Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks Facebook Politics Technology

Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99% 451

Posted by samzenpus
from the will-it-have-games? dept.
hypnosec writes "In 2011, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook helped protesters to spread their cause and garner support across the world. What started out as a minor protest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide protest thanks to the use of social media. According to Wired, after seeing the impact social media platforms have had on protests worldwide, several Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their own social networking platform aimed at spreading awareness about particular causes and rallying people for protests."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:10AM (#38537312)

    Then they will be in the 1%.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BlueStrat (756137)

      Then they will be in the 1%.

      They already are "the 1%".

      Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?

      My bad.

      Strat

    • by Flyerman (1728812)

      I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.

    • by RoLi (141856)

      Come on, Obama and Bernanke have already shown their support, they are already the 1%.

      I guess they have to go to virtual reality because Occupy-camps have degenerated into an ugly multicultural nightmare [in-other-news.com].

      To know on what side an occupy-protester stands, just ask him/her whether he/she would abolish central banking.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I look forward to the day when they give up on this because it's too hard, much like they did with their protests....

    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:24AM (#38537396)
      There are three reasons I see for giving up on the protests:
      1. It isn't working. The rich remain obscenely rich, corporate interests continue to trump public interests, and politicians remain betrothed to their corporate sponsors. For all the fuss the protests made, they change nothing.
      2. People are getting bored. Media coverage isn't what it was, and there is no point protesting if you don't get attention for it. That is the purpose of the protest.
      3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently.

      There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored. That leaves them with the choice of either giving up or turning to more desperate measures like illegal direct action. We've seen a little of the latter in the Anonymous operation to use stolen credit card details to donate to charities.

      I'm surprised we haven't had an anti-wall-street psycho start bombing banks yet. The environmental movement has a few, the pro-life movement has a few... maybe it just needs time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Reason 4 - They've lost interest since it all was really nothing more than a fad. Probably about 50% of the people "protesting" had no clue why they were there. All they knew was that it was cool, there was free food, drugs available and loose women.

        Now, they've all gone back to their mother's basements or their cardboard box somewhere.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Not working? You expected immediate results? The Occupy movement has already influenced public debate. Real change takes time.

        While it's a natural tendency (especially for those of us more comfortable interacting with technology than our fellow humans) to avoid mass movements, there is a substantial history of government changes in response to these forces. Consider the 40-hour work week; worker protections, financial reforms, environmental rules, and (poster child!) civil rights legislation. Of course

        • are getting alot of lucky to have a job BS.

          And getting pushed to do the work of 2-3 people for the pay of 1.

          On call with no added pay + getting a hard time with they take a late call and show up late to office the next day.

          over use and abuse of contractors (fedex is real bad at the as they treat there drivers as employers but they are not) and they have to buy / rent the truck + buy the route + pay gas and other up keep costs. Also lost or stolen packages come out of there pay.

        • by lexsird (1208192) on Friday December 30, 2011 @11:35AM (#38539252)

          It does take time. And that is hard considering how conditioned we are for instant gratification.

          The system is well crafted and had decades to program the populace not only to embrace their chains be to defend them. You have to admire the elegance of this propaganda system that's been established. It's resilient to change, it harnesses the intellect of it's victims to perpetuate it, to defend it and to propagate it. This is nothing new, I have traced it back when I was presenting work regarding psychological warfare, as far back as we have had written history. Controlling the masses has always been a top tier priority in regards to "governing". It's rare that we see it when we are experiencing it. Mostly we have been only able to study it after the fact and from afar. If it runs contrary to our current programing it never sees the light of day just due to the natural defenses it has.

          For example we look at how the Nazis rose to power and how Stalin rose to power and how the mindsets there were cultivated and come to a fruition that allowed malevolent elements to come to power. It's easy to see their faults, but we fail to learn from these lessons because we don't apply objective reasoning and observation to our own climes.

          What I find interesting is how it harnesses the intellect of it's victims. Look at how the Nazis harnessed the brilliance of it's technically minded people. Those Germans were brilliant, but on the whole, ironically, they were political morons. You have to wonder how such intelligent people can be duped. If you can't see the brilliance in German engineering of weapons at the time, you are historically ignorant. German equipment was frankly awesome. Their tanks were something to rightfully fear, we managed to beat them out of sheer numbers. We zerged them with cheaper tanks frankly.

