Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%

hypnosec writes "In 2011, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook helped protesters to spread their cause and garner support across the world. What started out as a minor protest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide protest thanks to the use of social media. According to Wired, after seeing the impact social media platforms have had on protests worldwide, several Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their own social networking platform aimed at spreading awareness about particular causes and rallying people for protests."

Comments

Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their o

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they will be in the 1%.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[BlueStrat]

Then they will be in the 1%.

They already are "the 1%".

Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?

My bad.

Strat

They're still around?

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to the day when they give up on this because it's too hard, much like they did with their protests....

Re:They're still around?

[SuricouRaven]

There are three reasons I see for giving up on the protests:
1. It isn't working. The rich remain obscenely rich, corporate interests continue to trump public interests, and politicians remain betrothed to their corporate sponsors. For all the fuss the protests made, they change nothing.
2. People are getting bored. Media coverage isn't what it was, and there is no point protesting if you don't get attention for it. That is the purpose of the protest.
3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently.

There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored. That leaves them with the choice of either giving up or turning to more desperate measures like illegal direct action. We've seen a little of the latter in the Anonymous operation to use stolen credit card details to donate to charities.

I'm surprised we haven't had an anti-wall-street psycho start bombing banks yet. The environmental movement has a few, the pro-life movement has a few... maybe it just needs time.

Re:They're still around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason 4 - They've lost interest since it all was really nothing more than a fad. Probably about 50% of the people "protesting" had no clue why they were there. All they knew was that it was cool, there was free food, drugs available and loose women.

Now, they've all gone back to their mother's basements or their cardboard box somewhere.

Re:They're still around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not working? You expected immediate results? The Occupy movement has already influenced public debate. Real change takes time.

While it's a natural tendency (especially for those of us more comfortable interacting with technology than our fellow humans) to avoid mass movements, there is a substantial history of government changes in response to these forces. Consider the 40-hour work week; worker protections, financial reforms, environmental rules, and (poster child!) civil rights legislation. Of course these changes have not been perfect, nor immune to attacks from those holding concentrated money or power, and they've taken a lot of time and sometimes blood. But this is how our democracy works - it cannot work without our involvement. Not easy, not perfect, not fast to change/improve. That hasn't changed since its founding.

Re:They're still around?

[ProfBooty]

They should have teamed up with the GOP instead. I know one of the OWS organizers (he handles their money) and their beliefs are surprisingly in common with the Tea party before it was co-opted by Palin and other GOP leaders.

A biggie that they both want is less money in politics.

Re:They're still around?

[timholman]

There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored.

And the reason they're ignored is because (surprise!) they don't have the popular support they pretend they have.

The whole "99% vs. 1%" meme was a joke from the beginning. So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line. You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect), not by sitting in a squatter's camp and making a nuisance / laughingstock of yourself.

The Occupy movement made entertaining press for a while, but their 15 minutes of fame is just about over. Time to move on, people.

Re:They're still around?

[shentino]

Regarding number 3, they've already confiscated dump trucks full of personal property and sent out "notices on where you can pick it up" in not only a blatant violation of the 4th amendment rights against search and seizure, but by holding their property hostage they are attempting to run rambo over their 1st amendment rights by forcing them to abandon their posts if they want their stuff back. After which they will find the park conveniently locked and themselves unable to return.

If that isn't illegal I don't know what is.

As for number 2, the media isn't covering it because the police won't allow it. News choppers are being kept at bay by police choppers. Someone above the cops doesn't WANT media coverage. To be blunt, the 1 percent has something to hide and they're not afraid to use the cops as mercenaries.

Not only that, but the cops, in addition to telling news crews to stay out and not cover the situation, are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on.

And as for number 1, we've already lost. The rich know damn well they've got our government by the balls and they are NEVER going to let go. The fact that cops are blatantly trampling the rights of the protesters and getting away with it just shows me how deeply entrenched, stubborn, and when threatened, vicious the 1 percent really is.

Re:They're still around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure!

1. Protest because government is too restrictive
2. Government disbands
3. Establish new stricter government!

Re:They're still around?

[dristoph]

"1. It isn't working."

The national dialogue has shifted considerably since the protests started. I haven't heard so many regular people talking about the processes of the financial system in /ever/. It put the spotlight on the biggest profiteers of the last decade of war and declining middle class. I've seen people on the left and the right start to express the cynicism toward their elected representatives that is rightly deserved.

