Jump to content

User:Ekara1/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Internet activism (also known as web activism, online activism, digital campaigning, digital activism, online organizing, electronic advocacy, c'e-campaigning, and e-activism) is the use of electronic communication technologies such as social media, e-mail, and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster and more effective communication by citizen movements, the delivery of particular information to large and specific audiences as well as coordination. Internet technologies are used for cause-related fundraising, community building, lobbying, and organizing. A digital activism campaign is "an organized public effort, making collective claims on a target authority, in which civic initiators or supporters use digital media."[1]

Information communication technologies[edit]

Information communication technologies (ICTs) make communication and information readily available and efficient. There are millions of Facebook accounts, Twitter users and websites, and one can educate oneself on nearly any subject. While this is for the most part a positive thing, it can also be dangerous. For example, people can read up on the latest news events relatively easily and quickly; however, there is danger in the fact that apathy or fatigue can quickly arise when people are inundated with so many messages, or that the loudest voice on a subject can often be the most extreme one, distorting public perception on the issue.

These social networks which occupy ICTs are simply modern forms of political instruments which pre-date the technological era.[2] People can now go to online forums or Twitter instead of town hall meetings. People can essentially mobilize worldwide through the Internet. Women and other groups can create transnational alliances and lobby for rights within their respective countries; they can give each other tips and share up-to-date information. This information becomes "hyper textual", available in downloadable formats with easy access for all.[2] The UN organizations also use "hyper textual" formats. They can post information about upcoming summits, they can post newsletters on what occurred at these meetings, and links to videos can be shared; all of this information can be downloaded at the click of a button.[2] The UN and many other actors are presenting this information in an attempt to get a certain message out in the cyber sphere and consequently steer public perception on an issue.[3]

The Internet is a key resource for independent activists, or E-activists, particularly those whose message may run counter to the mainstream. "Especially when a serious violation of human rights occurs, the Internet is essential in reporting the atrocity to the outside world."[4] Listservs like BurmaNet and Freedom News Group help distribute news that would otherwise be inaccessible in these countries.

Internet activists also pass on E-petitions to be sent to the government and public and private organizations to protest against and urge for positive policy change in areas from the arms trade to animal testing. Many non-profits and charities use these methods, emailing petitions to those on their email list and asking people to pass them on. The Internet also enables organizations such as NGOs to communicate with individuals in an inexpensive and timely manner. Gatherings and protests can be organized with the input of the organizers and the participants. Lobbying is also made easier via the Internet, thanks to mass e-mail and its ability to broadcast a message widely at little cost. Mainstream social-networking sites, most noticeably Facebook.com, are also making e-activist tools available to their users. An active participatory culture is enabled by the communities on social networking sites because they permit communication between groups that are otherwise unable to communicate. In the article "Why We Argue about Virtual Community: A Case Study of the Phish.net Fan Community," Nessim Watson stresses the necessity of communication in online communities. He even goes as far as to say that "Without ongoing communication among its participants, a community dissolves". The constant ability to communicate with members of the community enriches online community experiences and redefines the word community.[5]

Types[edit]

General typologies[edit]

There are different ways of classifying types of online activism.

Vegh[edit]

distinguishes between Internet-enhanced and Internet-enabled activities. Internet-enhanced activism uses the Internet as an extra. The Internet is used as a additional way to enable communication. Internet-enabled activism however, could not have occurred without the Internet.[6]

McCaughey and Ayers[edit]

McCaughey and Ayers divide different types of online activism into three main categories: Awareness/advocacy, organization/mobilization, and action/reaction.

Awareness/advocacy

The Internet can serve as an alternative source providing news and information. This could be necessary when traditional information channels are controlled by those who are not in favor of the activists. The focus lies on reporting about events or issues that are either underreported or misreported in mainstream media. Distributing information like this creates distribution networks which in a later stadium can be used to mobilize protest. These information distribution often take the form of online dissident communities, which are an online place for content that would otherwise be forbidden and they are a discussion forum where citizens in authoritarian regimes can talk about human right violations or censorship.

