Beta
×

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!

Study Finds Digital Activism Is Effective, Mostly Non-Violent

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the go-sign-some-petitions dept.

The Internet 69

vinces99 writes "Digital activism is usually nonviolent and tends to work best when social media tools are combined with street-level organization, according to new research from the University of Washington. The findings come from a report by the Digital Activism Research Project run by Philip Howard, a UW professor of communication, information and international studies. 'This is the largest investigation of digital activism ever undertaken,' Howard said. 'We looked at just under 2,000 cases over a 20-year period, with a very focused look at the last two years.' He and his coauthors oversaw 40 student analysts who reviewed news stories by citizen and professional journalists describing digital activism campaigns worldwide. A year of research and refining brought the total down to 400 to 500 well-verified cases representing about 150 countries. The research took a particularly focused look at the last two years. Howard said one of their main findings is that digital activism tends to be nonviolent, despite what many may think. 'In the news we hear of online activism that involves anonymous or cyberterrorist hackers who cause trouble and break into systems. But that was 2 or 3 percent of all the cases — far and away, most of the cases are average folks with a modest policy agenda' that doesn't involve hacking or covert crime."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

"non-violent" (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45494413)

DDOSing a website isn't really violent either. In spite of the libertarian perspective on the matter, property doesn't intrinsically require protection.

Re:"non-violent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494569)

It's still juvenile.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494647)

So is "Sitting In" at a restaurant. But sometimes in life you feel like you have to do something, and sometimes you don't want to be violent.

Ha Ha (0, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45494727)

So is "Sitting In" at a restaurant. But sometimes in life you feel like you have to do something, and sometimes you don't want to be violent.

Forcing yourself on others in any way is violence. If you don't leave, if you block a path, don't kid yourself that your are not being violent and potentially inciting a (well-deserved) violent response.

Re:Ha Ha (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45494807)

Indeed; Dictionary.com defines violence as

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

A sit-in (physical force) at a restaurant (something) is designed to hurt their business. Therefore, an act of violence.

Re:Ha Ha (4, Insightful)

Your.Master (1088569) | about a year ago | (#45495055)

Only if you use definition 4 of "hurt" from the same source. I think you know very well that the generally agreed-upon definition of violence is compatible with definition one of hurt, "to cause physical damage or pain", not all.

When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning. It's okay to say "I don't like violence and I don't like hindering legitimate businesses". That's way clearer than claiming that hindering a legitimate business is violence.

But actually, when I searched for violence on dictionary.com I didn't get the definition you're quoting:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence?s=t [reference.com]

There are some obviously similar definitions but none are the same or even close enough to just be a typo apart. In particular, the word "hurt" does not appear on that page.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45495301)

Only if you use definition 4 of "hurt" from the same source. I think you know very well that the generally agreed-upon definition of violence is compatible with definition one of hurt, "to cause physical damage or pain", not all.

It's a definition, so yea, it counts. I could also have substituted "damage" for "hurt," and since they're synonyms, it would not change the meaning.

When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning.

Using an accepted definition is not "stretching words."

Insisting that an accepted definition is not acceptable because it goes against your personal beliefs, that, my friend, is stretching words.

But actually, when I searched for violence on dictionary.com I didn't get the definition you're quoting:

Well, then, I guess Google lied to me. Bastards.

There are some obviously similar definitions but none are the same or even close enough to just be a typo apart. In particular, the word "hurt" does not appear on that page

Sounds like you need to expand your reference library. [thesaurus.com]

Really ?? (1)

MondoGordo (2277808) | about a year ago | (#45495861)

When you try to stretch words in this way they lose all meaning.

Using an accepted definition is not "stretching words."

I have to go with "Your Master" on this one ... stretching words to mean what you want, to the point that they become accepted results in them losing all meaning.

Here is an example: ! Using "literally" to mean figuratively, to the point that Websters now lists "literally" as a term that means "virtually"! "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally" - If that isn't a sufficiently obvious case (for you) of an accepted definition of a word that stretches it to the point of losing it's meaning then perhaps vocabulary lessons in English are in order?

