Gurak examines two of the earliest instances of collective activism online. Think critically about the "double-edged sword" Gurak describes in the Clipper Chip and MarketPlace protests: the power of online collective action versus the peril of adopting false group information. As you think about these benefits and dangers, take into account recent digital events that you have witnessed, from Twitter coverage of Iranian protests to right-wing e-mail campaigns to "prove" that Obama is not an American. How do the principles Gurak provides apply to contemporary social movements online?
I found Gurak's ideas of "instant ethos" when joining a group and letting the person feel connected to the group dynamic, then trusting the prominent voices that contribute to that group to be factual as a good pattern to explain the "death panel" situation that came up this summer. The drama started and blew up online with Sarah Palin bringing up the "death panel" idea in a Facebook note, then other conservatives and anti-Obama people adding fuel to the fire, while democrats were trying to put out said fire.
ReplyDeleteThe online beginning and later coverage allowed for a debate between the different parties at a fast pace because of the speed and reach of the internet, which is a semi-new dilemma. Also, like Gurak stated, the information that gets out so quickly isn't necessarily accurate, much like the death panel dilemma. I think that the spread of information this quickly and in this way is dangerous because a lot of people look to the internet to get their information, and there are not many ways to control what is put on the internet and verify if it is accurate.
Twitter, although classified as another social networking website like facebook and myspace, is actually new and unique in it's own way. Two of it's differentiating features include it's quick and easy nature (within it's limited amount of characters per tweet) while also has the ability to broadcast to the public (this is seen in the hashtags, which allow a person to input keywords and find tweets by topic). These qualities make it possible for protestors from Iran to collect and provide snippets of their own news. It is created by the average citizen, and is very hard for any one authority to control. Twitter and the Iranian Protest illustrate the double edged sword very well: as mentioned before it allows for easy mass protest, where many people separated by physical barriers and distances can get together for one collective cause. But at the same time, as we talked about in class, we cannot assume all of the information provided by the citizens to be completely true. Followers of the protest might make assumptions that the ideas, feelings, and opinions might be true, but they might not be.
ReplyDeleteThroughout our society several examples of Gurak's principles of activism online can be found. People continue to use the internet as a form of communication to spread their ideas and opinions about certain issues or topics. The two earlier forms of protests that were initiated online as described by Gurak were the Clipper Chip and Marketplace protests. Both situations greatly disturbed the people and the computer allowed for people to voice their opinions and protests to people all around the world. I think activism online is vitally important in our society because it allows for common ethos or, "people of similar interests and concerns to communicate easily." In addition, the internet allows for mass communication in a matter of seconds or minutes, which is a huge change from the struggling communcation prior to online usage. The double-edged sword is a downside to this mass communication because despite its positives of the easy, quick spread of similar ideas to people of common interests, it also allows for a spread of inaccurate information. Not all people online know all the facts and sometimes can list opinions of theirs that are turned into facts to others and therefore taken as the truth. The Obama email issue was a vital example of this. As a contender for president, it was known that he would recieve some sort of negative publicity or controversary surrounding him. The spread of faulty information, such as him not being an American, but a Muslim, or him not saying the pledge of allegiance were all allogations that were accepted as the truth and spread quickly and to mass amounts of people. Overall, there will be both its benefits and dangers to activism online as it continues to progress and be used in our society, however with most things, there always has to be a downfall to have its benefits.
ReplyDelete-Allison R.
The first example I thought of when I heard the topic for this blog post was about political activism was the controversy over the speech that President Obama delivered to schools across the nation. I have a very divided family politically, and right after this piece of news was put on the Internet, one of my cousins started a Facebook group protesting the speech. About thirty of her friends joined right off the bat, which made me think of the "instant ethos" idea in the reading because my cousin's friends immediately felt connected to the group's message. Looking at the wall posts, I noticed that there were two or three people who kept on posting messages for the group to see, and it was obvious that these three (one of which was my cousin) were the main information providers for the group. I noticed though that some of the things that they were posting on that wall weren't necessarily accurate, and whenever someone would try to counter their arguments that person would be shut down so quickly that it was ridiculous. There was a lot of false information flying around, which reminds me of the "double-edged sword" in the Gurak reading. It is great that everyone wants their opinions to be put out there for the world to see, but many of the opinions of these kids in this group were based on false information, and they were spreading this false information to all of their friends too.