"2. People are getting bored."

People were already bored. On the contrary, I've seen people who have never had an iota of interest in politics suddenly start to form opinions. It's a populist movement, and even your friend who has never cared about politics outside football at least has /something/ to say about Occupy and its issues. In this age of apathy, I see that as progress.

"3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently."

The arguable excessive use of police force against the protests have only amplified valid concerns about our government's protection of the Bill of Rights. The UN itself has called into question the defense of human rights in the United States, largely due to the excess use of police force against protesters in this country. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/occupy-wall-street-un-envoy_n_1125860.html]

I seriously doubt that Occupy is going to bring real change...on its own. I see it more as a beginning spark. The conversations happening now rightly focus around the disparity of opportunity in this country, to an extent that we haven't seen in decades, maybe even this century. The impact has already taken place and the shockwave will be lasting. No matter who gets elected President and fails us yet again, the message of Occupy (and yes, the Tea Party) will continue to reverberate in the minds of conservatives and liberals alike, until we see real change.

Occupy isn't the end, nor is it the means; it's a warning.

Re:They're still around?

[Baloroth]

I remember thinking this. The Tea Party and the OWS (both at the beginning) had much the same message. The trouble was, the OWS people focused most of their energy towards the wrong place, and went about it in the wrong way. Looking like a bunch of losers and druggies isn't a good way to spread your message. And the Tea Party allowed itself to get co-opted by a bunch of loons. Actually, come to think of it they both did.

Re:They're still around?

[nine-times]

they don't have the popular support they pretend they have...So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line.

So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?

If people can't be motivated by common complaints of massive corruption because the complaints are so common as to be boring, then what's your hope for motivating people to do something as boring as voting?

Re:They're still around?

[Hatta]

You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election

No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.

No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.

(e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)

What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?

Re:They're still around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy is that crap if I have ever heard it.

The protesters take over a park and start camping when the rules state you are not allowed tents or sleeping and so on. The only problem is that night number one the government didn't go in and take the place apart but instead let them trash the park and make it filthy and dangerous for everyone so that they could express there problems.

Media not covering it because the police will not allow it? WHAT? How do we know about it? Logic fails you on this one. The media is covering it. And cops trying to keep people out of dangerous areas should be stopped so that those people can get hurt? right? Media people want to go into dangerous areas because they want to make an award winning report. They want to be embedded with the troops, in this case the loonies that think trashing a park and who knows what else.Or haven't you been watching the news on how bad and dangerous those area are made by the protesters?

Stonewalling the protesters? The same protesters that are throwing things at the police that are trying to stop the violence? Also I like the one protester who's Mac got stolen, he was crying like a baby. He wants to take money from me to give to other people but he doesn't like it when people take from him.

You should be modded down not up.

Re:They're still around?

[timholman]

So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?

And what's your solution? A revolution? Burn it all down? Execute and imprison the rich and powerful for being "enemies of the people"? Sure, just look at history to figure out how that will turn out. First the upper class is destroyed, and then the middle and lower class start fingering their neighbors, and before all is said and done, OWS will be purging their own leaders at gunpoint.

Yes, the solution IS "get out and vote". And the rallying cry should be "No more private financing of elections!" That is one point ANY rational person on either side of the political spectrum would be able to support. Elect politicians who will pledge to enact a system of 100% publicly funded national elections. Push and keep pushing that message.

Change the election funding laws, and 90% of everything that the Tea Party and the OWS are angry about will become fixable.

Re:They're still around?

[lexsird]

It does take time. And that is hard considering how conditioned we are for instant gratification.

The system is well crafted and had decades to program the populace not only to embrace their chains be to defend them. You have to admire the elegance of this propaganda system that's been established. It's resilient to change, it harnesses the intellect of it's victims to perpetuate it, to defend it and to propagate it. This is nothing new, I have traced it back when I was presenting work regarding psychological warfare, as far back as we have had written history. Controlling the masses has always been a top tier priority in regards to "governing". It's rare that we see it when we are experiencing it. Mostly we have been only able to study it after the fact and from afar. If it runs contrary to our current programing it never sees the light of day just due to the natural defenses it has.

