Tom Friedman, delivering more insights from taxi drivers and luxury hotel staff
The chorus of pundits gleefully declaring the end of the “Facebook Revolution” continues today, when none other than Thomas Friedman gets in on the action. Friedman does little other than recapitulate Francis Fukuyama’s piece from last week (and at least admits that this is what he is doing). But that doesn’t mean the argument is any more coherent.
Three points are important to consider: Continue reading
This repugnant Mark Steyn op-ed is merely the most open elaboration of a new meme travelling through the American punditocracy, namely that because an Islamist and a remnant of the Mubarak regime finished 1-2 in the Egyptian presidential election, Facebook has been proved useless (and of course, Egypt is lost to the “Shariah-enforcing, Jew-hating, genital-mutilating enthusiasts of the Muslim Brotherhood”). While the matchup of Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi and former Muberak PM Ahmed Shafiq is hardly ideal, it also not yet a foregone conclusion, as there is a pending court case against Shafiq’s candidacy that may yet disqualify him. There are also credible rumors that Shafiq was illegally assigned 900,000 votes, vaulting him ahead of the third-place candidate, Hamdeen Sabahy (Abel Moneim Aboul Fotouh did not finish third as Steyn mistakenly asserts in his article). Continue reading
If You Flash It, They Will Mob
A Thursday flash mob in Cairo’s Ramsis Station has been drawing some press attention, as reporters seem determined to figure out what the purpose of the event was. As usual, reporters try their hardest to emphasize the pointlessness and essential frivolity of any kind of digitally-organized gathering.
The point of this post is not to decide whether or not the flash mob constituted street art or some other political protest. It is to try, once again, to complicate our understanding of what constitutes success and failure in digital organizing. Continue reading
From the Arab Spring to Occupy, the events of 2011 highlighted the potential of new technologies for advocacy. But new tools are more likely to facilitate social impact if they’re used by people with the right training and support.
This isn’t happening as much as it could. Why? I think it’s because of a few big challenges facing the field of support for digital advocates. First, there’s a lack of information from the ground about what is actually needed. Second, trainers are too often flown in from thousands of miles away for a few days of workshopping with no incentive to remain in contact with the advocates they trained. Third, remote training resources (like guides) often sit on the web without reaching those who might be able to benefit from them.
Part of why we founded the engine room was to address these challenges. Our first project, the Social Tech Census, aims to map the best resources for integrating digital media into advocacy work in order to inform the work of the communities of practice that we work with: advocates, support organizations and technologists. The Census is an important foundational step for us and (if all goes according to plan) will also be a useful tool for our partners.
But how, exactly, will it be useful for them? We decided to ask, and here’s what we found out. There are four main ways that groups we partner with will be able to act on the information that we’re gathering.
Any attempt to compile an exhaustive database of resources will ideally end up spotlighting gaps in what’s out there. We suspect this will be the case with regard to regions (where are all the francophone tech trainings on mapping tools?), issues (say, digital security versus strategy for online video) and types (ad hoc communities built on email lists or formal organizations) of support.
By shedding light on these gaps the Census should make it easier for our partners to better identify and understand demand in order to meet it. Here’s an example: say WITNESS is writing a proposal for a training program in a region that they’ve never worked in before. They could use the Census to identify and include hard data about the relevant training gaps in order to underline the importance of the proposed program.
The first step in launching any capacity building program (technology-focused or otherwise) is often to identify local stakeholders. You need these networks to engage with the most nuts and bolts aspects of your training effort (for example, identifying the right participants). This process is both time consuming and expensive. The Census aims to allow trainers to identify local actors and get necessary information from the ground in order to maximize the impact of their projects. New Tactics in Human Rights, for example, could use it to connect on the ground trainers with people who are already there providing support helping both to maximize their impact.
A lot of our partners have put quite a bit of very laudable effort into creating resources for remote learning so that they can help more people to become effective digital advocates. Take WITNESS’ Video Advocacy Toolkit, Access’ guide to addressing DDoS attacks or the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Surveillance Self Defense project. If they’re going to have as much impact as possible, these resources need to get into the hands of those who need them most. Partners should be able to use the Census to identify outreach partners who clearly understand information needs in target communities.