          Though intelligent, they were still manipulated, so intelligence isn't a safeguard against it. This is a disturbing thought, because naturally one would think an intelligent population would have immunity to it. It doesn't. In fact, as I read comments here, I see many intelligent people remarking, but to my dismay I can see the influences upon them. What I see is an emotional subset mentality that is bound to people's inner personality core. This is engaged at a subconscious level as they evaluate the situation, not formulating their intellectual responses, but it's the driving force behind their responses.

          What we are dealing with is emotional (for a lack of a better term) programing at a low level of consciousnesses. This has always been the case in the past, and it's worked in situations where it's needed to provoke people to do something that is contrary to their own good health. For example, it's often used to rally a population to war. Without this, it would be nigh impossible to get people to go fight for something that frankly has no effect upon them except in some abstract reason that effects them at some base emotion, hence steering their intellect into not only excusing it, but putting the full blunt of their being behind it.

          Granted, this is a needed thing when it comes to the overall good of a large entity of people, but when it's used to further the gains of a few, it's classically been the downfall of whatever group of people that its effected. Democracy was a fragile experiment, a seemingly vain attempt in face of this powerful influence to give the average person an objectivity and ability to rise above this kind of mindset. It succeeded to some extent because it's founding fathers were brilliant deep thinkers, hailing from a time in our country when we had the best and the brightest from Europe, here on our soil, seeking to expand not only their freedoms but their minds.

          The frontier atmosphere that allowed that kind of mindset to blossom has been smothered. There are no frontiers where the free thinking can roam now. Control has been established.

          My challenge to anyone who fancies themselves as a free thinker to try this mental exercise if you are capable

      • by ProfBooty (172603) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:01AM (#38537670)

        They should have teamed up with the GOP instead. I know one of the OWS organizers (he handles their money) and their beliefs are surprisingly in common with the Tea party before it was co-opted by Palin and other GOP leaders.

        A biggie that they both want is less money in politics.

      • by timholman (71886) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:01AM (#38537674)

        There seems to be a cycle in protests, regardless of what the cause is: 1. Anger. 2. Protest. 3. Realisation of futility. 4. Giving up. Occasionally, very occasionally, the protest might actually succeed.... but more often than not, protesters are simply ignored.

        And the reason they're ignored is because (surprise!) they don't have the popular support they pretend they have.

        The whole "99% vs. 1%" meme was a joke from the beginning. So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line. You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect), not by sitting in a squatter's camp and making a nuisance / laughingstock of yourself.

        The Occupy movement made entertaining press for a while, but their 15 minutes of fame is just about over. Time to move on, people.

        • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:35AM (#38538000) Homepage

          they don't have the popular support they pretend they have...So you're unhappy with the way things are going in this country? Get in line.

          So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?

          If people can't be motivated by common complaints of massive corruption because the complaints are so common as to be boring, then what's your hope for motivating people to do something as boring as voting?

          • by timholman (71886)

            So they're unsuccessful because they have no support, and they have no support because their complaints are so common that they're not interesting? And your solution is to "get out and vote"? Really?

            And what's your solution? A revolution? Burn it all down? Execute and imprison the rich and powerful for being "enemies of the people"? Sure, just look at history to figure out how that will turn out. First the upper class is destroyed, and then the middle and lower class start fingering their neighbors, an

        • by Hatta (162192) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:47AM (#38538110) Journal

          You can make a real difference by volunteering and getting people out to vote in the next election

          No, no you can't. You can only legitimize the two (one, really) party system by increasing voter turnout. If you're trying to get a third party politician elected, there are nearly insurmountable biases built into the system. The system favors candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. The corporate media favors candidates with a pro corporate agenda. The winner take all voting system discourages people from voting third party, e.g. Ralph Nader in 2000. And even if you do get a credible agent for change in office, there's no way for the people to stand up to the sort of lobbying done by corporations.

          No, the system is well and truly broken. If this was a fixable problem, it would have been fixed back in the 60s. Instead, the powerful have locked down their positions, homogenized society, and are extracting wealth at an accelerated pace. This is not what democracy looks like.

          (e.g. the Tea Party, which actually accomplished something in that respect)

          What has the Tea Party actually accomplished other than getting co-opted by republicans?