Organization/mobilization

The Internet can be used for mobilization in different ways. It can be used to call for offline action, like meeting up in a public place; to call for action that normally takes place offline but can be carried out more efficiently offline, like contacting a senator online instead of visiting its office; to call for action that can only be carried out online, like carrying out a cyber-attack.

Action/reaction

Action/reaction covers online attacks carried out by 'hackers'. Internet attacks are often used to shut down or attack government computers.[7]

Earl et al.[edit]

Another typology is provided by Earl et al. based on existing research. Each category identifies different actions, tools and usages. What should be kept in mind, is that these categories are ideal-types. Earl et al. provide the following categories:

Brochure-ware

When information is being spread through websites. These sites are often static, so they only offer information and there is therefore no possibility for people to interact. A notable exception to this is the possibility to donate. This type of Internet activism does not see the Internet as an interactive medium, but as a tool to share information. This is a cheaper form of Internet activism and possibly a good way to inform a larger audience.

Online facilitation of offline activism

When information or logistics are being spread or people are being motivated to join offline protest like a rally or march. The Internet functions as a tool to spread information, like brochure-ware, but also to facilitate offline protest. This type of Internet activism does not see the Internet as an independent way to protest, but as a tool to organize and coordinate offline protest.

Online participation

Offers ways to participate while online. Participating can be technically uncomplicated like signing online petitions and joining an email campaign, but can also be quite complex like website hacking and closing down websites. The taking over and vandalizing of a website, uploading Trojan horses, and sending out e-mail bombs (mass e-mailings) are also examples of Internet activism. For more examples of these types of subversive action, see hacktivism.[8]

Online organizing

When entire campaigns or social movements are organized through the Internet. All aspects of organizing take place online, without face-to-face coordination.[9]

Different forms[edit]

Non-traditional activism[edit]

The Internet has become the catalyst for protests such as Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring as those involved have increasingly relied on social media to organize and stay connected. In Myanmar, online news paper Freedom News Group has leaked some government corruption and fuel to protests.[10][11]

In 2017, the Sleeping Giants cyberactivist group, among others, launched a boycott campaign against controversial, conservative webpage Breitbart News, getting more than 2,000 organizations to remove it from ad buys.[12][13][14][15][16]`

Corporate activism[edit]

Corporations are also using Internet activist techniques to increase support for their causes. According to Christopher Palmeri with BusinessWeek Online, companies launch sites with the intent to positively influence their own public image, to provide negative pressure on competitors, to influence opinion within select groups, and to push for policy changes.[17]

The clothing manufacturer, American Apparel is an example: The company hosts a website called Legalize LA that advocates immigration reform via blog, online advertising, links to news stories and educational materials.[18][19] Protest groups have responded by posting YouTube videos and establishing a boycott website.[20][21]

Corporate methods of information dissemination is labelled "astroturfing," as opposed to "grassroots activism," due to the funding for such movements being largely private.[22] More recent examples include the right-wing FreedomWorks.org which organized the "Taxpayer March on Washington" on September 12, 2009 and the Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights, which opposes universal health care in the U.S.[23]

Religious activism[edit]

Cybersectarianism is a new organizational form which involves: "highly dispersed small groups of practitioners that may remain largely anonymous within the larger social context and operate in relative secrecy, while still linked remotely to a larger network of believers who share a set of practices and texts, and often a common devotion to a particular leader. Overseas supporters provide funding and support; domestic practitioners distribute tracts, participate in acts of resistance, and share information on the internal situation with outsiders. Collectively, members and practitioners of such sects construct viable virtual communities of faith, exchanging personal testimonies and engaging in collective study via email, on-line chat rooms and web-based message boards."[24]

Environmental activism[edit]

One of the earliest books on activism was Don Rittner's "Ecolinking - Everyone's Guide to Online Environmental Information," Published by Peachpit Press in 1992. Rittner, an environmental activist from upstate New York, spent more than 20 years researching and saving the Albany Pine Barrens. He was a beta tester for America Online and ran their Environmental Forum for the company from 1988 to when it launched in 1990. He took his early environmental knowledge and computer savvy and wrote what was called the bible of the online environmental community. It showed new Net users how to get online, find environmental information, connect to environmentalists around the world, and how to use those resources to save the planet.

