Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99% 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."
Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their o (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they will be in the 1%.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:5, Insightful)
What is a liberal or a socialist?
It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What is a liberal or a socialist?
As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.
To name but a few.
It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.
Oops, I think I poked a big hole in your straw man.
My bad.
Strat
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you just proved mine. Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal". The world is not quite so binary. Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".
First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.
Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.
Strat
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:5, Insightful)
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.
That's not socialism, that's corporatism. I don't like either of them, but I recognize there's a big difference. By contrast, the UK's National Health Service is socialist, because the state owns everything and is the sole (or at least overwhelmingly main) provider.
In other words, socialism isn't just the absence of a free market, it's more specific than that. And it's an important distinction, because these days corporatism is at least as large a problem and not enough people are naming it and shaming it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Healthcare in the US is already socialized due to the fact that we do not refuse emergency medical services to the uninsured. Are you advocating that we no longer provide emergency medical services to the uninsured?
We already pay nearly twice what any other industrialized nation pays for health care with lower % of people covered and worse outcomes in just about every category. And yes I am familiar with all the arguments for why we have worse outcomes in the US.
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what is needed here is to stop labling people by party. Most of the "socialists" in occupy and other movements proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact), and most progressives do likewise. Modern Liberals follow progressive policies defined as growing the government to create a society where social justice is the norm. This means there would be no rich, no poor, and the goverment would regulate that status quo. Social justice dictates that the rich must pay for the poor because the poor are unable to pay for themselves.
The Conservative argument is that in America, these programs promote a wellfare state in which we make the poor complacent with "free stuff" (paid for by the rich) and they give their governors more power in exchange. That this system does not encourage people to become self sufficient and successful.
I would further posit that progressivism is slavery in disguise, bringing me back to Martin Luther King Jr who had a dream of all americans being equal to "open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children." The point being they would be provided opportunity, not handed wellfare checks and told to sit down and shut up, the Government is here to take care of you.
Have a nice day.
Private profits are not "Socialist" (Score:3)
Socialism: an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.
In a socialist society, capital accrues to the public. Having public dollars go towards private companies is the exact opposite of socialism.
When you say ignorant shit like "Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist" you are only proving how abused and hence meaningless the term "sociali
Re: (Score:3)
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist.
Ahem.
The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:4, Insightful)
Making them more efficient, is not a bad thing.
But having the Federal Govt. overstep their enumerated powers granted by the Constitution to mandate what types private companies can make and sell is tyrannical.
If someone can make more efficient light bulbs, market them and find a market for them...fine. But it isn't the governments job to make their market for them at the expense of others.
There, fixed that for you... (Score:2)
If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were easy, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:3)
Err...what's wrong with this? People work and figure out how to do things...you seem to have an objection to them keeping what they earned through whatev
Re: (Score:3)
I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:5, Funny)
I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.
I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating thei (Score:4, Insightful)
They're still around? (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
well maybe we need more unions as workers today (Score:2)
are getting alot of lucky to have a job BS.
And getting pushed to do the work of 2-3 people for the pay of 1.
On call with no added pay + getting a hard time with they take a late call and show up late to office the next day.
over use and abuse of contractors (fedex is real bad at the as they treat there drivers as employers but they are not) and they have to buy / rent the truck + buy the route + pay gas and other up keep costs. Also lost or stolen packages come out of there pay.
Re:They're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
It does take time. And that is hard considering how conditioned we are for instant gratification.
The system is well crafted and had decades to program the populace not only to embrace their chains be to defend them. You have to admire the elegance of this propaganda system that's been established. It's resilient to change, it harnesses the intellect of it's victims to perpetuate it, to defend it and to propagate it. This is nothing new, I have traced it back when I was presenting work regarding psychological warfare, as far back as we have had written history. Controlling the masses has always been a top tier priority in regards to "governing". It's rare that we see it when we are experiencing it. Mostly we have been only able to study it after the fact and from afar. If it runs contrary to our current programing it never sees the light of day just due to the natural defenses it has.
For example we look at how the Nazis rose to power and how Stalin rose to power and how the mindsets there were cultivated and come to a fruition that allowed malevolent elements to come to power. It's easy to see their faults, but we fail to learn from these lessons because we don't apply objective reasoning and observation to our own climes.
What I find interesting is how it harnesses the intellect of it's victims. Look at how the Nazis harnessed the brilliance of it's technically minded people. Those Germans were brilliant, but on the whole, ironically, they were political morons. You have to wonder how such intelligent people can be duped. If you can't see the brilliance in German engineering of weapons at the time, you are historically ignorant. German equipment was frankly awesome. Their tanks were something to rightfully fear, we managed to beat them out of sheer numbers. We zerged them with cheaper tanks frankly.
Though intelligent, they were still manipulated, so intelligence isn't a safeguard against it. This is a disturbing thought, because naturally one would think an intelligent population would have immunity to it. It doesn't. In fact, as I read comments here, I see many intelligent people remarking, but to my dismay I can see the influences upon them. What I see is an emotional subset mentality that is bound to people's inner personality core. This is engaged at a subconscious level as they evaluate the situation, not formulating their intellectual responses, but it's the driving force behind their responses.
