It’s remarkable how engaging and insightful events like ETech can be. The discussions are consistently innovative, and the attendees create an atmosphere of intellect and humor that’s truly unique in the tech world. Tim O’Reilly himself hints that it might just be his most crucial conference, highlighting its significance in the tech landscape.
Although I could only attend ETech for a day, I caught some fascinating talks. Thankfully, Ryan Singel from Wired covered presentations I regret missing, including Larry Lessig’s vision for congressional reform, Quinn Norton’s exploration of brain hacking, and Joel Selanikio’s inspiring view of mobile phones transforming Africa.
Singel also did a great job summarizing my presentation, “The Cute Cat Theory of Digital Activism.” This talk allowed me to delve deeper into ideas I’ve been developing, and I was pleased with its positive reception. Many asked for the slides, but their large size and video content make sharing them impractical. Instead, I’m sharing my notes, relevant links, and a few key slides here, offering a glimpse into the intended message, if not a perfect replica of the actual presentation.
The internet’s evolution is fascinating. Web 1.0 was initially designed for academics to exchange research papers.
Then, Web 2.0 emerged, seemingly driven by the desire to share pictures of cute cats.
I witnessed this shift firsthand at Tripod. We initially believed the web’s purpose was practical – helping college grads with apartments, jobs, and investments. But our users quickly showed us the real draw: personal content creation. This led to the unexpected challenge of monetizing platforms filled with user-uploaded cute cat photos.
User-generated content, in general, may lack the polish of professional work. However, the sheer volume of amateur content created for enjoyment is immense and collectively, incredibly compelling.
My Tripod experience led me to hypothesize that any advanced communication technology will inevitably be used for two primary purposes: pornography and activism. Pornography acts as a basic functionality test – a “mic check” for participatory media. If your system isn’t attracting porn, it’s likely not working at all. Activism, however, is a more rigorous test. Active activist engagement strongly suggests your tools are genuinely useful and user-friendly.
In 1996, we noticed significant traffic to Tripod from Malaysia. Server logs revealed pages in Bahasa Malay discussing “Reformasi” and “Anwar Ibrahim.” A visit to the Political Science department at Williams College clarified things: we were hosting a substantial part of the Malaysian political opposition, supporting the return of the deposed Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. With mainstream Malaysian media restricted, the internet provided a crucial outlet for opposition voices to publish and disseminate information. (Some of these pages are still live on Tripod.)
A strictly profit-driven company might have removed the Malaysian content due to lack of advertising revenue from Malaysia. However, Tripod’s priorities were different, and we even ended up sponsoring the Malaysian Olympic team, who won silver in Men’s team badminton.
Web 2.0 embraced the reality of people sharing cute cat pictures, leading to sophisticated tools designed for easy sharing. This inadvertently created powerful technology incredibly useful for activists. We’re seeing a dual revolution: simpler content creation and easier global sharing.
The Obama campaign’s effective use of online video generated considerable excitement. Larry Lessig, in Doha, Qatar, showcased a video as an example of how remix culture could revitalize American politics. Others pointed to it as “user-generated swiftboating,” highlighting the potential for amateur negativity to surpass even professional political mudslinging.
Sitting next to Tunisian activist Sami ben Gharbia in Doha, he remarked, “We did this years ago in Tunisia.” He wasn’t just referring to using video for voter motivation. Tunisian activists, particularly a colleague known as “Astrubal,” had already remixed Apple’s 1984 ad for political commentary. (My post “Democrats Invent the Remix, only three years after the Tunisians” details this further.)
The Tunisian video featured Ben Ali, Tunisia’s long-serving dictator and opponent of free speech. Regardless of one’s views on Hillary Clinton, Ben Ali represents a more Orwellian figure, skilled in public relations. Despite Tunisia’s repressiveness compared to its neighbors, it attracted tourism and was ironically chosen to host the World Summit on the Information Society in 2005. (My WSIS posts, starting here, explore this absurdity.) Sami, Astrubal, and others acted as an “ad agency” creating videos to internationally embarrass the government, countering Ben Ali’s polished PR. One impactful video tracked the Tunisian presidential jet’s travels. Despite Ben Ali’s reputation for rarely leaving Tunisia, planespotter sites like Airliners.net revealed his jet’s frequent trips to Europe. Astrubal combined Google Earth footage and planespotter photos to create a video showcasing participatory web power. (Sami emphasizes Astrubal’s sole creation of the flight video; Sami’s role was publicizing it on his blog and in talks on online activism.)
This video raised ethical questions: Is it acceptable for the first lady to use the taxpayer-funded presidential jet for European shopping trips? Foreign Policy magazine questioned this, critiquing the first lady and even publishing instructions on becoming a presidential planespotter.
