The Activist Facebook Dilema
Wotzisname | 04.10.2011 23:42
OK.
So, I've always been extremely sceptical about using facebook for anything, let alone political activism
But, my opinion might be changing. Since and during the riots, I've been using it more and more, picking up and distributing LOTS of valuable information (from various sources) to people that otherwise possibly wouldn't have heard this info.. Information flows at a rate that quite frankly makes IM look pretty damn pedestrian at the moment.....
Its a TOOL. and by posting and distributing stuff, information gets out there. QUICK.
Yes, there's a compromise on anonymity, and security. clearly. But, it depends what you're saying. What are we hiding anyway?
Spread the word. Be proud. Tell people what Anarchism stands for... They will agree if explained lucidly through the right channels... Don't hide in the shadows. Tell people what you believe. Young people now read more FB than they read mainstream media. THIS SHIT IS WORKING. Look around the world. Movements are mobilising via these sordid channels. Use them. They won't be here forever. Tahrir Sq__ Wall st__ London?
Are we dismissing a powerfull tool out of dogma or paranoia?
Is it time to take our masks off and join the masses (marcos?)? Oct 15th ?
Why not ?! (cos us lot didn't sit in a meeting and decide to do it ourselves, by consensus and on our terms?)
Lets link arms and give em wot for. Thats what I say.
But then I've just come back from the pub.
(please discuss......)
So, I've always been extremely sceptical about using facebook for anything, let alone political activism
But, my opinion might be changing. Since and during the riots, I've been using it more and more, picking up and distributing LOTS of valuable information (from various sources) to people that otherwise possibly wouldn't have heard this info.. Information flows at a rate that quite frankly makes IM look pretty damn pedestrian at the moment.....
Its a TOOL. and by posting and distributing stuff, information gets out there. QUICK.
Yes, there's a compromise on anonymity, and security. clearly. But, it depends what you're saying. What are we hiding anyway?
Spread the word. Be proud. Tell people what Anarchism stands for... They will agree if explained lucidly through the right channels... Don't hide in the shadows. Tell people what you believe. Young people now read more FB than they read mainstream media. THIS SHIT IS WORKING. Look around the world. Movements are mobilising via these sordid channels. Use them. They won't be here forever. Tahrir Sq__ Wall st__ London?
Are we dismissing a powerfull tool out of dogma or paranoia?
Is it time to take our masks off and join the masses (marcos?)? Oct 15th ?
Why not ?! (cos us lot didn't sit in a meeting and decide to do it ourselves, by consensus and on our terms?)
Lets link arms and give em wot for. Thats what I say.
But then I've just come back from the pub.
(please discuss......)
Wotzisname
Comments
Hide the following 19 comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOE1HFEL8XA&feature=player_embedded#!
04.10.2011 23:49
and then I heard this, via FB......
good? bad?
Wotzisname again
Para Noid
05.10.2011 06:44
My suggestion? Get back to basics.
"To read too many books is harmful."
Mao Zedong
The Geek
Twitter too
05.10.2011 07:36
For example I knew that brummies had shot at police lines approximately 5 minutes after it happened. The mainstream media didn't report it until about 2 weeks later.
meep
comment
05.10.2011 07:56
As soon as you stop being scared you become dependent.
We are becoming increasingly dependent on technology including social media, the social control media of the future.
"...Sir, you know you said I could borrow your gun to fight you with, now you've taken it away, how can I fight you? It's not fare!"
Anarchist
Man in a dirty van, with puppies!
05.10.2011 10:58
It details not only your thoughts and activities but also your freinds, associates and those you take an interest in. It acts to map every part of your life and can, with other spying tools, build a frighteningly comprehensive picture of your life as you lead it. There are an estimted 200 million worldwide that use it but this number is horrendously inflated. The vast majority of all opened accounts are dormant or have never been deleted (despite users attempting to delete their accounts, facebook keeps personal information on its servers).