What we are dealing with is emotional (for a lack of a better term) programing at a low level of consciousnesses. This has always been the case in the past, and it's worked in situations where it's needed to provoke people to do something that is contrary to their own good health. For example, it's often used to rally a population to war. Without this, it would be nigh impossible to get people to go fight for something that frankly has no effect upon them except in some abstract reason that effects them at some base emotion, hence steering their intellect into not only excusing it, but putting the full blunt of their being behind it.
Granted, this is a needed thing when it comes to the overall good of a large entity of people, but when it's used to further the gains of a few, it's classically been the downfall of whatever group of people that its effected. Democracy was a fragile experiment, a seemingly vain attempt in face of this powerful influence to give the average person an objectivity and ability to rise above this kind of mindset. It succeeded to some extent because it's founding fathers were brilliant deep thinkers, hailing from a time in our country when we had the best and the brightest from Europe, here on our soil, seeking to expand not only their freedoms but their minds.
The frontier atmosphere that allowed that kind of mindset to blossom has been smothered. There are no frontiers where the free thinking can roam now. Control has been established.
My challenge to anyone who fancies themselves as a free thinker to try this mental exercise if you are capable
Re:They're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
A lot of people forget the tea party anger against big banks, bailouts etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're still around? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the 2008 elections, Sen. McCain spent much MUCH less than his Democratic opponent, and voluntarily opted to comply with McCain/Feingold Campaign reforms, his opponent agreed to voluntarily comply, then simply decided not to and spent $750M on his campaign against the "big money" party...
When given the chice, the last GOP candidate went for "less money in politics" his opponent went for a record level of spending - and plans to best lat campaigns record by aiming for a $1BN campaign, again, running against the "big money" interests of the GOP that will, in all likelyhood spend a fraction of what the incumbent President spends.
Re:They're still around? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between the tea party and the ows is pretty obvious. And I wouldn't even says the tea party got co-opted by loons, they got people elected they wanted elected. And they're still out there, the media is just ignoring them like they have been for the last 8mo. The ows on the other hand, got all the media attention they wanted, because the media wanted to help them.
The messages are fundamentally different too. One wanted smaller government, the other wanted more government control. If you c
Re: (Score:2)
OWS and the Tea Party teaming up would be about as awkward as a Deadpool team-up.
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/60216/1626194-deadpool_team_up_yellow_boxes_super.jpg [comicvine.com]
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/2285/deadpool37.jpg [imageshack.us]
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-esKAm-4Bw2I/Tb6xYrDkCTI/AAAAAAAAAME/W0NZsVYoPTc/s1600/deadpool36scan4.jpg [blogspot.com]
Re:They're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
they don't have the popular support they pretend they have...So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line.
So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?
If people can't be motivated by common complaints of massive corruption because the complaints are so common as to be boring, then what's your hope for motivating people to do something as boring as voting?
Re: (Score:3)
And what's your solution? A revolution? Burn it all down? Execute and imprison the rich and powerful for being "enemies of the people"? Sure, just look at history to figure out how that will turn out. First the upper class is destroyed, and then the middle and lower class start fingering their neighbors, an
Re:They're still around? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election
No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.
No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.
(e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)
What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?
Polls Say Different (Score:3)
In October polls indicated that the majority of Americans agreed [theatlantic.com] with the points Occupy Wall Street was raising. Coverage has waned, attention spans have shifted, and holidays have happened since then but a plurality still support them despite constant work by the corporate media (esp. Fox) to paint them as dirty no-good hippies.
When you look at what they're about, and what the Tea Party was/is? about they share core beliefs, the prime among which is that the American people have lost control of their gove
Re:They're still around? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Self-hatred ruined it (Score:2)
What about:
4. All the self-hatred is ruining the fun [in-other-news.com]. I mean seriously, when they start to offer counceling for the rapists and tell victims to shut up it might turn some people away from the movement, don't you think? It really shows that these self-hating white "progressives" really do mean it. What is more hateful than telling rape-victims to shut up and offering the dear rapist help to cope with this evil-evil society that did not give him enough welfare-money and therefore made him a rapist?
But can you
Re: (Score:2)
They wanted a revolution. They just didn't realize the extent that was required.
They had indistinct goals, and unrealistic expectations. "We are the 99% and we are poor. We are being oppressed by the 1%." Ok, what would you like? For them to close their multibillion dollar enterprises? Distribute their wealth to the 99%? Which ones? Everyone? Should the 1% stop their predatory business practices? Why should they? Because dozens of people are in a park down the roa
Re: (Score:2)
There has actually been progress in how the protests are carried out. In the 1990's some of the protesters often initiated violence and the majority of protesters did very little to stop it from happening, which gave me the impression that they were basically a bunch of middle-class thrill-seekers, the political equivalent of soccer hooligans.