For example we look at how the Nazis rose to power and how Stalin rose to power and how the mindsets there were cultivated and come to a fruition that allowed malevolent elements to come to power. It's easy to see their faults, but we fail to learn from these lessons because we don't apply objective reasoning and observation to our own climes.

What I find interesting is how it harnesses the intellect of it's victims. Look at how the Nazis harnessed the brilliance of it's technically minded people. Those Germans were brilliant, but on the whole, ironically, they were political morons. You have to wonder how such intelligent people can be duped. If you can't see the brilliance in German engineering of weapons at the time, you are historically ignorant. German equipment was frankly awesome. Their tanks were something to rightfully fear, we managed to beat them out of sheer numbers. We zerged them with cheaper tanks frankly.

Though intelligent, they were still manipulated, so intelligence isn't a safeguard against it. This is a disturbing thought, because naturally one would think an intelligent population would have immunity to it. It doesn't. In fact, as I read comments here, I see many intelligent people remarking, but to my dismay I can see the influences upon them. What I see is an emotional subset mentality that is bound to people's inner personality core. This is engaged at a subconscious level as they evaluate the situation, not formulating their intellectual responses, but it's the driving force behind their responses.

What we are dealing with is emotional (for a lack of a better term) programing at a low level of consciousnesses. This has always been the case in the past, and it's worked in situations where it's needed to provoke people to do something that is contrary to their own good health. For example, it's often used to rally a population to war. Without this, it would be nigh impossible to get people to go fight for something that frankly has no effect upon them except in some abstract reason that effects them at some base emotion, hence steering their intellect into not only excusing it, but putting the full blunt of their being behind it.

Granted, this is a needed thing when it comes to the overall good of a large entity of people, but when it's used to further the gains of a few, it's classically been the downfall of whatever group of people that its effected. Democracy was a fragile experiment, a seemingly vain attempt in face of this powerful influence to give the average person an objectivity and ability to rise above this kind of mindset. It succeeded to some extent because it's founding fathers were brilliant deep thinkers, hailing from a time in our country when we had the best and the brightest from Europe, here on our soil, seeking to expand not only their freedoms but their minds.

The frontier atmosphere that allowed that kind of mindset to blossom has been smothered. There are no frontiers where the free thinking can roam now. Control has been established.

My challenge to anyone who fancies themselves as a free thinker to try this mental exercise if you are capable

Re:They're still around?

[kenh]

Look at the 2008 elections, Sen. McCain spent much MUCH less than his Democratic opponent, and voluntarily opted to comply with McCain/Feingold Campaign reforms, his opponent agreed to voluntarily comply, then simply decided not to and spent $750M on his campaign against the "big money" party...

When given the chice, the last GOP candidate went for "less money in politics" his opponent went for a record level of spending - and plans to best lat campaigns record by aiming for a $1BN campaign, again, running against the "big money" interests of the GOP that will, in all likelyhood spend a fraction of what the incumbent President spends.

Re:They're still around?

[Mashiki]

The difference between the tea party and the ows is pretty obvious. And I wouldn't even says the tea party got co-opted by loons, they got people elected they wanted elected. And they're still out there, the media is just ignoring them like they have been for the last 8mo. The ows on the other hand, got all the media attention they wanted, because the media wanted to help them.

The messages are fundamentally different too. One wanted smaller government, the other wanted more government control. If you couldn't see that, you weren't paying attention.

What history taught us is

[TheTruthIs]

Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.

Take a page from the Tea Party

[Anonymous Coward]

The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party

[Riceballsan]

It would be nice, but the question is how and who. The tea party wasn't originally founded with their heads perpetually up their respective asses. That came later and mostly once they started picking candidates, and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement. I agree OWS should form into a political party... but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party

[whargoul]

From now on is "1%" going to mean the super rich?

Yes. Just like from now on "99%" is going to mean "liberal hippie activist nutjob".

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party

[DerekLyons]

but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.

Simple math my friend - if 50% of the 99% they claim to represent each donated $100, then they raise around 15 billion dollars. That's more than sufficient to start getting candidates into office. Hell, that's more than sufficient to fund sweeping political change the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the 1770's.
 
But OWS faces the same problem that the Tea Party and the Free State movement did - they don't actually represent as many people as they think they do.

One Sided view really social media?

