Lev Lafayette ([info]tcpip) wrote in [info]talk_politics,

Online Activism And Political Involvement

It is easy to become caught up with the online world. There is a certain wonder with meeting people on the other side of the world with similar interests, to share stories, to swap tips ... and to argue incessantly about some of the most seemingly trivial things; I swear I've seen a knitting flamewar. Such discussions can amaze observers who do not have those interests and compare very poorly with the necessity of involvement in politics; "... the chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a man will not himself hold office and rule." (Plato, The Republic, Book I, 347-C). Politics however, like any other interest, is subject to such debates and distractions. For someone who wants to be a serious political activist, to make real changes in the world, this is a problem. The following are some suggestions on how to manage online activism in a manner that furthers actual social change.



1. Extend Real-World Activism With ICT

The purpose of political activism is to successfully introduce legal change and public awareness. This can be assisted by information and communications technology. Information technology is an extremely effective means to record, store, search and distribute information. Communications technology allow for asynchronous as well as synchronous two-way information flow whilst at the same time independent of spatial constraints. These are exceptional tools to aid one in promoting their cause to public officials and interested members of the public. Of course, there are other tools that one can use for direct political effect such as denial of service attacks and web vandalism. It must be pointed out that these have limited effect beyond the media interest that they generate.

Winning an argument on the Internet is not going to make any substantive difference to the laws that affect us. Regardless of whether one advocates a model of radical, reforming, conservative or even reactionary approaches to society, these are to be implemented in the practice of life and in the system's institutions. Thus it is imperative that everyone who uses ICT to further political causes should also embody themselves in the real political struggle, whether that be through public protest, political parties, meeting with officials, and so forth. Whilst there is still a distinction between flesh-and-blood human beings and the electronic communications matrix, "pressing the flesh" remains the priority whilst an exclusive emphasis on the online world is a form of political retreatism.

2. Choose Your Demographics

The reality of politics is that most people want to know how a current situation or proposed change will affect them, and they can be very selfish in their assessment of the situation. When a boatload of asylum seekers reach Australia, only a minority are concerned with what they are fleeing from. Most can only see problems; the prospect of cultural and religious differences, employment and housing issues, and so forth. The situation has not been helped by certain politicians Allaying such people of their fears, explaining to them the circumstances of the asylum seekers and so forth is something that can be clearly assisted with ICT - but appropriately.

Do not, for example, advertise local meetings to global mailing lists, despite the relative ease in doing so. Do not spam communities with your political organisation or issue - and most certainly, do not spam communities that have nothing at all to do with the topic or conversation thread.

Targeting use of ICT for political causes can be extremely effective. The Zapatista movement combined targeted information releases with substantive political action, ensuring that many in the world were aware of their actions and the reasons for their actions before it was reported by the mass media, a model which continues to this day with the Green movement in Iran.

3. Target Your Energy

We all have a finite amount of energy and time in a day, and the Internet is full of distractions, some of which themselves can even distract you from your distractions. It may even become common at the end of the day for a person to think to themselves "what did I do today apart from plough my fields in Farmville, and go up a level in World of Warcraft?" Such a person, slightly annoyed at themselves for letting these entertaining pastimes consume too much of the precious temporal commodity, may decide to direct more of their time towards getting schooled in political matters. This is generally a good pastime - but it can be even made even more effective.

Your online political energy should be directed in proportion to your interests, the effect of the proposed change or status quo, and your capacity to influence. For example, late last year the Ugandan government proposed a reprehensible anti-homosexuality bill, which would have included the death penalty for 'previous offenders', those who engaged with same-sex acts with people under 18, and those who are HIV+. Anyone with an interest in universal and human rights should be concerned about such a bill. It is quite clear that it has a very serious effect on the lives of those accused of same-sex acts or relations. But what can a person, far from Uganda, actually do about it?

The wrong thing for a political activist to do would be to heavily tap into the Internet discussion forums in Uganda itself on the matter and gain an enormous level of expertise in the intricacies of the bill. What possible use does such knowledge and participation have? The right thing to do is to improve local awareness against the topic, especially when these are matched by direct and indirect political protest, such as campaigns to cut financial aid to such a vile regime, or petitions to contact local representatives to demand that they express their disapproval. Such actions do have an effect as the Ugandan President Museveni noted with frustration. Widespread international solidarity has enormous morale-boosting effects for those in the affected jurisdiction.

