Slashdot Mirror


Protests Move From the Streets To YouTube

weighn writes "One factor driving the move of political statements to YouTube, and away from old-style street protest, is that on the Internet the chances of being personally associated with a protest are lower. Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your country's army. We've seen how street protests and online polls alike are being shunted aside and ignored. What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?"

156 comments

  1. Want to be heard? by taff^2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Create a blog or upload some videos. Doesn't mean that people will want to hear what you've got to say, however.

    --
    Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
    1. Re:Want to be heard? by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm, isn't the whole point of a public protest to show your dedication to a cause?

      Oh no, I really believe in anti-globilization, but don't want to run the risk of catching a fire-hose or breathing some teargas... So I'll send a tersely worded internet petition to all my like-minded cowardly friends. That'll teach those nasty corporations that I can't be bullied.

      There is value in standing up for something in spite of the danger of being beaten, imprisoned, or killed. There have been anonymous protests for ever e.g. roman graffiti, only problem is that it hasn't ever accomplished anything - unless I missed the chapter where Rome was sacked by anonymous graffiti artists. If you won't risk your skin it must not really be a cause worth fighting for. That is what makes the Rosa Parks, George Washington, John Hancock, and Mahatma Ghandi such icons. They believed in something strongly enough to publicly buck the system.

    2. Re:Want to be heard? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      There is huge risk here. Person A creates a "protest." The government takes note, puts person A on list of troublemakers. Persons B through M watch the video. Government uses vague personal ID (IP addresses, for instance) and puts persons G through Z on same list.

      The series of tubes that comprise teh intarwebbing are not generally anonymous by nature, and anyone who thinks they are is deluded, or worse. In the USA, at least, the ability to track your online activities has been in place for some time. Once you are a "person of interest", your presumption of privacy can turn into an illusion; your connection provider could be working hand in hand with whoever they tell it to.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Want to be heard? by gsslay · · Score: 1

      You under estimate the paranoia of some protesters. Search in YouTube or Google video on 'conspiracy' and you'll find a never-ending stream of conspiracy videos; 911, illuminatii, apollo, jews, united nations, heretics, occult, aliens. They're all in there.

      And the beauty is, if no-one watches them and they sink without trace its not because you're wrong, its because Youtube/Google are suppressing them. They're part of the conspiracy! All your suspicions are confirmed, you get the positive feedback you crave no matter what happens, and the protest goes on.

    4. Re:Want to be heard? by vertinox · · Score: 3, Informative

      unless I missed the chapter where Rome was sacked by anonymous graffiti artists.

      Does the name "Vandals" ring any bells?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:Want to be heard? by habbi · · Score: 1

      Hey, wait a minute... do you remember the blogger from Egypt? there are countries where you simply can't protest, not even online.

  2. Dial Up Nation by BillGatesLoveChild · · Score: 4, Funny

    Aussies can use YouTube to protest against the lack of decent broadband. Very... slowly...

    http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1715?show=repl ies

  3. Evolution of Protest by superbrose · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you are living in Germany you can actually hire a protestor to do the dirty work for you - in case online protesting isn't your thing and you don't want to be there yourself, for whatever reason.

    1. Re:Evolution of Protest by absolut_kurant · · Score: 1

      This was just a marketing ploy, not a single protester has been hired yet.

      --
      Yes.
    2. Re:Evolution of Protest by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      If you're living in Germany, you can also attach yourself to the RAF (not the Royal Air Force) and start offing district attorneys, businessmen and suchlike, but neither method guarantees you the State will listen to your viewpoints. :-D

    3. Re:Evolution of Protest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are living in Germany you can actually hire a protestor to do the dirty work for you ...

        and what i read was....

      If you are living in Germany you can actually hire a prostitute to do the dirty work for you ...

  4. What's the point? by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely the whole point of having a street protest is that it is visible to everyone, and can't be ignored. If you manage to get into a good fight with the police then all the better, because then you're likely to be seen on the TV news.
    But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?

    1. Re:What's the point? by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How does that advance your cause?
      It doesn't.It just gives some armchair rebels a chance to feel good about themselves by 'supporting' their cause without having to go through the inconvenience of facing confrontation or rebuttal.
      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:What's the point? by Adeptus_Luminati · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well maybe not every politician today is aware of Youtube, but in about 10 years for sure they will be. Youtube offers the masses editable broadcasting time which allows for clear messages to be sent instantly to millions. Traditional rallies are always at the mercy of the media (often in bed with political parties) to selectively display (or not) your protest & cause.

      When the masses start taking action, like boycotting products / companies as a result of Youtube video messages, I think the politicians will start listening & watching.

      Several companies including Starbucks already responded via Youtube to videos that people have posted on Youtube against their companies, some with merit, others with less... political campaigns are also increasingly going online as Generation Y (or Z or i?) watches less TV and more and more Youtube.

      The Internet remains one of the few but very significant tool left that humanity has to make itself heard to its governments. It is a significant shift of power (to the people) that can not go ignored. Whenelse in history has a single non-elected person been able to influence an entire Nation so fast and so deeply as today with the Internet (and specifically Youtube)?

      Adeptus

      --
      No trees were killed in the making of this post; however, many trillions of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.
    3. Re:What's the point? by Psx29 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well if a political statement is turned into a 'viral' youtube video (a la hillary 1984) then it's very likely more people will hear it than a street protest. Of course this just means that in a (mostly?) free country like the US you can have a street protest AND a viral video on the net, why choose just one?

    4. Re:What's the point? by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Surely the whole point of having a street protest is that it is visible to everyone

      This is the problem with a street protest nowadays. If it doesn't cow-tow to the opinions of mass media moguls, then it is not visible to everyone. I remember when we had over 150,000 people marching in the streets of Melbourne against the Iraq war (biggest ever protest), and you'd read in the news and see on TV: "Thousands marched" or "scores" and not "A hundred and fifty thousand stopped the entire city" which is what actually happened - everything had to stop. However, if you didn't live in Melbourne, you wouldn't have thought much more of it. The politicians knew this and therefore didn't give a rat's about it.

      Putting the protest on the net simply makes it even more useless. Unless you go there and look, you won't know.

      However, what is working is the fact that more and more people are reading news from non-commercial sources and this is getting politicians a little nervous (hence the drive for censorship).

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    5. Re:What's the point? by ReidMaynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .. not every politician today is aware of Youtube, but in about 10 years for sure they will be.

      I bet you $1 Youtube is gone in 10 years, or if not gone, certainly forgotten.

      --
      -- www.globaltics.net

      Political discussion for a new world

    6. Re:What's the point? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Youtube and the Internet are the place to rally support for the public rally and of course to record and keep alive that public rally. Just like the TV you can switch off and ignore youtube, a peaceful rally that disrupts traffic flows, and daily operations of business is the only truly effective means of motivating change, and using the Internet the most effective means by which to drum up numbers.

      The greater the number the harder it is to ignore and the greater the safety for participants from thugs in uniform who in their jock strap low IQ ignorance believe are doing the right thing in suppressing the democratic process.

      That and the rally continuing until such time as change occurs, a month can resolve virtually any issue, especially if reinforcements turn up to replace those being arrested and hauled away (protest in organised shifts).

      Another important part is the preparation of a legal fund not only to fight the criminal cases but also to pursue the thugs in civil court, the only way to motivate the greedy, unfortunately, is via their pocket books.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It doesn't.It just gives some armchair rebels a chance to feel good about themselves by 'supporting' their cause without having to go through the inconvenience of facing confrontation or rebuttal.

      Indeed - the people making these videos are modelling them on O'Reilly, etc.

    8. Re:What's the point? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?

      [Shhhhhhh! Don't tell them that, you fool!]

      No, YouTube protests are highly dangerous and effective! We shall be developing technological countermeasures shortly. Curse those techies!

      Signed,

      The Man

    9. Re:What's the point? by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

      Street protests are not described from protesters side.TV and Media can redact and change whatever they don't like.
      YouTube videos are creations of the protesters.
      Besides real life street protest does not automatically mean coverage and air time.
      If you were living in a country like China,the only people watching you protest would be the police.

    10. Re:What's the point? by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?
      Two answers.

      Serious answer: It gets the message out. Local protests are, well, local. The internet is global. Politicians will ignore it, but their paid pollsters won't.

      Really serious answer: Protests are mostly pointless to the level of idiocy anyway. Ooh, here come the giant puppetheads! I don't care whether people see your video or not, as long as it keeps you off the streets.
    11. Re:What's the point? by pairo · · Score: 1

      Putting the protest on the net simply makes it even more useless. Unless you go there and look, you won't know.
      But, going back to your war protest analogy, wouldn't that mean that people all over the world could find out about this? You don't have to live in Melbourne.
      Though, the right way to do it, I'd say, is going out on the streets, then posting a video of that on youtube. Best of both worlds. :-)
    12. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mmmm, Melbourne has a population of 3.7M. So only 4% of the people came out to protest. And, by your admission and pride, pissed off the other 96%. And that is assuming EVERYONE came from Melbourne and not the surrounding area. Then your percentage drops even more.
      Plus who says 150K people showed up? Did you sell tickets? Or did you just pull that number out of fantasyland?

      The nice thing about the Internet is that you can see non-published photos of an event. The more cropped the photos are in the MSM, the less people showed up and the more the MSM is trying to hide the big empty streets.

    13. Re:What's the point? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is depressing. If it shows up in the media, it will be a blip, or perhaps even with a ridiculing tone, or with footage of the one (quite likely paid) troublemaker who decided to turn up.

      Most media are in the business of selling attention. It's not good for business to give it away for free.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    14. Re:What's the point? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I hate to point it out to the general public. Protests tend to accomplish very little. I realized this one day when I was upgrading computers in a government agency the people who can't do anything about it were on floors low enough to read the signs and hear the chants. The people who could do something about it were all the way up and could see a crowd of people but has no idea what they are protesting about. Getting into fights with police you actually get a negative effect from the public and less support. Think about the Abortion Bombings in the 80s and 90s Nothing sways public option then a bunch of people with a view resort to mass destruction in attempt to save lives. In order for a protest to work you will need a Lot of people Over a thousand, enough to effect traffic and parking, they need to be peaceful, if violence errupts then their cause will get unheard and make people who are not fixed optioned on the topic sway against you, and it needs to Focus on one problem, not a general I hate Bush thing, or Against the War and to lax drug laws. The trick for protest it to show that people feel strongly about an issue and is willing to take time out from there lives to protest it as well show they are not alone. Larger the number the more effective it is.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:What's the point? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Getting into a fight with police just turns law-abiding folks against you, when they otherwise might sympathize with you. It can also get you a nice, juicy felony conviction.

