World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Cyberactivism

Article Id: WHEBN0001304279
Reproduction Date:

Title: Cyberactivism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: John G. McNutt
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Cyberactivism

Internet activism (also known as online activism, digital campaigning, digital activism, online organizing, electronic advocacy, cyberactivism, e-campaigning and e-activism) is the use of electronic communication technologies such as social media, especially Twitter and Facebook, YouTube, e-mail, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communications by citizen movements and the delivery of local information to a large audience. Internet technologies are used for cause-related fundraising, community building, lobbying, and organizing.

Types

Author Sandor Vegh divides online activism into three main categories: Awareness/advocacy, organization/mobilization, and action/reaction.

The Internet is a key resource for independent activists or E-activists, particularly those whose message may run counter to the mainstream. "Especially when a serious violation of human rights occurs, the Internet is essential in reporting the atrocity to the outside world,"[1] Listservs like BurmaNet, Freedom News Group help distribute news that would otherwise be inaccessible in these countries.

Internet activists also pass on E-petitions to be sent to the government and public and private organizations to protest against and urge for positive policy change in areas from the arms trade to animal testing. Many non-profits and charities use these methods, emailing petitions to those on their email list, asking people to pass them on. The Internet also enables organizations such as NGOs to communicate with individuals in an inexpensive and timely manner. Gatherings and protests can be organized with the input of the organizers and the participants. Lobbying is also made easier via the Internet, thanks to mass e-mail and its ability to broadcast a message widely at little cost. Vegh's concept of organization/mobilization, for example, can refer to activities taking place solely online, solely offline but organized online, or a combination of online and offline. Mainstream social-networking sites, most noticeably Facebook.com, are also making e-activist tools available to their users. An active participatory culture is enabled by the communities on social networking sites because they permit communication between groups that are otherwise unable to communicate. In the article “Why We Argue about Virtual Community: A Case Study of the Phish.net Fan Community,” by Nessim Watson, he stresses the necessity of communication in online communities. He even goes as far as to say that “Without ongoing communication among its participants, a community dissolve”). The constant ability to communicate with members of the community enriches online community experiences and redefines the word community.[2]

In addition, Denial-of-service attacks, the taking over and vandalizing of a website, uploading Trojan horses, and sending out an e-mail bomb (mass e-mailings) are also examples of Internet activism. For more examples of these types of "direct action", see Hacktivism.[3]

Development processes

In one study a discussion of a developmental model of political mobilization is discussed. By citizens joining groups and creating discussion they are beginning their first of involvement. Progressively it is hoped that they will begin signing petitions online and graduating to offline contact as long as the organization provides the citizen with escalating steps of involvement (Vitak et al., 2011).[4]

Examples of early activism

One of the earliest known uses of the Internet as a medium for activism was that around Lotus MarketPlace. On April 10, 1990, Lotus announced a direct-mail marketing database product that was to contain name, address, and spending habit information on 120 million individual U.S. citizens. While much of the same data was already available, privacy advocates worried about the availability of this data within one database. Furthermore, the data would be on CD-ROM, and so would remain fixed until a new CD-ROM was issued.

In response, a mass e-mail and E-bulletin-board campaign was started, which included information on contacting Lotus and form letters. Larry Seiler, a New England-based computer professional posted a message that was widely reposted on newsgroups and via e-mail: "It will contain a LOT of personal information about YOU, which anyone in the country can access by just buying the discs. It seems to me (and to a lot of other people, too) that this will be a little too much like big brother, and it seems like a good idea to get out while there is still time."Over 30,000 people contacted Lotus and asked for their names to be removed from the database. On January 23, 1991, Lotus announced that it had cancelled MarketPlace.[5]

In 1993 a survey article about online activism around the world, from Croatia to the United States appeared in The Nation magazine, with several activists being quoted about their projects and views.[6][7]

The earliest example of mass emailing as a rudimentary form of DDoS occurred on Guy Fawkes Day 1994, when the Intervasion of the UK began email-bombing John Major's cabinet and UK parliamentary servers in protest against the Criminal Justice Bill which outlawed outdoor rave festivals and "music with a repetitive beat"

In 1995-1998, Z magazine offered courses online through Left Online University, with being taught on "Using the Internet for Electronic Activism."[8]

The practice of cyber-dissidence and activism per se, that is, in its modern-day form, may have been inaugurated by Dr. Daniel Mengara, a Gabonese scholar and activist living in political exile in New Jersey in the United States. In 1998, he created a Website in French whose name ).

