I am a 19 year old college student studying government and international relations. I have JUST began my life as an activist and know that I have a long way to go. I look up to those members of our community (on and off line) who have been involved for many years and want to learn from them. I did not intend for this article to sound like I was preaching from a high pulpit of experience (because I do have that) but rather as a starting point for a conversation. I was not in any way trying to denounce those people who showed their support for Iran through Twitter, but to ask for more from them.

I completely agree with Lissa in that “there’s room for web activity to be a springboard for greater action”. However how many people will actually take that leap and move from the digital world into the tangible one? That was the main inspiration for my idea of a suggested/required donation.

In response to Jim, who said: “The question here isn’t whether sanctions are more effective- it is to realize that there can’t be sanctions without demonstrated political will, and that green icons demonstrate political will. There is very little any one ordinary person in Denmark, the US, India, the Philipines can do; but people from all these places have created green icons; and the Green Wave begins to be a global powerful force.” I understand what Jim means but what has this “global powerful force” achieved, apart from keeping the issue in the media? Maybe it simply comes down to personal opinion. I’m an optimist who would rather see physical aid and support provided but maybe the spotlight on the issue caused by twitter was enough?

Carlos stated that: “One probably wants to escalate the involvement, but a possible pitfall is to do it in a way that alienates the participant by denying their contribution, which they psychologically perceive as a major one, is significant and wanted. If 10,000 changed avatars translated to 1,000 people in a protests, I see no reason to worry.” In response, I want to reiterate that I was not in any way trying to alienate or discourage those who felt that turning their avatars green was a good contribution. I am merely calling for those 10,000 tweeters to ALL go out in support or protest versus only the 10% Carlos suggested might.

Robert said that:”I would of course love for talking and thinking to be shortly followed by “concrete” activism (donations, protests, letter-writing, and so on) but to say Twitter doesn’t mean much because there wasn’t a dollar figure being transferred somewhere is narrow-minded. Activism is a process that can rarely be measured so quantitatively, though we prefer for the results of activism to be. Let’s build off of a very evident interest, not denounce such an interest as meaningless.” The dollar figure association was merely an example of how interest on Twitter could be transformed into tangible activism. Please don’t misunderstand my frustration with tweeple who change their avatars just to appear interested yet don’t act on their apparent interest, as denouncing those who are interested and actually participating whether it is through online discussion or front line support.

Last but not least to David who said “I’ve been a gay-rights activist for almost 22 years now doing work on the ground, what you call “concrete” activism and also some work on the internet lately, and we’re finding tons of volunteers now with the internet who would never have otherwise been involved. I cannot stand when people preach from their pulpits especially when they obviously and clearly don’t understand the business of activism whether on the ground or on the internet.” I applaud you for the work that you have done and are doing, and hope to one day stand where you are now and look back on my work. However I believe we are talking about two different cases of the internet and activism can work. From my understanding you are using the internet as a resource to connect with those who would not have necessarily volunteered because they did not know where or how to. That is fantastic and is one way the internet can aid activism. I, on the other hand, was referring to a fake form of activism, seen in those people who turned their avatars green but then did nothing else. Maybe the benefit of green icons can be seen as a way for organizations to identify those individuals who want to help so that they can be recruited.

As a young woman living in a world where problems are abundant I write from a place of wanting to push and be one to push others to do whatever they can to bring change. The first step IS to discuss and bring attention to an issue (like Twitter has) but it is the next step of turning that interest into something more that I want to encourage. That was the underlying message of this post, not a desire to undermine the contribution of those who changed their avatar.

One of the things that I found, as a professional working *with* fandom and marketing to fandom is that fandom is just as fashion conscious as any group, but the fashion signals are just different from mainstream. What fans want is the ungodly cool overall graphic Spiderman dark-colored shirt, not the 8×12 graphic postage stamped on a cheap white tee.

Politics, for most people, is also fandom — you can be a Democrat, or a Progressive, or a Christian Conservative, in very much the same way as being a fan of the Red Sox. You collect stats and personalities, key players, pithy celebrity sayings, strategy tips. But you don’t play, yourself. You don’t coach a local team, so to speak. You are prepared with minimal facts to have a conversation in a bar about your team, but you don’t really spend time worrying about anything but how good the next game is going to be. Rah rah!

This is, for the most part, the common view of politics. Everyone hates taxes and the opposite team, and blames all the ills of the world on the opposite party, immigrants, furriners, welfare moms — whoever they can put on the other side of an identity from who they are.

And that’s the thing. The point of this sort of politics is to fence in your own little ghetto of like-mindeds, so you can all have a beer and no major arguments and bond. You are fencing the rest of the world out, and finding the people you want to identify with, and anything bad that happens, you don’t have to blame on YOUR people.

In that way, politics is like fandom, sports fandom, fashion. It exists to create silos. So, when everyone turns green on Twitter, are they really supporting Iran, or are they creating a style-tribe of folks to feel in solidarity with — on Twitter?

Not everyone, I know. But probably most of them.