      Still, protests on YouTube won't carry the weight that a protest in meatspace will have, either positive or negative, for the reasons you cite. What's more, it becomes easy to discount the magnitude of a viewpoint put forth on YouTube, because there are no warm bodies backing it up. It's hard to argue with a quarter million people marching peacefully in Washington for civil rights, on the other hand.

    16. Re:What's the point? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      Between "Macaca" and the recent Obama video, it's a pretty good bet that politicians have at least heard of YouTube.

      That is, those politicians who realize the Internet isn't, in fact, a truck.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    17. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The revolution will not be televised.

      But it will be on YouTube.

    18. Re:What's the point? by wandm · · Score: 1

      If you have BRAINS, you have a comparative advantage in protesting in the Internet:

      1 - The potential upper ceiling of visibility is practically unlimited. Protesting on street will expose your message to a few hundred people, out of which most don't really care a bit. Yes you can jam the traffic but it could work against you.

      2 - If you have imagination, you can make a catchy/naughty/funny protest video, and make it big quickly - It will be dugg, it will be on dozens of blogs, and evetually get thousands of viewings, all due to ONE person's imagination and some hours of work.

      Doing that will not make you a geeky couch potato, you just use your own means the best way. You would have achieved a lot less by going to a demo and standing in a rain with a piece of cardboard.

    19. Re:What's the point? by o'reor · · Score: 1

      But if you simply put a video on YouTube, then everyone can simply ignore it. In fact, most politicians are probably unaware of the existence of YouTube. How does that advance your cause?
      Do they need to know YouTube ? Actually, how does a YoutTube video get really popular ?

      It does not get popular thanks to millions of people spending their time hooked on YouTube and trying to sort the best videos out of the flowing mess that's being uploaded everyday.

      It gets popular because of a few people who upload their videos, then spread the word around them, mailing the URLs to tens of people, who in turn post those URLs on their blogs or mail/post them around for the whole world to discover them.

      So if your average politician has somebody on his PR staff doing his job, they will surely get the message, sooner or later. In France, there has already been public outrage among teachers because one of the candidates had stated in a video that they should be working more. And this is thanks to DailyMotion. Meanwhile, her main opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy, is doing his best to get a few embarrassing video off the Net, and has succeeded twice in taking down a MySpace account to shut up dissenting voices.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    20. Re:What's the point? by Tsagadai · · Score: 2

      Well said. You raise the most important point, protesting does nothing if it doesn't in some way affect society. YouTube is too easy to ignore. I ignore 911 conspiracy theorists and rebels without a backbone one youtube every day. If people don't stop and think the protest hasn't worked. I know I'm going to come up against alot of apathy here but protesting does work. I'm an Australian and I am at constant disagreement with the present government. I've been to some very successful protests where we changed not only national but international opinion by keeping the issue in the media. One example of this is the immigration policy of manditory detention, I was at Woomera and Baxter detention centres 4 times. Each time made national and international news, each time reminded Joe Blow that we still have this policy through making mainstream media every time. Protesting works, web protests don't. Protest is an approach that works, we have hundreds of years of it working. Web protesting in the form outlined in the article is pointless, you will change a few bored geeks minds at best. YouTube is still useful in protests the most recent example is uploading videos showing police brutality, but it is not a protest in itself. The only way you will get a government changed in an undemocratic country is a few million people on the streets. Real change always comes from below.

    21. Re:What's the point? by Tsagadai · · Score: 1

      It is very difficult to estimate the number of people in a very large group. 150,000 would be an at least figure for melbourne at those protests. There was at least 175,000 in Brisbane on that same date and many more across the world on that first weekend before the Iraq war. Protests are always a percentage, some people cannot physically get up and onto the streets, some will be fired or whatnot if they do. You will always get less than 100%. If you have 5% of a country in protest it means there is something seriously wrong and the government has really cocked up, any more than that and you are looking at resignations and overthrows. The reason is for every one on the street there are 10 who agree with the protest just not as strongly as to take to the streets. This is a pretty recognised fact around the world in most societies.

    22. Re:What's the point? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I bet you $1 Youtube is gone in 10 years, or if not gone, certainly forgotten.

      Do you mean YouTube specifically, or are you saying any online video site? I bet YouTube won't be around too, but the OP's point wasn't specific to that particular site.

    23. Re:What's the point? by xappax · · Score: 1

      wouldn't that mean that people all over the world could find out about this?

      It would, but protests are not about offering people the opportunity to seek out information. That's what a library is for - and libraries are equally if not more important to the functioning of a free society.

      Protests are for forcing people who would not willingly seek out certain information to be confronted with information that they may not be interested in learning. This is why anti-war activists don't just leave a copy of their manifesto in the library and wait for people to go educate themselves. They make an outrageous ruckus - often only peripherally related to their argument - which causes the media and ordinarily disinterested people to take notice of the spectacle, and as a side effect, learn of their message.

      So, an analog to this tactic in my mind would be to create videos and other internet media which are entertaining and "spectacular" in their own right, and then also include a political message. This way they will attract the attention of many people who would not ordinarily pay attention to a particular political issue. Ordinary joes watch TV coverage of the big anti-globalization protest because it's mildly entertaining, not because they actively want to expand their understanding of the intricacies of international commerce - that understanding is (hopefully) a side effect of the protesters injecting their message into new coverage. In the same way, if you can get people to watch your internet video simply because it's cool and funny, it will reach ordinary joes in the same way.

    24. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just gives some armchair rebels a chance to feel good about themselves

      we call those lazy pussies.

      Anyone that is not willing to get off their ass and physically demonstrate for what they believe in is a fucking lazy pussy.

      the real demonstrators dont want them, because the fuckers are not even going to VOTE for what they believe in.

      It seems that all the real patriots are moving to New Hampshire and forcing change in that state to take it over. All the rest are useless turds.

      Yes, I am calling ALL OF YOU a useless turd. If you get off your ass and do something then you lose your turd status.

    25. Re:What's the point? by mpe · · Score: 1

      Getting into a fight with police just turns law-abiding folks against you, when they otherwise might sympathize with you. It can also get you a nice, juicy felony conviction.

      It is also rather hard to avoid if your encounter violent police. Which makes using YouTube rather safer.

      . What's more, it becomes easy to discount the magnitude of a viewpoint put forth on YouTube, because there are no warm bodies backing it up. It's hard to argue with a quarter million people marching peacefully in Washington for civil rights, on the other hand.

      How hard is it to turn a peaceful march into a riot or at least something which can be portrayed as a riot on the TV "news" though?

    26. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that increasingly it can be ignored, for example the justification the NY police gave the new york times for there spying on proteresters discussed earlier this week was that the year before they had a couple of hundred thousand protesters, and the hey the politicians were able to ignore it completely (go read the NYTimes article)

    27. Re:What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that advance your cause? It's called information. There are some causes for which there is currently no point in protesting in the streets: most people will ignore them and the chance of being injured/arrested is high. For causes such as these, spreading the word via facilities like YouTube might be very helpful. This helps inform people and, when the time comes to take it to the streets, the cause will be that much stronger.
    28. Re:What's the point? by MadHatter2005 · · Score: 1

      Way to stand up for your beliefs, Anonymous Coward. Yeah! You showed me!

    29. Re:What's the point? by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      That's the the thing, before the iraq war started back into 2003 over ten thousand people took to the streets in Seattle (and millions around the world), and all it did was make a 1 or 2 minute blip on local news and even then they mostly concentrated on the one or two arrests that happen despite the fact 99% of everyone else was completely peaceful. And then the news on it ended. No insightful discussion on the message, or the problems that may occur if we attack iraq. Youtube provides the chance to cover these types of events better then the local new could ever do.

  5. chained up by the government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. the traditional media by kwikrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no news coverage by traditional media (papers, tv) of demonstrative acts on the internet. Right now, the best way to make yourself heard is still organising something in the streets. The internet is only helpful to get people to sign petitions and to organise live demonstrations. Of course, politicians are still going to ignore you. A confrontation with the police is really a good thing, because more people will sympathise with you.

    --
    assignment != equality != identity
  7. Not only protests... by o'reor · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... political statements, partisan criticisms and campaigning too.

    Here in France as the presidential elections are coming near, the two main candidates, Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy, have more than their fair share of partisan and protest videos on YouTube.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  8. General Strike by essence · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On February 15 2003 the largest global protest ever took place in hundreds of place around the planet. It was against the war on Iraq. They were ignored by politicians. Democracy is dead.

    The only thing that i can see to get real change is to have a global general strike. Kick out the politicians everywhere. Institute democracy again. But lets do something different this time. Let's create a system that hasn't been tried before. One where we all have a say.

    Theres lots of talk about democracy, but for most people, most of their days are spent at work where there is no democracy. Work is a dictatorship. I'm all for workplace democracy. Non-hierachical collectives running things.

    When we have a system where our only say is to elect a so called representative every few years, we should expect to be ignored.

    It's time we took back the power we all have. The power found in co-operation.

    Time to overthrow these corrupt corporate bastards.

    1. Re:General Strike by BlueTrin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In your Soviet Democracy, your boss goes on strikes !

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    2. Re:General Strike by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 0

      The only thing that i can see to get real change is to have a global general strike. Kick out the politicians everywhere. I think you're for dictatorship yourself. Who says the politicians should be kicked? A global general strike is a strike that should be commited by EVERYBODY. Who are you to tell everybody what to do? And I got news for you, politicians will be even after your glorious revolution.

      Theres lots of talk about democracy, but for most people, most of their days are spent at work where there is no democracy. Work is a dictatorship. I'm all for workplace democracy. Non-hierachical collectives running things. Are you on crack?! Since when a business is a democracy? Who invests the money? And just as well, nothing is blocking you from raising a company like what you described all by yourself in the current system. Good luck with that!

      It's time we took back the power we all have. The power found in co-operation. Nice talk and all, but I don't think what you're looking for is cooperation, but more of groupthink...
      --
      4Z5TX
    3. Re:General Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Theres lots of talk about democracy, but for most people, most of their days are spent at work where there is no democracy. Work is a dictatorship. I'm all for workplace democracy. Non-hierachical collectives running things."

