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?"
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?)
Aussies can use YouTube to protest against the lack of decent broadband. Very... slowly...
l ies
http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1715?show=rep
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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 ?
We're here, we're buffering,
We don't want any more suffering!
I am against protests ... but I don't know how to show it.
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.
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.
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.
Sad. Really sad we have come to this point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
"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.
what next? blogging on myspace about how you feel about other people's YouTube activism?.....oh wait....
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!
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.)
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 , 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Countries where protesting can get you killed.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I need guns. Lots of them.
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?
You mean like Slashdot? Oh shi-
Do they have to clog the tubes?
"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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!
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...
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.
Please accept my apology for misstating your position. As to the issue of Leaving the Troops, I don't see it as a possibilityRather 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.