Another well-known example of early Internet activism took place in 1998, when the Mexican rebel group EZLN used decentralized communications, such as cell phones, to network with developed world activists and help create the anti-globalization group Peoples Global Action (PGA) to protest the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Geneva.[14] The PGA continued to call for "global days of action" and rally support of other anti-globalization groups in this way.[15]

Later, a worldwide network of Internet activist sites, under the umbrella name of Indymedia, was created "for the purpose of providing grassroots coverage of the WTO protests in Seattle" in 1999.[16][17] Dorothy Kidd quotes Sheri Herndon in a July 2001 telephone interview about the role of the Internet in the anti-WTO protests: "The timing was right, there was a space, the platform was created, the Internet was being used, we could bypass the corporate media, we were using open publishing, we were using multimedia platforms. So those hadn't been available, and then there was the beginning of the anti-globalization movement in the United States."[18]

In the UK, in 1999, the Government introduced a new employment tax called IR35. One of the first on-line trade associations was created to campaign against it. Within weeks they had raised £100,000 off the internet from individuals who had never even met. They became a fully formed trade association called the Professional Contractors Group which two years later had 14,000 members all paying £100 each to join. They presented the first ever e-petition to Parliament and organised one of the first flash mobs when using their database to their surprise and others, 1,000 came in their call to lobby Parliament. They later raised £500,000 from the internet to fund an unsuccessful High Court challenge against the tax though ultimately they secured some concessions. Their first external affairs director, Philip Ross, has written a history of the campaign.[19]

Selected Internet activists

The possibilities of online activism

"The Internet is tailor-made for a populist, insurgent movement," says Joe Trippi,[22] who managed the Howard Dean campaign. In his campaign memoir, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Trippi notes that the Internet's
roots in the open-source ARPAnet, its hacker culture, and its decentralized, scattered architecture make it difficult for big, establishment candidates, companies and media to gain control of it. And the establishment loathes what it can't control. This independence is by design, and the Internet community values above almost anything the distance it has from the slow, homogenous stream of American commerce and culture. Progressive candidates and companies with forward-looking vision have an advantage on the Internet, too. Television is, by its nature, a nostalgic medium. Look at Ronald Reagan's campaign ads in the 1980s - they were masterpieces of nostalgia promising a return to America's past glory and prosperity. The Internet, on the other hand, is a forward-thinking and forward-moving medium, embracing change and pushing the envelope of technology and communication.

Use in political campaigns

When discussing the 2004 U.S. presidential election candidates, Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said of the candidates which benefited from use of the Internet to attract supporters: "They are all charismatic, outspoken mavericks and insurgents. Given that the Internet is interactive and requires an affirmative action on the part of the users, as opposed to a passive response from TV users, it is not surprising that the candidate has to be someone people want to touch and interact with."[23]

A more decentralized approach to campaigning arose, in contrast to a top-down, message-focused approach usually conducted in the mainstream. "The mantra has always been, 'Keep your message consistent. Keep your message consistent,'" said John Hlinko, who has participated in Internet campaigns for [4]

Two-thirds of Internet users under the age of 30 have a SNS, and during the 2008 election, half of them used a SNS site for candidate information (Hirzalla, 2010).[24]

Non-traditional activism

The Internet has become the catalyst for protests such as Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring as those involved have increasingly relied on social media to organize and stay connected. In Myanmar, Online news paper Freedom News Group leak some government corruption and fuel to protests.[25][26]

Corporate activism

Corporations are also using Internet activist techniques to increase support for their causes. According to Christopher Palmeri with BusinessWeek Online, companies launch sites with the intent to positively influence their own public image, to provide negative pressure on competitors, to influence opinion within select groups, and to push for policy changes.[27]

The clothing manufacturer, American Apparel is an example: The company hosts a website called Legalize LA that advocates immigration reform via blog, online advertising, links to news stories and educational materials.[28][29] Protest groups have responded by posting YouTube videos and establishing a boycott website.[30][31]

Corporate methods of information dissemination is labelled "astroturfing," as opposed to "grassroots activism," due to the funding for such movements being largely private.[32] More recent examples include the right-wing FreedomWorks.org which organized the "Taxpayer March on Washington" on September 12, 2009 and the Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights, which opposes universal health care in the U.S.[33]

Religious activism

Cybersectarianism is a new organizational form which involves: "highly dispersed small groups of practitioners that may remain largely anonymous within the larger social context and operate in relative secrecy, while still linked remotely to a larger network of believers who share a set of practices and texts, and often a common devotion to a particular leader. Overseas supporters provide funding and support; domestic practitioners distribute tracts, participate in acts of resistance, and share information on the internal situation with outsiders. Collectively, members and practitioners of such sects construct viable virtual communities of faith, exchanging personal testimonies and engaging in collective study via email, on-line chat rooms and web-based message boards."[34]

