Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the will-it-have-games? dept.

Social Networks 451

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."

cancel ×

451 comments

Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their o (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537312)

Then they will be in the 1%.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537322)

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

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537592)

This is actually a plot from the suckers who invested in Diaspora trying to get their money back after whatshisname offed himself. You know, Diaspora really takes care about the tens of people global-wide who cared enough to register. And who run *nix (not Ubuntu because they sold out) using a weird *nix browser (Opera, Firefox, Chrome don't count because they're sell-outs) and who sent in a build scheme as they built their computer in their basement/home/love den.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (3, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537332)

Then they will be in the 1%.

They already are "the 1%".

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

My bad.

Strat

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537582)

Fuck your sig. Liberalism is a mental disease.

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (3, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537712)

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

Fuck your sig. Liberalism is a mental disease.

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

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

That was the whole point.

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

Oh yeah.

WHOOSH!!

Strat

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (3, Insightful)

Tim4444 (1122173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537830)

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

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

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (0, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537962)

No, it has to do with the fact that socialist take offence with the fact that they have to share their communications platforms with competing ideas. Not exactly news to anyone, that the tolerance of "liberals" is far below the freezing point, but hey ...

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537854)

In this day and age, a sig like that might actually be real.

(different AC)

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (2)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537478)

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

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (4, Funny)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537544)

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

I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D

Strat

Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (1)

RoLi (141856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537980)

Come on, Obama and Bernanke have already shown their support, they are already the 1%.

I guess they have to go to virtual reality because Occupy-camps have degenerated into an ugly multicultural nightmare [in-other-news.com] .

To know on what side an occupy-protester stands, just ask him/her whether he/she would abolish central banking.

They're still around? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537340)

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

Re:They're still around? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537354)

So why are you protesting?

Because... 99%! Banks are bad! Government! Greedy! Bonuses! 99% Banks! Bad Banks!

Re:They're still around? (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537396)

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

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

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

Re:They're still around? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537500)

Can you translate this into a arabic language?

Re:They're still around? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537796)

Sure!

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

Re:They're still around? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537552)

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

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

Re:They're still around? (0, Troll)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537684)

Or maybe because the media they wanted attention from got strangled by law enforcement on orders from the people they were protesting against.

Re:They're still around? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537612)

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

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

Re:They're still around? (1, Insightful)

whargoul (932206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537628)

4. Nobody takes them seriously because the way they go about their protests is offensive to 99% of the people not involved in their protests.

Re:They're still around? (5, Insightful)

ProfBooty (172603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537670)

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

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

Re:They're still around? (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537694)

A lot of people forget the tea party anger against big banks, bailouts etc.

Re:They're still around? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537936)

Wait, why would it make sense to team up with the GOP? The GOP doesn't want "less money in politics".

Re:They're still around? (3, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537960)

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

Re:They're still around? (4, Insightful)

timholman (71886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537674)

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

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

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

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

Re:They're still around? (1, Interesting)

flurp (2541198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537948)

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)

If you call sending a different color of corrupt, useless politicians to Washington "accomplishing something", then sure, they accomplished something.

Re:They're still around? (4, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537676)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:They're still around? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537730)

1. It takes time
In the UK we have finally started getting people to look at corporate tax avoidance after a year of protests.

2. People are getting bored says who, the media who are no longer intrested in it. There are definately thousands of people who are still there. The point of a protest is not only to get media coverage but to cause a change which while media coverage may help is not the only way.

3. the threat and use of force is no reason not to protest.

Re:They're still around? (5, Insightful)

dristoph (1207920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537808)

"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.

Soros-funded occupuppets... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537342)

... are creating a social networking platform (gorsh, we don't have enough of them, do we) in order to engage in more feigned outrage at their pretend enemy, preznit Ogabe.

(Get back to me when they start picketing Franklin Raines' office.)

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets... (0)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537806)

