Digital Dissenter

Human beings are a very fickle bunch. And we are becoming increasingly so with the advent of social networking and social media and the growing need to construct and maintain our online personas. It is our preoccupation with image and social profiles that acts as quite a considerable barrier when it comes to getting people to do something.

Just like no one wants to be the first to arrive at a party, no one wants to be the first, or only person to show up at a protest. This is where the notion of mob-mentality comes into successful digital activism.

People expect a lot from activists. Their campaigns are said to be either too commercial or not commercial enough. They're either too broad or too narrow. Too edgy, too offensive. Demanding too much or demanding too little. It's difficult to find a formula that works.

Greenpeace is particularly creative in their approach. They are also very strategic. They are in fact one of the few organisations able to successfully combine on-the-ground activism with the supportive potential of online platforms. The Kit-Kat campaign was run earlier this year and resulted in victory for Greenpeace in less than a month.

In wanting to write a post about censorship online I have been reading up on a number of issues ranging from the Great Firewall of China, the proposed firewall in Australia to the legislation concerning the ban of so-called “crush-videos” in the US. The latter in particular got me thinking about the catch-22 involved in certain types of activism that require the distribution of content that contains explicit violence – especially towards animals. (Forgive me if just this once I actually use this blog entry which is meant for the discussion of digital activism for some of my own activism.)

If, like myself, you didn’t know what “crush-videos” are; thanks to the Web I now know that they refer to videos of women crushing small animals with their bare feet or stiletto heels. Apparently there is a (sick and perverted) market for such content. A ban was passed on the creation, possession and distribution of such videos in the US in 1998.

At the end of May I attended an Animal Rights Symposium that brought together some of the most influential people from the South African animal rights movement. The talks were enlightening and the discussions were thought-provoking, but when it came to deciding on a way forward for our cause, we all seemed to hit a brick wall.

Some activists took the stance that we needed to advocate veganism as a healthy and ethical lifestyle choice, and many of the people who backed this idea were adamant that anything short of veganism was a cop-out. The suggestion that has stuck with me though was one that advocated a much more incremental approach to the cause and the realisation of its ultimate goals.