At any given time, all information kept or stored by facebook can be seconded by US federal authorities in order to bring about prosecutions or to be handed over to foreign governments for prosecution under their own US inspired law. No matter what pseudonym you use, your ip address is always stored as a matter of routine. It doesn't matter if you use a false name, you will always have to use a computer that can never be traced to you, or you to it. But even then, your security is only as good as the weakest of the people you associate with.
Facebook, Twitter and a whole range of social engineering tools exist for a reason. If you are fool enough to use them, you are fool enough to serve time.
I know of no anarchist anywhere, that would ever advocate the use of any social engineering tool that originates from within the Californian security nexus.
Knot-Eyed Jaguar.
The cost is your personal privacy
05.10.2011 11:19
It's an easy way for the state to monitor exactly who your friends are and what you are doing and saying.
Ideally create a Facebook identity not using your real email address or name, and make sure no-one who "friends" you knows who you are either! Not ideal for social networking, but might be good for an organisation or group.
Of course Facebook will be able to identify you by your IP address unless you use a public connection to use it, so you are only private from basic "little brother" snoops like fascists or journalists.
anon
Quick questions
05.10.2011 11:40
Why do they do that?
Is it because they love our freedom?
anarchist
look at the experiences from various countries
05.10.2011 13:19
- people who already are in a social network can use its services to rise up together
- social networks turn out to be giant traps when their owners collaborate with regime forces
- activists who already know their ways better avoid to enter a trap individually
- collectives outside a trap can find safe ways to reach in to support the struggles within
- anyone determined to publicly burn their profile can shape this step with a message
- anything useful that can be achieved with a corrupted tool can also be done with an independent tool
- everybody can contribute to defuse these traps and everyone will benefit from it regardless of the individual approach taken
fakeboor
@fakeboor
05.10.2011 15:59
I get what you are trying to say, but the problem is the so-called "network effect" - things like Facebook have value not necessarily because of their technical excellence but because they have the most people on them.
An independent competitor to Facebook might be technically brilliant and protect your privacy, and decentralise things, and not collude with governments, but if there is only 100 people on it, it's not going to work in the same way.
We shouldn't deny the fact that Facebook does make it possible to reach a large number of people, but just be aware that it is a poisoned chalice.
anon
understand the risks, build the alternatives
05.10.2011 16:26
[As somebody once said, using FB to organise is like holding meetings in MacDonalds and inviting the local cops to come along and film them!]
Within those limits, they can still be useful as a secondary channel for publicising public, above-ground activities. But your primary method of organising online should really be something more within your control.
The only reason these corporate platforms are so useful at the moment, is because so many people are using them. Therefore every time we do decide to compromise and use them, we should be actively promoting the alternatives. Otherwise we are just feeding a vicious cycle of corporate control.
[To use the same analogy, it's stupid to do your organising in MacDonalds, but if there was a huge crowd in there, it might be a good idea to run in and make an announcement about an upcoming event, and while you're there, mention briefly that there are good reasons for people to stop supporting McDs].
Alternatives to FB:
Alternatives to twitter:
...I'm sure there are others.
r
Cheers
05.10.2011 17:09
Some other thoughts:
Would the riots have happened in the same way if everyone was as paranoid as we are?
Would Wall St have happened without social networking?
And, if you shut down facebook tomorrow, there probably would be a revolution. That's how dependant people have become on it......
I think I'll continue to use it, just spreading alternative news, linking to places like here.... It really does seem to get a lot of people thinking, and reading shit they otherwise wouldn't. For me it's a way of spreading ideas, not organising actions.
Over n out....
Wotzisname
Don't jump out of your prams so fast
05.10.2011 19:26
The masses are on facebook, lot's fairly straight types, who might not be aware of whats really going on. So not necessacelery preaching to the masses.
So what if the CIA / MOSSAD and who the fuck else are monitoring everything.
We are talking about our democratic right to protest.
I am not interested in organizing anything illegal, well maybe a little bit, but certainly violent or wilfull damage, trashing off others peoples shit.