Sami and Astrubal posted the video on their blogs, but as known activists, their blogs were blocked in Tunisia. They then posted it on DailyMotion, a popular video site in French-speaking regions. Shortly after, the Tunisian government blocked DailyMotion.
Ironically, this censorship can benefit activists. Most Tunisians aren’t political activists, but like people globally, they enjoy seeing cute cats online. Blocking DailyMotion impacted a much broader Tunisian audience than just activists. Cute cats became collateral damage of government censorship. Even those uninterested in politics realized their government feared online speech enough to censor millions of videos, including harmless cute cat content, to suppress a few political ones.
Censoring banal online content is counterproductive. It inadvertently teaches people to become dissidents, learning to use anonymous proxies – a crucial first step in anonymous blogging. Each time a government blocks a Web 2.0 site, cutting off access to cute cats, they expend political capital. Our role as online advocates is to increase the cost of such censorship.
Why don’t governments just censor “offensive” content? Why block entire platforms? This is actively researched. One reason is the difficulty of effective web censorship. (Pakistan’s YouTube shutdown demonstrated a remarkably flawed and dangerous approach to web traffic overblocking.)
There are four basic censorship methods: keyword blocking, URL blocking, DNS pollution, and IP blocking. Keyword blocking is complex and resource-intensive. URL blocking is easily circumvented. DNS blocking is simple but encourages tech-savvy users to switch to unpolluted DNS. IP blocking, the most common method for repressive regimes, inevitably blocks both sensitive and banal content.
However, perhaps this isn’t simply governmental incompetence. When Pakistan blocked YouTube, traffic to the site decreased. Google likely notices these trends. It might be coincidence that the video Pakistan cited was removed from YouTube for terms of service violations – or perhaps not. While advocates raise the costs of censorship for governments, clever governments may be increasing the cost of non-compliance for Web 2.0 companies.
The Open Net Initiative has documented internet censorship for over five years. Initially, Saudi Arabia and China were major censors. Now, at least two dozen nations regularly censor, with more engaging in “event-based filtering” around key elections. My concern is that nations restricting press freedom will increasingly filter the internet, recognizing it as a primary platform for modern press.
Of course, activists also achieve victories. When Google Maps became accessible in Bahrain, it allowed activists to address land ownership issues. Aerial views revealed vast royal family palace grounds amidst crowded communities.
An anonymous Bahraini activist created a PDF of Google Maps screenshots with annotations comparing palaces to crowded areas. This PDF circulated widely. Bahraini authorities couldn’t block PDFs without disrupting business. So, they blocked Google Maps, provoking outrage from bloggers like Mahmood Al-Youssif. After a brief block, they relented, preferring open access to Google Maps over training citizens to use proxy sites. (More on this Bahrain story is on my blog.)
When governments truly want to silence dissent, they resort to imprisonment, not just blocking. Egypt rarely blocks websites, occasionally targeting the Muslim Brotherhood site. But they imprisoned Kareem Soliman for criticizing Islam and readily arrest political reform protesters.
However, even imprisonment can backfire. When Kefaya activist and open-source advocate Alaa Abdel Fateh was among 700 arrested at a protest supporting judicial independence, authorities likely didn’t anticipate the PR fallout. Alaa blogged from prison, sending notes to his wife, Manal, who co-manages their blog. These posts drew international attention, leading to Al Jazeera and CNN coverage that would normally be ignored. This likely prolonged Alaa’s imprisonment but also potentially enhanced his safety within prison due to the publicity.
(Advice for aspiring online activists: marry a blogger. It’s worked well for me.)
The imprisonment of bloggers has taught activists valuable lessons about advocacy in the Web 2.0 era. When Global Voices China editor Hao Wu was detained in Beijing, our initial instinct was immediate online advocacy for his release. However, protocol dictates seeking family permission first. It took Rebecca MacKinnon a month to get Hao’s sister, Nina Wu, to agree.
Crucially, Nina began blogging herself. Her insights were far more personal and powerful. Our campaign shifted to translating and widely distributing Nina’s Chinese posts. My conclusion: Web 2.0 advocacy advice – “Don’t speak. Point.” (Bruno Giussani eloquently explains this phrase’s meaning.)
Nina wasn’t a professional activist. She was a career woman, a young mother living the “Chinese dream” in Shanghai. Activism was thrust upon her, and she utilized readily available tools – MSN Spaces, despite its heavy censorship in China and not being our preferred platform. Activists use accessible tools. Building tools for activists is good, but building tools for those who don’t yet see themselves as activists is even better.
(I deeply respect tools designed for activists, like Martus or FrontlineSMS. My point is that many users, not identifying as activists, will use familiar, accessible tools.)