Sexual assault activism[edit]

Activism against sexual assault can be led on the internet, where individuals may feel comfortable talking about controversial topics. One such movements is the #NotGuilty movement. This movement began in April 2015 with Ione Wells.[25] She shared a "letter to her attacker" in her college paper. The letter described how she was sexually assaulted and how she chose to respond and build from that point in her life. At the end of the letter she urged readers to send a letter back describing their own sexual assault experience with the hashtag #notguilty. She received so many letters from locals that she decided to create a website, this caused global attention and inspired many to share their stories.[26] The Me Too movement is a similar movement that started in Hollywood. Tarana Burke created the phrase to "empower women through empathy" and Alyssa Milano helped spread the use of the phrase.[27][28] This phrase was first used to demonstrate the amount of sexual assault that happens to young actresses and actors in Hollywood. It soon spread to apply to all forms of sexual assault, especially in the work place. These movements were intended to create an outlet for men and women to share their experiences with those with similar views without blame or guilt. They brought widespread attention to sexual assault and caused much controversy about changes that should be made accordingly.[29] Criticism around movements such as these centers on concerns about whether or not participants are being dishonest for their own gain or are misinterpreting acts of kindness.[30]

The possibilities of online activism[edit]

Internet activism has had the effect of causing increased collective action among people, as found by Postmes and Brunsting (2002), who discovered a tendency among internet users to rely on internalized group memberships and social identities in order to achieve social involvement online.[31] The Internet is "tailor-made for a populist, insurgent movement," says Joe Trippi,[32] who managed the Howard Dean campaign. In his campaign memoir, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Trippi notes that:

[The Internet's] roots in the open-source ARPAnet, its hacker culture, and its decentralized, scattered architecture make it difficult for big, establishment candidates, companies and media to gain control of it. And the establishment loathes what it can't control. This independence is by design, and the Internet community values above almost anything the distance it has from the slow, homogeneous stream of American commerce and culture. Progressive candidates and companies with forward-looking vision have an advantage on the Internet, too. Television is, by its nature, a nostalgic medium. Look at Ronald Reagan's campaign ads in the 1980s – they were masterpieces of nostalgia promising a return to America's past glory and prosperity. The Internet, on the other hand, is a forward-thinking and forward-moving medium, embracing change and pushing the envelope of technology and communication.

Organizing collective action[edit]

New media can be used to promote collective action. The costs of organizing a protest through the Internet are relatively low. You can organize a detailed protest all from the comfort of your home and easily online. Specific agreements and information about time and place can be made and spread online. [33]

Reaching a large audience[edit]

The Internet offers independent forms of communication. It's decentralized, so a large audience can be reached relatively fast. In addition, knowing that your message can have a large impact can make activists feel stronger and not alone which can make protesting more attractive.[34]

Contribute to democratization[edit]

Several scholars stress that Internet activism can be a useful tool for citizens to combat authoritarian regimes. For example, aggressive, repressive actions and human right abuses can be photographed or described online. These posts help to get attention to the mistreatments citizens might suffer. Also, internet activism can be used to spread revolutionary ideas and techniques so protest can spread quickly throughout a country.[35]

Use in political campaigns[edit]

When discussing the 2004 U.S. presidential election candidates, Carol Darr, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said of the candidates which benefited from use of the Internet to attract supporters: "They are all charismatic, outspoken mavericks and insurgents. Given that the Internet is interactive and requires an affirmative action on the part of the users, as opposed to a passive response from TV users, it is not surprising that the candidate has to be someone people want to touch and interact with."[36]