Will the the Census minimize the degree to which trainers have to be parachuted into new contexts in the first place? We hope so. The best thing we heard from one of our partners was that they didn’t want to fly across the world to give a training (or send one of their staff). They’d rather use the Census to connect local need to local support.
Do you work with an international organization or network that supports technology use in advocacy? We’d love to get your opinions- take this survey- it only takes 5 minutes.
Image from infographic on IHub Nairobi (startupafrica.com)
Can the word “slacktivism” be reclaimed? Personally, I’d prefer it to die an inglorious death, be replaced in the short-term with less cynical descriptive terms like “small digital action” or “online tactic” and later by a catchier term (that hasn’t been invented yet).
However, some people, like the folks at Sortable who created the graphic below, are trying to reclaim the term. A slacktivist isn’t an ineffective armchair activist. Slacktivism can “build awareness of an issue overnight.” Slacktivists are more likely to donate $ and volunteer (offline, I assume).
Is slacktivism a term that should be reclaimed or is it too “naοve and condescending… misinformed and misleading”, too toxic to use?
This month’s Atlantic cover story is called “Is Facebook Making Us Lonelier?” and features an arresting image of a couple embracing in an electronic glow, while the man looks at his smartphone. It’s unquestionably a great cover, but it’s also a profoundly bad article. In it, Stephen Marche argues that “we have never been more detached from one another, or lonelier.” He lays the blame, unsurprisingly, on Facebook. The only problem withwith Marche’s thesis is that it is wholly unsupported even by the studies he cherry-picks for his article. Continue reading
Kony 2012 began as an unexpected viral video that Invisible Children, a California-based non-profit, uploaded to Vimeo on February 20th and to YouTube this past Monday. Today those two videos have over 65 million views, “Kony” is a trending topic on Twitter, and the phrase “Kony 2012″ returns over 4,000 hits on Google.
Yet, perhaps because of its wide reach, the video has had an effect that is rather different than what the creators intended. Here are some lessons learned:
1) Long and serious can go viral…
“Viral video” is a byword for visual chewing gum: short, stupid, easily sharable entertainment. Of the top viral videos of 2011, as identified by Time.com, the longest was 3 minutes and 48 seconds long. The most popular was the so-bad-it’s-almost good autotuned monstrosity “Friday”. In my digital activism trainings I tell participants that 3 minutes is the absolute upper limit for an advocacy video. After that, people would just stop watching.
These two truisms about viral video – that short and goofy are most likely to be shared – have been presented with a significant opposing argument: Kony 2012, the longform video on a serious subject, has been passionately shared and viewed.
Kony 2012 did not break the rules of video construction. Rather, it abided by them with rare skill. The video proved that by living up to the requirements of advocacy video – visually appeal, strong emotional hook, accessible narrative structure, inspiring call to action – one can break the seemingly iron law of distractibility: if an advocacy video is good enough, its length can stretch to several times what was previously possible.
2) … but the model is problematic.
Yet I wouldn’t recommend that other NGOs blindly follow the Kony model. The first reason is cost. While we don’t know how much the Kony video cost, we do know (from Invisible Children themselves) that the group spends 46% of their annual budget on “media and film creation,” “awareness products,” and “awareness programs.” The video also features sophisticated motion graphics (animation), computer-generated effects, and a soundtrack of recognizable pop songs, all of which costs money. Is a massively popular video a better way to serve their cause than building another school or another early warning system in Uganda?
The second problem with this model is that in order to uphold the strong narrative structure that made the video engaging (good guy, bad guy, struggle, climax), the film-makers were forced to greatly over-simplify the situation in Uganda. First of all, Joseph Kony, the war criminal they want to bring to justice, isn’t based in Uganda anymore, and is far less of a threat than he once was. The list goes on.