ReplyDeleteThis is the problem with online activism; while it makes it easier for people to get involved in issues, politics, etc., there is so much false and biased information being put on the Internet that we never really know what is true. And because we never know what the truth is, we form opinions based on erroneous facts, and act accordingly.
As I was researching current digital events, I found an article about LGBT groups rallying via FaceBook, YouTube, and Twitter, organizing physical protesets and such, all thanks to these social networking systems. The National Equality March was organized this way. They used these sites so that "before and during the march, protesters could follow the march’s official Twitter feed for any logistics matters." This certainly showed the positive side of collective action - as Gurak said, these groups joined together to "organize people with common values" and allowed "many citizens to participate." I completely agree with Gurak when he says that these communities establish an ethos, or "a group quality, one which characterized the entire group by its collective sense of character and values." The members of these groups all rallied together around their common ideas and beliefs, united against the larger portion of the world.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, though, I couldn't find the other side of the sword - the false infomation side, the "peril" that comes with the "promise," the "exclusionary power of strong communitiy ethos, propelled by rapid delivery across corporate, organizational, and national boudaries." The closest I could get was that it would have been easy for people to post false information about rallies, as in start a pretend rally. As far as I could tell from the article, though, there was no circulation of false information, but I know that in general there is a lot of false information, as Gurak said.
In case any of you were interested, my article was from http://www.digiactive.org/ . This site also talks a lot about digital activism in general. I found it to be a very useful supplement to our reading.
ReplyDelete--Julia--
I think that online activism definitely is a "double-edged sword", because of how it can bring remote people together for a single cause and yet can also spread incorrect information. Gurak explains this by saying "Online communities often become self-selecting and may not challenge information obtained in cyberspace forms. Instead, participants choose to believe and subsequently post and repost because certain messages appeal to their shared values. …Messages with strong appeal may be reposted widely with very little critical review of the information content."
ReplyDeleteThinking about how it can spread information though, does anyone agree that that an argument can be made for the internet in general? Why else would we not be able to use Wikipedia or random websites? Because they simply aren't credible sources of news and information. This is why we're directed to legitimate websites and go to main news sources rather than Twitter, for example.
In terms of the referenced email campaign to prove Obama wasn't American, I wonder how many people actually thought about this and questioned it? I know a few people that were spreading the information online through their pages, and I had to ask them why and all they had was that they heard it somewhere online. Like Gurak described, they didn't challenge the information because it fit their values. When main news sources reported that he was in fact American, a lot of people accepted that simply as fact because they heard it from a credible source, not some random Twitter account or website.
I don't disagree how effective online activism is, but I do question, like Gurak, how much truth are in their sites and postings.
In class we have already established that the internet connects people globally through common interests. Activism online is another thing connecting people all over the world and it is a great way for people’s voices to be heard. When Gurak was discussing the online action against the release of MarketPlace, it reminded me of all of the political aspects of online communities. Protesting online is a great way to send out mass media on or against a certain idea. I have no idea how many e-mails I have received regarding Obama or Universal Healthcare or legalizing Marijuana. People are not only being activist out in the real world but in the viral world as well. Often it spreads faster online rather than in person because at the click of a button one e-mail could be sent to thousands and then forwarded to thousands of people thousands of times. Not only does this remind me about political agendas but also for charities. I am a member of countless charities online, on Facebook mainly. This also allows people to spread awareness and educate the masses not only on politics but on charity as well. Organizing protests online and signing petitions seems as though it would be much easier than in person. Gaining the attention of thousands is easier online than in person. “I argue that two rhetorical features, powerful and quick delivery on comptuer networks and a strong community ethos, were critical to both social actions because these features sustain such actions in the absence of traditional face to face methods of establishing presence and delivering a message” (Gurak 244) He argues that the “double edged sword” is that it connects a community of people yet it could be dangerous and even armed with false information. I believe that whenever a group of people unite under a common cause, especially political, it has the potential to be dangerous. The thing with the internet is that it has the potential to spread faster than through spreading it through word of mouth. Unfortunately not everyone can do the research that Guark did when investing the Clipper yet people do need to do little research for themselves to make sure that the information they are trusting is valid. This goes for televised news as well, everyone should have a second source. Considering the recent incident with the Twitter coverage of Iranian protests I believe it was complete with Guark’s doubled sided sword because it was a rapid way of creating a community and reaching out for help yet also many were cautious at first as to believe if the incident which people were writing about was valid or not.
