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?"

Comments

What's the point?

[badfish99]

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?

Re:What's the point?

[Adeptus_Luminati]

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

Re:What's the point?

[ReidMaynard]

.. 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.

Re:What's the point?

[rtb61]

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.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

the traditional media

[kwikrick]

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.

General Strike

[essence]

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.

Re:General Strike

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave

[rednip]

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.

Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave

[ResidntGeek]

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."

Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave

[rednip]

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.

Re:Armchair Rebels only need a curtain to be brave

[Red Flayer]

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?

So, then, the protestors have already lost?

[smchris]

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.)

Missing the point

[Peaker]

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.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Gut-less new generation of protestors

[goldspider]

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.

Re:Want to be heard?

[AndersOSU]

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.

Facts...

[BK425]

"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.