The REAL enemy is NOT the banks/Wall Street/Big Corps...Its FUCKING BIG GOVERNMENT!! The government that practically FORCED banks to make loans to people who had ZERO capability of repaying the loans. The government that falls all over itself to pass laws that are written by 4-letter groups who are part/parcel of the mass media, with said laws being totally against the Constitution. The government that not only ignores the Constitution, but actively works around it. As far as I'm concerned ANY elected official who violates his oath of office by sponsoring/voting for ANY of these UN-Constitutional laws that are being debated currently is guilty of treason. Yes, I know they will NEVER be tried for that crime, and yes, I know that except for a tiny handful of members of congress, ALL the rest of them are guilty of treason. Having been a Republican nearly all my life, I finally woke up halfway thru BushJr's second term that anybody with an R after their name is just the other side of the coin from someone with a D there.. Considering that the NDAA passed with nearly unanimous support by BOTH parties, and only a few rational, Constitution-loving R's (AND D's) voted against it, tells me that the Constitution, and by defintion, the country, is all but done for... Stick a fork in America, we are DONE... Everyone keeps talking about the 2012 election and how important it is.. I'm to the point where I doubt there will BE a 2012 election.. With the shellacking that the "New American Communist Party" got in 2008, I strongly doubt Dear Leader is going to risk allowing another debacle like that.. Knowing how corrupt this regime is, I'd not put it past him to stage a false-flag "incident" that inflames the country, giving him the ammo he needs to declare martial law, shut down ANY sources of info besides his pet media, better known now as Pravda or the Ministry of Propaganda.. If this occurs, we are well and truly done as the America *I* knew and loved...'

Re:Soros-funded occupuppets... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537988)

The enemy is us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One stop shopping (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537346)

For the police gathering intel on your little protests....

Re:One stop shopping (1)

Jarryd98 (1677746) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537374)

I'm not sure whether they've yet realised that, despite repeatedly using the term 'distributed', they're still designing a Honeypot(TM)?

Counter-protests! (2)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537448)

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

What history taught us is (5, Insightful)

TheTruthIs (2499862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537350)

Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.

Take a page from the Tea Party (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537360)

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

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537434)

I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but what makes you think that Tea Party members are in the 1%?

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537466)

I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but what makes you think that Tea Party members are in the 1%?

He's talking about them being less than 1% of the population.

Geeze!

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

"There's less than 1% sugar in this lettuce."

"What does the super rich have to do with lettuce?"

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (5, Funny)

whargoul (932206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537678)

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

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

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537446)

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.

Well, if the TEA Party is winning elections, they must by definition be a lot more than 1% of at least the subset of actual voters.

Thought experiment; If all the OWS protesters assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial, do you think it would be easy or hard to tell the photos of that OWS crowd from the photos taken of the 9/12 crowd based on the number of people visible?

Strat

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537716)

They win the elections where no one shows up. When they start winning elections during the presidential cycles then they might get some credibility.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537460)

Dude, have you ever taken a look at some of the people at a Tea Party protest? They look more like they belong at a NASCAR race...Rockefellers they are not.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537518)

The OWS started out with many of the protesters standing around being paid to stand around by the Unions. At its heat it is not a natural movement. It is a synthesized movement. President Obama has expected for months that he would be running against Mitt Romney. A man with a past firmly entrenched in Wall Street. This is all about framing Mitt as part of the 1% and the raising the ire of the American voter.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537604)

I'm sure it didn't affect the Tea Party's ability to get officials in office that they had the backing of several billionaires [nytimes.com] ... nah, money has no importance in politics.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (0)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537662)

I wish this wasn't posted anonymously. I also wish I had mod points.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (4, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537632)

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

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537950)

...and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement.

Which of the many hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of local, totally independent local TEA Party groups got that cash? Because all the local TP groups in this state that I know of run solely on member donations. They struggle to keep their hosting & bandwidth charges paid for their websites.

You do realize, I hope, that there is no one national official TEA Party, just hundreds and hundreds of little local orgs, each with their own favorite issues and candidates, and taking marching orders from no one, right?

Do some googling. It's not like this info is hard to find. Unless, of course, that info doesn't comport with your partisan biases and narrow views.

Strat

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537696)

I've just read the first four comments on this headline (and it is basically just a headline), and what most commentators miss is that 'change', if there is to be change, will occur if it does. I mean this in the sense that if it happens then it will have happened. And it will have happened because the time and the place and the energy was right to make a change. This does NOT mean the change is good but rather that something caused something to tip over causing a change.

We need to realise there is cause and effect and we can influence each of these.

Of course it would be nice if careful rational thinking or as an alternative 'god' dictated change but it is usually a lump of things overbalancing. Right and wrong nor cleverness got nothing to do with it. All we can do is try to make the tipping righter or wronger or cleverer.

Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537732)

It won't work.

First of all, you need to rub elbows with the media to get the air time you need for votes. And said media reserves the right to refuse anyone.

Second, said media is owned by the same corporate bastards responsible for the crap the protesters are fighting against.

How much air time do you think a tea partier is really going to get before their corporate overlords have them dumped?

And good luck setting up your own station. The pocket dwelling politicians won't let the FCC give you a license.

This is exciting.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537362)

There is something ELSE from the OWS for everyone to ignore!

99% of the..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537370)

99% are just the same devious bastards as they are protesting against, the problem for them is that they are not that 1%!

