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?"

34 of 156 comments (clear)

  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 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)
  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.

  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: 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.

    8. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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 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.)

  8. 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 ?

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

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

  10. 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 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.'"
  11. 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!
  12. 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.)

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.