A more decentralized approach to campaigning arose, in contrast to a top-down, message-focused approach usually conducted in the mainstream. "The mantra has always been, 'Keep your message consistent. Keep your message consistent,'" said John Hlinko, who has participated in Internet campaigns for MoveOn.org and the electoral primary campaign of Wesley Clark. "That was all well and good in the past. Now it's a recipe for disaster ... You can choose to have a Stalinist structure that's really doctrinaire and that's really opposed to grassroots. Or you can say, 'Go forth. Do what you're going to do.' As long as we're running in the same direction, it's much better to give some freedom."[37]

Two-thirds of Internet users under the age of 30 have a SNS, and during the 2008 election, half of them used a SNS site for candidate information (Hirzalla, 2010).[38]

Fundraising capabilities[edit]

The Internet has also made it easier for small donors to play a meaningful role in financing political campaigns. Previously, small-donor fundraising was prohibitively expensive, as costs of printing and postage ate up most of the money raised.[citation needed] Groups like MoveOn, however, have found that they can raise large amounts of money from small donors at minimal cost, with credit card transaction fees constituting their biggest expense. "For the first time, you have a door into the political process that isn't marked 'big money,' " says Darr. "That changes everything.

Impact on everyday political discussions[edit]

According to some observers, the Internet may have considerable potential to reach and engage opinion leaders who influence the thinking and behavior of others. According to the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet, what they call "Online Political Citizens" (OPCs) are "seven times more likely than average citizens to serve as opinion leaders among their friends, relatives and colleagues… Normally, 10% of Americans qualify as Influentials. Our study found that 69% of Online Political Citizens are Influentials."[39]

Criticism[edit]

Besides the joyful stories about how the Internet has changed activism and the possibilities it offers to empower activists, Internet activism also has its critics. The so-called 'cyber-optimists' stress that technology is a powerful, new way to mobilize the opposition, while the 'cyber-septics' argue that social media and the internet only play a marginal part in the democratization process. In this section, several critiques and 'cyber-septics' will be discussed.

Entertainment, not political activism[edit]

Evgeny Morozov, author of The Net Delusion, argues that social media usage people distracts from the real problems in society. According to Morozov is the Internet mostly used for entertainment purposes and barely for political activism. Because of the Internet and the entertainment it offers, people are distracted from their daily life miseries, feel like their lives are not that bad and are thus less motivated to protest. [40][41]

Moving to effective offline action[edit]

Gladwell argues that activism carried out through social media cannot become successful. He argues that meaningful activism is something that emerges out of strong ties, something social media are not build upon. He illustrates this point by stating that people are more likely to participate a protest when they have a personal tie to it, like friends who participate as well. The kind of activism that is associated with social media, emerges according to him out of weak ties. For instance, Twitter and Facebook are used to keep in touch with acquaintances or even strangers. If they join a protest, Gladwell argues their online friends are less likely to join as well. Gladwell also states that activism needs a strategic hierarchy with a clear division of tasks in order to become successful, while on social media there is no clear hierarchy and decisions are often made via consensus which makes groups prone to internal conflict.[42]

State repression[edit]

Gunitsky talks about the ways authoritarian regimes make use of social media. Authoritarian regimes and their elites use social media as well as protesters. They use the Internet to fulfill their own goals and keep their regime stable. Gunitsky describes several ways authoritarian states use social media.

Counter-mobilization: states use social media to keep in touch with their supporters and to mobilize them when possible. The public support of their selectorate makes the regime look more legitimate.

Discourse framing: states use social media to spread pro-regime propaganda, censor specific anti-regime posts and to monitor the opposition.

