DigiActive.org

What Neda Means: Citizen Media Frames the Protests

From left: a paining of Neda made by annebot, videos of Neda’s murder on YouTube,
an altered profile image on Twitter shifts the “where’s my vote?” meme

Background:  In his post on Saturday, DigiActive correspondent Hamid Tehrani referred in passing to “a scene of a girl murdered by security forces.”  A few days later and we all know who she was - Neda Agha Soltan, a 26-year-old killed en route to a protest in Tehran.  Only in this age, where every citizen with a cell phone can became a journalist and broadcaster is the story of Neda possible.

Tools: The story of Neda’s rise to prominence and powerful symbolism is a story of citizen media: from the cell phone cameras that recorded her death (video here - it is graphic), to the blogger who posted her story on the citizen journalism site NewsVine, to the Twitter conversation around the hashtag #Neda, and the Wikipedia entry that recorded the details of her murder in detail.   Finally her story reached the mainstream media: CNN, The New York Times, and Iranian television.

Analysis:  This is the story of Neda’s transformation from a person into a symbol.  But what does this story mean?  In particular, what does it mean for digital activism? Usually when we think of the use of digital technology for activism we think of communication tools which facilitate mass collective action: SMS, Facebook groups, listservs.  Yet the idea of Neda, though it may have inspired rage, sadness, and a commitment to continue protes, was not what we traditionally think of as digital activism.

Neda didn’t organize a protest but she helped to firmly re-frame the post-election protests in Iran.  The frame, or narrative, which the Iranian government was pushing was that the protests were caused by Western meddling and that the protesters were terrorists.   By making Neda the symbol of the opposition - a beautiful and unarmed young woman, previously apolitical - the new frame has moved firmly to those in the streets: the protesters are innocent idealists.  The government is murdering its people without cause.  Neda is not a terrorist.  She is a martyr (or so the Times story framed it).  And the practical effect of this re-framing on protests in Iran?  A renewed commitment to go out in the street every day, an ideal that Neda will not have died in vain.

Lessons:  What are the lessons for activists who wish to use citizen media to frame a public issue?  First, the media should be clear and emotional.  Neda’s video - the most spreadable form of media about her sotry - was raw and visceral.  Without understanding the words of the men trying to help her or knowing much of the story it was possible to empathize with her and feel the pain of her injustice.  It was international.

Second, push the media out on multiple platforms.  It is unclear where the video was first uploaded, though there are now several versions on YouTube.   The story was also pushed out through Newsvine, a news site accessible to ordinary citizens, and through Twitter.   Third, your goal should be to get into the mainstream media.  This is still where the majority of eyes are.  Email your content to media sources, but only if this will not put you in danger.  Finally, make is personal.  We understand news through human stories.  In America, we came to saw the corruption of our economic crisis through the crooked financier of Bernie Madoff.   Heroes too personify a struggle.

Citizen Media & the Iranian Protests: Exhibit A

One the big stories with regard to digital activism in Iran has been the use of citizen media to disseminate information about the protests (see references here, here, and here).  The picture above, from the front page of today’s New York Times is putatively an image of the daughter of reformist cleric Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, but could just as easily be an illustration of the new media environment: no less than eight cell phones and digital cameras (red circles) are recording the event the New York Times reporter was photographing.  (For a large version of the photo, click here.) It’s old print media and new digital citizen media juxtaposed in a single image.

image source: New York Times

Digital Activism in Iran: Beyond the Headlines

clockwise from top-left: Gholamhossein Karbaschi’s Twitter page, the reformist web site Ghalam News, YouTube video of a nurses’ protest taken by a citizen journalist, Mir Hossein Mousavi’s Facebook page, toolbar from Kalamhe, another reformist site

Background:  Protests against Iran’s presidential election results continue despite the warning of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday.  However, Iranian reformist candidates Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoub and their supporters have few communications options. They have no access to national TV, radio, or newspapers, which are under state control.   Text messaging is being blocked and web sites are filtered.  How are they able to organize a huge protest movement?

While the mainstream media has focused on the role of Twitter and decentralized organizing, the real picture of digital activism in Iran is more complex.  Protests are organized centrally by the campaigns of reformist candidates and then that information is disseminated both online and off.  The role of citizens with regard to social media is as citizen journalists, using YouTube and Twitter to report on what is happening, rather than to organize the protests.  Since this activity is intended for an international audience (and is in English) it is no wonder that this use of social media is more visible to a Western audience than the online tactics actually being used to organize the protests.

Tools: web sites, Facebook, Twitter, mouth-to-ear networks

How these tools are being used:  With regard to the post-election protests, decisions are made centrally by Mousavi and Karoubi and their campaigns. When they take their decisions they communicate them in different ways. First, they publish them on their websites, for example Kalamhe and Ghalam news.  Web 1.0 (as well as totally offline communication methods) are just as important as Web 2.0 (social media), though the latter is receiving for more attention.

