article pointed to the phenomenon. In looking at the different descriptions of peoples' blogs one can see a range of traditional ones to a growing degree of ones discussing HIV/AIDS, women's issues, etc. (Amchugh (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (EDT))

I loved watching Gabriella Coleman’s speech on Anonymous this week, particularly because I’ve been fascinated by – and conflicted in my opinions about – the group over the course of the past few years. I first read about them in detail in 2012, following their focus on a rape case in Missouri. The case had been all but dismissed by the courts and the media, until Anonymous seized on an exposé that had been published in the Kansas City Star. In this case, I was immediately favorable to how they handled the situation; it truly seemed like they were bringing justice to a case that otherwise would have been brutally unjust. But I also felt complications around the power of “online vigilantism,” since if a powerful group like Anonymous could focus its energies in a direction I agreed with, it could just as easily use its powers towards an end I (or others) felt was wrong. For example, the group drew controversy when it released incorrect information about the supposed police officer that had shot Michael Brown in Ferguson. It’s also potentially just as problematic to see what Anonymous chooses not to highlight, including this follow-up to the rape case in Missouri, when earlier this year, the victim attempted suicide again, and her mother wondered where the online group’s support had gone (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/01/07/daisy-coleman-alleged-rape-victim-attempts-suicide-again/).

Another thing I have had difficulty grappling with is how the group balances its “lulz” mentality with more serious political activism. It was very interesting to hear Gabriella Coleman address this tension and show how it is clearly a big source of confusion even within the group itself. But it was equally helpful to hear her assessment that the humor and irreverence are political statements in and of themselves. I particularly liked her comparison of Anonymous to other groups in the past, such as the Cynics and the Dadaists. I had not thought about the fact that confusion and humor can be powerful cultural forces of protest and activism, and I had never thought of the “lulz” as an essential part of the group’s activism until she drew those comparisons. The humorous elements of the group also seem to help it gain legitimacy and respect among certain communities that might not afford such privilege to other activist groups. It reminds me of Ethan Zuckerman’s “cute cat theory of digital activism,” because of the idea that sometimes political activism needs to be masked in other forms of content in order to gain traction online.

Beccalew (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2015 (EDT)



Hi everyone!

This week´s reading was very interesting since it was about something you hear about almost every day. The Internet can be used in many ways, and social movements on the Internet don´t always look the same.

Drezner and Farrel write that ”the typical blog is written by a teenage girl”. However, all blogs in table 3 - Blogs read by the media and Table 4 - Blogs read by elite media (they show influential blogs/bloggers) are as far as I can see, written by men. This is very interesting since it means that even though the typical blogger is a teenage girl (or at least was when this was written in 2004), the most influential bloggers are male. I also thought about gender when I read Etling´s text about the Arabic Blogosphere, when he wrote that ”Arabic bloggers are prominently young and male”.

What I also found interesting was that it often is critical that traditional media pick up and write about what the blogs have posted if the big audience should pay notice to it. Traditional media has in that way power that sometimes is difficult for new media to claim.

Zuckerman wrote about ”the thick and the thin of participatory civics”. He meant that ”thick” participation is when you have to use your head while ”thin” participation is when you need your feet, or when you don´t have to think and use your brain. He mentioned that thin participation often is negatively called slacktivism and that a lot of people blame those activists to be lazy and not doing ”real activism”. Zuckerman wanted to challenge that view and problematize the issue in new ways.

Thin participatory civics is often connected to new and social media. However, I would say that traditional media sometimes take advantage of this type of activism as well. One example is the annual radio/TV program Serious request from the Netherlands that has been broadcasted every December since 2004. The project has now been spread to several countries, but in most cases under another name. The purpose of the project is to involve as many persons as possible in collecting money to a different cause each year. Money has been raised for victims of land mines, for clean drinking water, HIV/AIDS, for victims of sexual violence, etc. (Wikipedia, 2015). The following paragraph explains the project:

"During the Dutch 3FM Serious Request three popular radio DJs are locked up for six days in a small temporary radio studio (the "Glass House"), placed in a main square in a different city each year. Living on a juice-only fast, the DJs make an interactive, themed broadcast around the clock, while regular programming on the station is suspended. Instead 3FM and its website are completely dedicated to the event, which is also transmitted as a continuous audio and video live-stream. Additionally there is television coverage, integration with social media, and a dedicated mobile app." (Wikipedia, 2015)

Some of the things the project include:

-Radio/TV profiles that lead the show.