[jellomizer]

It sounds more like propaganda.

What the Occupy protesters don't realize it isn't just the 1% that really don't care for their methods or all their ideals, there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one). Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need anymore. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.

We get these protest groups (on both sides) like the Tea Party and the Occupy when the economy is down. Why? For one a lot of them have extra free time so they can actually go out and protest. Secondly they are suffering right now so they are angry and passionate in their protests. However when things get better they will moderate a little.

Re:One Sided view really social media?

[BasilBrush]

*If* things pick up. This isn't just a crisis of confidence. Its a debt crisis bought about by the western world living beyond it's means for so long. Then up ahead there's China taking over as world economic superpower, peak oil and global warming.

The natural order isn't necessarily economic growth interspersed with a few short lived recessions. See the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire. The days of the American Empire look numbered.

Re:One Sided view really social media?

[Hatta]

there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.

The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).

Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."

However when things get better they will moderate a little.

Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.

Bad summary, horrible headline

[F69631]

From the summary & headline one could think that they are, well, building something facebook-like and that their target audience would be people like the ones who attended "occupy wallstreet" protest. The first claim is completely inccorect, the second only partially so. Rather, they're building a non-centralized social network for organizing protests, etc. because they feel that they can't trust FB and other existing services to protect the anonymity, etc. of protesters well enough.

I guess it's a good cause. Then again, a service like that is easy to block by police states with much less public outcry than if they blocked FaceBook or similar services. Anyone with enough know-how to get around that problem probably can do what they need to through already existing services. I'm not saying that - if they ever get it finished - it can't offer any advantages so it's cool that they're doing it... But I (having some activist background myself) really doubt the project will ever get finished.

Missing the Point

[Bicx]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.

If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.

Er what?

[DrXym]

If you want to reach the "99%" you use the social networking tools that most people use - Twitter, Facebook etc. Creating some other site is likely to make the movement more detached, less representative and marginal than it already is at this stage. Of course probably the best thing to do is just run a few pods on Diaspora or something where if one goes down, mirrors can pop up in other jurisdictions.

I also wonder if this entity will be as censorious as some sites which were prominently supporting OWS such as BoingBoing. And if not, how is this site (robo)moderated, how does it withstand DDOS attacks and all the other crap that commercial sites have spent years developing sophisticated defences against. And what's the point again?

1% vs 99%

[ionix5891]

I am fucking sick of a bunch of hippies speaking for me and the rest of the 99%

Especially a bunch of hippies with a full belly and iphones who are better of than the 99% of humanity

Re:1% vs 99%

[dyingtolive]

I find it interesting that people not impacted by them get so angry about them and what they're trying to do. I'm not defending their actions, but I really feel like every person I've heard bitch about them makes an emotionally charged statement about them.

Do you REALLY believe there are no issues then and these people really are entitled hippies who are angry because they can't afford to get high anymore? What would you propose instead? Do you argue that there is no ever increasing disparity of wealth? Have you not seen the charts showing that "working" (even professional) wages have not increased in proportion to that of the 1%, or even really tracked with inflation?

Re:1% vs 99%

[tompaulco]

As a middle class U.S. citizen, I consider the 99% to be part of the 1%. They are far better off than me. I have to work for my food, I can't afford (nor do I want) an iphone, my car is 11 years old, and my vacation this year consisted of driving to the grandparents and living with them for a couple of days. Screw the 99% and their incessant whining. I'm more in favor of taxing them than taxing the rich.

Re:1% vs 99%

[TheGratefulNet]

full belly and iphones. lets examine you hate, line by line and word by word, shall we?

to you, people don't have a right to complain if they still have SOME food in their bellies. I guess its a threhold thing for you; you have a suffer-O-meter and if you still walk upright, you're not 'poor enough' to care about.

iphones: while I hate apple, are you really so thick and stupid as to say that owning a phone, today, is somehow anti-OWS? that's about as stupid as people who were taking pictures of protesters and pointing out all the 'corporate items' they were wearing or owning. its not about 'corps are bad'. its about big corps, big money and big politics and how they all are related and should NOT be.

you would have sympathy if they carried no phones? how would that matter so much on your hate-O-meter?

clearly you have some deep seated hatret against people fighting for their rights. I think you speak too loudy about your hate, too; and that makes me think you have an extra guilty concience. perhaps you have personally benefitted from the abuse of the working classes. perhaps you are so well off, you are too detached from the everyday problems regular working people face.

and btw, 'hippies' stopped being cool as an insult about 30 years ago!