      If people were really serious about democracy: They'd take over the industrial base, like food and energy and start being mutually responsible towards one another... good luck with that one though, people are inherently lazy and prejudice to the core. You have so many different factions, their worldviews, their petty animal preferences, it's a miracle anything gets done at all in society. I'm all for scientific dictatorship or soft dictatorships like capital when the people are not:

      1) Spiritually educated enough
      2) Actually educated in terms of survival skills modern technology requires.

      The truth is the people are the root cause of their own misfortune: Einstein said it best, those who complain and put up with their present circumstances are the worst. Their passiveness is a choice, watching passively as a woman gets raped, is a choice. If we think of society as a woman getting raped, to coin a metaphor, and we sit there and watch... well you've just participated in allowing the criminal to go through with the act because you don't have the balls to put your life on the line for your principles because most people are cowardly. People will watch passively as destruction takes place they are too comfortable and addicted to social market order as it stands...

      The real problem for mass protest is: Private control of food and energy. People have to have a constant supply of food, water, etc to feed themselves... if they are fed the can fight to the death, but if there social power is owned by private powers (i.e. businesses) then they too are owned indirectly by societies richest families and businesses. We live under a resource deprivation model of work, no one is truly self-sustaining because food production and it's transport is no longer socially owned, due to abdication of citizen's responsibility to himself from people amazing too much economic power, which results in their enslavement.

      It's highly likely only through complete bankruptcy, desperation, collapse of many millions at once will social change come IMHO, it usually always idiotic humanity to drive into the ditch and crashing before something is done instead of avoiding it. The truth is the philosophy of individualism is humanities destruction. individuals by their nature, have no regard for anyone but themselves in a survivalist sense. One must weigh one's individualism against the reality of nature and one's principles, unfortunately too few people can see that: There are things that matter more then life itself.

      Humans are barbarians through and through, democracy has already proven that it can't scale: Too many people, all trying to gouge each other and sacrifice each other for a dollar, a HDTV, a console, a new car, a new house, escorts, whatever you fancy, money can buy it and the money supply is limited, so the only way to get ahead is to crush you enemies through soft words and subtle tones or by force of having more money then they do to monopolize societies largest profit producing assets.

    4. Re:General Strike by essence · · Score: 1

      Who says the politicians should be kicked? A global general strike is a strike that should be commited by EVERYBODY.

      uhhh, that is kinda what a general strike is - a strike by EVERYBODY

      Who are you to tell everybody what to do?

      What kind of comment is that? I'm not telling everybody what to do. I'm merely making a comment on slashdot. Crikey mate.

      Since when a business is a democracy

      I never said it was a democracy. I said it was a dictatorship (mostly. There are lots of co-operatives, and lots of other good stuff being created about the place). What I am doing is suggesting a different system we could have if we all want it.

    5. Re:General Strike by Null+Nihils · · Score: 1

      Time to overthrow these corrupt corporate bastards.
      While I agree with most of what you say, we should pay attention to how the "corrupt corporate bastards" came about; it's not a problem inherent in our economic system, or neither (to a lesser degree) our political system, so much as the fact that the average citizen doesn't take an active role in politics, and the average consumer doesn't "vote with their dollar". They are content to unthinkingly stick with a imperceptably decending status quo, content to unthinkingly give their dollars to abusive faceless corporations.

      In other words, nothing in the system inherently encourages corrupt centralization... it is the average person's unwillingness to participate in the system, and actively defend their liberties, that is the problem. People also let themselves be deluded into thinking things aren't that bad, and they fear the changes that become necessary once the system starts slipping towards a corrupt, authoritarian system with no respect for human rights. Many people are also selfish and short-sighted, with little concern for their fellow citizen, a la "they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I was not a Jew...".

      They only solution I see for the people willing to fight for their rights, is for us to stick together and find ways to move in our own direction and leave the complacent ones to their demise while their ancestors, who sacrificed so much for freedom and peace, spin at 5000 RPM in their graves.
    6. Re:General Strike by TheRagingTowel · · Score: 1

      What kind of comment is that? I'm not telling everybody what to do. I'm merely making a comment on slashdot. Crikey mate. It sure sounds like you are telling what to do! You assume everyone wants to 'overthrow' the politicians. Heck, even your supplied url suggests that!

      Since when a business is a democracy I never said it was a democracy. Ok well, I meant "since when a buisness should be a democracy".
      Anyway, what bothered me the most about your post was the sheer rage it expressed and the inability to see the good things (and there aren't much) in the current system as well.
      --
      4Z5TX
    7. Re:General Strike by essence · · Score: 1

      ok, so maybe I'm telling you something you could do. You don't have to listen. Actually, yeah, I've got every right to say what I want!
      I don't assume anything. I'm just having my say.

    8. Re:General Strike by El+Torico · · Score: 1, Funny

      Anarcho-syndicalists are so cute; their shallow idealism reminds me of my younger days.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    9. Re:General Strike by holywar · · Score: 0

      Won't work. The arguments must necessarily be more "convincing" than just protest marches or strikes. The difficult part is not in identifying the problem and then get rid of elite that causes them. All revolutions on were surely right on that point: the French, the American, and the Russian revolution managed to wipe out the elites that needed to be wiped out. It is on the "What next" question where revolutions tend to fail.

    10. Re:General Strike by quickgold192 · · Score: 1

      uhhh, that is kinda what a general strike is - a strike by EVERYBODY I wasn't part of it. Nor do/did I ever want to be. In reality, only a small percentage of people would actually be in support of such a large scale change, so it would be impossible to achieve that goal without sacrificing the very thing you're fighting for, which is the direct democracy where majority rules.
    11. Re:General Strike by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On February 15 2003 the largest global protest ever took place in hundreds of place around the planet. It was against the war on Iraq. They were ignored by politicians. Democracy is dead.

      Huh ? Just using Australia as an example (since I'm a local), even being _extremely_ generous and saying a million people in total across the entire country, were protesting, would mean 5% of the population were involved.

      Politicians not following the wishes of 5% of the population does not mean "Democracy is dead". Quite the opposite, in fact.

      To further drive the point home, pretty much every democratic country involved in Iraq has had an election since the invasion, and not many of them had a change of Government. Most of them weren't even _close_ to a change of Government. Whatever you might personally think the community feels about the Iraq war, the evidence suggests most of them simply don't care.

      (To avoid pointless flames, I'm going to say up front that I don't think we should have gotten involved in Iraq. We should just build a great big wall around the whole Middle East and let the fuckers wipe themselves out.)

    12. Re:General Strike by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      "In other words, nothing in the system inherently encourages corrupt centralization.."

      Of course it does. You can vote for big-government Republicans or big-government Democrats... or you can vote for someone who'll lose.

      The people who pick the people you get to vote for are the ones who win in a democracy. That's why so many big corporations give money to _both_ Republican and Democrat candidates in US elections.

      Democracy is the theory that the opinion of two idiots is worth more than the opinion of one genius. No wonder it's broken.

    13. Re:General Strike by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Institute Democracy again? We already have one, and (somehow) it works. Just because the Democracy we have doesn't do what you want doesn't mean it isn't there. Democracy is here. Should we keep throwing out democracies until we get one that does what *you* want? Or, is a successful democracy one that follows *your* beliefs and *your* viewpoints?

      "Hmmmmm..... The democracy we have isn't doing what I want, and therefore isn't a democracy, or even a successful one. I know, I'll just say that it has failed as a way to justify my viewpoints and overthow it! Then, when the dust settles, we can institute a real democracy that does what we want!"

      Sounds pretty Dictatorial to me. A Democracy that does only what you want isn't a Democracy.

      Workplace collectives? Is that the new, politically-correct term for a commune? Workplace Democracy means getting out what you put in, and being able to make yourself more successful than the slacker next to you. Taking things away from Person A who is successful and giving them to Person B who is less successful and saying that it is practicing equality isn't actually practicing equality OR democracy, since Person A worked earned to become successful and Person B didn't. Taking from someone who is more successful and giving it to someone who isn't, is NOT practicing eqaulity or democracy. Person A put in a large amount of effort (say 100 hours) and got a large amount of money in return (say $1000). Person B put in a small amount of effort (say 50 hours) and got a small amount of money ($500) in return. Both Person A and Person B recieved equal amounts of money depending on the amount of money they put in. Equality has been practiced, and Democracy has been practiced. When you take away money from somone who put in more work than someone else, you are not being equal and you are not practicing democracy.

      Just because an employee does manual labor doesn't mean he works harder than another employee who works at a desk.

      I think that you are just jealous of people who have been more successful than you, as it is plainly visible. You don't like having a supervisor or manager telling you what to do, which is pretty obvious from your "Non-hierarchal" standpoint. Non-heirarchal collective? You mean, a commune where everybody gets the same thing, allowing people to slack off while others do the work, and since everybody is at the same level, regardless of skill or seniority, nobody can tell the slackers to get off their asses and work.

      BTW..... Democracy works, just not for you.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    14. Re:General Strike by Guuge · · Score: 1

      Let's try to apply that logic in a more evenhanded manner. Compare the number of people participating in the pro-war demonstrations to those participating in the anti-war protests. Now look at whom the politicians chose to listen to and whom they ignored. Are you telling me that in a country where a few religious nuts can get a supreme court nominee withdrawn, a massive grassroots movement ought to be completely ignored?

      We never voted on whether to invade Iraq. I don't know whether such a vote would have passed, and I'll never know. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

    15. Re:General Strike by goldspider · · Score: 1

      Clue: Protests and other public spectacles rarely affect change in public policy. That doesn't mean that Democracy is dead; it means that that such displays aren't effective in making people sympathetic enough about your cause to change how they vote.

      As for the latter half of your rant, just ask any older Chinese person how well collectivism worked during Mao's reign.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    16. Re:General Strike by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      Ah, the days when we thought people could all work together to make the world a better place.

      Now we know that the only way to dispose of a corrupt government from the inside is with a small minority of very angry people with guns.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    17. Re:General Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that the contest of the worst joke ever made on Slashdot ?

    18. Re:General Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 5% of people were bothered enough to actually go out and protest, how many agreed but just didn't go?

    19. Re:General Strike by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Anarcho-syndicalists are so cute; their shallow idealism reminds me of my younger days. Then you must have been cute once. What happened?
    20. Re:General Strike by deanlandolt · · Score: 1

      Theres lots of talk about democracy, but for most people, most of their days are spent at work where there is no democracy. Work is a dictatorship. I'm all for workplace democracy. Non-hierachical collectives running things. Is this what passes for union activism these days? Jesus...