-Auctions on the internet.

-Telephone calls to raise money.

-Projects that anyone can start to raise money.

-Sharing for example TV clips on social media to raise people´s awareness.

-Listening to the radio/watching TV (without listeners, there wouldn´t be a show.)


As you can see, there are many ways (both ”thin” and ”thick”) in which people can participate and organize themselves. I think that it shows how both the ”thick” and ”thin” can be crucial and good.

Wikipedia, 2015. Retrieved 3/23/2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Request.

JosefinS (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2015 (EDT)



Great points, everyone! Another fun piece of reading that was just posted related to tomorrow's discussion is Binders Full of Election Memes by fellow Berkman Fellow Erhardt Graeff. Andy (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2015 (EDT)


I think that the internet is a great device for a civic debate, protest or manifestation of society, however there may be some dangers that these groups of activists can face such as being labeled, hacked, or portrait in different way than what they really are, so I think that the balance that one must strive to reach is the idea of non violence over the platform of the internet, and the education and security that can ensure safety, of everyone in every way.

If some news are exposed can create a great impact on people, however it will take sometimes for people to be able to understand the way how information on the internet functions for the ones that posted and find it, this is we should strive to a greater level of awareness to only enjoy the benefits of the internet in social movements.

Edwin Duque (15:54, 23 March 2015 (EDT))

Hello All!

I hope everyone had a fun and restful spring break. Even though I spent the week in Florida, thanks to my iPhone I was able to get through this week’s readings.

While all of the readings on collective action, hacktivism, and social movements were extremely thought-provoking, I was especially intrigued by Ethan Zuckerman’s, “New Media, New Civics?” article about online activism because, even though I am a huge fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s work, I totally agree with Zuckerman’s opposing stance on the value of participatory civics in the digital public sphere as an agent for change.

In his article, Zuckerman applies a very useful matrix to case studies of digital activism which denotes how varying degrees of thin and thick engagement can collectively impact change of both norms and codes, as he eloquently points out, “if enough of us raise our voices loud enough, we may persuade our mobile phone company or our nation to change its path” (14).

I know from personal experience that organizations such as Change.org not only collectively involve a large enough population of thin engagement participants to enact normative and instrumental change but they have also become an avenue of inspiration for others to participate in subsequent thick forms of engagement to solve additional problems and recruit even more participants.

According to their “About” page Change.org currently has more than 85 million users in 196 countries. That is certainly a significant number of voices actively contributing to a wide array of social movements.

EmiMac (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (EDT)


Beth Noveck's take on civic engagement was particularly controversial to me; at once I agree with her view that community engagements don't "scale" -- this idea brings to mind the example of the stereotype cookie-bake ladies who, getting together, stand on the proverbial corner of the road, put up a bake sale, and send all $124 of the proceeds to the Pentagon to help out with the war. They go to sleep thinking they have come together and done a great thing. When in the bigger picture, it is not society they have helped but their own consciences. Noveck's point about civic scaleability is pertinent everywhere we watch community efforts like this come to fruition only to cause the smallest of imperceptible ripples across the water. I would add that in addition to this problem of non-effectively translatable community engagement to politics, the discussion about words to action also suffers from information-flooding and information-dilution. This problem aside, the part where Noveck's stance is problematic is that community engagement does not necessarily translate into action. This stance overly discounts the power of norms as understood from Lessig's Code point of view. While this may be the case short term, Zuckerman is a treasure trove of examples to counter this argument -- especially from the Middle East and Islamic states -- where community engagement translates into fundamental shifts in norms. And norms are, in the end, the most powerful political actors in a democracy -- even in non-democracies.

In the Berkman report about trends in Arabic civic engagement, it was noted that most of these online activities seem to have the most "impact" in semi-repressive governments; doing less well in the least repressive governments and in the most repressive governments. One reason for this could be back to the problem of information dilution and over access in affluent communities. With societies in the least repressive governments, there is an overflow of news, of interests, of general online activity that have little to do with discussions about community. Rather, out of contentedness are born the classic children Complacency and Inaction. Digital media merely increases the speed of confusion and dilution. So the considerations of a society's comfort, it's information dilution levels, and its general government regulation are considerations that have come to the table about civic involvement and digital media in a way that is at once encouraging and discouraging. Encouraging when we read about Zuckerman's highlighting of the Pakistani community of women embroiderers who have been empowered to change societal norms via social media, and discouraging when we think about the majority of a comfortable society's use of its digital tools to do less than community-beneficial things. Great readings this week. Looking forward to piecing them together through lecture.

