Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Virtual Revolution

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted March 12, 2008.


Protesting online can be just as revolutionary as carrying signs, yelling, and storming the gates of power in the real world.
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

Who's Afraid of Grand Theft Auto?
If the controversial video game were a movie, we'd all be mightily impressed by its dark, ironic vision of a world at war with itself.
May 7, 2008

User-Generated Censorship
The Web makes it easy for crowds to collaborate. But it also makes it simple for mobs to crush free expression.
Apr 30, 2008

Writing Online: The Key to Literary Immortality
The advantage of publishing online rather than in books? Nobody can burn the Internet.
Apr 23, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

One of the social traditions that's carried over quite nicely from communities in the real world to communities online is revolution. You've got many kinds of revolt taking place online in places where people gather, from tiny forums devoted to sewing, to massive Web sites like Digg.com devoted to sharing news stories.

And while they may be virtual, the protests that break out in these digital communities have much in common with the ones that raise a ruckus in front of government buildings: they range from the deadly serious to the theatrically symbolic.

How can a bunch of people doing something on a Web site really be as disruptive or revolutionary as those carrying signs, yelling, and storming the gates of power in the real world? By way of an answer, let's consider three kinds of social protest that have taken place in the vast Digg community.

According to Internet analysis firm ComScore, Digg has 6 million visitors per month who come to read news stories rounded up from all over the Web. About half of those visitors log in as users to vote on which stories are the most important: the one with the most votes are deemed "popular," and make it to Digg's front page to be seen by millions. A smaller number of people on Digg -- about 10 percent -- choose to become submitters of stories, searching the Web for interesting things and posting them to be voted on -- in categories that range from politics to health. Digg's developers use a secret-sauce algorithm to determine at what point a story has received enough votes to make it popular and worthy of front-page placement.

You can imagine that a community like this one, devoted to the idea of democratically generated news and controlled by a secret algorithm, might be prone to controversy. And it is.

Two years ago, I was involved in what I would consider one type of user revolt on Digg. It was a prank that I pulled off with the help of an anonymous group called User/Submitter. The group's goal was to reveal how easy Digg makes it for corrupt people to buy votes and get free publicity on Digg's front page. My goal was to see if U/S really could get something on the front page by bribing Digg users with my cash. So I created a really dumb blog, paid a couple hundred dollars to U/S, and discovered that you could indeed buy your way to the front page. Think of it as an anarchist prank designed to show flaws in the so-called democracy of the system.

But there have also been massive grassroots protests on Digg, one of which I wrote about in a column more than a year ago. Thousands of Digg users posted a secret code, called the Advanced Access Content System key, that could be used as part of a scheme to unlock the encryption on high definition DVDs. The goal was to protest the fact that HD DVDs could only be played in "authorized" players chosen by Hollywood studios. So it forced people interested in HD to replace their DVD players with new devices. It was a consumer protest, essentially, and a very popular one. Hollywood companies sent Digg cease-and-desists requesting that they take down the AACS key whenever it was posted, but too many users had posted it. There was no way to stop the grassroots protest. Digg's founders gave up, told the community to post the AACS key to their hearts' content, and swore they would fight the studios to the end if they got sued (no suit ever materialized).

Another kind of protest that's occurred on Digg came just last month, and it was a small-scale rebellion among the people who submit stories and are therefore Digg's de facto editors. After Digg developers changed the site's algorithm so that it was harder to make stories popular, a group of Digg submitters sent a letter to Digg's founders saying they would stop using the site if the algorithm wasn't fixed. You could compare this protest to publishing an editorial in a newspaper -- it reflected grassroots sentiment but was written by a small minority of high-profile individuals. Though the company didn't change its algorithm, this protest did result in the creation of town hall meetings where users could ask questions of Digg developers and air their grievances. Each of these kinds of protests has its correlates in the real world: the symbolic prank, the grassroots protest, and the angry editorial. So forgive me if I laugh at people who say the Internet doesn't foster community. Not only is there a community there, but it's full of revolutionaries who fight for freedom of expression.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: online community, protest, revolution

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who wants a revolution.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Speaking of which-
Posted by: RBurgess on Mar 12, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right true
Posted by: talkville on Mar 13, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But this merely doubles the issue and makes it 'two-track' rather than one track. In the virtual world, revolutionary work goes on; but also counter-revolutionary work; here, too, the means are owned fundamentally by those of the latter ilk. That battle is still on-going and so far doing ok for struggles.