You can’t have it both ways. You can discuss your cause in an accurate and nuanced way, or you can simplify it to make it easily comprehensible and immediate. The question is where to set the balance between accuracy and accessibility. I think Amnesty succeeded in this video, which is also creatively ambitious and features high production values. In it the scene of one political prisoner being saved by supporter petitions is told intentionally in symbolic terms as a dramatic allegory. The question of whether Kony 2012 set the right balance between accuracy and accessibility is harder to answer. They reached many more people by presenting a misleading message. Was this the best way to help their cause?
3) Popularity won Invisible Children the blessing of mass awareness… and the curse of mass scrutiny.
Most organizations that create sharable content want the content to enhance their organization’s brand as well as achieving the campaign’s objective. There’s nothing wrong with that. An organization with a recognizable and credible brand (think Amnesty, Greenpeace, Doctors Without Borders) can fundraise and campaign more easily. Invisible Children probably hoped that the campaign would help them achieve their goal of seeing Joseph Kony arrested and also enhance their own brand recognition.
The video certainly did increase their brand recognition, but not in the way they intended. From the first day that video starting spreading quickly – around March 7th – skeptical stories began appearing. These stories weren’t just coming from liberal academics and Africa-watchers but from mainstream news outlets and pop culture blogs.
Invisible Children was not ready for the institution scrutiny they received. They could not have known that their video would go viral, but that was certainly their intent. The video is clearly ambitious. They should have made sure their own house was in order before taking an action to increase their public profile. At the very least, they should have ensured that their scores on public nonprofit monitoring services, like Charity Navigator, were above reproach. They also should have come up with better responses to potential criticisms. As it was, they responded with a rather petulant Ke$sha quote, which did not raise their credibility.
4) When your medium is social media, you really can’t control the message.
Invisible Children relied of a sympathetic public to share their video. The people were their medium. Yet users of social media do not just pass along content. They comment, they challenge, they respond. This is not what Invisible Children wanted.
It’s telling that Invisible Children’s action kit, which they pitch at the end of the video, includes posters. A poster can be distributed socially, but it is not meant to be interactive. You either hang the poster or do not. You’re not expected to doodle on it or add your own message.
Invisible Children hoped supporters would pass along their videos and post their posters passionately but uncritically. They treated the public as a social media audience, one that would help them out without engaging them critically.
Yet this is not how social media works. Journalist Paul Ford says that the fundamental question of the web is “Why wasn’t I consulted?”. Asking a supporter to share content is implicitly asking them this question. For all the care and skill they put into their video, Invisible Children had no control over how it was ultimately perceived. None of us do.
5) The campaign was a success… but in an unexpected way
On Friday I unexpectedly spent spent several hours at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport (personal lesson: do not fly standby to SXSW). While in the airport I did something I rarely do: I watched network nears, CNN to be specific. During the 10 hours I was in the airport their were at least three segments on Joseph Kony and the situation in Northern Uganda on CNN (the only channel playing in the airport). Sandwiched between segments on poisonous face creams and the founder of Spanx there were three news segments about human rights abuses in Africa. That was pretty amazing.
It would be true to say that the Kony 2012 campaign changed the agenda, pushing this ignored issue into the mainstream (and new) media, but this is only part of the story. After all, the human rights abuses in Uganda are not new, it is a situation that has been going on for years. So what made it newsworthy?
The controversy of Kony 2012 was the real news hook. None of the news segment took the video at face value. One asked Mia Farrow (yes, a celebrity) about her criticisms of Invisible Children. Another segment was called “Kony: Setting the Record Straight.” Kony 2012 was successful not because it generated attention, but because it generated controversy. It was an imperfect campaign, but people will look back on it as a success, not for Invisible Children as an organization, but for the issue of child soldiers and for raising awareness of the human toll of conflict in Africa.
The wave of protests that swept through the Arab world last year – what we all call the “Arab Spring” – involved various methods of mobilization and communication of citizens that have since led to region-wide, progressive instances of revolutionary upheaval. At MAP, we’ve of course been paying most attention to the use of digital technology throughout. I’ve pulled out a few insights – some obvious (but worth solidifying) and some big-picture/not-so-obvious. Let us know what else you think is important.