So why should I care if Big, or little, or any bruvvers are monitoring me ?
I am not doing anything illegal, or inciting others to do anything illegal.
as soon as you print a flyer for any action, against for instance an Airport, or incinerator or some mega by pass that is wiping out the last bit of nature in your vicinity, your on the list, so wtf !.
I call it fasces book and have done a subvert, so what, there are good people every even on facebook, besides you choose your friends and it is surprising how many people you'll find with the same ideas and moral values very simmilar to your own.
brabinger
Limited tools.
05.10.2011 19:55
Well the police have to put a lot of money into finding out who you are and generating that list, and even more money into figuring out who else your involved with. Facebook does all that for free. Which means the police would much prefer you use facebook. Its cost effective for them from an intelligence gathering POV.
"I call it fasces book and have done a subvert, so what, there are good people every even on facebook, besides you choose your friends and it is surprising how many people you'll find with the same ideas and moral values very simmilar to your own."
All of it mapped in fine detail if your fool enough to use facebook.
One of the things we found in England was that the more dialogue you hold in public and in the open, the easier it is for subversives to your cause to get involved in subverting you and your supporters. The police will find it easy to use your language, to use your ideology, to write in your style, to say the right things, to turn up with the right clothing. People that cannot stand your guts will find it easier to do the same.
If you find that a great many people share your ideas, then why allow them to be mapped in full view of the public. A shared voice is where your powers reside. Why give your opponents all the intelligence they need to undermine your cause.
Facebook allows for all these things, in fine detail, and for free. Whatever way you think it works for you, it works equally well against you. So you need to analyse what facebook is, map its benefits and use them...but understand its limits too, and how it will curse your movement and give the state and its police all the information they need to destroy you and everything you stand for.
Tianneman Square happened without facebook. The great anti-war marches in England happened without facebook. The Berlin wall fell without facebook. The anti-cglobalisation protests in Seattle, Genoa, London, Cancun et al all happened without facebook.
Just understand that a successful protest is one that recognises that the police have no right to be involved...at all!
Knot-Eyed Jaguar.
CIA's Facebook
06.10.2011 09:39
It's not helpful Wotzisname to label all concerns paranoia. Yes we can get paranoid sometimes, out of rightful fear or persecution or burn-out, but most issues with Facebook are as people say, to do with giving up your privacy, and giving the state the organising networks that they so want to know about.
It's also naive when people say I have a legal right to protest, I don't care if they're monitoring me, etc etc. And you implicate other people inadvertently too. It shouldn't be relevant if something's illegal or not (it was illegal for women to vote, so they broke the law to fight for it, using fire and physical violence amongst other methods).
I like the McDonalds analogy...
It is a quandry though - I don't believe for getting info out there we can build the alternatives to get anywhere near the reach of Spacehook however.
I don't know how they organised Wall Street, but the protests in Spain for example were organised without Facebook - social networking was actually, erm, social networking in full-real-life glory (plus of course with web stuff to support).
cheetah-eyed Not
@Knot-Eyed Jaguar
06.10.2011 09:42
Solidarity.
Forest
re @anon
06.10.2011 14:40
If you look at the footage, it becomes obvious that the owner is ashamed of having been bullied into it although he does not appear to be the type where this would be accomplished easily. Just like any other bankers, data-bankers ultimately depend on these who control the places where banks are created. It is all too human that successful bosses cannot be expected to be successful insurgents when they suddenly find themselves to be the ones bossed around. And besides that it impairs ideals disproportionately more than cash flows. However shame is not a solution and what matters is to make sure the same thing cannot happen again.
fakeboor
how important are we?
06.10.2011 23:27
anon
The Activist Surveillance Dilemma
08.10.2011 16:53
anon anon
@fakeboor: Any attempt of starting over from zero elsewhere would be corrupted..
09.10.2011 10:12
Not necessarily. It is possible to have completely decentralised social networking, where all peers are equal and there is no central server or code repository to become corrupted.
As a real-life example, see Freenet:
anon