Preference divulgence: hidden preferences of citizens become visible on social media. Authoritarian regimes use this info to alter their policies slightly, just so the public feels like the regime is listening to them. This is actually a way for authoritarian regimes to skip elections, because they can discover their citizens preferences online.[43]


Geelmuyden Rød and Weidmann talk about 'repression technology'. They argue that, just like traditional media, the Internet is not free from state interference. Governments can block unwanted voices and use the Internet to their advantage. Geelmuyden Rød and Weidmann say that autocrats will always be the ones profiting from introducing the Internet in their countries. Advanced technology can be used by states to trace regime opponents and filter content. Besides, it's quite easy for governments to obtain detailed information about certain internet users, because often times communication services are state-owned and if they are not, companies can be forced to deliver the information. A government can thus monitor everything users do on their computer and have their information. Geelmuyden Rød and Weidmann also point to the emergence of state produced alternatives to the Internet, that only provide access to reviewed, state-approved content.[44]

Slacktivism/Clicktivism[edit]

Scholars are divided as to whether the Internet will increase or decrease political participation, including online activism. Those who suggest political participation will increase believe the Internet can be used to recruit and communicate with more users, and offers lower-costs modes of participation for those who lack the time or motivation to engage otherwise. Those concerned that the Internet will decrease activism argue that the Internet occupies free time that can no longer be spent getting involved in activist groups, or that Internet activism will replace more substantial, effortful forms of in-person activism. Opponents believe that clicktivism reduces activism to a mere mouse-click, yielding numbers with little or no real engagement or commitment to the cause.[45]

Micah M. White argues, "Political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links. In promoting the illusion that surfing the web can change the world, clicktivism is to activism as McDonalds is to a slow-cooked meal. It may look like food, but the life-giving nutrients are long gone."[46] He argues that political engagement becomes a matter of clicking a few links and neglects the vital, immeasurable inner-events and personal epiphanies that great social ruptures are actually made of. It reduces activism to a mere mouse click.[47] Micah M. White goes on to argue that "... clicktivism reinforces the fear of standing out from the crowd and taking a strong position. It discourages calling for drastic action. And as such, clicktivism will never breed social revolution. To think that it will is a fallacy. One that is dawning on us".[46]

Malcolm Gladwell argues that activism through social media and the internet cannot be successful because they promote a 'lazy' way of activism that doesn't require people to put in meaningful effort. By for example 'liking' a protest related post on social media, people feel like they have contributed to a cause, which makes them less likely to take more costly, and some would argue more effective, action like joining a protest.[48][49]

Demographic issues[edit]

Critics argue that Internet activism faces the same challenges as other aspects of the digital divide, particularly the global digital divide. Some say it gives disproportionate representation to those with greater access or technological ability.[50][51] Groups that may be disadvantaged by the move to activist activity online are those that have limited access to technologies, or lack the technological literacy to engage meaningfully online; these include ethnic and racial minorities, those of lower socioeconomic status, those with lower levels of education, and the elderly.

A study looked at the impact of Social Networking Sites (SNS) on various demographics and their political activity. Not surprisingly college students used SNS for political activity the most but this was followed by a more unlikely group, those that had not completed high school. In addition the probability for non-White citizens to consume political information was shown to be higher than that of Whites. These two outcomes go in the face of normal predictors of political activity. Despite these surprising findings older generations, men and whites showed the highest levels of political mobilization. Acts of political mobilization, such as fundraising, volunteering, protesting require the most continued interest, resources and knowledge (Nam, 2010).[52]

Real debate?[edit]

The experience of the echo chamber is easier to create with a computer than with many of the forms of political interaction that preceded it," Sunstein told the New York Times. "The discussion will be about strategy, or horse-race issues or how bad the other candidates are, and it will seem like debate. It's not like this should be censored, but it can increase acrimony, increase extremism and make mutual understanding more difficult.