Chanel

Chanel Rion (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Hello everyone after the spring break!


Staring a Collective Action, Hacktivism or a Social Movement, they all are provoked by certain political or social events, by something done or something not being done by the government. From today’s reading it seams that in most of the cases the trigger has always something to do with the government not doing the right thing or not doing anything at all, Aaron Swartz telling us how KOIKA , later on SOPA was stopped, the Arab Spring, the hactivism organized by the Anonymous, the common element is that in all these cases single, otherwise ordinary individuals, combine forces in order to oppose the government united by a common goal. During the history people has done this using different means , more or less violent, but civil protests are not new phenomenon. What is new is the means we use nowadays. Internet is a very powerful tool. After today’s reading (and listening), I would conclude it’s power is based on three main pillars – Accessibility, Speed and Anonymity. Internet is an open tribune for everyone, everyone can make its opinion public and can easily find supporters by sharing it through the social communities. The second thing is the speed, the number of the supporters can reach thousands for just few days, as Aaron Swartz said it happened with the anti- SOPA campaign. Last but not least is the anonymity Internet is offering. An Internet user can initiate a group, community or be counted as a supporter of such one and still stay anonymous. A lot of people who would not dear to stand behind a cause and defend it on live, are gladly supporting the same cause online. This is bringing the question, how real all online movements and initiatives are? In some cases it turns out to be as real as it could be. When we take examples like the Arab Spring where the people transmitted the movement from Internet to the streets and keep on defending the idea. The most recent example I found is in Istanbul, last week where more than 100,000 people turned the funeral of Berkin Elvan into a mass demonstration for civil rights. As Zeynep Tufecki Is commenting on the event “No formal organization made the call” she says, it all has started in Twitter and later on turned out that Berkin's face had become a “symbol of civic resistance shared on social media from Facebook to Instagram”.


On the other hand there are cases when people are sharing a politically orientated image macro memes (Erhardt Graeff’s analysis on the election memes) but we could hardly conclude all of them are truly engaged with the cause. Most of them are just finding the memes amusing and funny . We could judge by the number of people sharing and liking the memes for certain tendencies in the society but it would not be right to assume all those people would defend the idea or cause behind the funny memes on the street. The research showing that actually most of the tweets regarding the Arab Spring were coming from Arabs in US and Europe is another prove that the conclusions based on the “online support” should be carefully examined and could be deceiving in some cases. I think Bruce Etling, Robert Faris and John Palfrey made a very good point on this, categorizing the social online activities into Mobs, Movements and CSOs. In the same spirit is the “Thick and Thin of Participatory Civics” theory of , Ethan Zuckerman who clearly explains that there is a big difference between the “lazy”, thin participation with by clicking the mouse and the thick one, where some dedication is needed.


I really liked the speech of Aaron Swartz and felt very sorry for his tragic end of his personal story but back to the subject , I was mostly impressed by the number of online petitions he had organized. What I am curious about is to know a little bit more about the legal value of such a petition. I think that some issues like the act of signing an online petition are not very clear to me. Should each of the signatures use an e-signature in order his vote to be recognized as a valid one. I think this would be impossible for realization but otherwise how the authenticity of such a petition could be assured so it could have a legal value? (Gia (talk))

Shouting from a soap box or singing in the shower? This line stuck in my head as i read Yockhai Benkler et al. This is a question often ask amongst activist and friends in regards to political blogs. When you blog, do you speak to three thousand people or only three? Very difficult to know. This is why i've developed a few techniques to not waste time blogging. A quick short paragraph is usually best, no need for an entire manifesto because, again, you may be communicating with only three people. When it comes to countering hate speech, I only respond to those that cross the line into racism and violent threats, often referencing the audience and the possibility that someone in law enforcement might be reading the blog. Finally when it comes to arguing opposing points of view I try to respond to those who write full sentences and try to make an argument.

