Robin Hood for now..

“Hero to untold millions, public enemy #1 to the most powerful government in the world.” (ABC 2011)

Julian Assange. Terrorist? Hacktivist? Activist? Or a whistle-blowing hero?
The title you give him will probably depend on where you work.. government? police? perhaps you'll think of him as a terrorist. Member of the public.. hero? Whichever it is, his practices embody all of the above.

Julian Assange (and Wikileaks) protests against governments in efforts of making a change (activist), with use of digital technology he is known to hack into secured files in order to attain information (hacktivist), though he does it to share information with the world (whistle-blower)- many may value his work and highly regard what he does as a service to the public (hero). 

Julian Assange's work is right at the heart of Digital Activism; a prime example of utilizing digital technology for political and social matters. Previously, only government bodies had access to such technology. Now, anyone with the know-how and appropriate technology can access anyone's 'private' files. This can be a scary thought. We've heard of many cases in which bank accounts were hacked, eBay's credit card information storage system accessed or simply a virus entering your Facebook and posting telemarketing scams. So why is it that a large portion of the public thinks that this is okay? Is it one of those 'it's okay 'cos it's not happening to me' mindsets? Surely not. We're not all that insensitive. Then what is it?

Here's my thoughts.. What Julian is doing could be quite bad- were he to access confidential information regarding the location of troops in war zones and sell it off to the enemy..then yes, that'd be bad. But a lot of the information he's choosing to share is not of that nature- he is not malicious, he hasn't attempted to completely overthrow the country or cause a war. He's sharing information he believes should be shared- and whilst I agree that 1 man should not have this much power over the government and its information- I think his heart is in the right place (so to speak).

Perhaps what he's doing will eventually lead to the government being more transparent about issues that the pubic are interested in or should know about. Then again..it may just lead to them finding better 'hiding spots'. Furthermore, this constant exposure of 'hidden information' has stirred distrust into the public..will that ever be able to be gained back? Or will we constantly wonder what else the government is hiding from us? This is just one negative side affect to expose`s.. doubt, fear, loss of trust. 

There is always going to be things that the government cannot share with us- for our own good. So when will we stop searching? Will there always be paranoid people searching for secrets?

Yes. As Greenwood states, “corruption institutes may come and go and may stop an individual, but they cannot stop us all” (2010). 

Lets just keep in mind..Julian Assange chose what he wanted to share. Someone a bit less Robin Hood and bit more wicked witch may come a long and it won't all be so heroic.




----------------
REFERENCES

ABC.net.au (2011) The Forgotten Man. [video online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110214/leaks/default.htm [Accessed: 21 January 2013].

Greenberg, A. (2010) The Future of Wikileaks. Forbes, [online] 22 November. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1122/focus-andy-greenberg-wikileaks-classified-social-remix.html [Accessed: 21 January 2013].

Social Media- one vote Julia.

Our current prime Minister, Julia Gillard has had a tough couple years.. after ousting the previous PM John Howard in a rather controversial fashion, she is yet to face the voters- though, with the recent announcement of an election date (see below video), she will soon get that chance.

But Julia, whilst you do look a lot more personable,changing your 'do and putting on some glasses isn't going to sway the voters- you need to connect! I'm not going to let this get to personal, but just to state a fact (objectively of course), Tony Abbott can be a bit of a pig.. I'm sorry Tony, no hard feelings- but a few things you've said, probably should've kept them to yourself. Remember these quotes? That's what not to say, when trying to attract voters.. And here's where Julia may have a bit of a leg up- her Twitter follower count currently stands at 344877 and Tony's is lagging (just a bit..) with 100877, if she were to utilise this to connect with voters on a more personal note, she may just take it out.

Of course, your political campaign promises are important, but so is image. The 2011 census data retrieved showed that 34.9% of our population is aged between 19-44. A report conducted by Pigdom shows the age distribution among Social Media websites and Online Communities- indicating that 67% of users are aged between 18-44, with 69% of Twitter users also within this age bracket. Clearly there are many voters online and when it's cheaper and quicker to connect with them on this platform- why wouldn't you. Well, maybe you don't know how... Julia, here's some tips:

• Entertain. You obviously need to maintain credibility and not deter the 'less-fun' voters, but keep in mind 18-25 year olds are voters too- and we like entertainment. Get personal- Kevin Rudd replies to tweets, voices his opinion on non-political topics, shares what he's doing with his day. People use Twitter to pry into others' business- please try to liven your posts, just a little bit.

• Take to Facebook too- I understand that this will probably require you to actually make an account and 'friend' people, which can some with a few problems..but your voters want to feel connected. As Jenkins sates, we're in a participatory culture- you need to encourage the public to participate, and facilitate forums in which they can.

• Research. Lurk through blogs to see what your public wants, what they think. If you look, I can guarantee you'll get a few ideas on how to interact with us, or it may even just inspire the development of a campaign. We use the internet to voice our opinions, to discuss- and since the Prime Minister of our country and hows they're running it is kind of a big deal..I'm sure there'll be plenty of reading material out there.