4. Give Money

For a very long time political activists of a more 'common person' persuasion found themselves seriously out-gunned when it came to fundraising. The often insurmountable challenge of taking on the big corporations and their well-connected network of professional lobbyists meant that many a campaign was lost in the past that probably could have been won - if the right technologies were available at the time. Howard Dean exemplified and really established the new model when Dick Cheney described a $2,000 per seat luncheon with George W. Bush. In contrast Dean used the Internet to invite people over "for [a virtual] lunch" and, in the process, raised just as much money. What Dean lacked in well-heeled individuals, he made up in a less onerous per capita donation in greater numbers, and with greater dispersion. As Dean correctly said "the Internet isn't magic, it's just a tool that can be used to do things differently" - and the capacity to transfer funds from one bank account to another is indeed, one of those 'things'.

For many people, after an exhausting day's work, political activism is the last thing on their minds. Some quality time with their family and friends is perhaps a little higher on the agenda. Personally, I believe that everyone should spend an hour a day in political activity of some sort - and if they can't do it directly for a variety of reasons, then do it indirectly. I can't be present with Greenpeace trying to stop Japanese whalers. I can't be with Amnesty International trying to negotiate the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. I can't be with Médecins Sans Frontières carrying medical supplies into an emergency medical tent in Sudan. But I can donate an hour's wages per day to help pay for the expenses for the people who do engage in those activities - and often it is more efficient and effective to do so.

5. Do Not Feed The Trolls

The Internet is truly a diverse place, indeed far more diverse than what a real social world often would be, because "nobody knows that you're a dog". The opportunity for grade-A kooks to visit 'blogs and forums and espouse their strange theories and values to a mass audience, rather than mumbling to themselves in a disheveled trench-coat must be one of the great liberating wonders of our age. Aside from potential anonymity of personal characteristics, the Internet is a forum that has a very different communication experience - on of distance, of dropping social mores and generally standards of behaviour - leading to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

As a result, one must train oneself to be selective in how they communicate online and with whom. There are people who are genuinely interested in a political cause that you raise, who have serious and useful questions about a position you espouse. They may be able to convince you, through the strength of their argument alone, that a position that you hold is incorrect or needs to be modified, which is a real benefit to one's own political reasoning. You may even be able to gain a long-term ally through such a process, an invaluable resource in itself - As Jurgen Habermas once put it "Communicative action is a switching station for the energies of social solidarity". But these require a prior intentionality on participants to engage in discourse ethics. Most people involved in online discussions, alas, are not interested in such things. When encountering individuals who want to argue, to be snide, abusive and so forth, let them pretend that they've had their victory - as it is obviously very important to them. For your own peace of mind and political effectiveness, do not feed the trolls.



Posted simultaneously to The Isocracy Network
Tags: activism, internet

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 9 comments

[info]op_tech_glitch

April 24 2010, 07:25:34 UTC 2 years ago

I swear I've seen a knitting flamewar.

No oath necessary, I find that very easy to believe just on your word.

Deleted comment

[info]op_tech_glitch

April 24 2010, 08:26:33 UTC 2 years ago

I'll have to file that last one away for future reference.........

Deleted comment

[info]tcpip

April 24 2010, 08:31:57 UTC 2 years ago

I largely agree with your comments and thank you for the contribution. I especially agree with the remarks by Internet utopians, although Julian Assange tends to prove his point by practise - and good on him for doing so.

With regard to the other comments, whilst I agree spreading misinformation is easier with ICT, so is spreading information as well. The levelling between lay-person and expert is a reality that we will have to deal with. To paraphrase Milton, truth will have to grapple with lies.

I will have to disagree with the point of false power. Yes, it is true that politicians are highly subject to behind closed doors influences (or even more so, preselection battles) but the very fact that the Victorian government were caught over the Windsor Hotel scandal was because of a leaked email.

WRT to the 'false sense of diversity' I would suggest a more qualitative analysis is required. Replicating mainstream news stories isn't a wrong in itself - what is important is how people discuss the content and the spin.

Finally, I agree with your comments on trolls and I wish to reiterate the emphasis on discourse ethics.

Deleted comment

[info]tcpip

April 24 2010, 13:51:27 UTC 2 years ago

He has demonstrated -- quite beyond what anybody realised possible -- that liberated information doesn't contribute to the marketplace of ideas in a neutral, balanced way.

That would be because people are very offended (but not surprised) by the idea that information is suppressed by their governments etc.

... but how can it compete when any crank can get a modem? In order to preserve information, there need to be stronger structures in place than those which are currently in place.

But these structures are already in place. The peer-review process still exists. The cranks who always distrusted it, will still distrust it and those who respect it will still respect it. If a forum wants to it can moderate posts, it can implement a ban hammer, or any number of alternatives.