ReplyDeleteThe twitter coverage of the Iranian protests perfectly demonstrates the “double-edged sword” mentioned by Gurak. On the positive side, online collective action was strong. Many people tweeted their observations and reactions to what was taking place, which allowed for quick, widespread sharing of information. The negative aspect of this was that many things that were tweeted were not entirely accurate, or were entirely the opinion of an individual. Those who were not in the midst of the action read those tweets and accepted them as facts, when they really should have viewed them more critically. Looking critically at social movements online can prevent them from becoming double-edged swords.
ReplyDeleteThe first example that came to my mind after reading about Gurak's double-edged sword was the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Although such theories advocate free speech and illustrate the promise of online communication, they also spread possibly inaccurate and dangerously erroneous information. If these theories were seriously considered by a significantly large group of people, one might argue that they are a legitimate danger to the United States government, as they establish mistrust and cynicism against those in Washington. Outlawing such sites, however, would prove to be an equally devastating move, as it would clearly violate the freedom of speech rights of the media. So, while it is important to thwart erroneous information, at what point does censorship violate constitutional rights? So far, it seems as though today's trend is to allow virtually all opinions in media to express themselves. The e-mail campaigns aimed against Barack Obama are a clear example of this. And, I would have to say that this is a good thing, as too strict regulations against opinions (however wild or implausible) would only establish a narrow minded state dominated by the tight grasp of an overly powerful government.
ReplyDeleteThe twitter coverage of the Iranian election/protests and email messages regarding Obama's nationality are prime example of Gurak's idea of "the double edged sword". Sites such as Twitter are easy to use and efficient, allowing users to reach thousands of people with the click of a button. However, the site is open to just about anyone, and allows false statements or rumors to be spread like the plague. Mass amounts of people read this information, and people tend to believe it because everyone else around them does too. A side example of this is Wikipedia. Anyone can post information about a given topic, but it is not always entirely fact-based. Email and Twitter enable quick communication to a mass of individuals, or as Gurak stated, "provide space for many more voices" than other forms of communication. The so-called double edged sword comes into play when false information is spread and then accepted by the public. In Gurak's words, "..the beliefs of the community may preside over the responsibility of citizens to make informed decisions". Reading information via emails, Facebook posts, or Tweets brainwashes us to believe that the information is true. Many times we don't even stop to question the material because we don't want to go against the grain, or because of an "instant ethos" created in a group that persuades us to one side or another.
ReplyDeleteOnline activism, although efficient and ground-breaking, can become detrimental quite easily. In the case of the Iranian debates, groups of people united and rallied against a larger adversary, but their beliefs were not entirely fact-based. The same idea applies to the allegations of Obama not being an American. Online activism enables information to be spread like wildfire, but it also enables lies to be spread just as quickly. As a result, we need to be far more critical of the information we take in, and reflect upon our moral values before adopting certain beliefs and opinions forced upon us.
As we have studied the development of new media throughout this course, we have pointed out the different possibilities of "suffering" that comes along with each advancement. Gurak's double edged sword represents this concept that with progress, there is always a downfall. It seems that as a class, we agree that most progress has been beneficial, and that we just have to learn to adapt to the suffering that comes along with the new media. In the case of online activism, I believe this will continue to be the case. Groups online do provide a sense of collectiveness or mutual experience—which encourages bonding and sharing amongst members. In society, convenience and accessibility drive society’s developments, and online activism is simply following the trend. Even if people were against online activism because of the transmission of inaccurate information or rumors, I don’t think anything would stop users because the majority of the public is smart enough to realize that not all information provided is from a reliable source. It is a choice to be a part of online communities, and people who find it beneficial can still participate without believing all false information. It is definitely a double-edged sword, so hopefully users will hesitate before believing whatever appears on the screen.
ReplyDeleteThe "double-edged sword" that Gurak describes is frequently exemplified on the internet. When I read the passage, I thought of Wikipedia. Although it is a great database for quick information, because the information can be edited by almost anyone, it is not always correct.
ReplyDeleteTo answer more specifically to the blog question: as I did a little research on Twitter coverage of Iranian protests, I stumbled across this website http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/06/iran-protest-photos-key-to-twitter-coverage.html.
I feel that this website is very accurate. It talks about the "double-edged sword" in that the news can be spread very quickly, but "the professional photographers and photo services that provide these photographs are going largely uncredited" which I believe is going to cause a lot of privacy and copyright issues in the future. Also, because people putting their own spin on the issues, it is difficult to tell what is true and what is biased.