From Anonymus to LULZ by Gabriella Coleman was a very interesting presentation. There is a big difference between blogging and actual face to face, hand shaking community organizing work. Furthermore, one doesn't work without the other. The occupy movement used both tactics to some extent, but in my opinion, got caught up in the anonymous philosophy and wasted a tremendous opportunity to really organize and have an impact. Sadly their obsession with no leadership and their endlessly mind numbing deliberation sessions won over reason, instinct and action. I still give the young kids Kudos for revolting and shaking up the tree. I'll admit, I used the occupy movement to further my own agenda and the movement happily obliged, and it was a net positive for the communty organization i worked with, but in terms of real impact on public opinion and legislation, I would say it's minimum. Mainly because their actions became more and more lame over time, and never even came close to anything 'audacious' or daring as Anonymous' could come up with. Hromero10 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Hacktivism and civic media. Wanted to add another post in response to some comments. The problem of scaling up is very real in activist blogs. this type of thin involvement is what you get from on line petitions and so forth, and in order to have real impact it must be coupled with community organizing. meaning actual people, who get together, meet face to face, organize actions and actually show up at city hall or the state house and make their case to law makers. If people are not willing to do this it is difficult for online activism to scale up beyond a group of like minded individuals or to have any meaningful impact on their goals.Hromero10 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

This week’s topic, by far, is my favorite topic we have covered in class! I thoroughly enjoyed all of this week’s readings and was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. Before this week I considered myself proficient in the knowledge of online social movements, because I have been heavily involved with a lot of campus and student groups who participate heavily within avenues of civic engagement written about. Boy, was I wrong!

The piece that most interested me was Erhardt Graeff’s “Binders Full of Election Memes”. Admittedly, I think this spoke to me because I was guilty of “trolling” the Internet around election time. Although I may have been trolling, I am proud to say I refrained from malicious acts described by Gabriella Coleman. The type of trolling I participated in was far from anything Anonymous has committed, yet I still had a hand in retweeting or reblogging the occasional funny meme about a presidential candidate – because “I did it all for the lulz”. Naturally, because I believe I am a political animal, I would follow debates on the news between presidential candidates and then would return to social media outlets to see what would resonate with Twitter followers, Tumblr feeds, or even my own Facebook group of friends. What amazed me was Graeff’s ability to describe and articulate what I would find on my social groups.

Meme sharing indicates there is something worth paying attention to in that moment. Maybe it is just funny. Maybe it is a little too true, which underlies the humor and implores us to pass it on. A lot of memes act as shibboleths—they indicate that you are part of the in-crowd, you get the joke, you were there when it happened. This is the power of the meme speech act. It quickly creates a networked public from its in-group. That feeling of inclusion can inspire further and future discourse.


Like Graeff alluded to, the memes that I would post or repost, would initiate a conversation with a) people who watched political debates b) people who shared similar political views. It created this “in crowd” of people, which only perpetuated people to read or participate in politics to ensure they could get these jokes. I know there was a point in the running where Romney had made the famous “47 percent” comment for which I had not yet accessed. Sure enough, all my social media was blowing up with 47% hashtags, memes, and funny gifs. Not being able to understand what the trends were about, I was motivated to seek out legitimate news sources to read what had happened. The comment by Romney, exacerbated by online groups and memes, undoubtedly tainted the candidate’s image and I’m not sure he has been able to recover from this perspective. This small example shows the strength of social movements online is powerful, and has yet to know no boundaries.

I think in situations such as a presidential campaign, which promotes the freedoms of democracy, it is ideal to have as many citizens participate in the matters. In this aspect, social movements have done a wonderful job of providing information to as many people as possible. Before, matters of political platforms were somewhat reserved for the elite and privileged. Recent developments have made information more accessible and relevant. Secondly, social movements can positively reinforce the desire to be involved, even if it’s out of social pressure to be part of the “in crowd”. My wanting to be involved with the latest 47% topic drove me to seek out information and stay more current with politics and national news. In this respect, social movements can promote participation.

But, I believe that politics nowadays have moved away from what originally was concentrated on the validity of the content being discussed, to highlighting who flubbed or what mistake can be made in to memes. This, I believe, is one of the negative perspectives for which social movements fail online. The focus of participation can be shifted to aspects that may be funny, but take away from the real issues at hand. Henry Jenkin’s “civic media” suggests that social media and television are not solitary actions, which I agree with, but at what degree does participation look like? Does change come about when things are being retweeted or reblogged, but not translating into action. Graeff’s describes some of these concerns as:

Although this corroborates the value of connective action and the argument that election memes represent legitimate political speech acts, it also calls into question the quality of personalized expression and grassroots mobilization involved. But “authentic” and even cynical political participation through memes can coexist with their adoption and exploitation by professional political organizations.