This year of activism and protest has been something different. These people have, to use Obama's favorite phrase, legitimate grievances. People nice up quickly when t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Protest because government is too restrictive
2. Government disbands
3. Establish new stricter government!
What history taught us is (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a page from the Tea Party (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...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,
Re: (Score:3)
Simple math my friend - if 50% of the 99% they claim to represent each donated $100, then they raise around 15 billion dollars. That's more than sufficient to start getting candidates into office. Hell, th
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Take a page from the Tea Party (Score:5, Funny)
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".
One Sided view really social media? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
*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: (Score:2)
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
Re:One Sided view really social media? (Score:5, Insightful)
there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.
Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.
The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).
Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."
However when things get better they will moderate a little.
Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Actually, there isn't a difference. The term "depression," as applied to economics, was originally coined as a euphemism for "recession." Now, of course, we've inverted things, using the term "recession" as a euphemism for "depression." Language is funny like that.
Bad summary, horrible headline (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 :)
1% vs 99% (Score:3, Insightful)
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% (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
The less hatter theory is that showing intelligent people making well informed statements about what they want changed who are living within their means but disapproving of t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the OWS has become a new litmus test of sorts: I can immediately identify assholes and sociopaths (online and IRL) simply by hearing them talk/write about how they feel about OWS. the ones that are symathetic are the real human beings. the rest are crude, unrefined gutter animals who feed on the rest of us; our pain and our hard work. its really easy to see who your friends are when you talk about the protests and the movement.
I can tell who the idiots are on Slashdot. They use ad hominem attacks against
Re: (Score:2)
Get used to it. Projection is an important part of the eudaimonia-centric philosophy espoused by the occupiers. It's about making sure everyone has lives that other people would want to lead, rather than the lives they themselves would find satisfying, and you can't come to any kind of conclusions about that without projection.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You say "hippie" like it is a bad thing.
Peace, dude.
Re: (Score:3)
full belly and iphones. lets examine you hate, line by line and word by word, shall we?
to you, people don't have a right to complain if they still have SOME food in their bellies. I guess its a threhold thing for you; you have a suffer-O-meter and if you still walk upright, you're not 'poor enough' to care about.
iphones: while I hate apple, are you really so thick and stupid as to say that owning a phone, today, is somehow anti-OWS? that's about as stupid as people who were taking pictures of protesters
Re:1% vs 99% (Score:5, Interesting)
Anecdote time: Amongst the people I work with, the only one I know of who has a strong opinion (other than me) one way or another about the OWS crowd is a punk 22 year old who lives in a house his parents own, is married with two kids, and has, in general, everything still provided for him. The funniest thing is that, contrary to the popular opinion of the OWS crowd being spoiled brats, this one absolutely HATES them with a passion.
I think back to the kind of person I was when I was his age. Though I hardly had anything provided for me to speak of (lest of all a house), I probably wouldn't have liked the OWS people either. I was kind of a brainwashed Randist who believed that hard work and perseverance were all you needed, and the world really was a meritocracy. I believed in the American Dream. I hit the real world though, and realized what a lie it all was. I see the OWS group as a means to try to pull the wool from people's eyes, and the backlash they get is simply resentment for that.
Re: (Score:2)
those that are against the OWS movement generally don't think on their own. they repeat spoon-fed sound bites that they've been hearing on faux news.
its pretty much just that simple: those in power have a good hold on the religious right, which also co-opted the republican party in the last few decades. those people are TOTALLY brainwashed. their religious leanings are an open-channel or pipeline so that faux 'news' can shove pieces of bullshit down their throats.
every day, every hour, the reinforcement
Re: (Score:3)
The democratic party does the same shit with welfare babies and 'government assistance' for every stupid thing you can imagine. When I see how poorly every government-run program behaves, I
Misleading (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
funny (Score:2)
FB and Twitter are "social networking", not . . . (Score:2)
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).
Change (Score:2)
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 Demop
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Meaningless. Revolt or get lost. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Here is a better project. (Score:2)
A tool for anyone to communicate even when the authorities bring down the communications network.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kvogeltanz/dovetail-voice-to-the-people [kickstarter.com]
Here .. let me fix that for you ... (Score:2)
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 t
Why do they need secrecy? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that usually the question though? Do things need to be secret? I'd argue that somethings do need to be held close to the vest. But who watches the watchers?
Skilled hackers that want to prove a point against secretive organizations, that's who. We have a checks and balances system, it's just not codified into law.
Re: (Score:2)
It just reveals the truth, that they don't represent the 99% at all. They are a bunch of yuppies with more money and time than the rest of us poor working slobs who are out publicly screaming for us to feel sorry for them.
Mercutio's wisdom (Score:2)
A plague a' both your houses!
Good Deal (Score:2)
Good deal. Diaspora hasn't gotten off the ground yet. The only viable social network sites out there are built on a business model of exploiting their users by discretely spying on them and selling information about them for marketing.
They can have facebook (Score:2)
Counter-protests! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If Facebook's "all your base are belong to us" TOS doesn't nail them first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
did the government force the rating agencies and banks to repackage said loans as A, AA, AAA packages and sell them to investors?
No, because, for all intents and purposes, it was the government, in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that repackaged said loans and sold them.