As Gurak quotes in her essay, "computer-mediated communication has long noted this dichotomy: the technology provides the opportunity for more people to communicate, but at the same time it appears to encourage a tendency toward what has been called 'uninhibited behavior'.
ReplyDeleteNationally recognized topics such as the Iranian protests and election issues that have been publicized, discussed and debated on social networking sites are great current examples of this "double-edged sword".
The suggestion that computer communication inspires uninhibited behavior is accurate. There is less accountability when posting information or pictures on a computer. The average person with just enough computer knowledge to do normal tasks might not know how to prove the source of an image or news article.
Wikipedia popped into my head as an example of this win-lose situation that computer communication brings us. This user-edited encyclopedia offers accessibility to a vast expanse of entries that are written in words that most people can understand. The problem with this is that people who post information on the site might very well be biased or misinformed. People who change or post information to Wikipedia have no one to answer to and could skew certain articles or definitions to reflect their own beliefs to influence others.
Another example of this uninhibited behavior are social networking/information sites such as Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter. All of these provide an easy way to communicate with others, but behind a computer screen there is room for easy bullying, threatening, and sexual harassment that might not occur face to face. Such uninhibited behavior leads to real life violence and hatred and is to me a perfect example of the "double-edged sword" of which Gurak speaks.
Another example of online activism is the global warming issue. Whether people believed in global warming or in conspiracies, they gathered in mass groups to argue over the issue. The great controversy over the topic makes it a perfect example of mass amounts of information and misinformation being thrown all around. The chaos and confusion that was created obscured the truth and allowed false facts to be passed around as true. After both sides absorbed all the facts and the lies, they formed solid unwavering factions. No individual alone could have established any ethos on the issue, but with the group behind their backs, they immediately gain strength. While with their online community, "participants do not have to spend time making introductory remarks or defending the premises of their statements. This 'instant ethos' made it easy to reach individuals of similar values in short order, and when combined with online delivery allowed for both protests to focus quickly."
ReplyDeleteGurak’s description of the “double edged” sword of online activism is an essential discussion to the spread of information in our society. By now, we have already established that our society demands information more than previous generations. The fact that activism is more readily spread online and via the computer more easily and faster than old medias brings up conflict. Gurak uses the earliest example of this in the controversy over Market Place and the Chipper Clip.
ReplyDeletePeople identify with what makes them comfortable. It’s a historical trend that people will side with those who defend their self-identity and it is fair to say that most people are out to preserve their values and morals. With that said, activism plays a part in defending that sense of self. With the invention of the internet, activism takes on a whole new level of variety and caters to the person instead of the issue. The internet allows for so much false information to be spread quickly that activism online can relate to any opinion out there. Gurak discusses this in part by using the example of the political schemes on the internet about Obama and false information that was circulated gave those who were in agreement grounds for activism.
Gurak’s definition of ethos on page 247 lays the ground for what exactly is behind the activism that we may deem “false.” I interpret ethos as each group’s definition for why the stand for their opinion and the degree to which that is valid. I think this will be an interesting discussion in class since it is a branch of ethics, which is in constant debate both in reality and on the internet.
Sarah K.
Of course I agree with Gurak and all of my classmates that this "double-edged sword" is a very real issue that presents itself in collective activism online. I agree with Vanessa that this happening can be seen on Wikipedia, where lots of information is easily accessible, but not all of it is entirely reliable or based on the truth, yet many individuals are willing to accept the articles without much skepticism. It is important to always look at information on the internet very critically, because the transmitter could be anyone and s/he does not need any sort of credibility in order to post whatever on the internet. Gurak supports this point by saying that "in online discourse, the ethical character of the speaker often goes unchallenged" and individuals who take a leadership role in sending out a message "are often accepted as moral and credible even though the many Internet receivers of the message have never met the message's author(s) and in fact cannot be sure authors are who they say they are" (247). This means that society will often unquestioningly accept very biased writings that cite exaggerated truths that were selectively chosen in order to support the author's point of view. Although this provides the reader with an accurate depiction of the author's attitudes and provides the author with the chance to freely express his/her opinions, many people may interpret the ideas as facts and base their beliefs off of these falsehoods, adopting one side of an argument without seeing the whole picture.