When speech becomes aggregated into social movements, the results are simply unfathomable. As past events have shown, massive movements (i.e. #blacklivematter, #occupy) or social injustice campaigns (i.e. Aziz Ansari’s #rupertsfault campaign against Rupert Murdoch) have happened due to the ability to assemble on online forums. I think the reason I am so attracted to this topic is because the environment of social movements have endless possibilities and unlimited abilities to include more, and more participants. Mhoching (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Why Accountability Matters

Beth Novek asks, “what does civic, rather than deliberative, media look like?” She answers, “Ultimately it means recasting our conceptualization of the First Amendment to be not simply about talking about talk but also talking about action.” We do need to talk about action, but that is not enough. We need to talk about responsibility and accountability in taking action.

Action is an abstract word that evokes a virtually infinite number of manifestations, weak, strong, legal, illegal, disobedient, constructive, and destructive. Action, particularly concerted action, without the constraint of accountability is a very dangerous movement. I am not limiting my discussion to physical action, as in moving online bullying to physical bullying. Digital action in our digitally dependent and digitally empowered world holds many risks. We will never agree on regulating action based on our opinions of whether a particular action is positive or negative. There are those that would contend that the actions of the 9/11 terrorists had positive effects. What we can do is take the steps to help ensure that actors are accountable for the actions. This would seem a basic tenant of a civil society, digital or physical.

Certainly, accountability inhibits in varying degrees the actions that a community or individual might be willing to take, as exemplified in the reactions by the government to the demonstrations against Mubarek in Egypt. There demonstrators were identified and arrested based on their Facebook identities. The videos of the release of the demonstrators were employed by the government as propaganda that it still had power over such demonstrations. But the story does not need to end there, and we may also consider the reactions of the online world to those videos and to the actions of the government in making the arrests. Here, everyone, demonstrator and government alike, is accountable. It is when action is taken anonymously, when actors are not accountable for their actions, that we are most at risk of abuses of power. Anonymity would appear to offer far more risks of abuse than sanctity for concerted action. As Etling observes, “anonymity diminishes the effectiveness of the very factors that facilitate effective social and political organizing…: leadership and displays of unity and commitment. It is therefore not surprising that there are no examples of influential political movements comprised of anonymous participants…. digital technologies can be used just as easily by those with nefarious intentions as those acting in the public interest.”

Gary Brown (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Welcome back from break everyone! Three topics struck me as fascinating and relevant this week: social movements gaining support through social media, symbolic versus institutional power, and the role of narratives in the acceptance and change of social norms.

One of the common themes that struck me as I read our literature this week (especially the article by Tufecki) is that of a call for a social movement that breaks us out of an existence dictated by mass media. More specifically, I am fascinated that individuals used social media to communicate their messages and eventually gain support for social movements. In the Coleman video, we saw signs of this in the “Anonymous movement” in which people publicly attacked or poked fun of public individuals or symbols that preserve our somewhat “mundane” existence.

I also really enjoyed the discussion of symbolic power versus institutional power. Again, in the Coleman video, the anonymous movement fought for human rights, for example, and eventually was able to positively change social norms, solely with symbolic power.

A perfect recent example that brings these two themes together, along with Tufecki’s third theme of narratives as a driving force for social norms and social change, is the recent public outcry surrounding the Ferguson shooting. Though racism clearly existed in area for some time, a “hands up don’t shoot” narrative was falsely constructed and then spread throughout mass media, and repeated by individuals and organizations with institutional power. It has been discovered that this was a fabricated narrative. Ferguson was a huge topic on social media, and unfortunately countless individuals were misinformed as they banned together for change. It is unfortunate that institutional powers are not always required to apologize for spreading misinformation to the masses, especially because the narratives they spread are given such weight due to their formal power.

Batjarks (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

Etling et al (2010) stated “The Internet also allows new voices to enter the debate by reducing the influence of gatekeepers and by permitting the rise of citizen journalists to engage in previously expensive journalistic, transparency, or fact-checking endeavors.” Social media has become the main avenue that give people the space to demonstrate how community and global issues still matter and that people are still deeply concerned and want to take an active role in making change. Zuckerman(2013) asked the following question, “So I leave you with a question: Civics is changing. How do we help those inspired by The Hunger Games use digital tools to become participatory, passionate and effective civic actors?”