Re:1% vs 99%

[dyingtolive]

Honestly, I think most of the anger directed at them is cognitive dissonance. That's just my theory.

Anecdote time: Amongst the people I work with, the only one I know of who has a strong opinion (other than me) one way or another about the OWS crowd is a punk 22 year old who lives in a house his parents own, is married with two kids, and has, in general, everything still provided for him. The funniest thing is that, contrary to the popular opinion of the OWS crowd being spoiled brats, this one absolutely HATES them with a passion.

I think back to the kind of person I was when I was his age. Though I hardly had anything provided for me to speak of (lest of all a house), I probably wouldn't have liked the OWS people either. I was kind of a brainwashed Randist who believed that hard work and perseverance were all you needed, and the world really was a meritocracy. I believed in the American Dream. I hit the real world though, and realized what a lie it all was. I see the OWS group as a means to try to pull the wool from people's eyes, and the backlash they get is simply resentment for that.

Re:1% vs 99%

[__aamnbm3774]

its pretty much just that simple: those in power have a good hold on the religious right, which also co-opted the republican party in the last few decades. those people are TOTALLY brainwashed. their religious leanings are an open-channel or pipeline so that faux 'news' can shove pieces of bullshit down their throats.

The democratic party does the same shit with welfare babies and 'government assistance' for every stupid thing you can imagine. When I see how poorly every government-run program behaves, I can't imagine why anyone would want to give these idiots more power/money.

Quit trying to make your point by talking down to someone, it makes you look stupid, angry and sour. I honestly believe both parties are equally shitty.

I wish more people realized that. Both parties suck beyond belief.

Re:1% vs 99%

[AnonyMouseCowWard]

Your number is based off of _two_ years of history, right in the greatest market crash in recent history, when your own article says:
"Interviews with more than 100 people with net worths (or former net worths) of $10 million or more, and a wave of new studies on the rich, suggest a different cause: the "financialization" of wealth. Simply put, more wealth today is tied to the stock market than to broader economic growth."

Again, from your WSJ article:
"When the economy grows, their incomes grow up to three times faster than the rest of the country's. When the economy falls, their incomes fall two or three times as much."
[...]
"Suddenly, in 1982, the wealthiest broke away from the rest of the economy and formed their own virtual country. Their incomes began soaring higher during good times. The top 1% of earners more than doubled their share of national income, to 20% as of 2008. Looking at another measure, the richest 1% increased their share of wealth from just over 20% to more than 33%."

How about this one instead, coming from the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485): "CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
65 percent for the next 19 percent,
Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
18 percent for the bottom 20 percent."

That is through the 1987 Black Monday crash, the Gulf War, the Japanese bubble, the dotcom bubble and what have you.

So can we please agree on one thing? Over the longer term, in modern times, there is increasing disparity of wealth in the United States. It doesn't matter that the rich's income or net worth drops by 50% during a recession. The individuals involved will possibly get it back once the market recovers, and regardless, the rich as a social class are earning more and more.

Re:1% vs 99%

[dyingtolive]

Frankly, your tinfoil hat theory did pop into my head as well. Here's the counter tin-foil hat theory though: The douchebags that you're describing have been the ones consistently shown by popular media which is, in turn, owned by the people that are the target of the protest. I don't need to show where this train of thought goes.

The less hatter theory is that showing intelligent people making well informed statements about what they want changed who are living within their means but disapproving of the way things are done simply isn't as good for the ratings as showing some mocha-brained hipster who jumped on board because he's all angry at the establishment because it beat him to being established before it was cool.

Finally, I'll close by asking what is hypocritical about having nice things but desiring to change the system? Is there a particular salary level in which that you lose your "right" to complain? If so, does it vary by region, like cost of living? I personally know one person under the age of 35 who DOESN'T have a smartphone, and that's because she's a self-proclaimed anachronism. With subsidized plans, phones aren't all that much money up front anymore, and as such, really aren't the difficult to buy. I suppose I could see you saying that they're not "have nots", and as such, they don't provide an image representative of what you would respect representing their movement, but there's a big leap between that and the abject hatred they receive. What would be the ideal face for OWS then, anyway?