ReplyDeleteCyberspace will definitely becoming a more widely used tool in the political arena because of its boundless accessibility and widespread influence. This includes being used as a way to contact representatives, rally support for a cause, and publicly protest policies and ideas. As Gurak notes, cyberspace allows for "rapid delivery across corporate, organizational, and national boundaries" (245). The speed at which people can communicate with one another provides the perfect environment for "people of common interest to mobilize quickly" (248). Individuals can contact thousands of other people across the world who share their beliefs within a matter of seconds. Ideas spread like wildfire because online delivery is so efficient in that it is affordable and astonishingly fast. However, its efficiency at spreading ideas makes it much easier for and more likely that radical and incorrect ideas will be spread as well. Unless people regard information on the internet with a great deal of suspicion, these false messages will spread just as fast as valid ones and will contribute to a less intelligent society. As collective activism online becomes more prominent, it will certainly contribute to the progress, downfall and overall change of governments and communities.
The “double-edged sword” plays and active role online. Many people unite on the Internet in groups or through websites for a common cause. There is a strong sense of togetherness as people all post ideas advocating something. An example of this would be the Taylor Swift vs. Kanye West controversies. I remember moments after the event happened on the VMAs people posted their opinion as their Facebook status. Scrolling through my home page I saw who supported Kanye West and who supported Taylor Swift, even who respected Beyonce for letting Taylor have her moment. On the other side “of the sword,” it is easy for people to spread false information on the Internet. An example of this would be websites such as Wikipedia and other sites that people can edit. People can also spread false information through websites such as celebrity tabloids. Examples of these sites are tmz.com and perezhilton.com.
ReplyDeleteGurak mentions Seiler letter, in which Seiler failed to check some of his facts regarding exactly what information Lotus was gathering and how that information was gathered.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this idea of having "instant ethos" upon joining a group is very detrimental to a debate. The group's ethos will pass on to new group members, who will not learn about the issue themselves, but from their previous notions and from the group. Groups of people exist who are trying to "prove" that President Obama is not American and those who continue to try to "prove" that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the government. Even the most knowledgeable of such groups do nothing but spread misinformation and biases by focusing on only one side of the issue.
In the right situations, the power of these groups is enormous. Just look at what 4chan did to Time Magazine's "Most Influential Person" poll.
The article: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html
The poll: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1886141,00.html
Gurak's ideas apply more today than ever before, in my opinion. For whatever reason, people are ready to believe just about anything online, so long as it at least appears credible or is reported by enough sources, regardless of the credibility. My comedy group actually abused this principle a few semesters back in propogating the myth that "McLovin" from Superbad was going to be attending the U of A. They each created accounts on various sites and posted this information where others could readily see it (Facebook, IMDB, Wikipedia, etc...). Sure enough, even though none of them had any kind of reputation on these sites, there were people who fell for it and were absolutely sure McLovin was coming to Arizona. So, there's first hand experience that this phenomenon is still happening today.
ReplyDeleteAs a person with a lot of right wing friends and relatives, I received dozens of e-mails about "Barack Obama's non-citizenship." Honestly, they made me laugh. I think the double-edged sword concept really applied there. For one, no matter how many people they got to sign on, they could not get others (like me) to get past the ridiculousness of their claim. The spreading of this false information coupled with the massive amount of people behind it pretty much embodies what Gurak was trying to say in the article.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree somewhat with the argument that some people have said that the double edged sword applies with Wikipedia. While yes, it is a large amount of people taking part in a massive collective action, I don't think false information is widespread on the site.
In my experience, the information on Wikipedia is accurate and mostly unbiased. Even if someone writes something on McCain's page like, "Jon McCain was born in 1243 and he sucks majorly," it would be corrected. False information usually doesn't or isn't permitted to last. Therefore, I don't think it's a double edged sword.
I think social media online, in general, is a double-edged sword. Social networks like Twitter, Facebook, and Myspace have made communication easy and have broken down physical boundaries that don’t allow people to communicate. However, it also has unfavorable aspects.
ReplyDeleteAs technologies advance, social media is continually blurring lines between social and business. Twitter use is extremely popular amongst professional athletes. Shaquille O’Neal has like 1.9 million followers. This popularity has brought a lot of controversy into the business of sports and sport’s leagues. Recently, I read that the cornerback on the San Diego Chargers football team was fined $2,500 because he tweeted a complaint about the training camp’s food. Yes it is great that athletes can engage with their fans directly, but it also brings controversy within the league. This I think shows the “double-edged sword” that Gurak’s associates with social movements online.