Digital technology usage has become more sophisticated.
It’s not just to the benefit of the activists anymore.
We started to see this in Iran in 2009, when governments or anti-freedom groups started “fighting back” using digital technology. It happened slowly, and was not very effective or organized. We saw it more organized in the London Riots and othermovementssince.
The real notability of this shift came when I was speaking with a friend in Syria, asking him how things were, that it sounded rough from where I was standing (note: this was before it actually GOT rough), and he said point blank, “you can’t trust any of your media (by the way, he’s mostly American), or Twitter. They aren’t accurate, and we’re safe.” It turns out thatpeople had hijacked the hashtags to report fake bomb attacks andhyperbolizewhat was happening on the ground. Something we’d seen before, but to minimal degrees. (See below point).
Ok, who to trust….. Joe (that would be my first inclination, but…)? Twitter (this would be my second outlet, and first in the cases where I didn’t have a friend on the ground)? The press (but everyone tells you not to go there)?
And this leads me to the next high-level insight….one I’ve spoken about before…
Verification is super important!
In case you didn’t know…. but what’s happened now if that because these tools are in the hands of several different actors, there will be these hashtag hijackings and manipulation of information that we all need to be very careful of. Combine that with the fact that this digital information is being used for multiple purposes, this really muddies the waters. When getting fast information becomes the name of the game, it becomes more difficult to practice discipline when we’re consuming and especially sharing that information.
This is so important, because if it isn’t streamlined or worked out, it has the potential to ruin whatever systems are put into place moving forward. If we’re presented with a pile of information, no way to sift through it, and no way to verify it, I ask you how useful that pile of information is at that point – to activists orothers.
It depends on who’s being challenged and how receptive they are to public outcry.
Mary recently described the Arab Spring within the context of aConstructive/Destructive framework of network affects on nation states:
“In this example, networked actors used social media like Twitter to broadcast elite anti-regime narratives. This mechanism of international agenda-setting made it difficult for other heads of state to oppose the movement publicly, giving the activists a conducive international environment in which to push for regime change. Activists also used social media to mobilize the actual street protests which forced the Tunisian and Egyptians dictators from power.
In this example we see networked technology being used to challenge state power at the highest level by challenging the legitimacy of state institutions and the authority of rulers.We can say that its overall effect was positive since the political orders emerging in Egypt and (moreso) Tunisia are likely to be more democratic and concerned with public welfare than those that preceded them.“
We should watch out for Eastern Europe/Central Asia as a possible next hot spot for outbreaks.
Anyone who’s been following this region know 1) it’s highly volatile at the moment and 2) they’ve already used digital technologies to mobilize and communicate in the past, so they’re ahead of the curve.
Ok, do you have anything else for us? Also make sure to check out David’s thoughts on the matter.
Tahrir Square, January 25th, 2012
As hundreds of thousands throng Cairo’s Tahrir Square today in celebration, remembrance and continued vigilance, it is worth thinking through the implications of these remarkable events for our understanding of digital activism. My book on the Egyptian revolution is forthcoming, but if I could distill 5 important takeaways, they would be this:
1. If this wasn’t a social media revolution, then there is no such thing.
The role of online organizations (or organizations that began online) such as We Are All Khaled Said and the April 6th Youth Movement is well-documented. In discussions with activists in Cairo this past summer, individuals were quick to point out that “this wasn’t a social media revolution.” This line was so default that it was almost like activists had gotten together and agreed on the spin. It is certainly true that most Egyptians took to the streets because their friends and neighbors had done so, and probably never saw the clarion calls on WAKS. But all agreed that it was social media that issued the call, and in the words of the activist Amr Gharbeia, “We created the crisis.” The idea for January 25th originated with organizers who met and did much of their important work online. Of course that work had to be paired with street organizing and innovating tactics, but the reality remains: there would have been no revolution on January 25th without Khaled Said and April 6th and the dedicated efforts of their members. It might be better to call this, as I do in a forthcomingPolitique ιtrangθre article, a “networked revolt” than a social media revolution, since it avoids loading all causal responsibility on the technologies and allows us instead to take true stock of how those technologies contributed to the mobilization.
