The PROBLEM with all our online activism..!
Though I've been involved in online activism
since the 80s, I will be mercifully brief this time. And
there's no need for an overview of the evolution of
internet activism or the internet here, since I'd
just like to accomplish the modest task of pointing out
a few obvious things.
I hope this observation brings light-bulbs, of the
"flash of the blindingly obvious" variety that is, to
our discussions on PCI:
One of the limiting factors for online activism (and thus
limiting carbon neutral de-centralized globally/nationally/regionally coordinated activism) is
the limited number of tools for collaboration.
For a flash of the blindingly obvious, notice the LENGTH
of this thread:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/14/04851/2627
you could take a good part of your day just reading though
all of it. Now how many collaborative ACTIONS
have been taken? The ratio of collaborative OUTCOMES
to screenful upon screenful of TALK is not a very
encouraging ratio, even for the best of sites. And we have seen many such threads, haven't
we, on many sites. Namely the famous ones, which we therefore
heard about, and which correspondingly have large readerships,
and large threads....ahem...Yes, we need local face
to face activism, but we need also coordinated,
national/regional/global cooperative on-going endeavors
that are day to day or at least week to week or
month to month and which can't be duplicated
via conferences...which translates into, we need
online activism, to completement face to fact
activism. Yes, there are cultural barriers,
and those are worthy of other essays (and efforts
to change the culture, including how little
time every one of us seems to have...) but meanwhile
the online tools for collaborations do present
another dimension of the problem. Yes,there are wiki's and a
few other tools, and that's great, but if we want
to really change the nature of online activism, we need
much more. I've suggested some tools for collaborative
democratic decision-making and fund-raising, which
merely take existing technologies just a few little
steps forward, here for example: http://economicdemocracy.org/funding.html But that
needs to be just the beginning. So I would
again encourage and urge PCI and all of us involved
to work to create the tools not only in funding.html
above but other ways for collaborative planning
and collaborative on-going action to take place. May our
efforts in those directions bear fruit! Harel
Hi Harel;
I have a somewhat different take on it: I don't think there is a shortage of social tech tools out there.
In every category I can think of, there are lots of open source and 'nearly-free' tools to support online work: CivicSpace to organize communities, Skype for online calls, mailing lists and threaded discussions galore. If anything there is a confusing number of options in each category that I can think of.
I certainly believe that there is a lot of room for improvement in interface design and usability of many of the tools, but I have come to think that our expectations of the potential for online work may be unrealistic. I think there is actually a limited range of things that can be done with information and communications technologies: we can use tech to publish and organize information, coordinate actions, pressure politicians through petitions and letters, and raise funds.
That's about it. Since the web does not connect directly to any political or economic control process, I don't think we can use it as a mechanism to take action, only as one to support action.
And that's not easily changeable. Peak Oil gurus often say that 'technology can't substitute for energy', and I believe this is somewhat true. I also believe that it is about equally true that 'Information can't substitute for action'.
I'll link through to your paper and read about your proposed concepts... perhaps I will have a different take after reviewing your essay. More later...
-------------------
[Somewhat later] OK, I've read the essay, and the bio posted here at PCI. You have some very interesting takes on applying tech -- I can certainly see the benefits of 'conditionality' for fundraising as you outline it in your linked essay. I'd expect that some of the online fundraising tools would be interested in implementing this. I imagine you've had discussions with some of the fundraising-related open source projects?
Guamanian,
I appreciate your having taken the time
to read through the funding essay,
something that already puts you into a
small category of people -- largely
my fault since I'm not very efficient
in spending my much more limited activist
time (now as a fulltime prof., versus
the grad school days where I'd network with a dozen new groups every week...) but thank you again for taking the time.
A consise summary (a bit out of date
but not very) of other "strategic
vision" essays is at
http://economicdemocracy.org/projs.shtml
and more detailed summary at
http://economicdemocracy.org/projs-overview.html
where the funding article is item F,
I agree that information can't
substitute for action and that
is precisely my point: we need
online tools that facilitate
ACTION, so that is precisely what
I am trying to say. As I commented,
that's partly our culture (chat chat
chat, but not much action) but at
least in part it's the tools. And yes
there are free/open software out there,
but how much of it is conveniently
implemented on sites (like this)? Not
many. This is one of the better
sites as far as implementing them, but
the conditionality is just one example
of an avenue to push for.
As noted in the essay, this has
some far-reaching and powerful
potentials including draft-resistance.
The way the web surprised the powers
that be with the (not nearly as
radical as they think) Dean candidacy
is the tip of the iceberg if
we can take ACTION (not information
alone, not discussion alone, but
ACTION) in *coordinated* ways
as the draft resistance
is merely a "feasibility study"
(or feasibility thought experiment) in.
I likewise agree that to a large
extent "we web does not
connect directly to any political or economic control process" which is
also exactly what I am saying we
need to change. De-centralized virtual
cash and hour (as in hour of work) sharing ideas are just one direction,
and the conditional voting, and conditional donations, and coordinated
actions (conditional actions e.g.
draft resistance) start to suggest
the outline of something far more expansive.
If you're interseted in making such
things happen, please drop me a note
at h [at sign] harelbarzilai [period]
org
***********
P.S. I've been in tough with
a limited number of projects like GNU
and the "uPANGEA" project on the projects
list has a GNU page but I haven't
had some to network much, and my
focus is on partnering with
organizations who can make things
happen...I've had some good conversations
including with Ithaca Hour/Ithaca
Health Fund founder Paul Glover
on the democratic retirement
system/communitarian alternative to
Wall St and also good
conversations including phone with Dave Room of PCI
but would love for PCI to go the
next step and implement something
like the funding.html article...want
to help me promote that? ;-)
Hi Harel;
Thanks for the in-depth follow-up. Like yourself, I'm poly-tasking and time is limited -- particularly this next 20 days or so -- but I will establish direct email contact to discuss this more.
In my professional work I'm a member of an organized network of 'social-tech' activists that includes software developers, online fundraisers, and web marketing specialists working specifically in the non-profit sector. They are highly innovative and effective folk, and your project sound like it would spark interest with many of them.
I'll follow up off-list within three days... Now it's back to work! :-)
Post new comment