Why do activists continue to make use of MySpace? - Calling for a new online social network
an indymedia activist | 15.02.2007 14:42 | Indymedia | Technology
After some recent discussion on whether a local critical mass group should set up an account on the social networking site MySpace, some interesting things came to light. The amount of activist and campaign groups using the social networking site is growing. These groups include not only critical mass groups in London, Oxford and Manchester and anarchists from Norwich, Gwent, Ipswich but also bigger initiatives like Earth First (1) | (2), Plane Stupid, the Anarchist Federation (1) | (2) and the Cowley Club in Brighton. Even within the independent media world Democray Now, the Indypendent (1) | (2), and Indymedia (1) | (2) collectives from San Diego, Los Angelos (1) | (2) and Indybay have joined the MySpace craze. All but to name a few really. But is MySpace really the online community I would want to be part of? Looking into its structure and the real reasons behind its existance, I doubt I would.
social networking
A couple of years ago I did join MySpace, thinking it might be my kind of thing. I created an account and within a few days I had small network of 'friends'. I only visited the site a few times and I can see that it becomes a rather addictive past time. In July 2005 something changed. Republican pro-war media tycoon Rupert Murdoch had 'bought' the community. From that moment on a different light shined on the 'community' for me. MySpace provides a huge profit base for Murdoch's business in corporate advertising. Murdoch is an Australian global media executive and is the controlling shareholder, chairman and managing director of the News Corporation, based in New York. In the US this includes the republican rightwing Fox News Channel, in the UK, tabloids such as The Sun, News of the World and The Times. The Sun is currently with over 3,5 million in circulation the most read paper in the UK. Murdoch is one of the few chief executives of any multinational media corporation who has a controlling ownership share in the corporation. He has been discribed as being the most powerful in the world of (corporate) media. In the US Murdoch has a long history of supporting the Republican Party and was a close friend of Ronald Reagan. The News Corporation ownes hundreds of newspapers, TV Channels, film studios, radio channels and internet assests all over Europe, the US, Latin America, Russia, India and as far and wide as Fuji, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and China. Murdoch's News Corporation currently juggles with over $60 billion worth of assests in over 70 countries, including more than 300 million cable subscribers. Over the past year, he has spent nearly $1.5 billion on new-breed Internet companies, including MySpace, hoping to 'transform the free social network into a colossal marketing machine'.
Needless to say Indymedia and many other independent media outlets excist as a counterpart to the rightwing policitical propaganda that Murdochs empire produces. For example, Murdoch's papers strongly supported George W. Bush in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections and his publications worldwide tend to adopt pro-American views. During the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq for example, all 175 Murdoch-owned newspapers worldwide editorialized in favor of the war. Another example some might recall is the near publication the Chris Patten book. Chris Patten was a British politician who became the governor of Hong Kong just prior to its handover to China. A biography of Chris Patten was due to be published by Harper Collins (part of News Corporation) but it was dropped. It was alledged that the reasoning behind the drop was due to the fact that it was critical of China's human rights. News Corporation was, at the time, trying to complete a deal regarding Star TV with the Chinese government. The News Corporation has also been accused of using the combined power of its consolidated media assets to push out rivals and push towards a media monopoly. An example of this would be News Corporation's attempt to buy the football club Manchester United. In 1998 News Corp bid £623.4 million for the UK based football club. It's fans were outraged and raised the question of an encroaching monopoly, as News Corporation owned the rights to broadcast the all premiere league matches, of which Manchester United was one. It was alleged that by controlling Manchester United, News Corporation could influence the decisions about the selling of the rights to broadcast the all premiere league matches.
