Study Finds Digital Activism Is Effective, Mostly Non-Violent 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."
"non-violent" (Score:1)
DDOSing a website isn't really violent either. In spite of the libertarian perspective on the matter, property doesn't intrinsically require protection.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed; Dictionary.com defines violence as
A sit-in (physical force) at a restaurant (something) is designed to hurt their business. Therefore, an act of violence.
Re:Ha Ha (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 ?? (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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 combi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That definition is not in dictionary.com, what did you think you would achieve by lying?
Re: (Score:2)
Being mistaken != lying.
Blame Google, since that's where I got my info.
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
"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
No it does not. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 "wel
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Yes, absolutely, and quite frequently wrong. Just not violent.
Re: (Score:1)
In spite of the libertarian perspective on the matter, property doesn't intrinsically require protection.
I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for sharing this insight. ... What? ... Oh, no reason.
And on a totally unrelated note, can I borrow your wallet for a second?
Re: (Score:2)
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" (Score:4, Funny)
property doesn't intrinsically require protection.
So, your house doesn't have a lock on the door?
Cool; what was your address again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
>
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
>
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No, I just mean what I say, not what delusional idiots pretend I say.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It may be non-violent, but is it effective?
Re: (Score:3)
No, I really doubt it is.
Re: (Score:1)
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-
Not a Surprise (Score:1)
So a group of digital activists either commissioned or performed a study that demonstrated that digital activism was effective? I'm shocked--shocked!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm starting an
Slacktivism (Score:2)
I read that as: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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?
They should all apply the 90% B.S. rule though (Score:2)
Sadly, many of these activists don't do their homework and are living proof of the 90%-bullsh*t Rule of the Internet.