        • In October polls indicated that the majority of Americans agreed [theatlantic.com] with the points Occupy Wall Street was raising. Coverage has waned, attention spans have shifted, and holidays have happened since then but a plurality still support them despite constant work by the corporate media (esp. Fox) to paint them as dirty no-good hippies.

          When you look at what they're about, and what the Tea Party was/is? about they share core beliefs, the prime among which is that the American people have lost control of their gove

      • by shentino (1139071) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:02AM (#38537676)

        Regarding number 3, they've already confiscated dump trucks full of personal property and sent out "notices on where you can pick it up" in not only a blatant violation of the 4th amendment rights against search and seizure, but by holding their property hostage they are attempting to run rambo over their 1st amendment rights by forcing them to abandon their posts if they want their stuff back. After which they will find the park conveniently locked and themselves unable to return.

        If that isn't illegal I don't know what is.

        As for number 2, the media isn't covering it because the police won't allow it. News choppers are being kept at bay by police choppers. Someone above the cops doesn't WANT media coverage. To be blunt, the 1 percent has something to hide and they're not afraid to use the cops as mercenaries.

        Not only that, but the cops, in addition to telling news crews to stay out and not cover the situation, are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on.

        And as for number 1, we've already lost. The rich know damn well they've got our government by the balls and they are NEVER going to let go. The fact that cops are blatantly trampling the rights of the protesters and getting away with it just shows me how deeply entrenched, stubborn, and when threatened, vicious the 1 percent really is.

      • by dristoph (1207920) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:15AM (#38537808)

        "1. It isn't working."

        The national dialogue has shifted considerably since the protests started. I haven't heard so many regular people talking about the processes of the financial system in /ever/. It put the spotlight on the biggest profiteers of the last decade of war and declining middle class. I've seen people on the left and the right start to express the cynicism toward their elected representatives that is rightly deserved.

        "2. People are getting bored."

        People were already bored. On the contrary, I've seen people who have never had an iota of interest in politics suddenly start to form opinions. It's a populist movement, and even your friend who has never cared about politics outside football at least has /something/ to say about Occupy and its issues. In this age of apathy, I see that as progress.

        "3. With California using tear gas to dispel the protests, and the police in London declaring Occupy protesters a terrorist movement, it looks like the authorities are starting to tire of the embarassment and will put an end to things by force as soon as the media interest has faded sufficiently."

        The arguable excessive use of police force against the protests have only amplified valid concerns about our government's protection of the Bill of Rights. The UN itself has called into question the defense of human rights in the United States, largely due to the excess use of police force against protesters in this country. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/occupy-wall-street-un-envoy_n_1125860.html]

        I seriously doubt that Occupy is going to bring real change...on its own. I see it more as a beginning spark. The conversations happening now rightly focus around the disparity of opportunity in this country, to an extent that we haven't seen in decades, maybe even this century. The impact has already taken place and the shockwave will be lasting. No matter who gets elected President and fails us yet again, the message of Occupy (and yes, the Tea Party) will continue to reverberate in the minds of conservatives and liberals alike, until we see real change.

        Occupy isn't the end, nor is it the means; it's a warning.

      • What about:

        4. All the self-hatred is ruining the fun [in-other-news.com]. I mean seriously, when they start to offer counceling for the rapists and tell victims to shut up it might turn some people away from the movement, don't you think? It really shows that these self-hating white "progressives" really do mean it. What is more hateful than telling rape-victims to shut up and offering the dear rapist help to cope with this evil-evil society that did not give him enough welfare-money and therefore made him a rapist?

        But can you

      • by JWSmythe (446288)

        They wanted a revolution. They just didn't realize the extent that was required.

        They had indistinct goals, and unrealistic expectations. "We are the 99% and we are poor. We are being oppressed by the 1%." Ok, what would you like? For them to close their multibillion dollar enterprises? Distribute their wealth to the 99%? Which ones? Everyone? Should the 1% stop their predatory business practices? Why should they? Because dozens of people are in a park down the roa

      • by rasmusbr (2186518)

        There has actually been progress in how the protests are carried out. In the 1990's some of the protesters often initiated violence and the majority of protesters did very little to stop it from happening, which gave me the impression that they were basically a bunch of middle-class thrill-seekers, the political equivalent of soccer hooligans.

        This year of activism and protest has been something different. These people have, to use Obama's favorite phrase, legitimate grievances. People nice up quickly when t

  • by TheTruthIs (2499862) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:17AM (#38537350)
    Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:18AM (#38537360)

    The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.