In a university setting, media tools have allowed for student protests to become larger, more engaged, and effective than they would have been with the ability to access or use social media. While working in higher education institutions, I have seen social media movements reach out beyond the university student body to include parents, university administration, peer institutions and the wider community. Today’ students are very adept at quickly organizing social activism networks through email lists and Facebook; but Twitter feeds are a primary artery for soliciting participation and creating solidarity. Here is an article that speaks about the quick organization of protests and the garnering of social support after the arrest of University of Virginia student, Martese Johnson: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002398/Bloody-arrest-University-Virginia-student-outside-bar-sparks-massive-protest-governor-s-call-investigation.html. This demonstrates how social media and technology has given the opportunity for students’ voices about community concerns that were confined to their particular geographic areas and given them an international. Another recent incident involving a sexual assault investigation at Brown University caused uproar on the campus when an accuser, the child of a Brown corporation member/donor, was not charged. The Brown community used a blog and the hashtag #MoneyTalksatBrown to organize a protest and garner a social movement. You can read more on the blog to see how the students used social media to support their cause: http://bluestockingsmag.com/2015/03/12/moneytalksatbrown/. So while media activism is being called into question, technology allows for students to continue making their voices heard until they receive the attention of the administration and the community listens.


References: Etling, B., Faris, R., and Palfrey, J. (2010) Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing.

Zuckerman, E. (2013) New Media, New Civics. Adapted from "New Media, New Civics?" Tasha (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

I’m going to jump in right away and say that I enjoyed the video about how Anonymous started. From trolling to political activist is pretty interesting. I like how Anonymous became a provocative medium to spread ideas to the masses. Yet this makes me question if indeed the internet has too much power. Back then, social movements were physical, now it could occur digitally. How do we measure the strength of these movements? I mean, in the United States, there is a right to your beliefs (religion), so is going against Scientology really a just cause? Does the majority always dictate what is the right course of action? Is Democracy always to favor the majority, and thus ignore the liberties of the minority? I personally do not agree with the teachings of Scientology, yet if the law gives people the right to practice their own religion, isn’t Project Chanology unconstitutional? I understand it was a response to Scientology’s attempt to remove Tom Cruise’s interview from the internet; yet if Scientology has done it with legal and legitimate ways, it should be done.

So my question about this is; since Anonymous has a horizontal structure with no real leaders, how do these people’s ideals reflect the masses? Do they really reflect the actual situation, and would promote things for the better? Of course, I am supportive that a cause like this could create more justice for different sensitive issues, but it still brings me to the question of whether Anonymous view reflect the publics. If it does, then sure, it’s a good way to voice the opinions and ideals of the masses. But what happens when they do not reflect those ideals? To stretch it further, what about the minorities who also have the right for their own liberties. Isn’t a social digital movement against those minorities unconstitutional? It raises more questions than it answers. The framework of voicing opinions becomes increasingly enticing, but how do we determine what the “just” cause is to do? If they are pro-Democracy, then why are they a small group focused on spreading minority ideals to the public (my assumption is that Anonymous group isn’t going to be half the population of the US).

It questions the power and how much control governments should have. It brings us back to previous lectures about government’s way for censorship, and surveillance. Are these digital social movements harmful to the society? I do not see a problem if it reflects the masses. But what if it does not reflect the masses? Then what? Shouldn’t we find legal means to voice our opinions about certain topics? What constitute as “just”?

Next I’d like to talk about our definition of civic media. I think Greg Peverill-Conti makes a good point about World of Warcraft. The issue about real communities versus created communities. Personally I had played World of Warcraft (very addicting), and I understand that those communities do share their interests and communicate probably more than between a mother and son. Beth Noveck also points an interesting issue that the current structure of the media is flawed. It is not playing a role to “enhance” democracy. I believe it is endangering it. With so many arguments about hate-speech, silencing, undermining, and such, I think the plausible exploitations by the media to achieve their monetary interests becomes increasingly easy. It also brings into question of whether it is “just” to jump on the bandwagon to distribute “unconfirmed” news in order to get traffic. (As we learned from previous lectures about how news websites would promote gossips from the “internet”)

Linking the two readings/videos, Anonymous is a civic media. It is a community that uses its medium to promote things far beyond their community. It is stretching out further to other communities. As such, it beckons whether this is a good thing or not. What if one community has too much power and too much reach to voice their opinions to everyone else? What if one community has the power to silence, undermine, and or discriminate other communities? Has communities leveraged civic media to extreme levels to achieve their goals? Has the press extended their reach with civic media to the extent where news no longer is relevant? It becomes self-fulfilling, and it is not very pleasant to question if every article is legitimate or not.