People always cry about unfair when they don't have it and as soon as they can get it it becomes reasonably fair!

The problem is not the 1%.....the problem is human selfishness! Anyone poor want to get rich, anyone rich, wants to get richer and in the end most wish to rule the world!

The problem is not financial systems or a group of persons that are greedy... the problem is 99% of the human race and not those hippies in tents on squares that cry about shit they don't have, cause they would not be crying if they had it!

Occupy..Anonymous (1)

Freelancealchemy (1522623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537386)

Maybe they can join in the endeavors of Anonymous since they were gkicked, haha. I would protest more if it meant anything, but I digress.

One Sided view really social media? (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537402)

It sounds more like propaganda.

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

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

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

Re:One Sided view really social media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537458)

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

First off, thanks for clarifying that it is not currently 1935, I hadn't checked my watch in a while and you saved me the trouble. Second, we are not in a depression, neither is any part of the first world. We're in a recession, and there's a big difference.

Re:One Sided view really social media? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537534)

Yea the difference is after the great depression they renamed them as a recession because it sounds better.

This is a heavy recession, I would say it is a depression. We had Depressions before, and it isn't the Great Depression no where close to as bad, but it is on par with other Depressions we have had.

Re:One Sided view really social media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537820)

No, that is not the difference, and the term recession didn't gain popularity until the 1970's. There isn't really a 100% agreed upon definition for recession or depression, but the current economy does not qualify under any accepted definition of depression. It really isn't even a "heavy" recession, just a very long one. As for depressions, there's only two periods in US history referred to as depressions, the 1870's and 1930's and the current economy is not even close to on par with either one of them.

Re:One Sided view really social media? (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537508)

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

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

Re:One Sided view really social media? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537548)

Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need any more. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.

I earn enough. I work for my money. I don't fuck up other people's savings while getting huge bonuses.
That being said, the "they" you refer to is a big group with many different demands. Even if they don't all say the same thing doesn't make them wrong.

I guess everybody wants good healthcare and education for them selves or their kids.
I also guess the anger about outrageous bonuses will fade, after a while. First people will feel ashamed for betraying their old principals. Then they'll just trade them for a new set of principals.

Bad summary, horrible headline (4, Insightful)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537410)

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.

Re:Bad summary, horrible headline (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537680)

Thank you for that explanation. It makes some sense that they don't trust FB to be anonymous enough, but on the other hand, if you go off and start your own social network composed of people who think like you, how do you draw people to the cause?

Re:Bad summary, horrible headline (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537726)

If the service is built with police states in mind it may be harder to block than facebook. They may host it on the TOR network for example.

Missing the Point (4, Insightful)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537414)

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.

Re:Missing the Point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537432)

The Occupy movement has been nothing but a circle-jerk from the start, and this idea just further propagates that notion.

Re:Missing the Point (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537752)

Speaking of which, how long until some corporate overlord has a personal nerve struck and plants a TOS violation on these guys to get them removed?

Er what? (3, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537418)

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

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

Re:Er what? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537590)

I was starting to write about the same thing, when I saw your reaction.

There are already tools for the 1% of the 99%
Sites like IndyMedia...

For the 99% of the 99% there is Facebook and Twitter :)

Louis CK for President (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537428)

http://LouisCKforPresident.com

So, whiners gonna whine and moochers gonna pretend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537442)

Now by distancing themselves from the physical world and dedicating themselves to trolling on the Internet, the Moochers shed their last semblance of worthiness. Good.

1% vs 99% (3, Insightful)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537444)

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

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

Re:1% vs 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537554)

Kudos!

Re:1% vs 99% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537602)

Hope you have excess Karma, because the Trolls with mod this into oblivion.

BTW, I think you are being too easy on these fucks.

Re:1% vs 99% (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537720)

I'm thankful as hell that some young people care enough about other people to protest on their behalf against a rigged system that is the very definition of corruption.

So fuck you and everything you stand for you libertardian shill.

Re:1% vs 99% (4, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537736)

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

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

Re:1% vs 99% (0)

berwiki (989827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537886)

I don't know why you are so angry at people trying to make your life better.

What a bunch of jerks!

Misleading (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537450)

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

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

They are not getting it (2)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537452)

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

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

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

what's next? (3, Funny)

joren02 (2131408) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537468)

Are they gonna set up their own internet too?

Pointless (1)

ieatcookies (1490517) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537482)

I can understand the desire to move away from Facebook for communications between activists but trying to create a new social network is just not going to work. Like it or not, everyone is on Facebook and twitter. Want your cause to be picked up and spread around then you need to get it on the social net with all the people.

funny (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537486)

because they don't at all represent them

FB and Twitter are "social networking", not . . . (1)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537504)

. . . "social change".