      You want workplace democracy? You want to get out from under the thumb of the man? Start your own damn business. Individual empowerment -- that's what YouTube et. al. is all about. All the tools of corporate America, available at low or no cost to the unwashed masses. You can piss and moan all you want about your working conditions, but now more than ever, it's all up to you. Shit, or get off the pot, sir.
    21. Re:General Strike by phantomlord · · Score: 1
      Compare the number of people participating in the pro-gay marriage demonstrations to those participating in the anti-gay marriage protests. According to your logic, it would mean 1000 people are for gay marriage for every person against it. However, I can't think of a single state offhand that has offered a referendum on gay marriage and had the people specifically vote to allow gay marriage. There is this concept known as the "silent majority" that aren't very vocal but hold strong opinions (usually for the status quo) about things. They'll turn out to vote but they won't turn out to a protest for any particular cause that they believe in.

      Also, can you name any war that more than a handful of kooks protested to go to? Going to war is a very serious and ugly thing and most people need to be lead to war. That's why we elect leaders rather than having someone just stick their finger in the wind of every issue to see where it blows. The right thing isn't always the popular thing.

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    22. Re:General Strike by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      > One where we all have a say.

      Do we really want that? We'd be bogged down in indecision so hard that nothing would ever get done anymore. If you have a country like Holland, with only 17 million people, you'd be looking at 17 million different opinions about things, and most of them hard to swing due to the inherent stubbornness of the owner of said opinions.

      Furthermore (as I myself demonstrate here) most of us have pretty damn categorical views on things that we know absolutely nothing about. And we should all have a say? Does that include the bigots, zealots, religious mad hatters, neo-fascists and militant atheists?

      If what you propose ever happens in your country, I suggest you tell me. I'll send a camera crew, because it would be entertaining to watch.

      > Work is a dictatorship.
      > Non-hierachical collectives running things.

      Employment is a business transaction. As long as my employer and I feel it is mutually beneficial to do so, my employer pays me to perform particular, documented things for a given amount of time per unit of currency. Both my employer and I can get out of this business deal if we so desire (even though this is hard for Employers in most parts of Europe).

      A non-hierarchical approach to work doesn't exist. Of course, in a professional environment you can adopt laisez-faire models but in general you'd need someone to tell people what needs doing and other people executing that. Otherwise your business won't produce what it's in business for. Please see my comments above about everyone having their say.

      In light of this, I am also against referendums. Let's take Sweden's referendum on the EMU as an example. People voted against because they listened to politicians' arguments. Some of which were as outrageous as "if we adopt the Euro, the pope will be determining our policies with regards to families soon" and rot like that.

      85% of any given population is too dumb, uninformed, uninterested or simply lazy to make any judgment calls about any of the more complex issues that arise from trying to maintain a civilization. Therefore, we should try not to ask them.

      Of course Bush is too easy a target to take up so I'll avoid a reductio ad bushium, but if you look at Sweden where only 20% of the GOVERNMENT and the PARLIAMENT have some kind of higher education (which is almost 40% lower than the Nation's 34%) you *could* argue that the population should get more picky as to who they elect and more active in joining politics even if they have some talent.

      Coming back to the demonstrating aspect of this whole discussion: 99% of the demonstrations I've seen are either moot or silly, be they on internet or in the streets. It's no wonder it doesn't get covered. Which is a shame for all the meaningful demonstrations out there, but there you have it.

    23. Re:General Strike by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You need to work on your material.

    24. Re:General Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously he grew up and realized how the world really works.

    25. Re:General Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "since Person A worked earned to become successful and Person B didn't. "

      You keep forgetting Person A didn't "work" to become more succesful then Person B, many differences are explained by genetically fixed potentials, a person who "works harder" who has a brain that processes information faster and has more natural memory capacity and 'ability' also called 'talent' is hardly 'more worthy' on the basis of effort.

      Men are not all made equal, and this is the root of inequality. To use an extreme example, semi-severely autistic person is never going to be able to "work as hard" as someone who has as an excellently designed with no real deficiency. You might say "well he's disabled, bla bla bla" well duh, anyone who by definition is lesser genetically down the food chain then you is going to get less period. These small seemingly differences just magnify as population increases, so if you are a little slower then others you find yourself excluded, but with millions and millions of people this means classes begin to form and harden, simply off the basis of genetics, and there is no guarantee someone who is faster and less error prone, is worth more in terms of how he behaves them a slower person in terms of problems and aggravation he creates for society.

    26. Re:General Strike by xappax · · Score: 1

      We'd be bogged down in indecision so hard that nothing would ever get done [...] 85% of any given population is too dumb, uninformed, uninterested or simply lazy to make any judgment calls [...] Therefore, we should try not to ask them.

      The commentary that you advance sounds a lot like the mocking criticisms that came from European monarchs when the US formed their democratic government. I mean, without someone to call the shots, how can you hope to get things done? You mean your government is run by roomfuls of arguing people with totally different agendas? Laughable!

      And thus the grand experiment in "democracy" comes full circle, as the increasing distrust and alienation of people from each other causes them to mistrust their fellow countrymen to the point that they would rather be ruled once again by a handful of elite assholes than the collective will of their peers.

    27. Re:General Strike by ex-geek · · Score: 1

      On February 15 2003 the largest global protest ever took place in hundreds of place around the planet. It was against the war on Iraq. They were ignored by politicians. Democracy is dead.

      No it isn't. It is alive and well and has never been stronger.

      Look, I too protested against the war in 2003. But I never expected that this could actually prevent the war. Demonstrations seldomly achieve this effect. Most politicians will in fact continue with their plans in spite and pat themselves on the shoulder for "not giving in to the masses".

      But protests do have effects. Nobody in the US cared about the Vietnam war for years. Because of that, the US was able to commit numerous atrocities. This time, the war was at the center of public and media attention right from the start and atrocities like those committed in Abu Ghraib were exposed. 30-years ago, nobody would have bothered to look.

      Also, think about all of the governements that didn't send their troops to fight a useless war. The demonstrations gave support to those european leaders that opposed the iron and divisive will of Rumsfeld and Bush and had the audacity to demand actual evidence for Saddam's alleged stockpiles of WMDs.
    28. Re:General Strike by Chrisje · · Score: 1

      > elite assholes than the collective will of their peers.

      Once my "peers" make a buck, they will immediately turn into elite assholes. This, my friend, is human nature.

      > You mean your government is run by roomfuls of arguing people with totally different agendas? Laughable!

      No. As opposed to the US elections where "democracy" means having one more candidate then in Soviet Russia, the Netherlands is an actual, working *consensus* democracy. Every two or four years we get completely new parties with new agendas that sprout up. Currently the Socialist Party and some other right-wing party for "freedom" (rather fascism) swing *large* amounts of the votes at the cost of the traditional big parties. Although I don't like the racist right-wing party, I do enjoy the fact that these parties come and go with their respective agendas.

      So indeed, our government is comprised of a whole bunch of people that argue and have totally different agendas. This is why the current PM Balkenende is already on his fourth government in three years time. The other cabinets fell due to arguments.

      > mocking criticisms that came from European monarchs when the US formed their democratic government.

      Well, history and current events are showing us that the US is indeed involved in all manner of dirty deals and power mongering against the will of many of its citizens. As Oscar Wilde so aptly remarked, it seems to be the only country that went from Barbarism to Decadence without any intervening period of civilization. Therefore, European mockery is not entirely out of place. Not because we're perfect, but just because we can.

      Of course, the limited incestuous gene-pool that the Monarchies represent should be abolished too, but this is another story.

      To summarize my views:
      I *do* believe in consensus-democracy.
      I *do not* believe in referendums because you're asking the ignorant to decide on matters they do not fully comprehend.

      This means I do not distrust my fellow countrymen one bit. They are quite a jolly bunch, really. This goes for the Swedes and the Israeli too, as well as the Germans and Swiss and the Italians, with whom I have some experience. But it does mean I simply don't want the good people of the European streets to vote on the financial future of the EU, for example. Or policies with regards to immigration, or any other multi-faceted matter of some complexity.

      Those shoes are too large for the average Joe to fill, I feel.

  9. Myspace by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 0

    Panem et circenses.

    If there is easy access to outlets for banality, two things will happen:
    1. The proportion of meaningful protest to Britney Spears wannabes is going to plummet
    2. The average person will be more inclined to posting the banal; it is easier
    3. Those expressing meaningful ideas will be marginalized and will gravitate to clusters which makes it easier to marginalize them

    And that concludes my presentation on why a web for the common joe sucks. Thank you, and please be gentle with the shackles.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    1. Re:Myspace by ductonius · · Score: 1

      will gravitate to clusters which makes it easier to marginalize them

      You mean like Slashdot? Oh shi-
  10. Politics by FirienFirien · · Score: 1

    What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?

    They'll create an independent political party based on truth and values, which will be largely ignored in favour of the incumbent elephants of politics who can spend orders of magnitude more on the campaign trail? Or they'll create a small community of supporters, with a dotcom lifestyle and even less effect on the world than the independent party.

    Yeah, I'm pretty damn cynical about politics.

    --
    Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
  11. Nothing helps by the_masked_mallard · · Score: 2, Informative

    In India, we had huge protests last by the student community against the government's hare-brained schemes to introduce reservations in the premier educational institutes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_India n_anti-reservation_protests/
    The news channels showed police beating up unarmed students who were peacefully protesting. There was a hunger strike by students which went for weeks and was telecast on TV. The members of the National Knowledge Commission resigned in protest.
    But the end result was that the government got its way and passed the law, despite overwhelming opposition from the academic community. I wonder how YouTube can help, when primetime news couldnt ?

    1. Re:Nothing helps by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Two points come to mind as I read your post and others that talk about how protests are ignored. The first thought addresses the last point you make in that despite the protest the government continued on and passed a law. I feel they did so because they felt there would be no public backlash where it counts the most, at the voting booth. Protests are a way of collectively voicing an opinion, but it is the vote that matters. If the public wants to gain the attention of the politician, protest, then vote such that those who appose the majority will no longer represent "the people", but be sent home (or to a nice lobbyist job). In my country we can only get 30 or 40 percent of the voting public to cast a ballot. We bitch, we moan, we chaff under the fur-lined handcuffs that hold us in place whiled getting screwed, but we do not enact our strongest protest, the vote.