Re:1% vs 99%

[Anonymous Coward]

the OWS has become a new litmus test of sorts: I can immediately identify assholes and sociopaths (online and IRL) simply by hearing them talk/write about how they feel about OWS. the ones that are symathetic are the real human beings. the rest are crude, unrefined gutter animals who feed on the rest of us; our pain and our hard work. its really easy to see who your friends are when you talk about the protests and the movement.

I can tell who the idiots are on Slashdot. They use ad hominem attacks against broad classes of people. Slashdot idiots are not real human beings.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic; but something tells me you're not.

As for my own feelings on OWS, there are a lot of facets of progressivism that I favor; but I won't join OWS or have anything to do with it. Why?

1. Actual communists and/or people toting Che Guevera posters as icons. How can anybody think that's a solution if they have any knowledge of 20th century history? Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life there.

2. Co-opted almost immediately by public employee unions, which bankrupted the city of Vallejo and will bankrupt every city and state if they get the chance. Meanwhile, the real 99% are not only not earning union wages, but paying taxes to support the PEUs, which funnel money to Democratic candidates, which support the PEUs. Rinse, lather, repeat.

If there were an honest-to-god movement to stop the corporations *and* the unions, a real movement against corporatocracy regardless of the flag it waves, then I'd join that. Sadly, OWS isn't it and neither is the TEA party.

The thing that really got me about OWS was early on when they quoted a couple women who said something along the lines of "finally the Americans are being more like Europeans". This really got to me, because one of the triumphs of America is that while Europe devolved into Fascism and Communism during the 20th century, the USA was more moderate.

What this country needs is a Theodore Roosevelt--a corporation buster but not a union man like Obama.

Counter-protests!

[jabberw0k]

Signing up for news bulletins from the people you oppose, raises the delightful opportunity of staging counter-protests that are _larger_ than the "originals." This can be utilized to the great amusement of nearly everyone involved. Have fun!

Misleading

[EmagGeek]

Make no mistake, the protesters themselves are not doing any of the work to build the site.

What is really happening is that the wealthy, politically-connected financial backers of occupy (you know, Occupy, INC), are paying to have it developed.

They are not getting it

[mapkinase]

The whole reason social media is helping protestors is because a lot of people are using it for a lot of very different reasons.

If you limit your new social network to one course, it won't be as popular as general purpose social networks

Instead they should try to build a new social network platform for general purpose, that will be more resistant to attempts to control it. May be that is exactly what they planned to do, if only I had determination and will to read the actual article :-)

what's next?

[joren02]

Are they gonna set up their own internet too?

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[Flyerman]

I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[BlueStrat]

I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.

I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D

Strat

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[BlueStrat]

Modern Progressivism and Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

Fuck your sig. Liberalism is a mental disease.

I think your sarcasm detector is broken. If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were so great, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.

Their ideas and policies are so bad, nobody would pay them any attention unless government made them mandatory.

That was the whole point.

What's that thing they say here on /.?

Oh yeah.

WHOOSH!!

Strat

Meaningless. Revolt or get lost.

[bravni]

If I see these guys putting top investment bankers' heads on spikes or something, then I will take them seriously. With fear and respect. Otherwise, they are just whiny hippies.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[Tim4444]

This little exchange is representative of what's been happening in the lead up to the Republican primaries with each candidate (save for Ron Paul perhaps) trying to prove they have the biggest straw man bat.

Of course none of this has anything to do with whether or not OWS people really represent the 99% they claim to be or why anyone would think that a technology that has thus far apparently contributed to their continued existence would suddenly need to be rebuilt from the ground up. I suppose first they'll need to invent their own Internet running on their own OS's and hardware before they can get back to protesting whatever it is that they're protesting.

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets...

[Anonymous Coward]

The enemy is us.

We allow banks, corporations, and the government, to make decisions for all of us, that are crap, and getting worse.

The problem is education. All the individuals have different ideas as to what the problem is, so we argue among each other.

Your post is a perfect example. You figured out that the government is fucked, but you're going to give the fortune 500 a pass. You're going to give Goldmans, Merril, Citi, Morgan, and all the rest, a pass.