Calling for a new online social network
It does strike me that some groups make so easily use of the corporate owned MySpace network. Even though Indymedia UK has helped promote some peoples activities on MySpace in the past (1) | (2) | (3), the Indymedia network has always actively promoted and facilitated the use of open source software, and alternatives to the commercial and corporate media currently dominating our lives. From what I can see Indymedia was set up as a tool for information sharing and social networking. Although Indymedia needs to improve its social networking capacity, is there really a need to move over to MySpace? The main question is: is it time for Indymedia to build a new social online network with similair features to sites like MySpace, Live Journal, Bebo, etc? After all people seem to hang out elsewhere, which distracts from what Indymedia is all about: bringing people together. There is an interesting development of open source social networking software in the pipeline called the Appleseed Project. 'The Appleseed Project is an effort to create open source Social Networking software that is based on a distributed model. Apart from that, Appleseed will also have a strong focus on privacy and security, as well as a commitment to seeing the user as an online citizen, as opposed to a consumer to be targetted. This is in stark contrast to current social networking websites, who rely heavily on ad placement and data mining of their users. ' Ah, now that sounds like the kind of place I'd like hang out. A Beta version has been released. Is the time ripe to set up shop ??
Links: the myspace con ! | Spooks at Google and MySpace, PayPal, YouTube, Ebay, and Yahoo | Myspace/Fox Artists beware!! | American Non-Profit Seeks to Transform Global Human Rights Advocacy | Bill Moyers: 'Big Media is Ravenous'
Articles related to Rupert Murdoch: Murdoch press advocates detention camps | Murdoch’s media empire girds up for a war against Iran | Murdoch media has legal right to disinform | Google sell out, blogger to be sold to Murdoch!!! | Outfoxed - Rupert Murdochs war On Journalism
an indymedia activist
Comments
Hide the following 10 comments
I would like to see
15.02.2007 14:57
intrested
Money where mouth is?
15.02.2007 16:03
As a community we seem to have difficulty coming up with the relatively small amounts necessary to pay for our IMC servers (THAT is why many sites collapse, can't pay the bills).
Something along the lines you propose would take serious financing. The reason why so many folks are using some of these otherwise objectionable means is that it is being provided "free" to them (pay in other ways, the TANSTAAFL rule). Do you really suppose that we (our community members) would be willing to PAY a subscription fee for out "network".
Mike Novack
e-mail:
stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
eh
15.02.2007 16:35
I'm not entirely clear on what you're proposing tho. to me there's two ideas from your post:
1. an activist-oriented social networking site to provide an alternative to myspace
2. a more general social networking site that's meant for everyone but isn't owned by a large company
to be honest I don't see a great deal of use in either. the activist scene already has plenty of mediums through which to communicate (here, libcom, urban75, etc.) and I'm not sure what a social networking site would offer that those don't.
for the latter, what impetus is there for non-activists to switch over to a site that would likely be on a par with myspace (at best) with regard to features, that probably isn't used by their friends, etc.?
the main use of myspace for activists is as a means of easy publicity - stick something up as an announcement and through the "friends" feature you've got a potential audience of 154 million people. it's this - making use of real, existing, social networks, rather than constantly turning to ghettoised anarcho-purist-server-run-on-recycled-tofu-beans-and-sunshine self-enclosed alternatives - that has value for us.
- r
rasputin
Responses
16.02.2007 01:12
In response to Mike Novack:
' As a community we seem to have difficulty coming up with the relatively small amounts necessary to pay for our IMC servers (THAT is why many sites collapse, can't pay the bills). Something along the lines you propose would take serious financing. The reason why so many folks are using some of these otherwise objectionable means is that it is being provided "free" to them (pay in other ways, the TANSTAAFL rule).
Every top of every page on MySpace has an advertising banner on it. It seems slightly hypocritical, for example a group like EarthFirst uses MySpace, but when I visit their site, the first thing I look at is an advert for Prada designer sunglasses. To me, thats not free, it's working within and help building a huge corporate marketing machine. It's like an online McDonalds really. Yes, great lets invite our friends along...