• Be personal- not aggressive or soppy. Just let us know a little about yourself. K-Rudd made mistakes, but he was honest- he addressed his public (including when he was no longer PM). I like this. We got the gist of what Kevin liked and what he didn't- outside of politics. We know you're interested in politics..its a little obvious. What's your favourite past time? Do you like going to the zoo?

• Don't try too hard and don't exaggerate. We're well versed on the art of trolling, many of us are getting pretty good at smelling out a fake.

Just be yourself, and make friends. It's like school..only more public..with more pressure. We're in a participatory culture, like it or not.. you need to be involved to fit in, and you need to fit in because, well, a lot of us live half our lives online. So every Tweet Counts!

Image source: Every tweet counts, Twitter, accessed 15 July 2012, <http://blog.twitter.com/2008/11/images-of-day.html>.

Clicktivism, Hermes of Digital Activism?

Hermes: Greek God of transitions and boundaries- would also act as a messenger. Clicktivism: the pollution of activism with the logic of consumerism.

Have you ever click 'like' on a Facebook page? Joined a group to support a petition? Double tapped a quote on Instagram or retweeted or favourited something Obama posted?  Well, then you my friend are a Digital Activist. Perhaps a passive one..but still a participant none the less. We've all heard about at least one big story on Digital Activism- the Indian rape victim who's name was posted on Social Media, photos of Saudi Arabian women driving (it's against the law for a woman to drive in Saudi Arabia, among many other countries), Barack Obama taking his campaign to Twitter - just to name a few. There were many who spoke out about these issues/campaigns- celebrities promoting Obama's re-election etc- these, I would say are more assertive participants of Digital Activism. Some may have created blogs about the issue, just to take it that much further, or..some may have clicked 'like' on a page called 'Re-Elect President Obama'. These people are just numbers.. every time someone clicks 'like' the pages tally increases, and whatever/whomever has been 'liked' increases in 'value'. This, is consumerism.

Now..is it any good? Will it help these issues/campaigns? Would these 'likers' support outside of the virtual life and protest in reality? Aaaaand queue the debate. Does Clicktivism really help the cause? Whilst a great number of likers/retweeters would probably not take their support to reality (where it takes a bit more effort than the movement of 1 finger and click of a mouse), their click has spread the word- perhaps to someone who may actually take their support a bit further than a 2 second glance on Facebook. Some may call clicktivsm pollution- and at times, when my home page is full of people liking lolcats images or fight videos, I most definitely agree. But when I find another 'support gay marriage' page- I like and share- hoping that with each page, voices will be heard and a change made.

But that's just it..liking a page won't result in change in the real world. Change requires a bit more effort than that. As Malcolm Gladwell recently said, "activism that challenges the status quo – that attacks deeply rooted problems – is not for the faint of heart". So go ahead, like that page.. but if you really support the issue, take it to the real world. Clictivism spreads the word, but someone needs to make it heard.

Twiddley-dee-dee tweet tweet

Twitter... 140 characters, celebrities telling us where they are/what they're doing/what they're wearing, politicians attempting to connect with their voters and now the pope preaching digi-prayers. I'll admit, I'm a bit of Social Media addict. I name 'work' an accessory and enabler, but they truth is I'm hooked. You may not be there in person, but there's something about just reading through others' cyber-words or trawling through celeb's Instagrams that makes you feel connected. As Henry Jenkins states- our society reflects a participatory culture- we need to feel involved.

Here's a vid where Jenkins discussing our current media landscape.

He talks of 'Convergence Culture' (and for those who, like me, were a little confused..click here for a slide show - a 'Convergence Culture for Dummies', if you will) where old and new media are combined in one single creation.

Whilst it is an ongoing process within the a media sphere- an independent example is Twitter- where the news and celebrity gossip, previously only found in Newspapers and Magazines and on TV and radio, are now published in real-time, straight onto Twitter. Is this a good thing? Well, yes and no. It means that the power relations within the media sphere is changing- the public can now post and comment on news, reducing the significance of the big name media giants. Twitter is quicker and cheaper. Though, since anyone can post, the credibility of some claims are questionable.. For example, as the International Business Times reported, there have been several 'death of a celebrity' hoaxes during Twitter's lifespan (click here to read about them all).

Not to worry though, these annoying trolls will give up soon enough - Even though it has the potential to assist in communication during crisis and boost celeb and political followers, Twitter is still a fad. According to a study conducted by Nielson Online, which focuses on “Twitter Quitters,” (people who start a Twitter account but then fail to return the next month) it looks like it’s popularity may soon fade. As the study points out, Twitter has a very low retention rate, just 40%. Meaning “there simply aren’t enough new users to make up for defecting ones after a certain point,” (David Martin, VP of Primary Research at Nielsen Online). With its current retention rate, Martin calculates the service could never reach more than 10% of the Internet population, even in a best-case scenario. Just as a comparison..even in the Early days of Myspace and Facebook, their retention rate (as Martin points out), hovered around the 70% mark.

So unless Twitter figures out a way to get users addicted, its a goner.
-Back to twiddling thumbs during those free minutes of the day. Or..there's always Facebook?