      As to my first point, it relates to protest and visibility. There are two movements that come to the forefront for me in regards to protest and creating change. In your own country, Gandhi and the movement for independence, in my country Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. I am sure there are others (South Africa and Mandela), but what I find common are that these movements had leaders who stood on the front line of change. They took the beatings, the arrests, the ridicule, and continued leading by example till change was made. In leading this way they inspired others to make the same sacrifices, even if those sacrifices affected their personal lives. I respect Cindy Sheehan immensely, but at a critical moment when she could have sparked a strong anti-war protest into a national movement (starting at Crawford TX), she went home to take care of a family member. By the time she got back to Crawford the movement was fading and her position as inspiring leader was past.

      That takes me to the other point about protest and my three examples. King, Gandhi, Mandela; these leaders never stopped. It was not one protest, maybe two. It was time and time again walking into the face of the adversary. It was peaceful, non-violent so that what ever hate was spewed at them, they absorbed it, turned it around and said, it's okay, we are still here. The media is not at fault, it is the lack of commitment by any leader, and any group to place themselves and others in moments, in places that will bring attention again and again and again.

      The people in eastern bloc countries who had protested crooked elections changed their governments this way because they never went home till they were heard and satisfied. King changed civil rights in this country by marching, sitting, walking, and talking non-violent resistance against discrimination all the time. I watch the riots, the angry mobs at G8 summit meetings, at war rallies and I ask, does meeting violence with violence work? Perhaps people are more fearful of the angry mob then the immoral government. What happened to the 150K people in Melbourne? Did the come back the next day, and the next, and the next? If not then why would the government feel compelled to effect change? Here today, gone tomorrow is how *they* see us, not the other way around.

      A basic example of the difference in protest; two people walk up to a customer service counter to complain. The first screams, shouts, insults, berates, and vents all the anger and frustration inside demanding something be done. The louder the voice, the less help is forthcoming so finally the customer walks out, nothing gained. The second person walks in, explains the problem, backs up the statements with facts, continues to ask questions when rebuffed, remains calm and respectful, but does not stop, does not walk away. By staying this customer maintains attention to the complaint so finally customer service must address the problem if they wish to take care of others.

      Protest can be loud, it can be visible, but it must remain in a way that the sleeping majority will not only take notice, but respond in positive support.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    2. Re:Nothing helps by the_masked_mallard · · Score: 1

      The protests did continue for a pretty long time and the protesters backed down only when the government assured them in the Supreme Court that they would give the matter more thought. Later, they back-stabbed them and passed the law. The matter is sub-judice in the Supreme Court, so all hope is not lost, yet.

      As you pointed out, the problem is that of going out to vote. But the problem is that we are witnessing are very absurd situation in India. Powerful communities have declared themselves as "backward" and are going all out to gain as many concessions as possible. The real poor still suffer and the middle class gets robbed of educational opportunities and jobs. When a large number of the electorate is illiterate, rhetoric helps them decide, not logic.

      If the court too rules against the government, the government can go ahead and amend the constitution. The Indian Constitution is the among the most amended constitutions in the world. If the government decides, with the help of the majority to screw a section of populance, then precious little can be done.

  12. Youtube protest chant by BabyDave · · Score: 4, Funny

    We're here, we're buffering,
    We don't want any more suffering!

  13. How On Earth Is This Insightful??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The only thing that i can see to get real change is to have a global general strike. Kick out the politicians everywhere. Institute democracy again. But lets do something different this time. Let's create a system that hasn't been tried before. One where we all have a say.

    Oh, you mean maybe have four annual elections, including a presidential election since your fateful day?

    When did all the anarchists and idiots start taking over slashdot? And then get modded "insightful" to boot? This is why I rarely come here anymore.

  14. I am against protests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I am against protests ... but I don't know how to show it.

  15. online can be traced... by fantomas · · Score: 1

    If the authorities are checking out people who are planning to protest -where are they looking? on websites, wikis, etc where people are asking to share rides, a place to stay etc. They are already checking the web. Protesting on YouTube is going to be 'safer'? I'd say it singles you out more. Far safer to turn up unannounced as part of a large crowd, you're less likely to get hauled out and disappeared, and more likely to get media coverage as well. Ok you're going to get filmed by the authorities there as well, but at least if you're one of ten thousand you're giving them a bit of work to do, trawling through all that footage. I guess they can put you all in Guantanamo Bay, I am sure they are entitled to for any form of protest these days, but at least you'll have a bit of company.

    Youtube protests are going to get lost in the millions of Simpsons episodes/drunken nights out/skateboard radical tricks/etc that are being uploaded.

  16. come & see the violence inherent in the system by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

    You sound like a Monty Python sketch.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  17. Respect is based on fear ... by holywar · · Score: 0

    Rulers do not respect the people and the people do not respect the ruler for any other fundamental reason than fear. The fact that politicians ignore the people is because they know they will only protest and nothing else. And crushing protests is just needed to instill fear. The only solution is to fight with equal weapons. That is, to count the guns on the other side, and match or over-match the tally. What's more, most soldiers are just in the army because they get fed and somewhat paid. However, they are never paid enough to die to defend the elite. Most of them are not part of it, anyway. Therefore, the tally to match is actually not that high. It is usually seriously overestimated. What matters much more, is the determination to do what needs to be done.

  18. answer by mapkinase · · Score: 1
    Q:

    What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?
    A:

    He has no future
    The answer is very simple: your voice will always drawn in the sea of other voices. So what if you get a youtube account with potential for your street protest video to be viewed by millions? The same potential belongs to other millions of users of youtube who can post whatever they want with whatever text they want and whatever tags they want. It is true that your chances jumped from none to miniscule, when first videosharing website was created but this miniscule chance is getting smaller and smaller with growing number of submitters.

    This is an entropic effect of democracy.

    If people want results, they need to give the voice only to the reasonable people. This is called technocracy. Early internet was very technocratic because of sheer limitation to have an access to academic network. Your message could be heard by a miniscule amount of academics.
    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  19. Protest by proxy by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Sad. Really sad we have come to this point.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  20. real protests by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    are only useful if a huge number of people turn out. otherwise, the media outlets and the government ignore a few rabble rousers frim the fringe. something like the philippines people power revolution is a successful example of a protest toppling a government. that snowballed with support from the church and the military and the tacit approval of the majority of the population. rare indeed

    smaller protests, in comparison, say a million people, are also useful at eliciting media attention and government attention for a list of grievances. but online?

    huh? i don't understand how that's supposed to be compelling to anyone

    look, i'm a champion of the internet changing our lives in fundamental ways just as much as the next slashdotter, but there are some problems for which the internet is poorly suited, and others which it matches beautifully

    i'm sorry, but nothing replaces a real protest in terms of impact (and even then, it better be big)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  21. Re:come & see the violence inherent in the sys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking more the Inalienable Rights scene from "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

  22. Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by rednip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't.It just gives some armchair rebels a chance to feel good about themselves by 'supporting' their cause without having to go through the inconvenience of facing confrontation or rebuttal. In this country, and many others, there is only one place where one needs to show up in order to make a change (granted it's often not be a big change, but a change never the less), that is, of course, the voting booth.
    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    1. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by ResidntGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, it's a change, is it? When American voters fed up with big government and voted in a Republican in 2000, they didn't get the change they wanted. And since the 2006 midterms, when American voters fed up with war, paranoia, and moralism in government voted in Democrats, they haven't gotten that changed. And when American voters in 1892 realized the Republicrats weren't helping them and voted for the Populists, they didn't change anything. Et cetera, et cetera, and others. Voting doesn't do shit except allow you to complain without people saying "you didn't vote, don't complain."

      --
      ResidntGeek
    2. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by rednip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When American voters fed up with big government and voted in a Republican in 2000, they didn't get the change they wanted.

      If you have ever believed that voting Republican was really a vote for smaller government, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.

      And since the 2006 midterms, when American voters fed up with war, paranoia, and moralism in government voted in Democrats, they haven't gotten that changed

      4 months and we aren't out of Iraq yet, how shameful. Considering that congress only controls spending, and that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give them the right to end a war, the only effective way to get our troops out is to either attach timetables to a spending bill (done), and/or Impeach the President (they are working on it, but it needs more public support, and we need to get rid of Cheney first)

      If you want sweeping landslide changes in this country, I'd suggest moving under a hillside in Southern California, as our government tends to be more stable than that For the most part it is a good thing, but sometimes it sucks. However, that's life, get used to it.

      And when American voters in 1892 realized Of course, in 1892 the voters were all white land owning males, and it took over 100 years for women to be assured of their right to vote. Change does happen, but it will never be quick or sweeping enough for some. However never say that a vote doesn't matter at all, but one should keep in mind that an ordinary individual vote only matters a little. A strong, focused, well heard voice can make a real difference, if it can be heard above the pseudo-intellectual crap, which only seems to drag real change to a crawl.
      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    3. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, that's rich.

      There is much more to it than that. You need to let your legislators know what you care about. You need to pressure them to make decisions that you think are best.

      If all you ever do is vote, then your legislator will vote according to what they are hearing from other people[1]-- you've got to ensure that they vote in what you consider the best interests of your locality, county, state, or the whole country.

      Write them a letter. Call their office. For local legislators, make an appointment to have lunch with them.

      [1] Some are better than this... but not many.

      [1] OK, some legislators have principles, and vote with their conscience. But it's rather easy to find a justification for voting yea or nay on anything -- are you confident your legislators vote the way you think they should?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      If you have ever believed that voting Republican was really a vote for smaller government, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
      I don't want your bridge, but I'm sure some of the Republican voters, the people I was actually talking about, would be interested.

      4 months and we aren't out of Iraq yet, how shameful. Considering that congress only controls spending, and that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give them the right to end a war, the only effective way to get our troops out is to either attach timetables to a spending bill (done), and/or Impeach the President (they are working on it, but it needs more public support, and we need to get rid of Cheney first
      And the paranoia and moralism? Nothing done. You can't tell me Congress can't pass a bill requiring the TSA to allow liquids and gels on planes, for example.

      However never say that a vote doesn't matter at all, but one should keep in mind that an ordinary individual vote only matters a little. A strong, focused, well heard voice can make a real difference, if it can be heard above the pseudo-intellectual crap, which only seems to drag real change to a crawl.
      No matter how strong and focused a voice may be, it can rarely be heard above the gossip and prattle that always have and always will make up the majority of people's lives. That's not even the point anyway, your original post said going to the ballot box would make a difference. Going to the ballot box != a strong, focused, well heard voice making a real difference.
      --
      ResidntGeek
    5. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      How old are you?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by tepples · · Score: 1

      How old are you? I was too young to vote when the 105th Congress (which passed the NET Act, the Bono Act, and the DMCA) was elected.
    7. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >And since the 2006 midterms, when American voters fed up with war, paranoia, and moralism in government voted in Democrats, they haven't gotten that changed.