2. Social media activists have not inherited the political empowerment of the revolutions.
In both Egypt and Tunisia, the immediate political beneficiaries of the revolutions have been political Islamists, the long-banned Nahda in Tunisia, and the Freedom and Justice Party in Egypt, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Pessimists have been taking to the media and declaring the revolution a failure, or more pointedly, “doomed.” This is as predictable a narrative as one can imagine in the modern world, since observers on the global right have been suspicious of the revolutions from the very beginning as detrimental to U.S. security interests. This discourse overwrites the broad consensus in places like Egypt – from liberals to reactionaries like the Salafist Nour Party – against actually existing U.S. foreign policy and the complicity of local governments in the repression and dispossession of the Palestinians. In fact, anger about local and American foreign policies was one among many long-held grievances in these body politics, and the digital activists who failed to see their achievements embodied in parliamentary seats in fact share the broad antipathy toward American policy that is expressed by Islamist groups. Many of these activists are quite young, and WAKS and the April 6th activists are in fact more emboldened than ever, and are embarking on a political transformation they themselves know to be futile in the short run but critical in the long-term.
3. Digital activism remains a critical tool for those seeking to push long-term change.
In spite of having been written off by observers and lambasted for their year-long presence in Tahrir Square, digital activists have been at the forefront of all the major challenges to Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, as the activists seek to build a broad-based movement meant to challenge remaining elements of authoritarianism. Thus it was activists, still putting out their calls to demonstrate on Twitter and Facebook, who succeeded in pushing presidential elections forward to June, altering the electoral system, and instigating the first, albeit tiny, steps toward reforming recalcitrant security behemoths. Many of these activists are quite young, just out of college or in their mid-to-late 20s. It was simply unrealistic to expect these groups to suddenly descend like some deus ex-machina and snatch power away from groups like the Brotherhood, who have been organizing in Egypt for over 80 years and maintain strong public support through their social service networks. “We Know the Way to Tahrir” is still the rallying cry of activists who, while dispirited about the Islamist wave and angry at the obstructionism of the SCAF, still believe in the spirit of the revolution, and plan to use their whole toolkit – from digital organizing to street politics – to press whatever authority replaces the SCAF on issues ranging from military trials to the state of emergency.
4. An open Internet remains the world’s most potent macro-tool to challenge authoritarian regimes.
We all know the many ways that authoritarian regimes have adapted to, co-opted and rolled up digital dissent from Russia to China and Iran. But we should not confuse these short-term set-backs and authoritarian victories with the bigger picture – with an open Internet and an evolving toolkit of circumvention devices, digital activism remains the only real choice for many activists toiling under tyranny and hoping to build long-term movements to challenge authoritarianism. From Russia to Tunisia, the networked revolt has become the de facto choice of publics fed up with authoritarian excess and seeking to capture the spirit of Tahrir at home and internationally. Companies that supply authoritarian regimes with surveillance and blocking software should be called to the carpet in the global public sphere, as campaigns like Access Now add to the pressure on Internet-filterers and their apologists. No one can say that these campaigns will be successful in places like Syria, where authoritarian rulers maintain an edge in arms and resources, but digital tools are still one of the primary weapons of the weak even where service is cut off and disrupted, web sites filtered and attacked and activists are murdered in the streets. Without the open Internet, we would not know what was happening in the streets of Homs like we do, and the documentation of these brave activists will continue to provide an unfolding record of the cruelty and savagery of their tormentors.
5. Arab digital activists have increased the sum total of freedom in the world.
Again reactionaries lament the results of free elections, as do some activists, but the truth is that we now have real politics in parts of the Arab world, with more on the way, and those victories can be traced to the efforts of the digital activists. There will be temptations in policy circles to tamp down on our efforts to promote digital freedom and activism, simply because these revolutions brought to power groups whose interests clash with Washington. In the long run, however, the activists took a crowbar and wrenched open the door to democracy in this region, and their efforts should be applauded and appreciated. Policymakers, academics and international organizations should always side with freedom against tyranny, and furthermore, understand that digital tools will be one of the primary paths of resistance to any renewed authoritarian politics in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. The tsunami of dignity and courage unleashed by April 6th, We Are All Khaled Said, and Tunisia bloggers like the administrators of Nawaat cannot be reversed permanently, and in fact, activists all over the region now know that the formula for success includes a role for digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter. We must not confuse short-term policy disagreements with the long-term benefits of global democratic politics. Digital activism is the only way forward.