    • by BlueStrat (756137)

      The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.

      Well, if the TEA Party is winning elections, they must by definition be a lot more than 1% of at least the subset of actual voters.

      Thought experiment; If all the OWS protesters assembled in front of the Lincoln Memorial, do you think it would be easy or hard to tell the photos of that OWS crowd from the photos taken of the 9/12 crowd based on the number of people visible?

      Strat

      • They win the elections where no one shows up. When they start winning elections during the presidential cycles then they might get some credibility.
    • by Riceballsan (816702) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:57AM (#38537632)
      It would be nice, but the question is how and who. The tea party wasn't originally founded with their heads perpetually up their respective asses. That came later and mostly once they started picking candidates, and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement. I agree OWS should form into a political party... but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.
      • by BlueStrat (756137)

        ...and then of course taking bribes from larger companies to fund the movement.

        Which of the many hundreds (maybe thousands by now) of local, totally independent local TEA Party groups got that cash? Because all the local TP groups in this state that I know of run solely on member donations. They struggle to keep their hosting & bandwidth charges paid for their websites.

        You do realize, I hope, that there is no one national official TEA Party, just hundreds and hundreds of little local orgs, each with their own favorite issues and candidates, and taking marching orders from no one,

      • but the eternal mystery that has been plauging our country for years, how does a candidate get put on the ballot, and even moreso get on the ballet and have enough money to advertise who he is and what he stands for... without picking up all the corruption/bribes etc... that he is supposed to be against.

        Simple math my friend - if 50% of the 99% they claim to represent each donated $100, then they raise around 15 billion dollars. That's more than sufficient to start getting candidates into office. Hell, th

    • by shentino (1139071)

      It won't work.

      First of all, you need to rub elbows with the media to get the air time you need for votes. And said media reserves the right to refuse anyone.

      Second, said media is owned by the same corporate bastards responsible for the crap the protesters are fighting against.

      How much air time do you think a tea partier is really going to get before their corporate overlords have them dumped?

      And good luck setting up your own station. The pocket dwelling politicians won't let the FCC give you a license.

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:24AM (#38537402)
    It sounds more like propaganda.

    What the Occupy protesters don't realize it isn't just the 1% that really don't care for their methods or all their ideals, there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

    The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one). Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need anymore. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.

    We get these protest groups (on both sides) like the Tea Party and the Occupy when the economy is down. Why? For one a lot of them have extra free time so they can actually go out and protest. Secondly they are suffering right now so they are angry and passionate in their protests. However when things get better they will moderate a little.
     
    • by BasilBrush (643681) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:41AM (#38537508)

      *If* things pick up. This isn't just a crisis of confidence. Its a debt crisis bought about by the western world living beyond it's means for so long. Then up ahead there's China taking over as world economic superpower, peak oil and global warming.

      The natural order isn't necessarily economic growth interspersed with a few short lived recessions. See the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, The British Empire. The days of the American Empire look numbered.

    • by Fuzzums (250400)

      Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need any more. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.

      I earn enough. I work for my money. I don't fuck up other people's savings while getting huge bonuses.
      That being said, the "they" you refer to is a big group with many different demands. Even if they don't all say the same thing doesn't make them wrong.

      I guess everybody wants good healthcare and education for them selves or their kids.
      I also guess the anger about outrageous bonuses will fade, after a while. First people will feel ashamed for betraying their old principals. Then they'll just trade them for a

    • by Hatta (162192) on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:05AM (#38538266) Journal

      there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.

      Any 99%er advocating for the status quo is advocating against his own interest. Those who do so simply haven't thought it through enough, and need to be made aware that there are serious problems. Protesting is an attempt to raise awareness.

      The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one).

      Funny, I thought we were in a "jobless recovery". aka "Fuck you, I got mine."

      However when things get better they will moderate a little.

      Why do you assume things will get better? Why would a thirty year trend towards more inequality just get better on its own? It was caused by policy, and it will have to be fixed with policy. We just need to get enough people to pay attention and get outraged.

  • by F69631 (2421974) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:25AM (#38537410)

    From the summary & headline one could think that they are, well, building something facebook-like and that their target audience would be people like the ones who attended "occupy wallstreet" protest. The first claim is completely inccorect, the second only partially so. Rather, they're building a non-centralized social network for organizing protests, etc. because they feel that they can't trust FB and other existing services to protect the anonymity, etc. of protesters well enough.