' Do you really suppose that we (our community members) would be willing to PAY a subscription fee for out "network". '
Well, nothing is really free. Some projects such as those from the Wikimedia foundation have been able to run on donations and participants support. I do absolutely take on board your point on the finance issue. It is a problem, I just feel that unless we look at alternatives now, more and more people will divert their attention away from Indymedia and use sites such as MySpace. But it is an issue, maybe one to overcome if many heads are stuck together?
In response to rasputin:
' first, yeah Murdoch's a fuckhole, but unless you're a nudist fructarian living in a tree you're gonna have to deal with fuckholes at some point - I'm eating an ASDA ready meal as I write this on an e-Machines computer, and really couldn't care less. '
Well, Indymedia was exactly setup for the reason that some folk do care and care enough to build a network of independent media outlets to counteract some of the corporate media bullshit coming out of media mostly owned by Murdoch's News Corporation.
' I'm not entirely clear on what you're proposing tho. to me there's two ideas from your post: 1. an activist-oriented social networking site to provide an alternative to myspace 2. a more general social networking site that's meant for everyone but isn't owned by a large company '
Yes, a bit of both. As more people enjoy social networking online, I feel Indymedia could think about facilitating this. Most people I've spoken to say they use MySpace because their friends use it. But if they use it and other friends start using it, etc etc. Wouldn't it be great if we could build on an alternative where we're seen as an online citizen, rather than a consumer ready to be targeted? So yes, a social networking site, which is collectively run and has a focus on various issues, which could be tied in with Indymedia.
' to be honest I don't see a great deal of use in either. the activist scene already has plenty of mediums through which to communicate (here, libcom, urban75, etc.) and I'm not sure what a social networking site would offer that those don't. '
Thats true! I would be happy with what I've got, but most folk don't. The net is getting more and more interactive. Once Indymedia was pioneering in its participatory media making and its open publishing policy. But others have overtaken us in terms of accessibility, useablity and technology. Unless we try to get ahead of the game again, we've become a thing of the past.
' the main use of myspace for activists is as a means of easy publicity - stick something up as an announcement and through the "friends" feature you've got a potential audience of 154 million people. it's this - making use of real, existing, social networks, rather than constantly turning to ghettoised anarcho-purist-server-run-on-recycled-tofu-beans-and-sunshine self-enclosed alternatives - that has value for us. '
Indymedia worldwide probably has a few million users every month, hardly to be reffered to as a non-audience. Indymedia, MySpace, even the entire internet was started with just a few folk and an interesting idea. Building resources to get social movements to communicate and inspire each other is what I percieve Indymedia to be. So lets make sure people can use it for that purpose.
an I.A.
do we need another site
16.02.2007 01:49
do we need another state controlled website?
jim bowen
response
16.02.2007 08:47
There is a difference tho. With Indymedia there is a very practical reason for its existence - the kind of stories found here will not be found, or at least not be given due attention, on mainstream sources. As such there's a clear need which the IMC network is meeting. What you're talking about seems to be much more of the moralistic "we shall not be tainted by Fox" mindset - I'm not sure what, on a purely pragmatic level, this would offer.
"Yes, a bit of both. As more people enjoy social networking online, I feel Indymedia could think about facilitating this. Most people I've spoken to say they use MySpace because their friends use it. But if they use it and other friends start using it, etc etc. Wouldn't it be great if we could build on an alternative where we're seen as an online citizen, rather than a consumer ready to be targeted? So yes, a social networking site, which is collectively run and has a focus on various issues, which could be tied in with Indymedia."
Again, tho - if I'm not politically involved or aware, what impetus is there for me to sign up to this site, when everyone else is using myspace and its friends? as for "online citizen", again, that appeals to politicos but if I'm a 14 year old wanting to chat about [insert cultural reference here], what impetus do I have?
on the other hand tho, there are alternatives to myspace/livejournal/etc. available which have met with varying degrees of success, so it's not entirely implausible....
I'm curious about what you mean by "online citizen" and "a focus on various issues".
rasputin
Security - please
16.02.2007 15:58
(by the way - when I post something, the page in unencrypted during that time. Does this mean postings can be traced?)