On the other hand, Scott Duke Harris of the San Jose Mercury News noted that "the Internet connects [all sides of issues, not just] an ideologically broad anti-war constituency, from the leftists of ANSWER to the pressed-for-time 'soccer moms' who might prefer MoveOn, and conservative activists as well."[53]

Another concern, according to University of California professor Barbara Epstein, is that the Internet "allows people who agree with each other to talk to each other and gives them the impression of being part of a much larger network than is necessarily the case." She warns that the impersonal nature of communication by computer may actually undermine the human contact that always has been crucial to social movements.[54]

Another concern, expressed by author and law professor Cass Sunstein, is that online political discussions lead to "cyberbalkanization"—discussions that lead to fragmentation and polarization rather than consensus, because the same medium that lets people access a large number of news sources also enables them to pinpoint the ones they agree with and ignore the rest.

Ethical Considerations[edit]

With internet technology vastly changing existing and introducing new mechanisms by which to attain, share and employ information, internet activism raises ethical issues for consideration. Proponents contend internet activism serves as an outlet for social progress but only if personal and professional ethics are employed.[55] Supporters of online activism claim new information and communications technologies help increase the political power of activist groups that would otherwise have less resources. Proponents along this line of thinking claim the most effective use of online activism is its use in conjunction with more traditional or historical activism activities.[56] Conversely, critics worry about facts and beliefs becoming indistinct in online campaigns and about "sectors of online activism [being] more self-interested than socially interested."[55] These critics warn against the manipulation commonplace to online activism for private or personal interests such as exploiting charities for monetary gain, influencing voters in the political arena and inflating self-importance or effectiveness. In this sense, the ethical implication is that activism becomes descriptive rather than transformative of society.[55] One of these reviewers suggests seven pitfalls to beware of in internet activism: "self-promotion at the expense of the movement... unsolicited bulk email... Hacktivism... violating copyright... nagging... violating privacy... and being scary." [57] Many of the ethical criticisms against the prevalence of online activism are further discussed in the criticisms section of this article.