    I guess it's a good cause. Then again, a service like that is easy to block by police states with much less public outcry than if they blocked FaceBook or similar services. Anyone with enough know-how to get around that problem probably can do what they need to through already existing services. I'm not saying that - if they ever get it finished - it can't offer any advantages so it's cool that they're doing it... But I (having some activist background myself) really doubt the project will ever get finished.

    • Thank you for that explanation. It makes some sense that they don't trust FB to be anonymous enough, but on the other hand, if you go off and start your own social network composed of people who think like you, how do you draw people to the cause?
    • by Issarlk (1429361)
      If the service is built with police states in mind it may be harder to block than facebook. They may host it on the TOR network for example.
  • Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bicx (1042846) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:27AM (#38537414)
    Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.

    If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.
    • by shentino (1139071)

      Speaking of which, how long until some corporate overlord has a personal nerve struck and plants a TOS violation on these guys to get them removed?

  • Er what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrXym (126579) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:29AM (#38537418)
    If you want to reach the "99%" you use the social networking tools that most people use - Twitter, Facebook etc. Creating some other site is likely to make the movement more detached, less representative and marginal than it already is at this stage. Of course probably the best thing to do is just run a few pods on Diaspora or something where if one goes down, mirrors can pop up in other jurisdictions.

    I also wonder if this entity will be as censorious as some sites which were prominently supporting OWS such as BoingBoing. And if not, how is this site (robo)moderated, how does it withstand DDOS attacks and all the other crap that commercial sites have spent years developing sophisticated defences against. And what's the point again?

    • by Fuzzums (250400)

      I was starting to write about the same thing, when I saw your reaction.

      There are already tools for the 1% of the 99%
      Sites like IndyMedia...

      For the 99% of the 99% there is Facebook and Twitter :)

  • 1% vs 99% (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:34AM (#38537444)

    I am fucking sick of a bunch of hippies speaking for me and the rest of the 99%

    Especially a bunch of hippies with a full belly and iphones who are better of than the 99% of humanity

    • Re:1% vs 99% (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad.arnett@NosPam.notforhire.org> on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:07AM (#38537736)
      I find it interesting that people not impacted by them get so angry about them and what they're trying to do. I'm not defending their actions, but I really feel like every person I've heard bitch about them makes an emotionally charged statement about them.

      Do you REALLY believe there are no issues then and these people really are entitled hippies who are angry because they can't afford to get high anymore? What would you propose instead? Do you argue that there is no ever increasing disparity of wealth? Have you not seen the charts showing that "working" (even professional) wages have not increased in proportion to that of the 1%, or even really tracked with inflation?
    • by Millennium (2451)

      Get used to it. Projection is an important part of the eudaimonia-centric philosophy espoused by the occupiers. It's about making sure everyone has lives that other people would want to lead, rather than the lives they themselves would find satisfying, and you can't come to any kind of conclusions about that without projection.

    • by tompaulco (629533)
      As a middle class U.S. citizen, I consider the 99% to be part of the 1%. They are far better off than me. I have to work for my food, I can't afford (nor do I want) an iphone, my car is 11 years old, and my vacation this year consisted of driving to the grandparents and living with them for a couple of days. Screw the 99% and their incessant whining. I'm more in favor of taxing them than taxing the rich.
    • You say "hippie" like it is a bad thing.

      Peace, dude.

    • full belly and iphones. lets examine you hate, line by line and word by word, shall we?

      to you, people don't have a right to complain if they still have SOME food in their bellies. I guess its a threhold thing for you; you have a suffer-O-meter and if you still walk upright, you're not 'poor enough' to care about.

      iphones: while I hate apple, are you really so thick and stupid as to say that owning a phone, today, is somehow anti-OWS? that's about as stupid as people who were taking pictures of protesters

      • Re:1% vs 99% (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad.arnett@NosPam.notforhire.org> on Friday December 30, 2011 @10:27AM (#38538508)
        Honestly, I think most of the anger directed at them is cognitive dissonance. That's just my theory.

        Anecdote time: Amongst the people I work with, the only one I know of who has a strong opinion (other than me) one way or another about the OWS crowd is a punk 22 year old who lives in a house his parents own, is married with two kids, and has, in general, everything still provided for him. The funniest thing is that, contrary to the popular opinion of the OWS crowd being spoiled brats, this one absolutely HATES them with a passion.