But just as in the Actual world, the counter-revolutionaries are at work. By enclosure, legislation, isolation, division and economic analogs to the real world. Same dynamics and dialectic split into a bi-level form.

It's best not to forget that already the Internet is becoming the new "MSM" and the same or analogous forces are at work to make sure that it becomes a "MSM" and pushes those pesky and troublesome and inconvenient forces off to the periphery and 'out of sight, out of mind'. It's time for realistic self-critical work and not only criticism directed at the opposing side. As with the actual world, the main forces working very hard these days are found in Economy and Law -- and capital is driving.

Best not to believe too strongly that what is temporary is permanent. Sites such as Digg are doing ok now, but let's not be deceived: they are studying, analyzing and learning all the time; and they have strong incentives to maximize pushes and pressures, and are very adept at managing and implementing such things. And they will be content enough to slowly and carefully 'manage' inconvenient sources off to the sides where fewer and fewer people have access to them or, more importantly, may go to the trouble of accessing them. "Managing Consent" I think it was called. Before you know it "most people" using the internet will go to those 'easy' places like NYT, Times of London, CNN, MSNBC or their look-alikes for their news and opinion. Access, by itself, means little. They are building a new MSM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amount of difference made outside of Dig:
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Mar 13, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zero.

Congratulations. You've discovered concepts hackers have known.. well, pretty much since there have been hackers.

"I don't want your revolution. I want anarchy and peace."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chapter 77. An Arresting Development
Posted by: LarryWBryant on Mar 13, 2008 6:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TO: Director, U. S. Marshals Service; Department of Justice; Washington, DC 20530-1000

FROM: Larry W. Bryant; 3518 Martha Custis Drive; Alexandria, VA 22302

SUBJECT: Letter of Transmittal of Larry W. Bryant's Citizen's Warrant for the Arrest of Pres. George W. Bush

DATE: March 12, 2008

Pursuant to the people's remedy under U. S. observance of common law, this letter transmits to the U. S. Marshals Service my enclosed citizen's arrest warrant calling for the immediate arrest, arraignment, and incarceration of President George W. Bush for his publicly admitted violation of federal law and constitutional safeguards as specified in the warrant's text.

Specifically, his contravention of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, along with his deliberate, premeditated violation of the U. S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment's privacy-protection provisions, leaves me and your agency no recourse but to proceed with this action, whose documentable facts are hereby submitted to the best of my knowledge and belief. You'll find this action echoed and ratified by more than 400 signatories recorded during the past two years via the enclosed printout of my online petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/arrest/petition.html). As you can see from these citizens' accompanying commentary, the petition has a central theme, viz.: in the United States, no person, not even (and especially) the president, is above the law.

Accordingly, in this exercise of our right (and civic duty) to petition the federal government for redress of our grievance against the cited criminality perpetrated by President Bush, I ask that, upon your receipt of this letter/warrant/petition, you promptly notify me of the name, telephone number, and e-mail address of the Marshals Service action officer to whom you are assigning this case. I also ask that you periodically keep me informed of all your agency's actions taken toward serving this warrant, on my behalf, upon Mr. Bush.

NOTE: As you comply with this action, I'm keeping the online petition in an active mode for an indefinite period -- so as to garner additional signatures from an outraged and frustrated (but nevertheless mobilized) public insistent that Bush be brought to justice.

By U. S. Certified Mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter with its enclosure. -- LARRY W. BRYANT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NOTE to Alternet Readers: For an expansion of this comment, see the full chapter 77 of my e-serialized book ("The Bu$ch-Cheezey Impeachment Chronicles") upon the web site of http://www.bushbusiness.com/Bryant_OP.htm ). -- LWB

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]