Harm is not hurt. Financial loss is not pain. A business is not a person. A sit-in is not violence.

Re:Really ?? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45496043)

"Your Master" is trying to imply that because the 4th definition of the term isn't one he finds acceptable, it shouldn't be considered a valid definition.

If we were to allow every individual to determine the standard by which each word were defined, there'd be no such thing as dictionary, because everyone would have their own, personal definition of each word.

So, it's not "stretching" to say a word means one of the things that the dictionary says it means.

Here is an example: ! Using "literally" to mean figuratively, to the point that Websters now lists "literally" as a term that means "virtually"! "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally" - If that isn't a sufficiently obvious case (for you) of an accepted definition of a word that stretches it to the point of losing it's meaning then perhaps vocabulary lessons in English are in order?

That's just a consequence of rampant stupidity combined with that whole "PC" notion that you're not allowed to offend anyone. It's fucking moronic, and in no way has any bearing on or reflects the conversation we're having here. "Violence" has meant "to cause harm" for a long, long, long time.

Harm is not hurt.

Every thesaurus, ever, disagrees with that assertion, including this one [thesaurus.com]

Financial loss is not pain. A business is not a person.

OK, subjectively? I completely agree. However, our system of law is not based on my subjective opinion, and the system of law says that yes, they are people, and yes, financial loss is harm.

A sit-in is not violence.

Depends on which definition you're going by.

Hey, would you look at that! We just went full circle!

Re:Ha Ha (0)

BergZ (1680594) | about a year ago | (#45495575)

Stretching the word "hurt" to include sitting-in at a place of business is compatible with the way some people stretch the word "theft" to include taxes.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#45495429)

That definition is not in dictionary.com, what did you think you would achieve by lying?

Re:Ha Ha (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45495841)

Being mistaken != lying.

Blame Google, since that's where I got my info.

Re:Ha Ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495877)

Indeed; Dictionary.com defines violence as

behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

A sit-in (physical force) at a restaurant (something) is designed to hurt their business. Therefore, an act of violence.

It is called civil disobedience by the courts and has been deemed non-violent.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

ultranova (717540) | about a year ago | (#45496743)

A sit-in (physical force) at a restaurant (something) is designed to hurt their business. Therefore, an act of violence.

A sit-in is not physical force. The "something" spoken of in the definition is a physical object, not an abstraction like business. Changing the meaning of common words like "violence" for the sake of your argument means you've taken leave of reality and embarked on the path of madness. That's a rather high price to pay for pretending you're right on a pseudonymous Internet forum, don't you think?

Re:Ha Ha (1)

komodo685 (2920329) | about a year ago | (#45495063)

So is "Sitting In" at a restaurant. But sometimes in life you feel like you have to do something, and sometimes you don't want to be violent.

Forcing yourself on others in any way is violence. If you don't leave, if you block a path, don't kid yourself that your are not being violent and potentially inciting a (well-deserved) violent response.

violence
noun
1. behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

"Sitting in" does not damage anything. Disobedience is not by definition harmful and the last century has shown it can be central to movements doing great good.
It is precisely because the violent responses were so clearly undeserved and one-sided that those movements were successful.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45495659)

"Sitting in" does not damage anything.

It damages the ability of others to act. It damages the ability of others to go about their day as they wish.

We are higher order life-forms. If you cannot understand how impeding someone causes harm in modern society, you are not being rational.

It is precisely because the violent responses were so clearly undeserved

Violence will meet violence. Making people angry and then having them respond is anger is totally understandable. That is after all the point of the "non violent" action, to make some people angry, Punching them is hardly any different.

No it does not. (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#45497237)

It damages the ability of others to act. It damages the ability of others to go about their day as they wish.

If I come and sit on your favorite chair in the restaurant I did not "damage" your ability to sit on that chair.
I've merely hindered it for a while.

Damage is a permanent alteration to something which reduces the functionality of said something.

