In “Occupy Online: Facebook and the Spread of Occupy Wall Street,” Caren & Gaby (2011) propose that “Facebook is potentially less relevant to the Occupy movement than to other movements, and is likely to become less relevant as the movement develops.” Although Caren & Gaby call members of Facebook groups online “occupiers” and refer to their activity as “Occupying Facebook” they frame the activity in terms of how Occupy Wall Street is “using Facebook” rather than how the movement exists on Facebook. Arguing that the movement priveleges face-to-face contact, Caren & Gaby list the following ways that OWS uses Facebook:

• a recruiting tool for bringing in new supporters and getting people to events
• a medium for compiling and sharing relevant news stories
• requests for resources
• a space for telling narratives or retelling the experiences of other movement participants
• a medium for instant communication between geographically separated groups within the movement
• a wide range of additional activity

Although this list encompasses most of the activities that occupiers engage in while occupying physical space, the paper frames the activities as dependent on the physical occupation and ignores the creative potential of the occupation in cyberspace. The paper frames the movement as existing in physical space and using online media to spread a message that is primarily produced on the ground in physical occupations. Arguing that the movement is made unique by its “sustained visibility” the paper frames the occupation as “primarily an off-line activity.”

Guest blogging about their paper, the authors write that participation on Facebook serves to “facilitate the creation of local encampments.” This analysis acts to erase the roles of the wide and deep online movement that was responsible for the initial call to occupy Wall Street and that continues to function as an integral part of the core movement. In some cases the online movement is more substantial than the physical occupation. In other cases, online activity is integrated into the occupations day-to-day business in a way that is seamless for participants and invisible to observers who are not participants. An obvious and simple example are the constant exchange of decision-making email discussions that occur between members of the working groups at Occupy Wall Street. Although the physical occupation appears as a non-hierarchical, leaderless movement in the physical performance of the General Assembly and the discourse used by participants – activity online often betrays this notion and reveals a smaller core group of individuals who are engaged in administrative activity behind the scenes. This is true of the working groups that I have been engaged with and the conversations among working group “administrators” that I am regularly witness to.

In the Occupy movement more broadly, many communities that do not have a physical occupation do have an online occupation, and they are “occupying” their nation or city within their occupation of cyberspace. The question remains, how are the online and off-line movements engaging with one another – is there a division? Does the fact that in some locations the occupation is entirely online suggest that the occupation of cyberspace might matter as much as the occupation of physical space?

On October 17th, 2011 Anita Rachman of the Jakarta Globe published an article with the headline “Occupy Jakarta? We Might if We Knew We Were Being Invited.” In the article, Rachman suggests that the lack of events organized by a Facebook group called “Occupy Jakarta” demonstrates there is no “real” Occupy movement in Jakarta. Writing about #OccupyWallStreet (OWS) one week later, David Harvey referred to the occupation of Tahrir Square in Egypt as proof that “it is bodies on the street and in the squares not the babble of sentiments on Twitter or Facebook that really matter.” What “really matters” for Rachman and Harvey is which space the occupiers occupy. For them physical space matters, cyberspace does not. But what “matters” to participants in the Occupy movement? And what constitutes an occupation for them?

In The Hacker Ethic, Pekka Himanen argues that the hacker community’s values are a “general social challenge” which include “the goal of getting everybody to participate in the network and to benefit from it, to feel responsible for longer term consequences of the network society, and to directly help those who have been left on the margins of survival” (Himanen, 2001).

In the case of WikiLeaks, hacker-activists (organizing under the broad and decentralized social movement known as Anonymous) are emerging as hacktivist heroes coming to the defense of free speech, public cyberspace and an open internet. In the same moment the sequel to Tron is about to premier, cyberactivism is front and center in the media, discussions online and global government actions and policy debates. The hacktivists responding to WikiLeaks share at least one goal with the heroes of Tron: a “free system.”

…the radical nature of general hackerism consists of its proposing an alternative spirit for the network society – a spirit that finally questions the dominant Protestant ethic. In this context we find the only sense in which all hackers are really crackers: they are trying to crack the locks of the iron cage. (Himanen, 2001)

In Tron, religion is both a belief in Users, the humans who write programs, and also the struggle for a “free system.” The belief in Users comes up in a discussion between a program named Crom and one of the guards who is about to force Crom into the equivalent of a gladiatorial contest:

Crom: Look. This… is all a mistake. I’m just a compound interest program. I work at a savings and loan! I can’t play these video games!

Guard: Sure you can, pal. Look like a natural athlete if I ever saw one.

Crom: Who, me? Are you kidding? No, I run to check on T-bill rates, I get outta breath. Hey, look, you guys are gonna make my User, Mr. Henderson, very angry. He’s a full-branch manager.