        I think back to the kind of person I was when I was his age. Though I hardly had anything provided for me to speak of (lest of all a house), I probably wouldn't have liked the OWS people either. I was kind of a brainwashed Randist who believed that hard work and perseverance were all you needed, and the world really was a meritocracy. I believed in the American Dream. I hit the real world though, and realized what a lie it all was. I see the OWS group as a means to try to pull the wool from people's eyes, and the backlash they get is simply resentment for that.
  • Make no mistake, the protesters themselves are not doing any of the work to build the site.

    What is really happening is that the wealthy, politically-connected financial backers of occupy (you know, Occupy, INC), are paying to have it developed.

  • by mapkinase (958129) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:35AM (#38537452) Homepage Journal

    The whole reason social media is helping protestors is because a lot of people are using it for a lot of very different reasons.

    If you limit your new social network to one course, it won't be as popular as general purpose social networks

    Instead they should try to build a new social network platform for general purpose, that will be more resistant to attempts to control it. May be that is exactly what they planned to do, if only I had determination and will to read the actual article :-)

  • by joren02 (2131408) on Friday December 30, 2011 @08:37AM (#38537468)
    Are they gonna set up their own internet too?
  • because they don't at all represent them
  • . . . "social change".

    If they were, then, with full inter-web access, the protesters on Wall Street would have been as successful at bringing about change as were the protesters in Tahrir Square (sometimes without it).
  • Holding hippie demonstrations and posting online isn't going to change anything.

    As Americans, you have TWO powers to make change:

    1) Your wallet- you can decide how to spend the 25% of your money that doesn't go to one of the hundreds of taxes.

    2) Your vote- you can decide which candidate to vote for, help make others aware, and pick/find/support a different kind of candidate.

    Focus on those two things. My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demop

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Number 1 is not any use because the fat cats can out vote Joe Q Public and his buddies any day. Plus with them able to get federal reserve loans at zero percent, and make infinite money by lending them out at exorbitant rates, they can always get more.

      I propose number 3: Stop using credit.

      A big source of the 1 percent's lifeblood is interest revenue on credit that the 99 percent are using.

      But have people tighten their own belts and stop letting interest bleed them dry while the corporate vampires just get

  • by bravni (133601) on Friday December 30, 2011 @09:07AM (#38537734)

    If I see these guys putting top investment bankers' heads on spikes or something, then I will take them seriously. With fear and respect. Otherwise, they are just whiny hippies.

  • A tool for anyone to communicate even when the authorities bring down the communications network.

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kvogeltanz/dovetail-voice-to-the-people [kickstarter.com]

  • What started out as a minor whine-fest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide whine-fest thanks to the use of social media.

    There, a far more accurate portrayal. When this group comes up with something that is concrete and doable, it will be a protest. For instance, the only way to eliminate corporate influence in politics is to also kick out Unions, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace and not let anyone have any access to any politician. The only way to eliminate corporate greed is for someone t

  • I would work for complete visibility instead. Use that energy to put people up for elections. Set up a site to let people know who candidates are and where candidates are needed. Give people the ability to participate in writing legislation. Choose candidates that will agree to push that legislation when they get elected. The 1% have money to buy votes for their candidates. If the 99% stay visible and active and get people to vote for their candidates they will make a change.

    • by Borland (123542)

      Isn't that usually the question though? Do things need to be secret? I'd argue that somethings do need to be held close to the vest. But who watches the watchers?

      Skilled hackers that want to prove a point against secretive organizations, that's who. We have a checks and balances system, it's just not codified into law.

    • by tompaulco (629533)
      I agree with you. There is no need for anonymity when you represent the 99%. The 1% can't target 349 million people.
      It just reveals the truth, that they don't represent the 99% at all. They are a bunch of yuppies with more money and time than the rest of us poor working slobs who are out publicly screaming for us to feel sorry for them.
  • A plague a' both your houses!

  • Good deal. Diaspora hasn't gotten off the ground yet. The only viable social network sites out there are built on a business model of exploiting their users by discretely spying on them and selling information about them for marketing.

  • They can have facebook. The "1%" that they are railing against don't waste their time with facebook.

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340

Working...