You won't suddenly forget how to sit nor will the particular chair become unusable forever because I sat in it.
That is... unless you have a problem with someone of my color/age/sex/ethnicity/political affiliation/taste/whatever "contaminating" a chair available to the public, which you've gotten emotionally attached to.
I that case - you have bigger problems then me "breaking your ability to enjoy your special chair".

Violence will meet violence. Making people angry and then having them respond is anger is totally understandable. That is after all the point of the "non violent" action, to make some people angry, Punching them is hardly any different.

So by that logic, cause your bullshit nonsense of a comment is hurting me by its sheer lack of logic or reason, causing my brain to try to comprehend such nonsense by trying to think like you, and thereby making me dumber... I am free to gun you down in the middle of the street.
Or run you over with a car. Or poison the town's water supply cause there's a chance that I will get you too. Before I burn it all down.

Hey! You were hurting my brain. That's violence and you're making me angry.
I'm just taking it to the logical conclusion according to your appropriate response scale.
Something makes you angry - you punch someone.
Someone hurts your brain - you poison and cremate that person and everything in a five mile radius around them.
Appropriately and understandably.

What happened?
Someone died and left you that 5-digit ID?
You won it in a poker game?
You fell down some stairs and now you're dumber?
You got old, senile and grumpy?

Or were you always such an illogical obnoxious prick?

On a second thought, you better not answer that.
I don't have time to kill and burn more than everything in a 5 miles around someone.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45495259)

Why is every "violent" action (even under your expansive definition) "well-deserving" of a violent response? If violence is undertaken to prevent/change a wrong, is counter-violence equally "well deserved"? So, if you sit-in to "force yourself" upon others to end, e.g., segregation, do you "deserve" to be beaten up? Maybe have your house firebombed, or your family lynched, for daring to do "violence" against the interests of the wealthy and privileged?

You wouldn't be alone in considering such responses "well-deserved" --- you'd be in the company of every KKK member who ever considered giving uppity negroes their "(well deserved) violent response" for daring to oppose the social order. However, I personally disagree with you and the KKK that "forcing yourself on others" to end injustice is "deserving" of violent retaliation.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45495615)

If violence is undertaken to prevent/change a wrong, is counter-violence equally "well deserved"?

Yes. Do you not understand? Violence begets violence. It doesn't matter what he violence is for, if you open with a violent action you should EXPECT a violent response. If you do not get one it's because the other party is being tolerant, and acting against humane nature.

you'd be in the company of every KKK member

Nice way to Goodwin your pathetic argument and misunderstanding of human nature.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45495741)

You didn't simply say that one should expect violence for, e.g., a sit-in protest --- you said one would *deserve* it.

I know to *expect* violence for pissing off the KKK, or whoever the current protector of status-quo injustice is. That's well proven by history, and I have no quarrel with the statement that it is in the "nature" of KKK goons to beat up a protestor against systematic injustice (responding to "violence" with violence). However, unlike you, I'm not going to side with them and call it "deserved" --- violence by an oppressor in response to "violence" (often of a far less harmful kind) by the oppressed does not stand on equal moral/ethical footing.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45496883)

You didn't simply say that one should expect violence for, e.g., a sit-in protest --- you said one would *deserve* it.

There's no difference between expect and deserve. If you use violence, it is human nature to get violence in response. Therefore you deserve what you should have expected. You do not deserve to be coddled, though sometimes that is what happens.

Re:Ha Ha (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45496961)

Sorry, I guess there is no common ground between your utterly amoral "might makes right" worldview of turning the worst aspects of human nature into "deserved" outcomes, and anything I'd consider a remotely plausible philosophical system. You wanted a Godwinning? Here it is: I suppose you think that Jews in 1940s Germany deserved to get rounded up and murdered by Nazis, because by then that's exactly what they should have expected Nazi nature to do. For me, there is a reason why "expect" and "deserve" are separate words: they actually do have different reasons, as used by everyone except a few twisted extremists like yourself, who have to go out of of their way to intentionally erase the crucial philosophical distinction between "expected" and "deserved" outcomes.