Most activists are more effective outside of jail. Tools like Twitter, especially bulk SMS, might help keep activists out of prison. Alaa now uses Twitter to report political activities, enabling friends to reactivate the FreeAlaa site if he’s detained again. (Alaa jokes that his Twitter is currently boring due to a lull in Egyptian politics.)
Kefaya activists used mobile messages, some via Twitter, to alert others to Malek Moustafa’s impending arrest. Activist presence at the arrest site created a large police presence, blocking the street and preventing Moustafa’s removal, leading to his release. Alaa questions if this was a true “Twitter victory,” as Egyptian activists have used SMS for similar actions long before Twitter. Twitter’s value might be confusing Egyptian authorities, who might block local SMS but overlook international SMS numbers.
Twitter is also increasingly valuable for crisis reporting. Viktor Markovic used Twitter to live-report from Belgrade after Kosovo’s independence declaration. Juliana Rotich has used her feed for live reports from Eldoret during post-election violence. Mobile phones enable incident reporting in Kenya and integration into maps via Ushahidi.
Twitter isn’t perfect – it’s centralized and blockable. But its widespread use for trivial purposes, including sharing cute cat images, makes it pass the “cute cat test.” Many tools beneficial to activists are not explicitly designed for activism. Facebook, used to organize large protests against the FARC in Colombia, has data extraction limitations. Imran Jamal discussed the challenge of moving a 400,000-user Facebook community to Avaaz for easier fundraising. A challenge for Web 2.0 activist is knowing when to transition to dedicated platforms.
What happens when governments take Web 2.0 activism seriously? Belarus offers a humorous example. Alexander Lukashenko, noticing anti-Lukashenko YouTube content, suggested a Belarusian YouTube competitor. Belarusian bloggers went further, creating LuNet, parody sites mimicking a Lukashenko-compliant web. A Google parody was particularly clever – most searches led to a page stating the KGB was on lunch break. (Global Voices Advocacy covered the LuNet story.)
More sophisticated regimes exert greater control. China’s internet censorship is extensive, using keyword filters, IP blocks, and DNS manipulation. The system is complex, filtering at national and network levels, sometimes using RSET packets to disconnect users.
However, the most significant Chinese censorship occurs within Chinese Web 2.0 companies, including US companies operating in China. China has a thriving Web 2.0 startup scene, offering Chinese language video, photo, and blog platforms. These are more accessible and relevant to Chinese users and, crucially, unblocked in China.
These platforms have built-in censorship. Research by Rebecca MacKinnon revealed that Microsoft’s Chinese MSN Spaces blocked terms like “democracy” or “human rights” in blog titles. Reports indicate weekly meetings between web company heads and censors, providing keyword blocking instructions for a highly adaptable system.
Chinese bloggers have creatively circumvented censorship, using images. “River crab” images became popular as “river crab” sounds similar to “harmonize,” slang for “censored.” “Harmonized” became blocked, leading to “river crabbed.” The “three watches” river crab puns on “the three represents,” a blocked political term, rewritten as “wears three watches.”
For most Chinese internet users, the information environment is freer than their parents experienced. Michael Anti argues Chinese society is more liberal in personal behavior, especially regarding premarital sex and homosexuality. Many young Chinese accept constrained political freedom while enjoying these personal freedoms.
China’s censorship “genius” is allowing cute cats alongside censorship. While sites like Human Rights Watch are blocked, domestic Web 2.0 sites are accessible. Collateral censorship damage doesn’t necessarily raise non-activist awareness of activist issues. Will this Chinese model spread? It’s doubtful Ethiopia could replicate Chinese Amharic internet applications and block all Web 2.0 tools.
Interestingly, China doesn’t block everything. GMail remains unblocked, possibly due to its popularity within the communist party. Skype is unblocked and has vulnerabilities – Skype voice chatrooms can become pirate radio stations. China is unlikely to block MMOGs, even if users occasionally promote proxy server IPs within games.
(More on China and censorship in “Cute Cat Theory: The China Corollary” and “Michael Anti and the end of the golden age of blogs in China“.)
Speaking at the ancestral home of Lolgeeks without mentioning Lolcats feels wrong. Informal research within Global Voices revealed that while non-Western colleagues found Lolcats funny, they weren’t part of their cultures. (Animal picture sharing was common, but not leetspeak captions.)
Early attempts to spread lolcats internationally have been mostly unsuccessful. (That’s a lolcat by Rachel featuring our cat, Thorn, saying “Oh Hai…”). Making activism viral likely requires humor alongside political and emotional content. My favorite comment on SUP’s LiveJournal acquisition was a lolcat, summarizing the situation better than angry posts.
Typically, talks like these end with a call to action, hopefully better than “export lolcats to repressive nations.” The core message is: activists will use your tools if they are effective. Observe them, support them, and learn from them. They will improve your tools and are a primary reason for creating social software in the first place.