Flymo
personal security
16.02.2007 19:58
The Money aspect is capitalism, do we want to use a site owned by a media corporation regardless of who owns it? No of course not!, well it also has ad sense by Google, links to Google search engine etc & lots of Ads by many unscrupulous companies as most sites do Use an ad blocker then, there simple now we wont be brainwashed, however our ISP`s have these sites running through their servers shall we abandon them too & drop the internet entirely? building our own networks on the back of wireless meets etc would be the ultimate way of doing this & probably v slow too, we cant escape capitalism as long as the internet is used as a medium now, unless its bypassed.
Ease Of Use, well it is easy its designed that way & thats why i use it myself, i know the risks, so if you use a false name address etc & you have the tech knowledge to hide yourself on the internet then its perfectly ok to use my space, however all social networks are data mined by security forces & businesses for patterns of friends & of course useful information for use in getting to know the operations of organizations! see
for some examples of mainstream attitudes towards this kind of data mining. to me the main personal dangers of this are that people who collect lots of friends randomly will be associated with networks of which they have no connection the beauty of this is everyone can link together to anyone to muddy these results creating mass mixing of the networks. But using networks like the onion ring "TOR" can help with security too, or Scroogle if you don't like Google data mining you!
Motivation, well most people are too busy "i find this unacceptable" or technically unable to do much about using networks like my space, So its up to the "technical anarchist networks" to motivate themselves to helping these people understand the risks involved in using the internet & providing good alternatives & workshops "there is a lot out there already for spreading media" as quoted in one of the other comments!, not puffing up egotistically for supporting single trendy tech solutions and beating the less knowledgeable with their lightsabres after being frustrated at failing to find a real solution to this issue of widespread internet security! Sorry as a nerd i dislike this attitude!
my worst fears are that activist networks start using mash ups these are far less secure & involve Geolocation which means there is not only more information readily available about a group or person but its location is too :-( please don`t be tempted its a whole differnt ball game & the risks are much higher than the benefits.
a list of lots of social networking sites can be found at at
ghost warrior
I have mixed opinions about this
25.02.2007 18:37
I think it is worthwhile having some Indymedia content on commerical sites like MySpace or even mirroring some content onto them for security reasons (not that anyone is doing this yet). The network as a whole is barely able to stay afloat and when sites go down really useful news gets lost (if a site goes down on the day of a major protest having a backup of the breaking info mirrored to some commerical sites that are harder to DOS attack seems like an ok use for the commercial sites).
MySpace has major problems technically aside from its evil owners (they seem to be unable to deal with their load and their ads also crash many browsers). Having a lefty alternative would be great if anyone has the time or energy and can put the guarantees on long term support that is needed to make it worth putting the work into pages. More broadly speaking though, we cant avoid using some evil commercial free or pay services for some aspects of activism (commerical hosting environments and ISPs owned by companies that help the NSA to spy on people, computer manufacturers that pillage countries like the DRC, software like PHP that is made in Israel, etc...)
An Indybay Editor
a thought
25.02.2007 18:46
Thats already really possible if the government wants to. Cell phones allow for tracking of location any time they are on even if you are not making a call (since they register with the nearest tower). In most cases cellphones are linked back to you real identity in one way or another. Most people who browse Indymedia sites or work on the sites do so most of the time from home and have internet connections also tied to their names. All a government would have to do is look at who uses the admin sites or list servs for the various indymedia groups and then get phone records and they could get constant location info. Nobody is likely to be doing this for Indymedia editors right now (although Im sure this is being done for some organized crime groups and suspected "terrorists") but it is worth noting that its hard to "be careful" since our dependence on technology leaves a constant paper trail that governments can get access to with enough work.
The main reason I can see to be careful about giving out person info is if one reveals personal stuff that would allow the government to mess with you in other ways or if one provides info that allows local government to mess with you without having to obtain as much authorization (since the info is already public).
a thought