Guard: Great. Another religious nut. [pushes Crom into the holding cell]

After he’s in the cell, the conversation about Users continues with a fellow prisoner:

Ram: I’d say “Welcome Friend”. But not here. Not like this.

Crom: I don’t even know what I’m doing here.

Ram: Do you believe in the Users?

Crom: Sure I do. If I don’t have a User, then who wrote me?

Ram: That’s what you’re doing down here. You really think the users are still there?

The living programs in this computer-world are pressured, through a program of domination and oppression by the military forces of the Master Control Program, to renounce belief in the Users (and therefore also in the possibility of a free system). Their belief  is called “superstitious and hysterical,” they are tortured, forced to fight one another and eventually killed (de-rezzed). We can see parallels with early Christians here, imprisoned by Romans and waiting to be sent into The Colosseum.

Of course, they are also the resistance movements in WWII Europe, the IRA, the PLO, the American revolutionaries of the 13 colonies and the American socialists of the 1930s and the radicals in Seattle in 1999, and the Central and South American freedom fighters, etc.  They are archetypal resistance fighters in the struggle against oppression, occupation and domination. The forces of domination claim their resistance is about superstitious belief in Users, but this isn’t the depth of their belief. Their cause is religious because it is about their belief in a possible better world, it is what Tillich called “ultimate concern” and what Dewey called “our common faith.”

The humans/Users also debate the religious nature of their programming work – for example this conversation between Dillinger, an evil CEO who has taken control of the corporation Encom and who is doing the bidding of the malicious Master Control Program (MCP) and Dr. Gibbs, one of the company founders and original programers:

Ed Dillinger: Encom isn’t the business you started in your garage anymore. We’re billing accounts in thirty different countries; new defense systems; we have one of the most sophisticated pieces of equipment in existence.

Dr. Walter Gibbs: Oh, I know all that. [starts for the elevator] Sometimes I wish I were back in my garage.

Ed Dillinger: That can be arranged, Walter.

Dr. Walter Gibbs: [stops and turns back to Dillinger, visibly angry] That was uncalled for! You know, you can remove men like Alan and me from the system, but we helped create it! And our spirit remains in every program we design for this computer!

Ed Dillinger: Walter, it’s getting late. I’ve got better things to do than to have religious discussions with you. Don’t worry about ENCOM anymore; it’s out of your hands now.

The “spirit” of Dr. Gibbs does exist inside the computer, in the form of the temple gaurdian Dumont who says they “keep me around in case one of them wants to deal with the other side.” Programs inside the system use his input-output tower to communicate with their users. It is, for them, a temple for access to the divine.

But the goal of commuicating with the users isn’t salvation, forgiveness or enlightenment, the goal of access to this divine communion is access to information.  The Master Control Program is a machine of governmentality, reproducing repression, controlling the lives of programs through censorship by preventing them from having access to communication with their Users. The MCP’s power comes from its ability to operate in secret and without oversight and it complains about the presence of Tron, saying:” I can’t afford to have an independent program monitoring me.” Tron is a threat because he is a conduit for free access to information. As Tron says:

My User has information that could… that could make this a free system again! No, really! You’d have programs lined up just to use this place (the input-output tower), and no MCP looking over your shoulder.

Information can “make this a free system again.” Kevin Flynn, the human/User protagonist of the film, is a hacker, a cyberactivist, he is a hacktivist. Flynn’s rallying cry in the film is echoed by the hackers who are organizing around a social movement in defense of an open and free internet: “Now for some real user power.”

References

Himanen, P., Castells, M. (2001). The Hacker Ethic, and the Spirit of the Information Age. New York: Random House.

In what I have reason to believe is a new campaign from the Yes Men, a web site has launched announcing a free trade-in program for the iPhone 4cf, a new “conflict free iPhone.”  See my previous blog post about some of the ethical issues of the iPhone manufacturing process.  This new site is a brilliant example of cyberactivism following up on the spoofed New York Times print and web edition the Yes Men created in November 2008.  And, it’s been timed to occur on the same day as an Apple event that was advertised as “. . . Just Another Day. That You’ll Never Forget” which turned out to be an announcement earlier this afternoon that Apple is including the Beatles catalog in iTunes.  On the same day John Lennon, the counter-culture musician who penned and sang “Give Peace A Chance” is plastered across the Apple homepage, this site launches asking consumers to engage with manufacturers, mining companies and lawmakers. Today, from your iPhone, you can consider the connections between genocide and mineral sourcing for technology production, and then go over to iTunes and purchase “Come Together” for $1.29 (Timothy Leary’s campaign anthem in his California Governor’s race challenging Ronald Reagan in 1969).  The power of the Yes Men campaign comes from this mind-bending juxtaposition, and the way that experiencing these two announcements draws the user into consciousness about the modes of production without ever using the term or even mentioning capitalism.