If they were, then, with full inter-web access, the protesters on Wall Street would have been as successful at bringing about change as were the protesters in Tahrir Square (sometimes without it).

Is it still September? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537514)

Neither me nor any of my technically minded friends are so cynical and jaded as half the posters here on /. I'm wondering if this "recent" influx of people who:

1. disparage anything resembling empathy with other people
2. claim any invention from China is plagiarized from the US
3. display outright loathing for any other fields than IT or the military
4. claim to know exactly how to fix the budget/NASA/Iraq/Terr'ism
5. nitpick irrelevant details in posts or comments and willfully disregarding the issue being addressed
or
5. revel in any excuse for counter-culture chest-pounding by demeaning people who like things that are popular ...are really just a sudden influx of younger, less experienced and therefore more bombastic users.

Where are you, oldfags? Those of you who still care whether other people live or die, I mean.

Change (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537524)

Holding hippie demonstrations and posting online isn't going to change anything.

As Americans, you have TWO powers to make change:

1) Your wallet- you can decide how to spend the 25% of your money that doesn't go to one of the hundreds of taxes.

2) Your vote- you can decide which candidate to vote for, help make others aware, and pick/find/support a different kind of candidate.

Focus on those two things. My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over.

Re:Change (1)

Thavilden (1613435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537668)

I think "hippie demonstrations" and posting online are part of that "help make others aware" bit in number 2. But since you then follow up with that 1 and 2 don't change anything anyway, I guess the thesis still stands.

Re:Change (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537784)

The demonstrations and posting online are not helping people become aware of a solution or cause of action. It is just complaining.

And 2) *can* change something, just not easily, and not if you vote for people solidly in the two party system. You either have to look for a change candidate that barely fits in party box (like Ron Paul) or support another party. It is a long shot- because, probably, for another party to work, there has to be reform, like elimination of the electoral college and changing to a runoff type voting system. I doubt the two parties in power will allow such changes.

Re:Change (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537802)

Number 1 is not any use because the fat cats can out vote Joe Q Public and his buddies any day. Plus with them able to get federal reserve loans at zero percent, and make infinite money by lending them out at exorbitant rates, they can always get more.

I propose number 3: Stop using credit.

A big source of the 1 percent's lifeblood is interest revenue on credit that the 99 percent are using.

But have people tighten their own belts and stop letting interest bleed them dry while the corporate vampires just get fatter, and you'll see change.

If you want the enemy to starve, the last thing you do is let them milk your cows.

Re:Change (1)

truavatar (2463178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537848)

"My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over." You do realize that this point is exactly what the OWS protests are about, right?

Re:Change (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537982)

That is not the message I got from their protests. It was more of just complaining with no rally to any particular goal of action. To many, it just looked like a generic cry of support for extreme "left" Socialism.

Looks to me... (1)

AkaKaryuu (1062882) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537542)

like SOPAs first target.

Re:Looks to me... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537816)

If Facebook's "all your base are belong to us" TOS doesn't nail them first.

Status Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537578)

It's very nearly 2012. The social networking craze is played out and old news. Apparently the new "thing" is LLBean duck boots. I con;t wait for Justin Beiber's take on them.

Posted from my iPad 3

Using Drupal (1)

jduhls (1666325) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537666)

FTA:

an open-source content-management system for web sites called Drupal, which [the system] will run on.

Discuss.

Meaningless. Revolt or get lost. (5, Funny)

bravni (133601) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537734)

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.

Imagine if they put some energy into a job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38537790)

These people are pimples on the butt of society.

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Here .. let me fix that for you ... (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537952)

What started out as a minor whine-fest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide whine-fest thanks to the use of social media.

There, a far more accurate portrayal. When this group comes up with something that is concrete and doable, it will be a protest. For instance, the only way to eliminate corporate influence in politics is to also kick out Unions, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace and not let anyone have any access to any politician. The only way to eliminate corporate greed is for someone to determine how much is too much and then enact laws. Of course, those useful idiots forget that it also means limiting the income of athletes and movie stars and the 'good' corporations like Ben and Jerry's.

Please .. can we ignore these morons so they can go away. They had their moment in the spotlight, until 99% figured out how useless they really were.

Why do they need secrecy? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38537964)

I would work for complete visibility instead. Use that energy to put people up for elections. Set up a site to let people know who candidates are and where candidates are needed. Give people the ability to participate in writing legislation. Choose candidates that will agree to push that legislation when they get elected. The 1% have money to buy votes for their candidates. If the 99% stay visible and active and get people to vote for their candidates they will make a change.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...