If all the individuals with their various "isms" attached to their beliefs, don't align on just a couple of things, we're going to lose.

And what does losing mean? It means that while nature takes it's course, and cleans our economic clock, we'll end up poorer and less free, because of top down centralized reaction to the full stepping down of American productivity and relevance.

It's going to happen one way or another. If we, the individuals, recognize that it's coming, and force the governments, corporations, and banks to do things that will do less harm to us, then we will lose less.

Maybe someday, when we find solid ground, we can start again on growth. Other countries have done it. We can be great again AND responsible. Maybe not the greatest, but us being the greatest, was in large part by making a deal with the devil.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

What is a liberal or a socialist?

It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[rednip]

Ron Paul is all about the straw man. He calls his 'The fed', sure it might sound a lot like the the banking arm of our federal government, but to hear him talk it's the root of all evil, well that and the EPA and you can probably find him complaining about fluoride in his old newsletter.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[BlueStrat]

What is a liberal or a socialist?

As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.

To name but a few.

It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.

Oops, I think I poked a big hole in your straw man.

My bad.

Strat

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I think you just proved mine. Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal". The world is not quite so binary. Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets...

[Attila Dimedici]

did the government force the rating agencies and banks to repackage said loans as A, AA, AAA packages and sell them to investors?

No, because, for all intents and purposes, it was the government, in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that repackaged said loans and sold them.

Polls Say Different

[Phoenix666]

In October polls indicated that the majority of Americans agreed with the points Occupy Wall Street was raising. Coverage has waned, attention spans have shifted, and holidays have happened since then but a plurality still support them despite constant work by the corporate media (esp. Fox) to paint them as dirty no-good hippies.

When you look at what they're about, and what the Tea Party was/is? about they share core beliefs, the prime among which is that the American people have lost control of their government. If OWS and the Tea Party put aside their relatively minor differences, realized they're two sides of the same coin, and worked together the 1% would be out on its ass in a fortnight. For all of our hand-wringing to the contrary, Americans are not passive Chinese or Russians who will take endless abuse, and we are still a relatively heavily armed people. Yes, the US military has citizens outgunned, but can you really see any military commander dropping napalm on suburban Houston?

When you put OWS and the Tea Party together they are the 99%. No amount of corporate media brainwashing can annul that because the underlying issues are deep, systemic, and unresolved. Tomorrow the reaction may march under a different banner than OWS or the Tea Party, but continue it will. I suspect, though, that OWS and the Tea Party were the last friendly warning the 1% will get to straighten out and fly right.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[BlueStrat]

Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".

First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.

Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

Strat

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[SteveFoerster]

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.

That's not socialism, that's corporatism. I don't like either of them, but I recognize there's a big difference. By contrast, the UK's National Health Service is socialist, because the state owns everything and is the sole (or at least overwhelmingly main) provider.

In other words, socialism isn't just the absence of a free market, it's more specific than that. And it's an important distinction, because these days corporatism is at least as large a problem and not enough people are naming it and shaming it.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[barjam]

Healthcare in the US is already socialized due to the fact that we do not refuse emergency medical services to the uninsured. Are you advocating that we no longer provide emergency medical services to the uninsured?

We already pay nearly twice what any other industrialized nation pays for health care with lower % of people covered and worse outcomes in just about every category. And yes I am familiar with all the arguments for why we have worse outcomes in the US.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[daath93]

You are guilty of brandishing the "But Republicans" paint brush broadly. Nevermind a Republican was the figure head of the Civil Rights movement (Martin Luther King Jr) while it was opposed mainly by southern Democrats (Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and, especially George Wallace of Alabama). There are many Liberal Republicans and many Conservative Democrats.

I think what is needed here is to stop labling people by party. Most of the "socialists" in occupy and other movements proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact), and most progressives do likewise. Modern Liberals follow progressive policies defined as growing the government to create a society where social justice is the norm. This means there would be no rich, no poor, and the goverment would regulate that status quo. Social justice dictates that the rich must pay for the poor because the poor are unable to pay for themselves.

The Conservative argument is that in America, these programs promote a wellfare state in which we make the poor complacent with "free stuff" (paid for by the rich) and they give their governors more power in exchange. That this system does not encourage people to become self sufficient and successful.