I think you misunderstand the argument. The interest was not denounced as “meaningless” (nor can I see construed as such), but rather I think it was an opportunity to examine how can that virtual involvement can result in offline involvement. Sadly most critical comments only defend twitivism, rather than accepting its limitations (I am guilty of this in my previous post).

I do agree, as you can see above, that there is value in online protest, even ones considered symbolic. But this agreement cannot be seen as not seeing the primacy of actual bodies in the ground in political activism. You can digg all you want, and change avatars 100 times, but you wont have an impact until you either move yourself into the front line, or provide concrete support to those who are actually on the ground.

One of the issues of “Twitter Revolutions” is that they aren’t: ultimately the success or failure of these movements is not determined by avatar colors or number of followers, but by people smelling of vinegar and CS gas refusing to obey that which is illegitimate…

Alexandra does fail in this post to consider the strategic significance inherent on online support, but this is quite far from considering online protests “meaningless”.

And perhaps this was not the intent nor the scope of the article.

You also mention that “a maximum of 5 percent [who] are going to take action”. Could you please point us to the research or source of that figure, because it seems to me that it’s highly likely it’s just a number pulled out of that pundit’s ass. I’ve been a gay-rights activist for almost 22 years now doing work on the ground, what you call “concrete” activism and also some work on the internet lately, and we’re finding tons of volunteers now with the internet who would never have otherwise been involved. I cannot stand when people preach from their pulpits especially when they obviously and clearly don’t understand the business of activism whether on the ground or on the internet.

I became interested in Iran’s struggle not just because it was an issue that previously appealed to me, but because I could see other people were interested too. Youtube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter–information was being exchanged between truly massive amounts of people in an attempt to create a change, or at least to show solidarity with those who were actively involved in that change. Green Twitter accounts prove that interest, and inspire people to think, talk, and share ideas. I would of course love for talking and thinking to be shortly followed by “concrete” activism (donations, protests, letter-writing, and so on) but to say Twitter doesn’t mean much because there wasn’t a dollar figure being transferred somewhere is narrow-minded.

Activism is a process that can rarely be measured so quantitatively, though we prefer for the results of activism to be. Let’s build off of a very evident interest, not denounce such an interest as meaningless.

I will say that this is precisely the question that online activists ask themselves all the time.

However, is this truly a conundrum?

A small step in the right direction is, well, a small step in the right direction. Social movements are based on critical masses, and these are never the majority.

There is ample evidence from academic studies that attachment to online avatars, be them simple profile pictures to MMPOG 3-D avatars, have real consequences for the users. This is cross-cultural, cross-gender, and cross-any-other-category. In other words, it seems that there is a human projection of personality to our virtual presence.

For example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/262271178076gw2h/

http://tinyurl.com/l226ku

And:
Avatars in social media: Balancing accuracy, playfulness and embodied messages
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGR-4T708F2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=955127971&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2acd52a0fb5bddb6814d73ea7540e5f9

http://tinyurl.com/nojlvr

This suggests that the changing of an avatar to involve yourself in a virtual protests is not a decision taken lightly, and that psychologically, the involvement might seem as a major one on the part of the person partaking in them. Certainly from the outside there is no comparison between presence in a protests in real life and the changing of the avatar, but from the inside they are seen by the person as equivalent.

One probably wants to escalate the involvement, but a possible pitfall is to do it in a way that alienates the participant by denying their contribution, which they psychologically perceive as a major one, is significant and wanted.

If 10,000 changed avatars translated to 1,000 people in a protests, I see no reason to worry.

The truth is– nothing matters, and everything does. Strategy is important, but the type of pseudo-strategic thinking of the author is overdone.

The worldwide outcry over coups in Honduras and Iran are part of a slow (did you catch that word- slow?) gradual move towards a global consensus towards human rights and constitutions.

And towards delegitimizing dictatorship. The question here isn’t whether sanctions are more effective- it is to realize that there can’t be sanctions without demonstrated political will, and that green icons demonstrate political will.

There is very little any one ordinary person in Denmark, the US, India, the Philipines can do; but people from all these places have created green icons; and the Green Wave begins to be a global powerful force.

If Daniel, and others who chose this point of digital activism to get involved, did so because it’s the only thing they knew how to do or the only option they trusted to make a difference, there’s room for web activity to be a springboard for greater action that may yield positive change, but only if real concerted efforts are made to educate those with an interest.

I’m also firmly of the opinion that giving money to a cause is not the be-all/end-all of working for change — particularly in a situation where it’s difficult to determine which parties are trustworthy. Convince me that the work I can do makes a difference and I’ll put forth 40 hours of volunteerism before I’ll send a dime of “aid” money, unless those funds are being collected by a reputable organization.

I also watched in amazement how quickly Honduras became the next cause du jour on Twitter. But I think that’s passed, now, too.

I worry less about the color of an avatar but the ability of Twitter to sustain a conversation. Sometimes the pace at which things come and go make the 24 hour news cycle seem such an outdated concept.

(Oops..apologies, I think we’re still talking about Michael Jackson.)