I find it very interesting to tie social movements with civic media uses to fulfill the voicing of their ideals. I believe in efficiency. As for the case of demonstrations and voicing ideals, I believe that social movements are made more efficient by using civic media. Civic media promotes it further and makes connections within the community stronger and more convenient. It also conveys its messages loudly and strongly. As you may have noticed, my previous posts had emphasized efficiency. I believe the advancement of technology is strongly tied to efficiency. Mankind is moving towards making “everything” more efficient. Be it storing foods so they don’t rot, to communicating through thousands of miles; it is all based on efficiency. Social movements do happen from time to time. As long as politics and governments are subjective, we will never have an objective way to know what regime is “just” and “sustainable”. As such, when social movements happen, it would be 10 years of pain, or 5 years of pain. With more efficiency through civic media, we could achieve a more efficient voicing of the social movement’s opinions. Whether it works or not would soon be known. It would take less time to know if it works out. This is what I believe to be the strength of Civic Media for social movements.

I’d like to talk about the plausible flaws of Democracy. Does lobbying reflect the ideals of the masses, or just the ones that are lobbying? I think this is obvious. Only the ones that are lobbying. So could we also conclude that whoever spends more money to lobby would likely get a better outcome? I do believe so. Just as Reference 1 says, it was plausibly due to the lobbying from newer start ups and Internet-Savvy White House staff that beat out the older technology companies which resulted in Wheeler’s decision on net neutrality. I know I mentioned this many times in today’s post, but is it “just” to do this? There seems to be a lot of moral issues associated with today’s readings. Is lobbying the just way to deal with things; does it reflect what people really want? Is privacy just dependent on who has the most money for lobbying governmental officials?

Lastly I want to say it is very interesting to read about the Arabic blogosphere. What enticed me the most was the issue about terrorism. In fact Arab bloggers would be “overwhelmingly critical” of violent extremists. That does make a pretty huge statement that I believe the majority of the Western world seem to not realize. These extremists exist not because they are from Arabic countries (I know, it’s a generalization, but may I dare say, this is sort of what the Western world seems to view of Middle East), but simply because they are extremists! The next interesting factor I found about the article is that Arabic bloggers tend to blog with their real names. I think more research and emphasis needs to be done on this. This is an interesting finding. And I also (hopefully I’m not generalizing once again) think that women were more likely to blog anonymously than men is due to the gender issues that Arabic countries face. Not trying to put my value on theirs, but perhaps women feel safer to blog anonymously. I’d definitely like to see more research on this issue. Why exactly do Arabic male bloggers use their names or obvious pseudonym? Is it so that they could “make a statement”?

In conclusion to this week’s readings, I think it brings a lot of moral questions into technology. Technology has allowed us to advance extremely fast, but our morals and judgment seems to lag behind it. We could make efficient uses of civic media to promote social movements. We could voice our opinions through mediums (Anonymous) and do actions as long as we believe it is “just”. Though what exactly is just? That I do not know. I believe it is still a very undeveloped issue at the moment. Should we use “just” based on old norms prior to the internet? But wait, the internet is something entirely different, so shouldn’t we actually make new definitions to determine what is “just”? There is no “half” filtering, or “half” censorship. It’s either entirely, or none. With that sort of distinction, we are at the mercy of the extremes. How do we satisfy moral questions so we could have “some” censorship, but also the liberty to voice our opinions, without the destruction of news media outlets that would endorse and spread any sort of internet rumor for their own monetary benefit? We need some sort of middle ground.

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tB4onhtAmQ

http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/civic_media.html

http://ethanzuckerman.com/papers/newmedianewcivicsprepress.pdf

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4609956/SAIS%20online%20organizing%20paper%20final.pdf?sequence=1

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2295953

https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/2015_02_10_Score_Another_One_for_the_Internet_0.pdf (Ref 1)

http://civicmediaproject.org/works/civic-media-project/index

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Mapping_the_Arabic_Blogosphere_0.pdf

Note: Arghh, I tried posting this earlier but it did not actually get posted!

Caelum (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

______

Came across this article on using live streaming apps to document social injustices. Thought it would fit well into this class discussion next time around: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/can-use-livestreaming-apps-promote-justice/

Kelly.wilson (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

___

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/is2015/?title=Speech,_Day_2:_Collective_Action,_Hacktivism,_and_Social_Movements&oldid=4354"