Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Digital Activism Is Effective, Mostly Non-Violent
vinces99 writes "Digital activism is usually nonviolent and tends to work best when social media tools are combined with street-level organization, according to new research from the University of Washington. The findings come from a report by the Digital Activism Research Project run by Philip Howard, a UW professor of communication, information and international studies. 'This is the largest investigation of digital activism ever undertaken,' Howard said. 'We looked at just under 2,000 cases over a 20-year period, with a very focused look at the last two years.' He and his coauthors oversaw 40 student analysts who reviewed news stories by citizen and professional journalists describing digital activism campaigns worldwide. A year of research and refining brought the total down to 400 to 500 well-verified cases representing about 150 countries. The research took a particularly focused look at the last two years. Howard said one of their main findings is that digital activism tends to be nonviolent, despite what many may think. 'In the news we hear of online activism that involves anonymous or cyberterrorist hackers who cause trouble and break into systems. But that was 2 or 3 percent of all the cases — far and away, most of the cases are average folks with a modest policy agenda' that doesn't involve hacking or covert crime."
DDOSing a website isn't really violent either. In spite of the libertarian perspective on the matter, property doesn't intrinsically require protection.
The government needs to false flag the destruction of a famous skyscraper, preferably with some styrofoam rc planes with webcams attached and piloted by the community with all crowdsourced parts. Then we can up the NSA budget to 5000%. Free proctology exams for every citizen!
So a group of digital activists either commissioned or performed a study that demonstrated that digital activism was effective? I'm shocked--shocked!
So is "Sitting In" at a restaurant. But sometimes in life you feel like you have to do something, and sometimes you don't want to be violent.
Forcing yourself on others in any way is violence. If you don't leave, if you block a path, don't kid yourself that your are not being violent and potentially inciting a (well-deserved) violent response.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"we hear of online activism that involves anonymous or cyberterrorist hackers " Do we? The activism I hear of mostly is people on Facebook trying to get sympathy for a certain cause only to be followed by a few supporting comments then promptly forgotten about. It's why the term slacktivism was coined. Millions of people all happy to be angry in front of a keyboard but too lazy to do more than think bad thoughts.
A study claiming to find that digital activism is highly successful is not really believable when it is conducted by those who profit from it's success. Like most studies, this one would benefit from disinterested researchers and is about the same value as drug studies by drug companies (or perhaps less so since there are no regulators that need to be snowed).
I read that as
Study Finds Digital Activation Is Effective, Mostly Non-Violent.
I think we need to oppose it more violently
I need more sleep
How do you define 'best'.
Aren't the USA's average joe & jane in a let's say a rather shitty predicament?
If you don't see that -- that's what I mean when I raise the question.
Could it be that the 'terrorism' has been institutionalized?
When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning.
Using an accepted definition is not "stretching words."
I have to go with "Your Master" on this one ... stretching words to mean what you want, to the point that they become accepted results in them losing all meaning.
Here is an example: ! Using "literally" to mean figuratively, to the point that Websters now lists "literally" as a term that means "virtually"! "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally" - If that isn't a sufficiently obvious case (for you) of an accepted definition of a word that stretches it to the point of losing it's meaning then perhaps vocabulary lessons in English are in order?
Harm is not hurt. Financial loss is not pain. A business is not a person. A sit-in is not violence.
It damages the ability of others to act. It damages the ability of others to go about their day as they wish.
If I come and sit on your favorite chair in the restaurant I did not "damage" your ability to sit on that chair.
I've merely hindered it for a while.
Damage is a permanent alteration to something which reduces the functionality of said something.
You won't suddenly forget how to sit nor will the particular chair become unusable forever because I sat in it.
That is... unless you have a problem with someone of my color/age/sex/ethnicity/political affiliation/taste/whatever "contaminating" a chair available to the public, which you've gotten emotionally attached to.
I that case - you have bigger problems then me "breaking your ability to enjoy your special chair".
Violence will meet violence. Making people angry and then having them respond is anger is totally understandable. That is after all the point of the "non violent" action, to make some people angry, Punching them is hardly any different.
So by that logic, cause your bullshit nonsense of a comment is hurting me by its sheer lack of logic or reason, causing my brain to try to comprehend such nonsense by trying to think like you, and thereby making me dumber... I am free to gun you down in the middle of the street.
Or run you over with a car. Or poison the town's water supply cause there's a chance that I will get you too. Before I burn it all down.
Hey! You were hurting my brain. That's violence and you're making me angry.
I'm just taking it to the logical conclusion according to your appropriate response scale.
Something makes you angry - you punch someone.
Someone hurts your brain - you poison and cremate that person and everything in a five mile radius around them.
Appropriately and understandably.
What happened?
Someone died and left you that 5-digit ID?
You won it in a poker game?
You fell down some stairs and now you're dumber?
You got old, senile and grumpy?
Or were you always such an illogical obnoxious prick?
On a second thought, you better not answer that.
I don't have time to kill and burn more than everything in a 5 miles around someone.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Sadly, many of these activists don't do their homework and are living proof of the 90%-bullsh*t Rule of the Internet.
snore.
Actually corporate world. Obama care is an insurance scam favoring insurance companies. follow the money.