This article didn’t make for very contentious blog posts, did it? We all seem to agree that this “double-edged sword” (244) is prevalent in today’s Internet society. The spread of information and support is fast, but is it accurate? Take Michael Jackson’s death as an example. Whether or not he was actually dead was something people weren’t sure of. He died when I was at orientation, so I remember the conversation it stirred up between my future classmates. It was all over the Internet, but was it another case of false information, like Kanye’s supposed death, or McLovin going to UA (I actually heard about that!)?
ReplyDeleteI remember a story from a year or two ago, rumors that a famous male celebrity was dating someone else famous. The hate mail about the girl began almost instantly. Later, it was proven that they were not dating, but no one paused to consider that possibility while the story was big, choosing instead to join the masses of upset fans. This is a good example of the “instant ethos” of communities tied by affinity. One has to consider the fact that this wasn’t even a political matter! In issues of political relevance such as Obama’s birth certificate; corruption/scandal within the government; and protests of freedom of speech, the community may lash out more powerfully.
I suppose the ‘causes’ on Facebook also qualify as a sort of Internet rally, as I’ve been asked to sign a petition demanding the arrest of some guy and join various causes against animal abuse, child abuse/neglect, etc. By simply joining one demonstrates their interest in the cause’s goal. This exhibits the claim that “the trend appears to be toward an ever-increasing use of cyberspace as a political arena” (245), as more and more instances of political activism are apparent in the causes; various polls; and stickers and other decorations for the profile (like a Nobama countdown). Sometimes even my spam is political.
Because of the widespread accessibility of the Internet, ideas can get out there faster. No matter the content, someone out there will probably rally with you (as demonstrated by the ‘like’ button on Facebook. Just think of the possible ramifications of a ‘dislike’ button!).
“I read it on the Internet; it must be true!”
-source unknown
I am a firm believer in online activism. In this get-it-done-yesterday world, spreading the word through the online medium is an incredibly intelligent way to alert the community of goings on. Facebook makes it incredibly easy to donate and spread awareness by "Causes" applications and the ability to post events. My newsfeed is constantly swarmed with updates from TOMS shoes and the Make-A-Wish foundation. Online communities make it easier to not only alert people to such groups but to also donate as you can provide money with merely several clicks of the mouse. Additionally, some sites such as freerice.com make it possible to do good deeds in a free and easy fashion. Surely media is a "double-edge" sword in the way that it makes it far easier to distract yourself from causes or to think that you are doing something even when you are not. All to often we see commercials on television asking for donations and we stand idlely by. Media has made it easier to provide activism but perhaps todays society needs it to become even more easier.
ReplyDeleteThis quote sticks out to me as applying to new media, "...the speed and reach of online delivery along with a powerful community ethos made the issues clear and immediate accessible to thousands of people..." To me, that statement by Gurak sums up the power of new media to play a major role in activism. I agree with Gurak that activism online is cheaper, faster, and more efficient than other forms of activism.
ReplyDeleteI think Twitter is a good example of the promise and peril illustrated by Gurak. A few days ago, I saw "#beatcancer" tweeted by someone I follow (to be honest, I think it was Nastia Liukin). After less than 30 seconds of research, I determined that for every "#beatcancer" I tweeted, a penny would go to support organizations working to eradicate the disease. So, I tweeted "#beatcancer" several times (140 characters to a tweet, the phrase itself was only 11 characters long).
Altogether, over $70,000 was raised for four cancer organizations (sponsored by MillerCoors, eBay/PayPal and Genesis Today). Apparently we raised "more than a penny per tweet", so even if it was 2 cents per tweet...that amounts to a great deal of tweets! Not only was a lot of money raised in 24 hours, a record was sent for the largest mass message through social media. All this was accomplished without much organizaiton, in a viral sort of way.
I think this is an example of the great implications online activism holds for "promise" for various causes. However, I don't necessarily agree with "peril." Gurak states, "In our age of rapid-fire response, it is easier to simply send off a quick email than it is to research a decision." In the example of #beatcancer, I already knew that I supported any cause that is raising money to go to cancer research, cancer survivors, families who have been impacted by the disease, etc. I have been involved with such groups as the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen Race For the Cure--I already know that this is a cause that I support. And, I'd like to make the argument that it is easier to research a decision that it is to send off a quick email. I'm a compulsive Googler. If I'm unsure about something (like just today, a friend tweeted at me that I should support the National Breast Cancer Coalition), I simply type it into the Google box displayed at the top of Mozilla Firefox. I think it is possible to use a medium in which messages may be sent extremely fast and still be well-informed.