Impact on everyday political discussions

According to some observers, the Internet may have considerable potential to reach and engage opinion leaders who influence the thinking and behavior of others. According to the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, what they call "Online Political Citizens" (OPCs) are "seven times more likely than average citizens to serve as opinion leaders among their friends, relatives and colleagues…Normally, 10% of Americans qualify as Influentials. Our study found that 69% of Online Political Citizens are Influentials."[35]

Fundraising capability

The Internet has also made it easier for small donors to play a meaningful role in financing political campaigns. Previously, small-donor fundraising was prohibitively expensive, as costs of printing and postage ate up most of the money raised. Groups like MoveOn, however, have found that they can raise large amounts of money from small donors at minimal cost, with credit card transaction fees constituting their biggest expense. "For the first time, you have a door into the political process that isn't marked 'big money,' " says Darr. "That changes everything.[36]

Criticism

Demographic issues

Critics argue that Internet activism faces the same challenges as other aspects of the digital divide, particularly the global digital divide. Some say it gives disproportionate representation to those with greater access or technological ability.[37][38] Groups that may be disadvantaged by the move to activist activity online are those that have limited access to technologies, or lack the technological literacy to engage meaningfully online; these include ethnic and racial minorities, those of lower socioeconomic status, those with lower levels of education, and the elderly.

A study looked at the impact of Social Networking Sites (SNS) on various demographics and their political activity. Not surprisingly college students used SNS for political activity the most but this was followed by a more unlikely group, those that had not completed high school. In addition the probability for non-White citizens to consume political information was shown to be higher than that of Whites. These two outcomes go in the face of normal predictors of political activity. Despite these surprising findings older generations, men and whites showed the highest levels of political mobilization. Acts of political mobilization, such as fundraising, volunteering, protesting require the most continued interest, resources and knowledge (Nam, 2010).[39]

Real debate?

The experience of the echo chamber is easier to create with a computer than with many of the forms of political interaction that preceded it," Sunstein told the New York Times. "The discussion will be about strategy, or horse-race issues or how bad the other candidates are, and it will seem like debate. It's not like this should be censored, but it can increase acrimony, increase extremism and make mutual understanding more difficult.

On the other hand, Scott Duke Harris of the San Jose Mercury News noted that "the Internet connects all sides of issues, not just an ideologically broad anti-war constituency, from the leftists of ANSWER to the pressed-for-time 'soccer moms' who might prefer MoveOn, and conservative activists as well."

Another concern, according to University of California professor Barbara Epstein, is that the Internet "allows people who agree with each other to talk to each other and gives them the impression of being part of a much larger network than is necessarily the case." She warns that the impersonal nature of communication by computer may actually undermine the human contact that always has been crucial to social movements. [40]

Moving to offline action

Famed activist Ralph Nader has stated that "the Internet doesn't do a very good job of motivating action", citing that the United States Congress, corporations and the Pentagon do not necessarily "fear the civic use of the Internet."[41] Ethan Zuckerman talks about "slacktivism", claiming that the Internet has devalued certain currencies of activism.[42] Citizens may "like" an activist group on Facebook, visit a website, or comment on a blog, but fail to engage in political activism beyond the internet, such as volunteering or canvassing. This critique has been criticized as Western-centric, however, because it discounts the impact this can have in authoritarian or repressive contexts.[43] Journalist Courtney C. Radsch argued that even this low level of engagement was an important form of activism for Arab youth because it is a form of free speech, and can spark mainstream media coverage.[44]

Slaktivism

Another concern, expressed by author and law professor Cass Sunstein, is that online political discussions lead to "cyberbalkanization"—discussions that lead to fragmentation and polarization rather than consensus, because the same medium that lets people access a large number of news sources also enables them to pinpoint the ones they agree with and ignore the rest.

Scholars are divided as to whether the Internet will increase or decrease political participation, including online activism. Those who suggest political participation will increase believe the Internet can be used to recruit and communicate with more users, and offers lower-costs modes of participation for those who lack the time or motivation to engage otherwise. Those concerned that the Internet will decrease activism argue that the Internet occupies free time that can no longer be spent getting involved in activist groups, or that Internet activism will replace more substantial, effortful forms of in-person activism.

