Teh Intarwebz, they are awesome: a reading response

If I'm numbering correctly this should be week 4 in reading responses.

I will not lie; I had to google the word "foment" to find out exactly what it meant because the image in my mind had more to do with coffee than activism.

In thinking about spaces used to generate and promote activism and participation the first thing that comes to my mind is the internet. The techniques and finer points may vary but the basis of so much social organizing and debate is based on the internet.

I could bore people with the specifics but if you look back at my post Infinity and beyond from March you will see an image which is a graphic representation of the internet as of sometime in 2005. The entire world is connected instantly and with the meteoric rise of Google the information is no longer difficult to access.

Blogs like Feministing, Racialicious, Jack and Jill Politics, and others are able to use the internet to stay on top of information and keep up with their communities. They also have the ability to use seach engines like Google and Yahoo! to draw more readers to them. The way the blog system is built with reciprocal linking, blogrolls, and instant sourcing via hyperlinks is inherently designed to grow.

I don't at all doubt the ability of bloggers and vloggers like Sarah Haskins and Smart Girls at the Party to use the frameworks of Web 2.0 to their advantage.

I will say that many of these people have the Howard Dean campaign to thank for this framework as they were the first to prove that it could be done on a national level. Despite the fact that Dean did not win the primary, his campaign manager Joe Trippi's book The Revolution Will Not be Televised explains how Dean's campaign which was based heavily on web support and participation succeeded in proving that political challenges could be brought directly to the people. Suddenly political organizing and activism was no longer people in high places talking at people it was webmasters and bloggers talking to and with people.

The same is true of activism. For so long activism was something that lobbyists did: someone set the agenda and a limited group of people were sent out to do something about it. Feedback was complicated, difficult, and extremely limited. When web 2.0 concepts were introduced the model was changed so that people are now often given direct links to contact people in places of power and let their opinions be known.

Getting something done is generally a question of knowing how to properly disseminate your information. Should you use Twitter or Facebook or a more complex tagging system for your blog?

In working on the obama campaign I watch some of the most amazing things happen using Web and communication resources. Canvassing and phonebanking organized over the internet. Peopler could print their own lists without ever having to come in to our office. Sometimes organizing can be spontaneous and other times Webmasters and bloggers such as those at Feministing can encourage their audiences to get involved thus spreading a cause far quicker and further than word of mouth or other conventional methods such as chalking a campus or flyering a neighborhood could.

I think that the claims made in the articles are valid. Everyone has a voice and deserves to have that voice heard. Attention needs to be drawn to certain issues. A huge benefit of using the web for organizing is that people are not limited in the content they choose to work with. They are not sending out a topical newsletter that will require all 15 articles to be based around the same things. Each post can be hugely different, organizing efforts can be very specific and targeted. This can, in some ways, streamline the processes surrounding organizing.