It is my personal opinion that the medium is irrelevant. People who wish to seek information will seek it, regardless of the mode of communicaton. Those who would mindlessly sign a petition will mindlessly retweet a message--I think that has more to do with individual people than the media at hand.
All in all, I think online activism holds much more promise than peril.
In doing research about contemporary social movements online, I stumbled upon change.org. It's been around since 2007 but it is a social networking site dedicated to advocating change in the world. You can support various causes and do all kinds of things apparently. What I couldn't figure out was whether or not people could share their own opinions. There does seem to be places where people can comment on articles or people's profiles though so it seems that there is at least some way to spread opinions. This site seemed to focus more on the "promise of online communication crossing the physical boundaries and allowing people of common interests and goals to meet and act across space and time." Aside from the ability to comment, it didn't seem that much of the peril often associated with the otherwise positive features of online communication were present. It seemed that most of the articles and things available on this site were legitimate articles written by knowledgeable people. But I could be entirely wrong about that because they are referred to as blog posts. In any case, I thought this site was really interesting and that it highlighted social movements online quite nicely.
ReplyDeleteOne example that I could think of that happened right here on campus (rather, on Mountain Ave. to U of A students), was when the house was being robbed at gunpoint and one of the students who was downstairs facebook chatted to someone upstairs to call 911 immediately because there was a robber in the house. While it's not exactly an example of online collective action, I do think it represents Gurak's idea of community and the fact that without this online community, the student may not have been able to contact the girl to call the police and the situation could have ended up in a much more serious result than just the robbing of the house. This is a prime example of what Gurak describes as "powerful and quick delivery on computer networks." In terms of this example and the other edge of the sword, I just think that there is always the potential to misuse these kinds of new media. I could see someone doing this jokingly to their roommate or friend and it turning into the police being called unnecessarily or something, and so there is that element of whether or not to believe what you're being "fed" on the internet. In this case though, I really do think there is a lot of value in communicating through these new media sources.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the collective activism is powerful, because after people post a protest, their friends and the people in their group will follow. Those people will spread the information to their friends and their groups, and the protest will continue to disperse. Within an online community, people who have the same belief could unite and fight for their belief. On Facebook or Twitter, the speed of spreading the message and following the message are incredibly fast.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the danger of the collective activism online is that the information that causes the protest may not be true or accurate. Some people put wrong information for political purposes and mislead people intentionally. The people who judge the whole thing based on the inaccurate information will be misguided and taken advantage by the people who plan the rumor.
-Duoduo D
Gurak states that "...all technologies bring with them both promise and peril." This reminded me of when we discussed how new media can cause suffering. The example I think of is the online spreading of music. When myspace first came out with the band pages you could not only add the song to your profile, but usually you were able to download it free of charge. Big names in the music industry usually had multiple sites that fans would make for them and publish their music free of charge for the myspace public. This was great for people who could not afford to download music and really promoted the exploration of new artists. The problem with this is, as we all can tell, that music was being illegally and wrongfully distributed. People were "stealing" music that did not belong to them that they did not pay for. This made it more accessible and flattened heiarchies, as Gurak talks upon, but also led myspace users to forget "the responsibility of citizens to make informed decisions."
ReplyDeleteThis feature is usually not accessible anymore, but with pandora and youtube internet users and able to view music videos and listen to music without purchasing the song. This enables people who cannot afford music to enjoy the same songs and have the same listening opportunities. This also hurts music artists because they do not make revenue on merely the amount of people who enjoy their band, but the amount of people who purchase their album, merchandise and so forth. The problem remains of people illegally downloading music through venues like limewire.
Online music eliminates huge barriers and hierarchies, but it also causes many music artists to hurt financially by the robbing of their music that transpires. Again this new media causes "both promise and peril."
Social networking sites like Twitter allow information and news to travel around the word quickly to potential hundreds or thousands of people. The public has the ability to learn quick tidbits of news without authority within a few seconds of it taking place, and these qualities make it possible for activism to take place quite naturally.