Clicktivism

Another criticism is clicktivism. According to techopedia, clicktivism is a controversial form of digital activism. Proponents believe that applying advertising principles such as A/B testing increases the impact of a message by leveraging the Internet to further its reach. Opponents believe that clicktivism reduces activism to a mere mouse-click, yielding numbers with little or no real engagement or commitment to the cause.[45]

Micah M. White argues, “Political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links. In promoting the illusion that surfing the web can change the world, clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving nutrients are long gone.”[46] He argues that political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links and neglects the vital, immeasurable inner-events and personal epiphanies that great social ruptures are actually made of. It reduces activism to a mere mouse click. [47] Micah M. White goes on to argue that "...clicktivism reinforces the fear of standing out from the crowd and taking a strong position. It discourages calling for drastic action. And as such, clicktivism will never breed social revolution. To think that it will is a fallacy. One that is dawning on us".[46]

State repression

In Net Delusion, author Evgeny Morozov argues against cyberutopianism. He describes how the internet is successfully used against activists and for the sake of state repression.[48]

See also

References

Further reading

  • Ed Schwartz, ISBN 1-56592-160-7
  • Josh Richman, "Point-and-Click Activism," Oakland Tribune (Oakland, CA), June 9, 2002.
  • Steve Davis, Larry Elin and Grant Reeher, Click on Democracy: The Internet's Power to Change Political Apathy into Civic Action (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002). ISBN 0-8133-4005-5.
  • Eric J.S. Townsend, E-Activism Connects Protest Groups. Web Makes It Easy To Organize Rallies Quickly, But Sheer Volume Of E-Mail Can Hinder Cause, Hartford Courant, December 4, 2002.
  • Steven F. Hick and John G. McNutt, Advocacy, Activism, and the Internet: Community Organization and Social Policy, Lyceum Books, 2002. ISBN 0-925065-60-9.
  • B.L. Ochman, "Online Activists' Lessons For Online Business," WebProNews, August 5, 2003.
  • Garance Franke-Ruta, "Virtual Politics," The American Prospect, Volume 14, Issue 9, October 1, 2003.
  • Klaus Marre, "Grassroots Growing Fast in Cyberspace," The Hill, October 13, 2003.
  • Joss Hands, "@ is for Activism: Dissent Resistance and Rebellion in a Digital Culture", Pluto Press, 2011. ISBN 0-7453-2700-1
  • Amy Harmon, "Politics of the Web: Meet, Greet, Segregate, Meet Again," New York Times, January 25, 2004.
  • Ann M. Mack, "Campaign '04: How the Internet is Changing Politics," MediaWeek, January 26, 2004.
  • "Political Influentials Online in the 2004 Presidential Campaign," Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, Graduate School of Political Management, George Washington University, February 5, 2004.
  • Daniel H. Steinberg, "O'Reilly's Digital Democracy Teach-In," O'Reilly Network, February 10, 2004.
  • Mark Surman & Katherine Reilly, "[5].
  • Troops Rally For Regime Change Battle, Dan Hazen and Tai Moses, AlterNet, March 5, 2004.
  • Carlos Watson, "The Rise of the Online Citizen," CNN.com, March 17, 2004, suggests that blogs may be "Democrats' answer to talk radio," citing a study by George Washington University showing that "online political citizens" outnumber Republicans almost 2 to 1 (49% to 27%).
  • Matt Stoller, "When Mainstream Political Kibitzing Comes Online," The Blogging of the President 2004, April 4, 2004.
  • Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything (Regan Books, 2004), ISBN 0-06-076155-5.
  • John Emerson, "An Introduction to Activism on the Internet," January 2005.
  • Michael Dartnell, Insurgency Online: Web Activism and Global Conflict University of Toronto Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-8020-8747-8
  • Molly Beutz Land, , Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 22, 2009, p. 205–244. (PDF, 225 kb)
  • Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner, [6], New Media Society / Vol 6; 2004, Pages 87–95. (PDF)
  • Ling Xu, Internet Activism: New Media and Contentious Politics in the Internet Age (Press of Huazhong Normal University, China, 2011),ISBN 9787562252825.
  • "GCommerce" Online Activism Info & Documentary Film
  • "Internet Activism" Shared Internet Activism Resource for NGOs
  • Tactical Technology Collective [7] NGO that assists human rights advocates in using technology
  • Meta-Activism Project (MAP)
  • Molly Beutz Land, , Harvard Human Rights Journal / Vol. 22, 2009, p.
  • Template:Media manipulation

    This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
     
    Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
     
    By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
     


    Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
    a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.