A year ago today Egyptians inspired the whole world, from the Occupy Wall Street protests to the Wisconsin occupations, and reminded us of the power that ordinary individuals can harness through the ordinary digital tools they carry around in their pockets. Yes there will always be corporate and authoritarian threats to those tools, and no they will not always or even usually succeed. But the networked revolt is here to stay, as are the activists of the digital world. And don’t be surprised if in a decade or two, they do indeed belatedly inherit the beautiful revolution they authored.
Note: This post by David Karpf, Assistant Professor in the Rutgers University School of Communication and Information, was originally published on shouting loudly.
- -
So this happened yesterday. It’s too early to pronounce SOPA firmly dead, but clearly the blackout proved to be an epic tactical win.
The blackout worked on three levels. First we have the immediate stated goal: educate site visitors about SOPA/PIPA and encourage them to contact their Member of Congress. This is basically a souped-up version of the standard action alerts that MoveOn, Demand Progress, Organizing for America and other advocacy groups send daily to their members. I haven’t seen any numbers, but I’ll bet that the Congressional phone lines were lighting up yesterday.
That said, heavy phone and e-mail traffic is nothing new for Congressional offices. The side that generates heavier constituent outrage doesn’t always win. Constituent outrage is one signal that Congress considers. They also consider expert testimony (firmly opposed to the bill) and the will of wealthy donors/affected industries (often expressed through lobbyists an excess of Hollywood money and lobbying influence is what got us the awful legislation in the first place).
It worked on a second level though: as news. Wikipedia going dark drew wide coverage. Even if you didn’t happen to visit Wikipedia yesterday, if you visited a news site or tuned in to Colbert, you found out it was happening. This forces politicians who were ignoring the issue to take a stand. Reporters don’t call and ask for positions on every issue, every day. Yesterday, they were calling about this one. And news coverage also serves as an approximation of public opinion for members of congress [h/t Susan Herbst].
Notice, however, that the blackout was news specific because it was original. This has never happened before*. Wikipedia doesn’t take political stances. Google doesn’t call on web-searchers to contact congress. The freshness of the tactic is what makes it newsworthy. If Wikipedia did this once a month, it would quickly cease to be newsworthy. This is the “advocacy inflation” problem that I’ve written about before [h/t Daniel Mintz, who suggested the term].
There’s a third channel of influence at work here as well: direct exposure. Congressional offices are busy places. In the course of the day yesterday, at least one staffer in every office probably Googled something or looked something up on Wikipedia. Many Members of Congress did so themselves as well. The blackout cut through the din of constituent calls and emails, lobby visits, and policy briefings. They saw it themselves, and it grabbed attention in a way that everyday persuasion and influence tactics never can.
Notice that this third channel works because of the sites involved. I thought it was great that DailyKos and BoingBoing took part in the action, but if it was just those sites the tactic would have been much weaker. Those sites draw tech-savvy and politics-savvy audiences. Even with the support of conservative sites like RedState, the average American is unlikely to see the content, and the only Congressional staffers who will see it are the ones charged with monitoring the blogs.
Overall, we should feel good about this one. It was a remarkable tactic, and demonstrates that the big companies in the digital environment are beginning to recognize that they have to push back against the big companies from the traditional entertainment environment. That’s no revolution Google is still a corporation, after all but it provides a bit more pluralistic balance in a policy arena that has been where the MPAA has gone unchallenged and unchecked for far too long.
*There was a sort-of precursor in the 1990s, when early “netizens” protested a managerial decision at geocities by turning their geocities pages dark.
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.