      With a Republican in control of the executive branch aint much is going to happen. You make it sound like there was a huge sweep in all branches, which is untrue.

    8. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Still young enough to believe that voting makes any difference in the end.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In this country, and many others, there is only one place where one needs to show up in order to make a change (granted it's often not be a big change, but a change never the less), that is, of course, the voting booth.

      I think you mean the grassy knoll.

      I voted against Bush twice. Yeah, you heard me right. The Democratic platform of "he's not Bush" worked nicely on me. Once, we actually managed to get the popular vote to come out against him, but the electoral college gave it to him anyway, because that's how the electoral college works - it's there to fuck us. Then, the election was neatly stolen with the assistance of various voting machines. I'm not even talking about the amazing insecurity of the Diebold machines here, I'm talking about things like poor precincts in florida flipping a switch that caused the scan-tron machines to silently accept and discard mismarked ballots rather than rejecting them, whereas in richer, whiter places, it was set to reject them.

      Voting? Pah. That's not going to do one fucking thing. I'll still do it, just to keep up appearances. And I'm certainly not going to be assassinating anyone. But I feel pretty strongly that is the only way to make a significant difference in our system at this point. Does it really matter which group of rich fuckers that don't actually give a shit about the people is in office?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by rednip · · Score: 1

      I'm older than most of the users on this site, and I'm mature enough to acknowledge problems without whining about them incessantly. Also, in life, it helps to be generally positive.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    11. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by rednip · · Score: 1

      Sure an individual's vote doesn't matter much by itself, but it does matter. A good citizen stays up with current events, and never discourages a voter. Some try to encourage voting by claiming it's importance, however I've learned that many seem to think that it matters more than it does, and when their choice fails, they get discouraged. They (and you) behave like a fair weather fan for a sports team, I on the other hand value my country and it's election process more than simple athletic contest.

      Does it really matter which group of rich fuckers that don't actually give a shit about the people is in office?

      All political parties have people who are idealistic, and people who are opportunist. The vast majority of people really are a mixture of the two, and one doesn't have to be rich to be an opportunist. Like the poor man who votes Republican, because they lower taxes on the rich, and he fancies himself as being wealthy 'someday'. Personally, I see the Democratic Party as the more idealistic of the two major parties, and I attempt to support it when it's ideas meet mine. Seemly, unlike most Republican pundits, I do not "carry the water" and when it doesn't match my values, I say it, and move on. Anyone who thinks that politicians needs to be expressly perfect, should try to apply that to other areas of their life, as I am certain that they will find it a failing activity.

      there is only one place where one needs to show up in order to make a change... I think you mean the grassy knoll.

      Assassinations of political leaders is a very messy business, I certainly do not mean that. Likely, it's just your way of being 'funny', but do yourself a favor, stick to 'knock-knock' jokes.

      I'm talking about things like poor precincts in florida flipping a switch that caused the scan-tron machines to silently accept and discard mismarked ballots rather than rejecting them, whereas in richer, whiter places, it was set to reject them.

      One of the greatest threats to democracy is voter fraud, and it happens, sorry. Stores, banks, homes and even cars have people who break laws to exploit their resources. By your reasoning, you should avoid all of them, good luck on that. Personally, I just try to eliminate voter fraud when I can, and encourage others to do so as well. Seems a lot easier than scrapping democracy altogether.

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    12. Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A good citizen stays up with current events, and never discourages a voter. Some try to encourage voting by claiming it's importance, however I've learned that many seem to think that it matters more than it does, and when their choice fails, they get discouraged. They (and you) behave like a fair weather fan for a sports team, I on the other hand value my country and it's election process more than simple athletic contest.

      What? I said I vote. So how do I behave this way? Are you just unable to read?

      Personally, I see the Democratic Party as the more idealistic of the two major parties, and I attempt to support it when it's ideas meet mine.

      Oh, so YOU are the one who acts like a fair weather fan. Hypocrite.

      I have some news for you: The democrats and republicans are just two sides of the same coin. The republicans want to pass laws that assist big business, and restrict what you are allowed to do with your body, like abortion. The democrats want to pass laws that assist entitlement programs for individuals rather than businesses, and restrict what you are allowed to do with your body (like take drugs, or listen to music with explicit lyrics.) both parties are actually parties of populists. The system is designed to strip you of your rights while convincing you that change is occuring when we have a change from one of the two major parties to another.

      Assassinations of political leaders is a very messy business, I certainly do not mean that. Likely, it's just your way of being 'funny', but do yourself a favor, stick to 'knock-knock' jokes.

      No, I'm quite serious. Bush is behaving like a tyrant who believes only in force. He is not interested in upholding the laws of the land, and breaks them every time it is convenient for him. While I do believe that violence begets violence, I also believe that the only just purpose for violence is when it prevents more violence without oppressing people. Bush is very much the source of oppression here... although it's hard to say which Bush is the real problem. (I call him mini-me!)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Also safety against the police. by apathy+maybe · · Score: 1

    "Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your country's army."
    Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury at the hands of your local police.

    Police in the USA beat and shoot and kill people, in other places ("Western" "Liberal" "Democracies") it isn't so bad, but seriously. The police aren't there to help protesters, they are there to protect property, and they will beat you up and arrest you without charge and so on.

    Speaking from experience.

    --
    I wank in the shower.
  24. wow could we get ANY lazier? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    what next? blogging on myspace about how you feel about other people's YouTube activism?.....oh wait....

  25. Giving commoners a voice since 1999! by purpleraison · · Score: 2

    The internet has been responsible for otherwise unheard people, being able to get together collectively and voice their opinion.

    Large party politics HATES this because it is a threat to their two-party system. That is why they back all efforts to squash political blogs, and online political movements by trying to have them classified as 'lobbyists'.

    As far as I know, there is no negative to giving the average 'joe' a voice when they are competing with two good-ol boy joes (Republicans and Democrats) with millions and millioins of dollars in backing.

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  26. So, then, the protestors have already lost? by smchris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At first glance I thought this was the most inane headline I've seen since Discover put "Why Kids Today Love Big Brother" on their cover for a story about MySpace and the loss of privacy a few months back. But if this is just reporting a trend, that is really sad.

    I've been saying for a few years now that the only effective protest is a French-style protest where people walk off their jobs to clog the streets and a lot of those jobs are in transport and services so the economy is significantly crippled. Then power notices. Without even knowing the guy, I think I can almost guarantee you that George Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what you say about him on YouTube.

    You can go to the internet for _information_ when the Mainstream Media won't give it to you. But _protest_ on the internet? That's just a few million people in the electronic forest baying at the moon. Didn't Nietzsche say something about real men and snarling dogs? Let's kill the fashion of 21st Century Schizoid Boy and get back to actually doing stuff. (Yes, I'm implying, like, back in the _real_ world.)

    1. Re:So, then, the protestors have already lost? by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what they tried to do in seattle just a month ago. Well, at least they were trying to block the port where the weapons are sent from. Look what happens.

  27. Reminds me of the whole 'in game 'protest crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ENTIRE idea behind protesting is to show that you'll come out and personally get involved. This idea that blogging or making a video or invading an MMO is ANYTHING like showing up in person (where, wow, you can be confronted by opposing views) is pathetic. IMHO, it just makes it so joe blow can sit in his A/C apartment and rant with no discomfort AND no real threat of having to confront people that don't agree with you. It's pu**y. There is no comparison, nor should their be.

    On that front, having the right to say what you want does NOT infer that people have to listen to you - nor do you have a right to FORCE them to listen. This is one point that activists seem to forget - that and that EVERYONE has a right to voice an opinion - even one counter to yours. It's become a SERIOUS issue in U.S. colleges where opposing points of view are prevented rather than countered - and the oppressors yell 'freedom of speech' the entire time they are suppressing the other side. The irony would crack me up if not for how serious the issue is - we are raising a group of morons that think it's ok, in fact, CORRECT, to push their point of view on people, no matter what the cost.

    Part of the problem is the level of special interests, especially when the ACLU gets involved. When scum bags like Jesse Jackson can get on a podium and ACTUALLY suggest that a word be made against the law and NOT be shouted down by EVERYONE (especially college people - that part continues to amuse me) - well we have a serious problem. The U.S. is FOUNDED on the fact you DO NOT have to like the person standing next to you - you just don't get to hurt him or suppress him.

    Wake up people. Whether you are conservative or liberal, what's happening is NOT ok. NEITHER point of view is so 'right' that it should be allow to simply sweep the other side away - if you think that, you need to seriously take a step back and reconsider.

  28. except that people are busy by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    saying a million people in total across the entire country, were protesting, would mean 5% of the population were involved.


    You're forgetting one very important fact about representative democracy: the whole point is that someone else represents us, because we don't have the time to be involved in day-to-day political governance ourselves. When ANY of us take time out of our lives to correct our politicians, then they need to take notice. It's only when the majority of people who DO something have a different view, that the minority who do something should be ignored.
    1. Re:except that people are busy by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting one very important fact about representative democracy: the whole point is that someone else represents us, because we don't have the time to be involved in day-to-day political governance ourselves. When ANY of us take time out of our lives to correct our politicians, then they need to take notice. It's only when the majority of people who DO something have a different view, that the minority who do something should be ignored.

      So when I take the time to "correct" my local MP about this silly idea that women should be allowed to vote, what would you expect him to do ? How about if I found 5% of my local electorate to agree with me (probably not completely out of the question for some communities in, say, western Sydney).

    2. Re:except that people are busy by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I would expect him to listen, and propose a new bill/amendment, except if such an amendment has already been proposed for the same reasons, and dismissed. If it does get proposed, then all good people can stand up on the other side of the argument, and have the bill rejected. Simple, really.

  29. More centralization of propaganda, great! by turing_m · · Score: 0, Troll

    Youtube is now in the hands of search monopolist Google. Many said that they paid too much, but what really was bought was influence, worth far more than any revenue stream they could derive from it.

    What will happen now is that google will allow activism it approves of or is indifferent to, and lower the search rankings/drop from top 10 lists any activism that it doesn't like. The same thing it already does with news and search.

    I doubt this will change anything. All it will do is further tighten control.