Selected Internet activists[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Edwards, Frank, Philip N. Howard, and Mary Joyce. Digital Activism and Nonviolent Conflict. The Digital Activism Research Project (http://digital-activism.org/). November, 2013". {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ a b c Shepherd, Laura (2010). Gender Matters in Global Politics. Routledge.
  3. ^ Shepherd, Laua (2010). Gender Matters in Global Politics. Routledge.
  4. ^ "Classifying Forms of Online Activism: The Case of Cyberprotests Against the World Bank" in Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and PRACTICE, Eds. Ayers, Michael D., Mccaughey, Martha, pp. 72-73. Copyright 2003, Routledge, New York, NY
  5. ^ Watson, Nessim "Why We Argue about Virtual Community: A Case Study of the Phish.net Fan Community" pp. 103-104. SAG Publications 1997
  6. ^ Earl, Jennifer; Kimport, Katrina; Prieto, Greg; Rush, Carly; Reynoso, Kimberly (2010). "CHANGING THE WORLD ONE WEBPAGE AT A TIME: CONCEPTUALIZING AND EXPLAINING INTERNET ACTIVISM". Mobilization: An International Journal. 15 (1): 425–446.
  7. ^ McCaughey, M.; Ayers, M. (2003). Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. pp. 71–78.
  8. ^ "Classifying Forms of Online Activism" in Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice, pp. 71-95. Copyright 2003, Routledge, New York, NY
  9. ^ Earl, Jennifer; Kimport, Katrina; Prieto, Greg; Rush, Carly; Reynoso, Kimberly (2010). "CHANGING THE WORLD ONE WEBPAGE AT A TIME: CONCEPTUALIZING AND EXPLAINING INTERNET ACTIVISM". Mobilization: An International Journal. 15 (1): 425–446.
  10. ^ Kleinfield, N. R.; Buckley, Cara (September 30, 2011). "Wall Street Occupiers, Protesting Till Whenever". The New York Times.
  11. ^ The Role of the Internet in Democratic Transition: Case Study of the Arab Spring, Davit Chokoshvili, Master's Thesis, June 2011
  12. ^ "Activists Are Pushing Back Against Tech Platforms That Quietly Empower Hate Groups". Fast Company. 2017-05-09. Retrieved 2017-05-11.
  13. ^ Kerr, Dara. "Lyft, HP won't advertise on Breitbart. Uber, Amazon remain". CNET. Retrieved 2017-02-11.
  14. ^ Kennedy, Pagan (January 7, 2017). "How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 10, 2017.
  15. ^ Henley, Jon; Oltermann, Philip (December 8, 2016). supremacy-victory-steve-bannon "German firms including BMW pull advertising from Breitbart". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved January 5, 2017. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  16. ^ "Coalition Gather More Than One Million Petition Signatures Urging Amazon To Drop Breitbart".
  17. ^ Christopher Palmeri, Up Front: How To Make A Corporate Cause Click, BusinessWeek Online, January 12, 2004. retrieved October 31, 2007.
  18. ^ "Legalize LA subpage". Americanapparel.net. Archived from the original on 2011-07-23. Retrieved 2013-12-11.
  19. ^ Story, Louise (January 18, 2008). "Politics Wrapped in a Clothing Ad". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  20. ^ YouTube: Save Our State vs. American Apparel "5 patriots from the organization Save Our State protest American Apparel and its "Legalize LA" campaign (amnesty for illegal aliens)."
  21. ^ "Boycott American Apparel.com". Boycott American Apparel.com. Archived from the original on 2014-05-17. Retrieved 2013-12-11.
  22. ^ Anderson, Walter T. "Astroturf – The Big Business of Fake Grassroots Politics." Archived 2011-01-29 at the Wayback Machine Jinn 5 January 1996 accessed Feb 12, 2008
  23. ^ "IIS7". Protectpatientsrights.org. Retrieved 2013-10-17.
  24. ^ Patricia M. Thornton, "The New Cybersects: Resistance and Repression in the Reform era. " In Elizabeth Perry and Mark Selden, eds., Chinese Society: Change, Conflict and Resistance (second edition) (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), pp. 149-50.
  25. ^ "About - #NotGuilty". #NotGuilty. Retrieved 2018-03-27.
  26. ^ Wells, Ione, How we talk about sexual assault online, retrieved 2018-03-27
  27. ^ Alone, You Are Not. "You Are Not Alone". You Are Not Alone. Retrieved 2018-04-10.
  28. ^ Ohlheiser, Abby (2017-10-19). "The woman behind 'Me Too' knew the power of the phrase when she created it — 10 years ago". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-03-27.
  29. ^ Fonda, Jane (January 1, 2018). "After #metoo". Nation. 306: 22–25 – via EBSCO.
  30. ^ "Beware the #MeToo Backlash—It Masks Ugly Lies About Women". Women's eNews. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
  31. ^ "Towards cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the use of social media and other information technologies for political activism and social movements".
  32. ^ "Citizen 2.0: How the Internet Shapes Citizen Participation". Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-02-04.