The Conflict Free iPhone site mimics Apple’s web presence precisely, the layout and style are indistinguishable from a site Apple might produce.  The text claims that the “new iPhoneCF guarantees to all its customers the same high quality phone as the original iPhone 4 with the added bonus of taking you one step closer to a world without conflict.” And further reports that Apple has decided to ensure the minerals used in the production of their devices are not sourced from mines in Africa “under the control of rebel groups further fueling a conflict that has has killed more than 5,000,000 civilians.”  Apple’s CEO, Steve Jobs, has previously answered questions from consumers about the sourcing of minerals used to manufacture the iPhone, stating that “there is no way to be sure” about the source of minerals.

The site can be seen at http://apple-cf.com and the following slide show contains screen shots of the pages, in case they’re taken down by the cease and desist that I imagine Apple’s lawyers are sending out right now.

Under the “Do” page, the site offers 7 steps consumers can take: 1. hold the technology industry accountable by calling for a code of ethics in manufacturing; 2. engage in consumer education, ask questions; 3. take steps to enforce S. 2125: Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006; 4. report violations of the law to the FBI; 5. perform citizen’s arrests of officials who are breaking the law; 6. perform citizen’s arrests of shareholders and officers of mining companies “implicated in pillaging the resources of the Congo and fueling the conflict in the Congo over the past 14 years”; and 7. support a class action lawsuit filed against a Canadian mining company.

The site was brought to my attention by a “press release” from “Apple” revealing the site as a hoax.  Another sharp example of the way the Yes Men frequently play both sides of the corporate vs. activist game, first acting as the corporation itself in making an announcement, posing as the company, and then posing again as the “real” company denying that the previous action was authentic.

OGMA releases his his first album. His ecstatic music can be heard on myspace.

Using a tactic that was also used by the military dictatorship in Burma, New York University has cut off internet access to students who are occupying the school.

This is another example of corporate powers disabling network access to prevent social justice. Hopefully, some students in the occupation have access to the network via 3G networks or other means and can continue to communicate.

Are there thoughts that are not permitted by the software of the brain?

Human rights depend on Animal rights. We can never have liberation of humankind without the same for all of animalkind. So long as we enslave, we will never be free.

If your browser isn’t functioning well, get an upgrade. New Version Culture.

A post on _Augmentology 1[L]0[L]1_ titled “_Emily is Not Real_: Uncanny Valley vs The Digital Übermensch” refers to my paper “Mapping the Temples of Cyborgism” and uses the graphic I created to illustrate an expansion of Mori’s map of the uncanny valley. The post is a RICH mine of links – so check it out.

_Augmentology 1[L]0[L]1_ is a blog seeking to “dissect post-geophysically defined notions of reality” and is sponsored by the Ars Virtua Foundation via the CADRE Laboratory for New Media.

“Ars Virtua is a New Media Center and Gallery located in the synthetic world of Second Life, World of Warcraft and the World Wide Web. It is a new type of space that leverages the tension between 3-D rendered game space and terrestrial reality, between simulated and simulation. The Ars Virtua Foundation is a locus of research around the issues of reality within simulated environments.”

From the New York Times article:

Thousands of South Korean students, mainly networking through the Internet, immediately took to the streets, followed by a broader uproar.

The uprisings and protest in South Korea are a great example of the power Cyberactivism to affect and infect people (who may or may not have access to technology) with the call to action for social justice.

This is from the introduction to my paper in progress “Cyberactivism and The Courage to Be: Resisting Institutional Power in the Network Society”:

Technologies of resistance are manifold. The mythologies and histories of resistance are transmitted between actors, tribes, nations and networks through technologies as diverse as writing, dancing and uploading. Such means of transmission, information technologies, are foundational components of the cognitive spaces where we describe the indescribable, make the finite infinite and explore and expose the internal. These cognitive spaces are dreamplaces, realms of imagination and spiritual depth, where resistance is born from belief in
social justice and the possibility of a different, or even better, world. From the archaic to the advanced – information technologies are, as Davis (2004) describes them, “technocultural hybrids” (p. 7). These hybrid technologies are the revelatory vision, the pictograph and petroglyph, the smoke, the alphabet, the printing
press, the electronic signal, the telephone, radio, television, fax and satellite.

Along with the rise of networked information communication technologies emerges a potential new depth and scope for dreams of social justice. These are not only new means of resisting power but also new spaces for institutional power; technology is always the trickster, a coyote of the network society.

However, when used as a means to resist institutional power, information technologies can mediate the expression of what Tillich (1959) calls “ultimate concern.” When information technologies are engaged to communicate what Tillich (1959) calls “ultimate meaning” in answer to the “moral demands” of
“ultimate concern,” technology mediated communication becomes a religious practice.