    For example, google/youtube has already been caught pulling / removing from top 10 lists the video where the BBC stated that the Salomon Brothers building (WTC7) had collapsed... 20 minutes before the event actually occurred.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/ 260207building7.htm

    --
    If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    1. Re:More centralization of propaganda, great! by Guuge · · Score: 1

      I assume that this was moderated "Troll" because of the bit of paranoia at the end. Nevertheless, I think the main point is valid. YouTube is not the populist tool many think it is, but yet another corporate offering that we're supposed to consume. It doesn't matter whether Google is abusing its power or not; the potential is there. Instead of trusting the government to let us protest, posters to YouTube are trusting Google to let them protest. It's the same system with a different master. You'd think that we could make our own public space on the internet without having to rely on the goodwill of big business.

  30. Inflitrate the old farts... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    So , it only takes 2x the number of young people to join the parties, and vote the old useless crocks out.

    Or hell, just rake up so much debt, and we can all default at once, and all those old peoples investments go up in smoke.

    Its real easy not to buy the corporate world crap, by default young people have more dynamic free thinking minds than old frozen minds.

    If the govt does try to 'turn of the internet' , then riots are quite easy to do, there are more people than police or bullets.
    Or just find out all the investments of government pensions, and boycott those to the max, even if its painfull, Their portfolio losses
    for the year will be more painfull than you missing out on any luxuries for 12months. Theres always beer , even if its home brew.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  31. Yearning to be herd, eh? by phunctor · · Score: 2

    1) Obtain foreign funding: KGB, Soros, PLA, Wahhabis, you know the drill.
    2) Round up some useful idiots.
    3) Print illiterut signs.
    4) Compose mindless chant.
    6) Ensure media camera angles and editing will keep all 71/72 of your protesters in the frame (with 3/12412 counter-protestors). (This is a gimme, you don't have to do anything. It's handled, dude or dudette!)
    5) Let your well-reasoned position be heard! If you don't know what it is, those nice people at (1) above can help.

    --
    phunctor

  32. Missing the point by Peaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When many people are demonstrating, they are basically saying that they are willing to put their time, effort and sweat into the cause - they mean business.

    When they sit around in their couch and post stuff in YouTube, they aren't making any point at all. They are just whining.

  33. Online Polls by Grashnak · · Score: 1

    What? Online polls are being "shunted aside and ignored"? You say that like its a new phenomenon. When did an online poll ever count for anything other than an indication of how many pinheads can be persuaded to vote for Ms. Collossal Tits 2001?

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
  34. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With fewer in-person protests, our police force can now better spend their time doing what they go to work for: catching theives, kidnappers, rapers, murderes, etc. and less time baby-sitting whiners, complainers, the un-informed, and the ignorant.

    Should also help cut down on the trash and garbage left around following a protest, cut down on traffic jams, leave shop owners able to sleep at night knowing their store hasn't been smashed and looted, and actually promote a challenge-response over issues, rather than a one-way-we-scream-you-listen(or ignore) system that protests bring.

    Protests have never worked. Why do we still waste our time on them?

    1. Re:Good! by enjahova · · Score: 1

      What about the Million Man March? The anti-war protests during Vietnam? I think you have a point, that protesting in and of itself is not enough. It is becoming apparent to me that the most effective way to institute change is to organize a movement, not just a protest. When you want change you need to change peoples minds, and one way to work towards that is protests. Even though I wasn't alive for MLK Jr.'s speech, I get goosebumps when I watch it on youtube.

      I think the future of any successful movement will include dissemination of information over the internet, and internet video will play an increasingly important role.

      --
      "how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
  35. Anonymous on the Internet? by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    on the Internet the chances of being personally associated with a protest are lower.
    Beg pardon?

    Do you really trust Google and your ISP enough to feel anonymous on Youtube? And even if you don't think your info will be turned over willingly, do you trust every last employee of those organizations not to do something shady at their desks? Do you trust their security measures to never get hacked and leak your info?

    Unless you are covertly using a stolen Internet account from a well-hidden location, you are perfectly traceable by those with the means.

    Anyone can attend a protest, and not every member of that protest will be followed home afterward. The way I see it you can wear sunglasses and a hat and have a lot more anonymity at a real protest than in anything you do online.
  36. I'm Sure You Meant... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  37. Gut-less new generation of protestors by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once upon a time, protestors gladly risked (even baited) arrest to make themselves martyrs for their cause. They were willing to sit in jail and scrifice their time to bring attention to their movement.

    Today most protestors seem to do everything they can to protect their anonymity. Being arrested is simply an intolerable inconvenience these days. Self-sacrifice is something to be avoided, not celebrated.

    Ironic, amusing, and sad at the same time.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Gut-less new generation of protestors by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Gut-less new generation of protestors"

      Gutless or too distracted by TV, video games and all the other forms of what basically amounts to a kind of fun-a-holism and escapism, a form of denial of the horrible state of things.

    2. Re:Gut-less new generation of protestors by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      Not true They just have the abillity to go online as well now.

    3. Re:Gut-less new generation of protestors by koreth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question is, if YouTube had been available back then, would those protesters have been as ready to hit the streets and get beaten when there was another avenue available to get mass attention? The situation has changed, so that might have some effect on people's actions.

      Also, assuming you're talking about the Vietnam War protests in the US, there was a military draft back then. Many of the protesters were literally fighting for their own lives -- if they didn't go out and get beaten by the police, they faced the prospects of going out and getting killed or maimed in southeast Asia. I suspect you'd see protests get a lot more serious in a big hurry if the draft were reinstated to send people over to Iraq.

  38. Possibility for Scandal... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

    I think that the biggest impact that youtube or google video will have is in exposing impropiety. SOMEONE in office is going to do something stupid, and SOMEONE is going to catch them on their cell phone or digital recorder and put it up for the world to see.

    Remember Gary Hart, Monkey Business, and the 1988 election? Sean Penn's boat at Katrina? Tipper Gore's staged mud shoveling in the Honduras?

    The list - of both the left and the right - is pretty long, but the political "gotcha" game is going to be increasingly affected by youtube.

    1. Re:Possibility for Scandal... by VegetativeState · · Score: 1

      I think posting on Slashdot is a good way of creating awareness...

  39. TOR: The Onion Router by Don+Giovanni · · Score: 0

    Protestors can stay safe on the onion router or psiphon. Just look at the case in china where yahoo turned over Shi Tao, who went to prison for ten years.

    --
    P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
  40. It may be the way to go by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    On the net, the police can't really intimidate you, tazer you, kick you in the ribs while you're down or corral you into a "Free Speech Zone". The only question is whether you can generate as much publicity as with a protest. I think the answer is yes. After all, just look at the successes of propaganda.

    This may be the way to go really because our governments are increasingly trying to prevent protests via new laws. In the UK we have a wide protest exclusion Zone around Parliament, which is really designed to push protests away into areas that will attract less media attention. Suddenly you find that you can be arrested under terrorism legislation just for having a T-Shirt with an anti-Bush or Blair slogan.

    The other problem with physical protests is that even if you manage to get some press, the media often has it in for the protesters. They only have to find one protester out of 100,000 who picks up a brick and he will be on all the front pages.

  41. Wishing for Mod Points by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    Very well stated, brother. I too get sick of people with knee-jerk reactions/opinions amounting to little more than "ok, now YOU GUYS are in control, and nothing's changed" attitude some people have. I had a guy bitching the other day that "well, you cowardly Democrats say you wanted to stop the war, and now you've approved spending for it". I couldn't make him realize that there isn't an EJECT button on this thing, and that while in a perfect world we could snap and it'd all be over, in the real world, it doesn't work that way.

  42. I can hear the news story now by kj_in_ottawa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Breaking "Fake" news, Police march on Youtube headquarters and take their server farm down with a water-cannon. The protest about police brutality appears to have been ended with the loss of only one life. Police are not releasing the name of the victim but indicate one staff member at youtube unfortunately suffered a massive coronary after all of the magic smoke escaped from his computer room. Reporters caught 6 paramedics on tape attempting to carry what appeared to be an obese sysadmin from the building to an ambulance. Protesters could not comment right away, as they have to go upstairs and ask theoir mom's permission before talking to people in real life.

    I made this up. I don't condone cruelty to computers of any sort.

  43. Pull a Neo by cfvgcfvg · · Score: 1
    What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?

    I need guns. Lots of them.

  44. One thing the terrorists understand by idonthack · · Score: 1

    If you want anybody to pay attention, you have to blow something up.

    --
    Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    1. Re:One thing the terrorists understand by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      If you want anybody to pay attention, you have to blow something up. Terrorists are not the only people who understand that concept! On the other hand, an apolitical definition of terrorist would actually include politicians.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  45. You are not alone in that sentiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a 1998 essay from Greg Graffin on that very subject.

  46. What about a sit in? by Finque · · Score: 1

    Do they have to clog the tubes?

  47. Facts... by BK425 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Mounting your political message online is also safer in countries where taking part in a protest can result in your death or injury"

      There are people around the world (rhymes with CHINA) who will never see the light of day again, because words they posted on the internet were traced to them. The mode of protest is not as important as that it gets done.

  48. Heard? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    What is the future for the common person who yearns to be heard?

    False assumption. The common person has NEVER been heard. It is only now, with the internet and cheap hosting, that the common person can start to make himself heard.

    p.s. But if the common person keeps making death threats, he's going to quickly lose that new ability to be heard.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  49. Mod parent up by carpeweb · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I like the emphasis on the value of the mob's danger (pretty sure Gandhi would want to substitute power for danger), but it's still a good read.

  50. Future of Information Dissemination by Cygnus.Xray.One · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that humanity has had a taste of a truly global information network. It's not the specific act of, say, uploading a political message on YouTube, that is changing the way 'the people' interact with their governments. I'd say it's the very existance of a 'global information network' that is revolutionizing the way we, as the 'human race', are interacting with each other. The genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of 'government interference' can stop the information revolution. Even if the Internet is brought down, by whatever means, for whatever reasons, humanity as a whole has discovered that freedom of information is *the* most powerful tool for empowering the individual to 'make a difference'.

    Ad-hock networks, anyone?

  51. Hey, Dude, where's my Party? by beer_maker · · Score: 1

    If you have ever believed that voting Republican was really a vote for smaller government, I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you.
    You know, I really did hope/expect the Republicans would remember their conservative roots, and actually try to be the "Party of Smaller Government" - and I still sometimes think/dream that if the 9/11 attack hadn't come that we might have got some of that. IIRC there hadn't been much expansion, pre-event, but I may be wrong.