  33. ^ Lynch, M. (2011). "After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State". Perspectives on Politics. 9 (2): 301–310. doi:10.1017/S1537592711000910. S2CID 1841975.
  34. ^ Diamond, L. (2010). "Liberation Technology". Journal of Democracy. 21 (3): 69–83. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0190. S2CID 201748033.
  35. ^ Lynch, M. (2011). "After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State". Perspectives on Politics. 9 (2): 301–310. doi:10.1017/S1537592711000910. S2CID 1841975.
  36. ^ "Website Reels In Political Newbies" Archived 2003-10-05 at archive.today Hanstad, Chelsie Salisbury, Bill Pioneer Press, St. Paul, MO accessed February 12, 2008
  37. ^ [1] Archived 2004-09-24 at the Library of Congress Web Archives
  38. ^ Hirzalla, F., van Zoonen, L., & de Ridder, J. (2011). Internet Use and Political Participation: Reflections on the Mobilization/Normalization Controversy. Information Society, 27(1), 1-15.
  39. ^ "Political Influentials in the 2004 Presidential campaign" (PDF). Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, Graduate School of Political Management. February 5, 2004. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2004-04-07.
  40. ^ Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion. London: Penguin Books. pp. 64–66.
  41. ^ Joseph, S. (2012). "Social Media, Political Change and Human Rights". Boston College International & Comparative Law Review. 35: 145–188.
  42. ^ Gladwell, M. (2010). "Small Change". The New Yorker.
  43. ^ Gunitsky, S (2015). "Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability". American Political Science Association. 13: 42–51.
  44. ^ Geelmuyden Rød, E.; Weidmann, N. (2015). "Empowering activists or autocrats? The Internet in authoritarian regimes". Journal of Peace Research. 52 (3): 338–351. doi:10.1177/0022343314555782. S2CID 10921511.
  45. ^ Janssen, Cory. "What is Clicktivism? - Definition from". Techopedia. Retrieved 2013-08-18.
  46. ^ a b White, Micah. "Clicktivism is Ruining Leftist Activism". Common Dreams. Retrieved 2013-08-18.
  47. ^ "Humanities & Social Sciences' Placements". Blogs.bath.ac.uk. Retrieved 2013-08-18.
  48. ^ Gladwell, M. (2010). "Small Change". The New Yorker.
  49. ^ Joseph, S. (2012). "Social Media, Political Change and Human Rights". College International & Comparative Law Review. 35 (1): 301–310.
  50. ^ "IRMJ01mcmanus" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-02-10.
  51. ^ Nielsen, Jakob (2006-11-20). "Digital Divide: The Three Stages (Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox)". Useit.com. Retrieved 2013-12-11.
  52. ^ Nam, T. (2011). Whose e-democracy? The democratic divide in American electoral campaigns. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 16(2), 131-150.
  53. ^ Scott Duke Harris (February 3, 2003). "Scott Duke Harris: Anti-war Movement Marshals Forces Online". Archived from the original (PDF) on 2003-02-16. The Internet connects an ideologically broad anti-war constituency, from the leftists of A.N.S.W.E.R. to the pressed-for-time "soccer moms" who might prefer MoveOn, and conservative activists as well. And for its part, MoveOn is itself part of an anti-war coalition that includes the NAACP, the Sierra Club, the National Organization for Women and the National Council of Churches.
  54. ^ Scott Duke Harris (February 3, 2003). "Scott Duke Harris: Anti-war Movement Marshals Forces Online". Archived from the original (PDF) on 2003-02-16. All the Internet traffic may represent an "echo chamber" of virtual activism rather than meaningful protest, warns Barbara Epstein, a University of California-Santa Cruz professor of the history of consciousness. The Internet, she says, "allows people who agree with each other to talk to each other and gives them the impression of being part of a much larger network than is necessarily the case." The impersonal nature of communication by computer, Epstein suggests, may have a more insidious effect, undermining important human contact that always has been crucial to social movements. During the Vietnam War, "a large sector of a generation got drawn in, in a very personal way. They went to a protest because their roommate was going. The movement became the center of social life. It became the most exciting place on campus."
  55. ^ a b c Jaber, Rimah (February 22, 2016). "Ethics in Online Activism: False Senses of Social Action or Effective Source of Change?". Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. Retrieved March 15, 2017.
  56. ^ Jenny Pickerill, "Rethinking political participation: Experiments in internet activism in Australia and Britain." Curtin University of Technology, July, 2002. Retrieved 2017-3-18.
  57. ^ Tom Head, "A Short Guide to the Ethics and Etiquette of Online Activism." Pearson, August 4, 2010. Retrieved 2017-3-18.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ekara1/sandbox&oldid=1091677576"