« Thesis Paper | Main | This is not my thesis. »
April 11, 2007
Internet Outrage: Activism or Entertainment?
Tycho of Penny Arcade comments today:
"People seem to think that by posting in threads and agreeing with other people they are changing the world. They are not. They are posting in threads online. The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. Being outraged online is a form of entertainment, and refreshing a thread to receive a hit of consensus packs the thrill of genuine activism without requiring any sweat. I'm afraid this test may require more from the community than a sardonic jpeg."
Tycho is referring specifically to outrage over Todd Goldman's plagiarism of an art piece by Dave Kelly, but obviously his observation has much wider implications. The Internet as a tool for anyone to blow off steam in front of an audience is an incredibly double edged sword as far as real world ramifications are concerned. While many stories and opinions are shared online that the mainstream media would never pick up, the catharsis of self-expression and the high of public agreement acknowledged by Tycho serve to kill energy and momentum for real world activism. Many of the villains decried by Internet communities care only about real world costs and benefits - from this perspective eloquent and compelling rhetoric that remains confined to cyberspace has no real meaning, and the authors, having vented their outrage, go on with their daily real world lives.
Posted by rosenblj at April 11, 2007 10:28 AM
Comments
The internet serves as a great place to organize the real world activities that actually do affect the villains.
All the forum postings and internet petitions in the world won't change a thing. Why would they, either? These are people who only care enough to do the bare minimum to affect change. If they can't be bothered to pick up a phone or write a letter in protest, I wouldn't expect the target of the complaint to care. But, if all the people moaning in internet forums actually used the forums to organize real world activities, it'd be a completely different story.
This is why I had a problem with the America's Army protest that Scott blogged about recently. Why should a politician care about an upset portion of the populace who can't quite make it away from their keyboard?
Posted by: Mike Stein ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://interactive.usc.edu/members/rosenblj/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 11, 2007 3:43 PM
RE America's Army?
Asking " Why should a politician care? " is getting ahead of yourself. The tangible goal should be to inform your peers, not influence a politician (if his position were assailable...aka if he cared about your cause...you wouldnt be in this spot in the first place).
You and your 'upset portion of the populace who are nerds (paraphrasing:P )' do what you can in the spheres that you operate to welcome others into the fold.
When some critical mass of people who care is reached, then tangible action is plausible and natural even. BUT - to say..."how to i get a politician to care" as if you could be in some sort of dialogue with one (and to the exclusion of stuff like the America's Army protest) is pretty strange. You get a LOT of people to care, which is the bottom line for a politician, even if a portion of those people are HUGE UNDERAGED NERDS (the america's army example).
ps - people need to feel that other people have their back before they will step away from their keyboard, or their shitty job, or their 2.5 kids.
Posted by: jb at April 11, 2007 4:56 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)