    4 months and we aren't out of Iraq yet, how shameful.
    No, what bugs me is that 4 months after the election we still see most Democrats pussyfooting around the issue - if they really believe they were elected to end the WoT, why aren't they doing more than make non-binding resolutions? Why aren't they making their case to the people? It seems they are already looking forward to the next election cycle, and that their CYA instincts are over-riding their desire to make a real difference. Standard practice, I suppose, but disappointing after all the rhetoric.

    Considering that congress only controls spending, and that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give them the right to end a war,
    Two statements I can wholeheartedly agree with ... but then, finally, the meat of the problem ...

    the only effective way to get our troops out is to either attach timetables to a spending bill (done), and/or Impeach the President (they are working on it, but it needs more public support, and we need to get rid of Cheney first)
    Your solutions are both wrong and unlikely to succeed in any useful way. (Well meant, I'm sure, but wrong nonetheless.) The only effective (and Constitutional) way (for Congress) to get our troops out is to stop paying for the war. Attaching timetables isn't within their powers, and even if it were, it's guaranteed to get W's veto. We all know that the Democrats aren't willing to cut off the funding completely, because they would be making it plain that they care more about $Getting_Out than about $Supporting_The_Troops. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and instead they're making a dog's breakfast of the whole thing.

    As for your second method, while I would agree that W has skirted/crossed a number of legal & Constitutional boundries I'm also sure that no jury will ever convict him as you desire. If WJC could admittedly perjure himself (about a personal interaction, that should never have been prosecuted) and get away scott-free than there's no chance that GWB can be held liable for acting in what he perceives as the Nation's best interest.

    I'm hoping for sweeping change in the next Administration, though in my case I'm hoping for a true small-government Conservative, like W was supposed to be. Given the backlash at W, it might not happen ... but if the Democrats keep proving themselves the Party of Vocal-But-Not-Voteworthy-Convictions, it's not impossible.

    --
    Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    1. Re:Hey, Dude, where's my Party? by rednip · · Score: 1

      You know, I really did hope/expect the Republicans would remember their conservative roots

      Truth is Lincoln headed a very liberal party, and the 'pro-business agenda' adopted by the Republican party at the beginning of the last century, is rightfully described as 'economic liberalism'. Until 1964 both parties had wings which would be considered 'liberal' or 'conservative', passage of the civil rights act that year, flushed most of the southern conservative Democrats to the Republicans. The party line opposed it as a 'big-governement' act (well, at least publicly). That was the start of your party's 'conservative roots'.

      I know, it's a bit of a shock, I actually used that damn dirty word 'liberal', not once, but twice when mentioning some of the history of the GOP. Thanks to 20 years of 'water-carrying' 'conservatives', many seem to believe that it's a dirty word, which one can use to describe people you are suppose to hate.

      If WJC could admittedly perjure himself (about a personal interaction, that should never have been prosecuted) and get away scott-free than there's no chance that GWB can be held liable for acting in what he perceives as the Nation's best interest.

      Please, don't try your tired old 'blame Clinton act', it's been 10 years (and he was acquitted). "w" has lied and his staff to the American people on countless occasions over the last 6, and for bigger effect than trying to hide a consensual physical indiscretion. Sure he and (most) of bush's people have avoided oaths like the plague, but at the very least he took an oath to "Protect and Defend the Constitution". Just the wire tapping scandal should be enough to remove him, as he blatantly violated even lenient rules. Also one should keep in mind that lying to Congress is a crime even if you don't put your hand on a bible before you do it (including the SOTU address). Whether or not he is impeached bush will go down as the worst President in American history. I actually suspect that if he is impeached, with an eye toward conviction, that he will attempt a coup d'état. You know, 'for the good of the American people' and all that, after all, 'how can Congress subvert the 'will of God''?. Admittedly it's a long shot, but I wouldn't put it past him.

      Your solutions are both wrong and unlikely to succeed in any useful way. (Well meant, I'm sure, but wrong nonetheless.) The only effective (and Constitutional) way (for Congress) to get our troops out is to stop paying for the war.

      First of all, that's not my solution, it's the political solution currently being worked on by Congress. If we cut of spending for the troops outright, Bush will almost certainly leave them there until they run out of bullets. Do you want to see that happen? I don't.

      because they would be making it plain that they care more about $Getting_Out than about $Supporting_The_Troops. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and instead they're making a dog's breakfast of the whole thing.

      Still trying to get some political capital at the expense of American lives (and for that matter Iraqi lives)? Shame. We should be working out a real solution to the Iraq crisis, instead fools such as yourself seem to be Snidely Whiplash wringing your hands in anticipation of the carnage you set into motion coming to fruition. Perhaps you do want to leave the troops abandoned in Iraq, maybe you are with the president in hoping that somehow you can continue to misdirect blame at your political enemies. Maybe, just maybe the American people will start to believe you again, if Rove is right and you can throw some more of the mud you are mired in upon those 'evil' liberals.

      So what is 'your solution'? More of the same? Or are just still stuck on an old copy of your talking points?

      I'm hoping for sweeping change in the next Administration, though in my case I

      --
      The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
  52. This a WebRoots effort worth looking at by ganjagadget · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YChhOHrFA4

    As some of you already know...my good friend and old
    roomate from SD, Eric Volz has been falsely accused of
    murder and being held in a Nicaraguan prison. A few
    days ago a short 6min. documentary about his current
    situation has been posted on youtube for the world to
    view....this is where I need ALL of your
    help...PLEASE..go to youtube and watch the
    segment...give it a 5 star-rating and make it your
    favorite....in order to make it a most
    watched/discussed video...it needs to be hit up
    ALOT....so once again, I urge you PLEASE watch the
    video and tell everyone you know about Eric's
    situation...this is soooo huge and needs to be taken
    very seriously....this is bigger than anyone really
    realizes. Also, for more info and details...go to his
    website (www.friendsofericvolz.com) and if you can
    make a donation...even $5 goes a long way....THANK YOU
    & MUCH LUV 2 EVERYONE

    PLEASE WATCH THIS!!!!!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YChhOHrFA4

    FREE ERIC VOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!

  53. Get Elected? by gdrumm0356 · · Score: 1

    Since our reps, for the most part, ignore the majority, run and get elected.
    Of course, you will have to put up with irate voters calling and interrupting you wrapping the cash for storage in your freezer...

    --
    Former geek, now I can rest...
  54. Worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    affinity

    One reason a physical protest / demonstration is effective is that it can't be ignored. It's done in public, often in places where a little disruption of public life is likely to occur. This gets even the non-protesters up in arms, who rise an outcry trying to get the protesters cleared away. In the end it's a huge public spectacle.

    Film your protest privately and submit to YouTube? You fucking deserve the non-response that you get. The people who most need to hear your protest are certainly NOT going to go searching on YouTube for demonstrations of an opposing viewpoint! And the average user isn't going to be aware of your issue at all, since you did nothing in public. My verdict... this is done by cowards who only want to pay lip-service to a cause to gain moral credit in the eyes of their peers, not by people who really want to change something.

  55. Read Herodotus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mutilation of the Herms in Athens led to the Athenian Navy's commander, Alcibiades, being sentenced to death.

    Which caused him to defect to the Spartans.

    Which allowed Sparta's defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian war.

    Which led to Spartan hegemony in all of Greece.

    Anonymous, cowardly political commentary and vandalism can and has changed the course of political events throughout history.

  56. Re: your fine comments by beer_maker · · Score: 1
    Thanks for the reminder of party history, it's so easy to forget that my 'political lifetime' is vastly shorter than that of the parties.

    I know, it's a bit of a shock, I actually used that damn dirty word 'liberal', not once, but twice when mentioning some of the history of the GOP. Thanks to 20 years of 'water-carrying' 'conservatives', many seem to believe that it's a dirty word, which one can use to describe people you are suppose to hate.
    I know it's a shock, but what I said was that I prefer a Conservative political philosophy, not that I hate those who espouse a Liberal one. I reserved my ire for the two political parties, the Republicans & Democrats, neither of whom maps well onto Liberalism OR Conservatism. I would vastly prefer a Conservative Party to the current brand of Republican, and a true Liberal Party to the current Democrats.

    Please, don't try your tired old 'blame Clinton act', it's been 10 years (and he was acquitted).
    I don't blame Former President Clinton for anything other than what I said: he was an admitted perjurer who did have the fortune of being acquitted by the Senate. Doesn't make him innocent, just means his fellow politicians (of both parties) didn't feel it merited such a harsh penalty. It happened, it's over, and I don't care about it anymore ... but the incident leads me to believe we won't see another full impeachment until a President is caught standing over a body with an actual smoking gun. That's an opinion, feel free to disagree.

    As to whether the wiretapping is illegal ... it looks like he's got lawyers who thought it was legal enough ... it may have to go all the way to SCOTUS to be resolved. I make no claims regarding any lies to Congress - I said I think He believed that what he was doing was in the Nation's interest and will continue that I think that GWB believed that his actions were within the law. I also believe he was wrong, but no court has yet decided these issues ... except the court of public opinions, and even there the court seems to be divided.

    First of all, that's not my solution, it's the political solution currently being worked on by Congress. If we cut of spending for the troops outright, Bush will almost certainly leave them there until they run out of bullets. Do you want to see that happen? I don't.
    Please accept my apology for misstating your position. As to the issue of Leaving the Troops, I don't see it as a possibility ... in large part because I don't see the Congress actually manning up enough to cut the funding. Nor do I see any chance of a GWB coup. Bush may be wrongheaded and stubborn, but he is also consistant - he has always stated his intentions and then done his best to carry them out. It's not his fault if people keep judging him to be like all the other politicians, then getting surprised when he does what he said he would.

    Rather than quote back the unexpected vitriol of the next two paragraphs, I'll just give you my plan for success in Iraq - send every soldier/sailor/airman/marine from the US, plus every one now stationed in "allied" countries starting with those pulling their own troops out, and conduct a MUCH larger version of the "big push" that IS achieving success in the Bagdhad area. Then get the troops out and let the Iraqis figure out their own problems. We couldn't force democracy on Occupied Germany after defeating them, we had to lead them to it AFTER they decided they wanted it, so why does everybody think we can do so in a country with no history or desire for such?

    Your last line makes your own position pretty clear ... maybe you should start getting your news from a wider circle of sources as well.

    --
    Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.