Slashdot Mirror
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."
Then they will be in the 1%.
Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.
I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
"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.
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?
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?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
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".
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
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.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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
Take the Red Pill.
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.
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.