Humor in Online Activism

Online activism is all around us these days. In fact, Tuesday saw the start of a viral Facebook and Twitter sign of support for marriage equality in the current Supreme Court hearings. In this particular online activism trend, supporters of marriage equality replace their profile pictures with the alteration of The Human Rights Campaign logo shown above. There are also several other unique alterations on this picture in true internet style--no need to be all serious even when making radical social changes, after all.

The Oatmeal, a popular web comic, made sure to get in on the trend with the "equal marriage rights and bacon for all" spin on the logo. Such casual, albeit quite amusing, antics on the internet does lead people  to see online activism as rather juvenile and not reflective of people's true feelings. After all, the thought is that it just takes enough followers and a catchy logo to make enough noise to get noticed.

In fact, as an article covering the response from the White House to the Death Star petition points out:

Anyone with an agenda and 25,000 signatures can elicit an official response from the White House's "We the People" website. This being the internet and all, requests naturally tilt toward the edges: A petition for President Obama's impeachment, federally legalized marijuana, secession appeals, and a nationalized Twinkie industry. 

In the Death Star petition--a petition I proudly signed, by the way--34,435 people expressed their support for our government to fund the creation of a Death Star. While it was clearly a spoof petition that wasn't intended to pass--one of the top reasons being that it would take "$850 quadrillion" to build--it was clearly geared towards and succeeded in garnering attention. Many people would write it off as the typical comical farce of the internet. However, the internet has often proven that humor can carry very serious messages far and wide. Though no one expected the petition to pass, it did show many people's concern with extremely decreased funding for United States space programs, the poor state of the economy, the extreme amount of money we put into the defense budget, and the connection between these things. The actual text of the petition says:

By focusing our defense resources into a space-superiority platform and weapon system such as a Death Star, the government can spur job creation in the fields of construction, engineering, space exploration, and more, and strengthen our national defense.

The Death Star petition was created November 14, 2012, a particularly relevant time considering this August 6, 2012 article on a portion of the public's shortsighted and negative reaction to the funding spent on the Mars rover Curiosity. Most of the comments on Facebook amounted to people saying that the $2.5 Billion budget for Curiosity was wasted when it should have gone to providing shelter for the homeless. This sentiment actually became pretty popular because it was turned into a spreadable media format in the form of a shareable picture on Facebook. I know I commented vociferously on such posts pointing out how employing people using $2.5 Billion dollars does a lot more to stimulate the economy and improve living conditions than does giving it away to treat the symptoms of the problem. However, somehow my singular comments didn't become quite as popular as the photo being shared--shocking, I know.

What better way to combat this mode of thinking, though, than to create an attention grabbing Death Star petition that the White House actually responds to? There really isn't one.

So, before people write off the power of online activism because of its seemingly childish appearance, you really have to look at the underlying and powerful messages that the humor is carrying across boundaries in leaps and bounds that serious, straight laced activism just can't. After all, it's not a new phenomenon that the packaging of the message has to attract people before it can't fully soak into their brains. Internet humor in spreadable media format just happens to be the new transporting agent.

Working Together to Make the Future

How Free is the Internet?

"if you think you're free,

try walking into a deli"

At the most basic of levels, no, the internet is decidedly not free, just as it's not free to walk into a deli if you expect to get a sandwich; "The most widespread myth about cyberspace is that it is truly free and ungovernable" (154, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures). I don't know about you, but I pay about $60 a month for the internet. It's $7.99 a month for Netflix, and $100 or so a year to rent a URL and server space for my website. Even before that, it's around $100 or so a month to just keep the electricity on to run my devices. There are more miscellaneous charges if I want to get a movie or an e-book from Amazon. There are other less tangible costs even for the free websites, as well. Facebook has access to all of your information which they sell in packages to advertisers. Instagram feels free to sell the pictures you provide.

I know that for a full-time college student with more than a couple of jobs, the monetary cost represents a great expense, and the intangible cost is troubling. I'm also aware that, even in our own country, the minimum monetary threshold necessary to have access to the internet represents an impossible expense to a great many people: 

In itself, the availability of a medium of communication does not guarantee a truly public 'public sphere.' Racial, economic, gender, and regional inequalities in access mean that the public sphere in cyberspace is once more constructed by the (techno-) elite, while the marginal (often racial/ethnic minorities or women) remain at the periphery. ICTs have helped the already empowered to acquire greater power while the disadvantaged remain on the margins. (151, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

 So, even though we may not think of ourselves this way, we are the techno-elite in our own country and especially the rest of the world. In the article "The Internet Is Still a Man's World in Developing Countries" which Nathan shared as a trend on our Digital Culture and Social Media page, it states that "In the U.S., the gap between the number of men and women who use the internet is about 4 percent." So, even in our own country we can see the marginalization of women on the web. In developing countries, however, the gap is even more apparent with a "global gender gap of 23%" where even the internet access for men doesn't break above 50%. These statistics reflecting the connection between the gender/socioeconomic status and the internet access disparity show how:

Cyber-public space is the augmentation of existing public spaces and an extension into another realm of the communities, sites of political action and agency that exist in the real public sphere. This also means . . . that cyberspace is a fiercely contested zone, where ideological battles are played out between commercial interests and justice movements, neo-cons and radicals, businesses and environmentalists, the state and civil society. Even with radical and subversive movements in cyberspace, control is exerted by commercial interests. Even as the latter push for state governance of the Internet, alternative media escape legislation and hackers disrupt the profiteering narrative of mainstream technocapitalism. (137, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

 So, while there is a marked disadvantage in cyberculture for those who cannot afford access to all of the goodies that are offered on the internet, "hackers" as Nayar calls them—though the correct term in this sense is pirate—work to free the internet for public use. Pirates do this by cracking the copyright protection codes on software, music, movies, games, and e-books and distributing them freely and on a large scale using Peer-to-Peer transfer networks via torrents on sites such as Kick Ass Torrents. Technocapitalist corporations are fighting back, though:

Issues of copyright have exercised legal thinkers in the digital era. When the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was enacted in 1998, it was an attempt to ensure copyright protection for software and digital products. The controversies over NAPSTER and music-copying technologies have been cultural debates: who can own copyright, the freeing of knowledge and technology from monopolistic control, and the government's right to monitor usage, among others. (154, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures)

Technocapitalists are using new laws to impose severe repercussions for pirates. However, this seems counterproductive in that laws are made by the government which is supposed to represent the interests of the public. Pirates are freeing up media on the internet for public use; yet, the laws made by the government are advancing the interests of the technocapitalists, instead. Indeed, even the premise that preventing piracy protects the profits of the entertainment industry is faulty. In one of many articles expounding upon this point, "Why Most Artists Profit from Piracy" sheds light upon how piracy actually helps promote the music industry.

In conclusion, a free internet—whether in terms of cost or access—is not a thing that is naturally occurring. Lots and lots of people and organizations, however, are in constant battle to create that freedom—including everyone from pirates liberating media products to public libraries which offer free access to the internet. They are in constant confrontation with technocapitalists and the governmental laws they force through which begs the question "whether the task of ensuring security, safety, privacy, and equality (of access) is now the prerogative of private conglomerates and corporations rather than the state" (155, An Introduction to New Media and Cybercultures).