ReplyDeleteThe double edge sword causes a downside to mass communication such as Twitter because inaccurate information is so easy to spread, and it’s not possible for the receivers to know if the transmitter is reliable. The facts might not be straight and opinions are very easy to add. Events are almost always accompanied by emotions or even imagination, so inaccurate information should not be a surprise. Nonetheless, it is believed because of “instant ethos” as it makes the receiver feel like they are part of the group.
The “double-edge sword” can be seen easily by the Iran attacks because it caused a quick and easy mass protest, yet those who heard the “news” did not know all sides of the story or even the legitimacy of the story. Nonetheless, they were able to cross barriers such as distance to unite against something they disapproved of.
As Natasha said, the internet allows us to connect together globally based on common interests such as activism. Activism allows peoples’ voices to be heard, but can come with a price if people don’t realize that they need to read the information with a grain of salt.
I agree with Guraks assessment that the internet encourages “a speedy response when in fact more research may be in order”. I believe a good example of this is the panic over the swine-flu vaccine. There is a lot of misinformation flying around about the vaccine, making it sound much more dangerous than it is. I believe that, unfortunately, many people are going to rely on the information in the anonymous emails they receive to make choices about their health. This is clearly a case where people should do more research and find out if the vaccine is really as dangerous as they believe.
ReplyDeleteTwitter has given the people of Iraq a voice and has made it easier to blog what they feel and the things that they witness and experience to a broad base of people so others can understand what is going on and how they are feeling about certain issues or events. They are now able to tell their side of the story in a limited number of characters but broadcast it to basically the entire world. Even though it gives them a voice, the authenticity of the story comes in to question. They do not have to prove the information they post online so the information could be more emotionally based then fact based. There is not always a way to prove whether or not it is true. The average American would not going looking for a verification of the truth. Although it gives people a voice because practically anything can be posted on the internet the authenticity of the source and the information comes into question. Some people take everything they find on the internet as true, which is not always the case.
ReplyDeleteHailey Rucas
Being the last one to probably make a comment. I would say that I agree with a lot of people who wrote comments above. These online communities are a "double-edged sword." They can bring both promise and peril. There is good and bad that can come from these new media communities. It is how we use them and look at them that can determine if they are good, bad, or both. It is true that many people believe what they read of the internet as true without checking sources or the article/website's credibility. This can create problems of it's own when people believe the wrong information.
ReplyDeleteIn the same way, online communities can be used to give power to online collective activism. This itself can have negative effects, but new media gives us new forms of communication and this is a step in a good direction. Now more then ever can people readily communicate with masses of people. In the past, this was only for the rich, well known, or for people of power. In today's society, the average person has the opportunity to easily reach a mass of people. Whether those people are listening or not is another story. Social movements can be started quickly and can gain momentum faster than ever before.
This is the "double-edged sword" of which we must be aware. We must not easily fall into the new social movement, but instead to tediously check our facts and decide if what we are wanting to believe is really the truth.
Though I understand that there are negative aspects of online communities, I cannot help but focus on the benefits. Activism is a positive thing in general, so I give kudos to online communities that bring people together to fight for cause, focus on an issue, strive for change, etc. Granted, the "double edge sword" idea is very apparent when the media comes into play. Numerous tweets from Iranians are hard to ignore, and yet also hard to believe because they are not coming from what would be considered a credible news source. (Though I would argue that most main news sources are not to be trusted either, as every station is run by humans and humans will inevitably have biases.) A more obvious example would be the magazines you see to your left or right while you stand in the check out line of a grocery store. Star, National Enquirer and the like all have witnesses and interviews to back up their stories on Britney Spear's love affair with an alien, or Bigfoot's marriage to Beyonce, or any other outrageous story that may make you roll your eyes or giggle. But the fact that they continue to be sold at your local Fry's and that they continue to produce new issues of the tabloid despite being sued for millions of dollars for printing false information means that people are buying into this stuff. It's the worst part of the double edge sword--not just the false information, but how some people will inevitably believe it.
ReplyDeleteone important thing to mention when talking about online activism is the online form of anarchy known as "trolling". people or groups will go on message boards or other sites and "hijack" them. one of the more famous trolls was when a person posted on oprah's forums, saying that he represented a group of organized pedophiles with "over 9000 penises, all raping little children". this is an obvious referance to the internet meme "over 9000" but oprah took the bait, and made a fool out of herself on national television when she read the post on her show. the person behind it had no political agenda, besides his desire to cause a little anarchy on a national level, which he most definitely succeeded in doing.
ReplyDelete