Re:"non-violent" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494665)

How so? It's not like people are DDOS'ing to get later bedtimes or increased allowance. They are doing it specifically to deny an electronic service for . Or is every single attempt to deny anything juvenile?

Re:"non-violent" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45494827)

How so? It's not like people are DDOS'ing to get later bedtimes or increased allowance. They are doing it specifically to deny an electronic service for . Or is every single attempt to deny anything juvenile?

Yea, kinda.

It screams "I lack the mental fortitude and acuity to argue my point effectively (or, my point is not worth paying attention to), and thus have decided to resort to the least-common-denominator of force to get my point across."

Grown-ups use their words.

Re:"non-violent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495001)

This is only practical when there are also grown-ups on the other side who actually listen to the words being spoken.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45495101)

So, what exactly are all of the successful changes that social activism has brought about for us so far?

Aside from stopping the SOPA type bill a year or so ago, I don't know of another meaningful accomplishment of this type movement. If you know, can you please list them for us?

Re:"non-violent" (1)

pepty (1976012) | about a year ago | (#45496533)

I read the original report:

http://digital-activism.org/download/1270/

Achieving Campaign Goals Another way of gauging the success or failure of a campaign is by analyzing third-party reports of whether the people who initiated the campaign achieved their stated goals. Many cases in the data set had no recorded outcomes, but we developed an indicator for those third-party or credible self-reports that demonstrated full, partial, or no success.

If someone familiar with social science statistics could explain to me whether table 3 claims that 25% of protests are successful or just that 25% of their sources fit their model or both I'd be grateful.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about a year ago | (#45497775)

People like to protest but no one ever seems to be able to offer up a viable and realistic course of action to correct whatever injustice they are protesting against. Tearing down governments, industries, or other society structures is relatively easy but without a clear plan of action for afterward you usually end up making things worse than they were before the protesting.

Re:"non-violent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45500169)

Grown-ups use their words.

That is excellent news. I'm looking forward to the money saved by the immediate abolishment of all armies. Since all injustices can be changed by words alone, they don't serve any purpose.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45494709)

Yes, absolutely, and quite frequently wrong. Just not violent.

Re:"non-violent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45497419)

That's why when grown ups want to get something DONE, they do something EXTREMELY violent! Time tested and true, from debt collection to growing the Roman Empire, experts agree, bloody carnage gets the job done. What you gonna do when I'm beating you to hamburger? Ping me? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:"non-violent" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494625)

In spite of the libertarian perspective on the matter, property doesn't intrinsically require protection.

I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for sharing this insight.
And on a totally unrelated note, can I borrow your wallet for a second? ... What? ... Oh, no reason.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45494817)

No, you misunderstand. The harm to people that a deprivation of property represents can represent a serious harm, just not an innate one, that's equal for all people. I just disagree with using property as the intellectual "stopping point" for the exercise of understanding crime, not that it's done at all.

Re:"non-violent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495827)

To take your point one step further. Lets say I stage a 'sit in' somewhere. Lets say it is because some restaurant owner said something I disagree with. I organized it all thru the internet. I fill his restaurant with max capacity. I am not doing anything physical. I am just sitting there. Now lets say I do this for 2 weeks.

Now. I have probably put several workers out on the street (as they are not getting tips to pay their rent). The owner probably will go out of business as he probably has loans to meet. Yet 'no harm was done'. Yet my sit in turned the lives of 50+ people upside down. But there was no 'harm'.

This is the 'click like to protest' way of doing things. Basically little or no effort put forth to disagree and it makes you feel good about something. Clicking like on facebook does not make you a vigilante. It makes you a lazy goit.

My point is non violence can be just as harmefull as just walking in and holding them up by gunpoint.

Re:"non-violent" (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45494835)

property doesn't intrinsically require protection.

So, your house doesn't have a lock on the door?

Cool; what was your address again?

Re:"non-violent" (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#45494919)

I never lock my doors and never lock my car either. A friend of mine used to leave his keys in his ignition and his car has only been stolen once, and then recovered later the same day up the road undamaged. Don't let fear rule your life, I've never met a crim that ever got deterred by a locked door.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45495331)

I never lock my doors and never lock my car either. A friend of mine used to leave his keys in his ignition and his car has only been stolen once

You do realize this anecdote about your "friend" (as well as your admission to having locks on your doors) actually supports my argument, don't you?

Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.

Further proving my point.

Re:"non-violent" (2)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#45495487)

>

Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.

Further proving my point.

Not in my country they can't. Sucks to be you eh?

Re:"non-violent" (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45495609)

Mod parent up. Problems with police state brutality aren't solved by becoming more terrorized by the mythology of lurking badguys around every corner, who will rob you blind if you don't have big enough locks and guns. If the police are a threat to your property, you don't need bigger locks to keep joyriders out --- you need to stop being so terrified of "teh badguys" that you allow police to waltz around stealing your stuff.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45495919)

>

Side note: Your "friend" is lucky - if the cops had wanted to, they could have claimed the person who stole it was wanted on drug charges. That would have allowed them to impound the car, shred the interior, and charge your "friend" for storage and labor.

Further proving my point.

Not in my country they can't. Sucks to be you eh?

It might be if I were stupid enough to leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#45522215)

Because a locked door is a well known deterrent to car thieves right?

Re:"non-violent" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45495161)

Sometimes I forget that the adjectives and adverbs I put in front of words tend to get dropped when people parse out the meaning of what I said, but the "intrinsically" is really really really crucial to my point. People can be harmed by the loss of their property, but the property itself isn't important in that, just the harm done.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45495363)

I know what intrinsically means, asshat.

The fact that people steal negates your entire premise, adjectives notwithstanding. You said nothing about harm in your first post, and honestly that's a downright pathetic attempt to move the goalposts. You said, "property doesn't intrinsically require protection," which is a false statement. Man up and own your mistake, instead of acting as a selfish child and attacking everyone who points out your folly.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45495455)

I don't think there was a mistake in my reasoning. You didn't point out something I'd never reflected on before. What you just said was obvious to you, right? Why are you assuming it's not obvious to me.

My position is simply that treating property as fundamentally important is a mental short-circuit that can avoid answering difficult but relevant questions sometimes.

I'm not calling for the end of property law in general.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45495901)

I don't think there was a mistake in my reasoning. You didn't point out something I'd never reflected on before. What you just said was obvious to you, right? Why are you assuming it's not obvious to me.

My position is simply that treating property as fundamentally important is a mental short-circuit that can avoid answering difficult but relevant questions sometimes.

Damn but those goalposts are hard to hit when they keep dancing around like that.

I'm not calling for the end of property law in general.

Ah, a communist. Well, I'll respect your right to have that opinion, and you're welcome to surrender all your property to the collective. In exchange, I expect you to respect mine, and leave me and the shit I worked for and own the hell alone. Otherwise, you're going to have a fight on your hands.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45501405)

Damn but those goalposts are hard to hit when they keep dancing around like that.

If that's your position then you clearly fucking lied when you said you knew what "intrinsically" means. Congrats on lying.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#45514385)

Yea, because the other possibility is that you're not nearly as clever as you think you are, and that just can't be the case, now can it?

That elephantine chip on your shoulder is causing your judgement to list, I think.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45514569)

No, I just mean what I say, not what delusional idiots pretend I say.

Re:"non-violent" (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#45495239)

It may be non-violent, but is it effective?

Re:"non-violent" (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#45495317)

No, I really doubt it is.

Re:"non-violent" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495813)

In Canada we don't resort to DDOS or other related activities. We have proven digital activism including social media, email, and petitions can change legislation introduced in parliament. The recent change by the "Big Three" wireless carriers now offering two-year contracts instead of only three-year contracts and month-to-month terms was the result of digital activism. The pending transition from forced channel bundles to true a la carte channel selection is another example of successful non-violent, non-disruptive (in the legal sense) activism lead by OpenMedia.ca [https://openmedia.ca]

Re:"non-violent" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45574125)

Not violent, no, but destructive I would say. Just as graffiti isn't violent.

Quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494453)

The government needs to false flag the destruction of a famous skyscraper, preferably with some styrofoam rc planes with webcams attached and piloted by the community with all crowdsourced parts. Then we can up the NSA budget to 5000%. Free proctology exams for every citizen!

Re:Quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45499177)

Free proctology exams for every citizen!

The NSA subsidies medical school?

Not a Surprise (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494515)

So a group of digital activists either commissioned or performed a study that demonstrated that digital activism was effective? I'm shocked--shocked!

Re:Not a Surprise (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#45495219)

Skepticism is healthy, but you're not being skeptical. Being skeptical of findings requires open-mindedness. You're not even bothering to read the fucking summary before dismissing the findings. From the summary, this is a researcher at a university. From their webpage, they appear to be funded by the NSF and several other organizations which are not digital activist organizations. [digital-activism.org] Stupid pessimism is often worse than being naive and believing everything that you read on the internet.

I'm starting an online organization to combat stubborn cynicism on the internet. Who is with me? Retweet #nomorecynisim2012! For every one person who joins my facebook group, five internet trolls will burst into flames.

Re:Not a Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45496123)

For every one person who joins my facebook group, five internet trolls will burst into flames.

Hey, now. With just a few Friends, You would kill all of Slashdot's Readers.

Re:Not a Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45499021)

Seconding this guy. I feel like most of the people who comment here notice that smart people are often skeptical, and in an attempt to come off as smart, just claim to be skeptical about everything. They end up being wrong (and fully convinced of their wrong-ness) just as often as people who aren't skeptical enough. The difference is the people who aren't skeptical enough, while functionally just as ignorant, aren't usually so terribly arrogant and unfriendly about it.

Liberal World! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494527)

Covered California has signed up 80,000 uninsured and forced 1.1 million
out of their plans. That means there are 1,020,000 MORE uninsured
people in California now than before this whole thing started.

Welcome to Liberal World!

Yeah, but it's more fairer this way and shit.

Re:Liberal World! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45499261)

snore.

Re:Liberal World! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45501039)

Actually corporate world. Obama care is an insurance scam favoring insurance companies. follow the money.

Meetup (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45494873)

Meet up is the world's largest network of local groups. Meet up makes it easy for anyone to organize a local group or find one of the thousands already meeting up face-to-face. More than 9,000 groups get together in local communities each day, each one with the goal of improving themselves or their communities. For more info, please visit http://www.meetup.com/

Slacktivism (1)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year ago | (#45494969)

"we hear of online activism that involves anonymous or cyberterrorist hackers " Do we? The activism I hear of mostly is people on Facebook trying to get sympathy for a certain cause only to be followed by a few supporting comments then promptly forgotten about. It's why the term slacktivism was coined. Millions of people all happy to be angry in front of a keyboard but too lazy to do more than think bad thoughts.

Re:Slacktivism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495243)

One of those heroe^h^h^h^h^h...individuals that was not lazy is our good friend, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Successful? Look who is counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495665)

A study claiming to find that digital activism is highly successful is not really believable when it is conducted by those who profit from it's success. Like most studies, this one would benefit from disinterested researchers and is about the same value as drug studies by drug companies (or perhaps less so since there are no regulators that need to be snowed).

I read that as: (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#45495721)

I read that as
Study Finds Digital Activation Is Effective, Mostly Non-Violent.

I think we need to oppose it more violently
I need more sleep

Question (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#45495853)

How do you define 'best'.
Aren't the USA's average joe & jane in a let's say a rather shitty predicament?
If you don't see that -- that's what I mean when I raise the question.
Could it be that the 'terrorism' has been institutionalized?

(r)evolutionary advances in momkind et pals (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45495967)

genuine nativity rocks (gently) civilizations little miss dna cannot be wrong

disarming is the new clear option for the crown royals' WMD on credit franchises

free the innocent stem cells

read the teepeeleaks etchings again please

They should all apply the 90% B.S. rule though (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about a year ago | (#45497915)

Sadly, many of these activists don't do their homework and are living proof of the 90%-bullsh*t Rule of the Internet.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?