I would further posit that progressivism is slavery in disguise, bringing me back to Martin Luther King Jr who had a dream of all americans being equal to "open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children." The point being they would be provided opportunity, not handed wellfare checks and told to sit down and shut up, the Government is here to take care of you.

Have a nice day.

Private profits are not "Socialist"

[mathmathrevolution]

Socialism: an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.

In a socialist society, capital accrues to the public. Having public dollars go towards private companies is the exact opposite of socialism.

When you say ignorant shit like "Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist" you are only proving how abused and hence meaningless the term "socialist" has become in modern political discourse, especially among the right.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[cayenne8]

That's all those occupunks really want. Let the hypocrisy fests begin!

I hear ya....I keep thinking, hey couldn't all this time doing facebook pages and tweets...be better spent trying to get a fscking job...or create your own business??

Don't get me wrong..there injustices in the world, and it is good to protest, but most of what I saw after about day x3 of the Occupy thing...was people bitching about "Banks got a bailout..where is MY bailout"? And shit like that. The protest message I got more and more was that it was a bunch of kids there with expensive macbooks and iphones with a sense of entitlement bitching about not having life handed to them on a silver plate.

I'm sorry, but in real life for 99% of us...we don't get the easy way in, we have to work for what we want...not everyone gets a fucking trophy for just participating, and no one gives a shit about your self esteem.

Sadly, we've raised a couple of generations of kids that have been raised this way...and now they're seeing that the real world just ain't that way. In the real world, people throw the dodgeball at you and try to knock your retainer out of your face...

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[cayenne8]

Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.

Making them more efficient, is not a bad thing.

But having the Federal Govt. overstep their enumerated powers granted by the Constitution to mandate what types private companies can make and sell is tyrannical.

If someone can make more efficient light bulbs, market them and find a market for them...fine. But it isn't the governments job to make their market for them at the expense of others.

Re:Extraordinary ignorance.

[cayenne8]

The reason rich people don't want equity in society is because they want to keep all of their stuff. That's it. There's no shining moral justification for it: they want their third and fourth vacation homes, their exotic luxury cars, their private jets and million dollar birthday parties, and you and your whole community can burn in hell for all they care.

Err...what's wrong with this? People work and figure out how to do things...you seem to have an objection to them keeping what they earned through whatever actions they (legally) took to aquire such wealth and possessions?

Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt? And what does morality have to do with whatever a person attains as long as it is acquired in a legal manner?

I can't afford 2x new Porsche Turbos...but I have no problem with someone that can and does. Heck, if I do things right and am a bit lucky...I KNOW I can someday own two of them too.

These are the ideas that our nation was founded on: you are no better than me, nor is the King, nor is the Pope, nor is the Banker. We play by the same rules, because all men are created equal, and we deserve equal treatment in front of the Law.

I agree 100%. We are all equal under the law, and should be. However, this is not mutually exclusive of someone doing better than someone else and attaining wealth.

The US was built on giving everyone equal opportunity and freedom to go out and try to succeed. It isn't about equal outcomes however. If you are free to succeed, you are also free to fuck up, fail and even die in a Darwin Awards type fashion by your own actions.

Re:Extraordinary ignorance.

[deanklear]

Err...what's wrong with this? People work and figure out how to do things...you seem to have an objection to them keeping what they earned through whatever actions they (legally) took to aquire such wealth and possessions?

Bill Gates without taxpayer infrastructure would be just a guy named Bill Gates. Same goes for every rich person in the United States; that's why Africa doesn't have anything like the Silicon Valley. While I agree that people have a right to earn money, it's limited, just like every other right we have.

Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt? And what does morality have to do with whatever a person attains as long as it is acquired in a legal manner?

You almost had it... it's you and me through the federal government. That's how democratic governments work.

Morality has everything to do with it. If we, as a society, let children wallow in poverty while a tiny percentage of our population makes millions of dollars per day, we're making a moral choice: feed, clothe, and educate children, or let one person have an amazing set of priceless art in his fourth vacation home. Those are choices, and choices always have moral consequences.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[jschottm]

Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist.

Ahem.

The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei

[pnuema]

I think you've missed the point of the OWS. Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally. They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, people who did everything right - got good grades, borrowed money to pay for school, and got a degree - none of them can find a job. Not only can they not find a job, the government is doing nothing to help them. The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed. It is not that they want a "bailout" - what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.