Sure, once upon a time the nutbars couldn't get a word in edge-wise, except perhaps in the Weekly World News. So the great democratising effects of the Internet have meant that the general standard of public information has declined. Again I would argue; let truth grapple with lies - we're really in early days yet, the mass commodity Internet is still in its teenaged years, with all that follows.

Governments were caught over leaked minutes in ye olden days of typing pools.

Whilst it was true that government's did get caught in ye olden days - I have a delightfully thick book by Morton Mintz entitled "Power, Inc" which illustrates numerous episodes. But I do wonder whether leaking information is harder or easier. I suspect, just like the rest of information distribution, it is easier.

it's harder to get rid of an electronic fingerprint

I'm not really convinced of that. Public-key encryption, daisy-chained anonymisers etc make email communication and distribution of information very secure. Heck, editing the headers out of a file and editing the logs (which are also text files) after that is usually than sufficient. Now faking such information on the other hand is usually more difficult - as Godwin Grech discovered.

Deleted comment

[info]tcpip

April 24 2010, 14:27:55 UTC 2 years ago

You haven't argued that. You've merely asserted it.

Well, I'm using the Milton paraphrase and all that follows. Of course, the Internet is like any other public arena and malicious lies do come under the same laws of defamation. There is a good argument that these should be strengthened of course, but I don't see the need for "Internet specific" legislation simply because nutbars have a soapbox.

It is significantly more difficult these days. There's a vast amount of literature on it...

Please, cite some, as it would serve as an interesting comparison to those who claim that resources for whistle-blowers are more readily available.

There are two copies of the logs. You'd need to have significant access to the system in order to edit them.

Yes, there are two mailserver logs for sender and recipient, and yes you do need root access to edit them.

But the key point is there's hardly a mystery about sending anonymous information online.

Grech had no idea how to fake information.

On that we certainly agree.

[info]eracerhead

April 24 2010, 13:15:43 UTC 2 years ago

Arguing on the internet is kind of like prayer. It makes people feel good, but doesn't really do anything. One can think of things like the internet as a means to improve ones arguments. The failure comes when people don't turn around and actually DO SOMETHING with the knowledge they have gained.


Armchair academia has it's purpose, but it certainly is not an implementation. This is the problem I've had with the left for years, they generally talk a blue streak, but never carry out the process. Meanwhile the right has long since stopped talking and started taking action, which leads to - you guessed it - more talking on the left. It wasn't always this way.

[info]tcpip

April 24 2010, 13:33:53 UTC 2 years ago

The failure comes when people don't turn around and actually DO SOMETHING with the knowledge they have gained.

Sapere Aude!

Meanwhile the right has long since stopped talking and started taking action, which leads to - you guessed it - more talking on the left.

That seems to be largely true, although I've noticed that in recent years the left (broadly defined) have protested less but have become very clever and effective in their actions, whereas the conservatives have become more activist but less effective ("Tears of impotent rage", etc).

[info]tridus

April 26 2010, 10:26:14 UTC 2 years ago

Good stuff.

The Internet is a useful tool, but you can't stay confined to it. When opposing our government's recent attempt to break a major campaign promise and sell the public utility without asking voters, the opposition was pretty well entirely organized online. Largely on Facebook, email, and the comments section of the local paper.

But it didn't stay there. People showed up at constitutency offices to protest, pretty well every government event had people at it, there were large rallies, planning and discussion meetings, petitions, and good old fashioned going out and talking to people. The group couldn't have organized as fast as it did without the Internet, but it takes a real world campaign to win these things.

In the end it worked. The deal was finally killed for other reasons, but the group opposing it put so much pressure on the government that they ran scared for months, revised the deal to try and placate us (while totally missing the point), faced a caucus revolt, outright lost one of their MLAs who quit the party to vote against the deal, and the Premier set a record for all time low popularity for a sitting Premier in the province. They're now facing an election this fall having spent so much energy on something that voters were overwhelmingly turned against.

(Despite all that they still have a shot, as the leader of the other major party is a near-invisible lightweight. But the Internet based opposition was a huge success.)

[info]tcpip

April 26 2010, 12:50:44 UTC 2 years ago

That's a very good example, illustrating the need to use and understand ICT as tools when engaging in political campaigns, rather than an end to themselves.

Yes, online communications are a fascinating way to maintain long-distance relationships of all flavours, to meet with people in far-flung places with similar interests and so forth. But they cannot replace real world political activism. Correctly used they can enhance and a lot of the time they can detract from it. But they certainly can't replace it.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…