Second, the reformist leaders use social networking systems to communicate these message. On Saturday Mir Hussein Mousavi’s Facebook published the news that demonstration will be held today. Mousavi has more than 65,000 supporters in his Facebook group and every message can reach this army of people directly.  Supporters were also asked to pass the message to others, implying that the leaders are deliberately making use of their supporters’ online and offline personal networks.   One of the main ways to organize the demonstrations  is person-to-person communication or talking with friends and neighbors… the mouth-to-ear method.  It still works and no government can shut it down.  (Maybe Iranian leaders imagine a divine power can prevent this form of communication as it did in the election.)

Third, as has already been noted (and overemphasized) in the mainstream media,  Twitter is being used.  However, the dynamic is different than has been previously reported.  Gholamhossein Karbaschi, a top adviser to Karoubi, communicates about his activity on his Twitter account (@gkarbaschi, in Farsi).  This is one of the only instances where Twitter is actually being used to organize protest inside Iran and again, this is centralized organization coming from the campaign of a reformist candidate.  An indication of the centralized nature of Twitter for organizing in Iran: @gkarbaschi has over 4,700 followers but is not following the feeds of any other users.  He is using social media to broadcast to a domestic audience, not to interact.

As has also been noted, people in Iran are using Twitter as an important broadcast (rather than organizing) tool to report events, slogans, and minute by minute protest movement. In this way, Twitter has turned a local struggle into a national and  international one.  A scene of a girl murdered by security forces is one dramatic example of news reported on Twitter.  As many reporters and interested observers around the world have learned, it also allows an international audience to follow the event in real time.

Finally, Iranian citizens upload films from around country on YouTube to show demonstrations, protest movements and reformists’ messages.  International mainstream media are using these citizen videos in their Iran coverage.  This combination of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, central organization and decentralized dissemination shows the flexibility of these tools and the true complexity of the use of digital activism in Iran.

Iranian Elections, Information Sharing and Twitter

Earlier this week, amidst travel and trying really hard to work, I followed the events of what was happening in Iran post-election.  I followed it all on Twitter.

There are many comments I could make on the events, but I wanted to highlight something that will be important for how information and participation happens in the months and years to come.

The fact is, we are all becoming a larger part of the information dissemination mechanisms that were once reserved for formal media channels.  DigiActive has reported many instances of citizen journalism, on-the-ground reporting and information gathering, but now we’re talking about the addition of a process of broader dissemination.

We’re “regular” people, we have the information coming to us, and it’s our choice to pass it on or not.  The reason I  read hardly a single newspaper article on the topic all day was because I was getting my information handed to me by people from Boston, Europe, Iran… everywhere.  Regular people.  I got all the relevant links I needed from those 140-character posts.

The fact is, we are all now part of the information dissemination mechanism now.  When I reported on the Moldovan protests in April, I noted that part of the process that we were seeing was not necessarily just that the protesters were using social media tools to get their message out, but that the resulting international furvor that erupted was fueled by other people who were not on the ground.  Not even in the country.

This time around, we saw this same process magnified immensely.  A message from Mousavi highlights how important this process was not only in what was said - One Person = One Broadcaster - but also in the the resulting relay-like speed that the message reached the world.

Mousavi recognized the the power of this information stream.  Clay Shirky alluded to it in his Q&A with TED on the topic, and colleague Gaurav Mishra highlighted it in his analysis of the events as well.

No one was told to do anything with the information coming out of Iran, or had any explicit instructions to do so.  The messages could have remained dead in the water.  But we were all engaged by what was happening, we were interacting with other people through discussion, and we genuinely wanted to participate by adding to the conversation, spreading the information and learning more about the situation.

The fact that people had real-time, important information in their hands that they could “touch and feel,” and their ability to actively join in the conversation and the spread of vital information made momentary journalists out of us all.  And it will continue to do so more and more in the future.

“Where is My Vote?”: Iranian Expats Organize Online

UPDATE: I’ve changed the title of this post to reflect the fact that it is Iranian expats who are using Facebook for organizing.  I have not seen evidence of the tool being used effectively to organize within the country.

Background: On June 14th , Iranian expatriates and supporters around the world protested the results of an election in which President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad claimed a statistically unlikely landslide victory over challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The new slogan became “where is my vote?” as protesters asked why the votes of Mousavi supporters had not been counted. The campaign, which I will describe below, has both centralized and decentralized elements and has succeeded so far in organizing worldwide protest.

The question is, will this structure allow for the sustained campaigning necessary to overturn the vote? In the language of Gaurav Mishra’s 4 C’s of Social Media, this campaign has achieved Content creation and Collaboration on collective action, but will it be able to create a Community which will sustain longterm action once the Iranian election is gone from the headlines?

Tools: Facebook, Twitter, stand-alone web sites, citizen media sites

How these tools are being used: This campaign began before Election Day.  Setade Ma (meaning “our campaign”), a site launched at the end of May, encouraged voting in the upcoming election. The central action associated with this campaign was worldwide simultaneous demonstrations on May 31st (similar to those that occurred on the 14th). At the May 31st demonstrations, participants around the world were asked to hold banners saying “we vote” and then to submit those photos to the central site, similar to the geographically-dispersed take-a-photo tactic used in the US for the Step it Up campaign against global warning and in Morocco for the Help Erraji campaign. (It is not clear how people outside Iran were actually going to vote in the election, unless Iran has an effective system of absentee ballots, but the goal seemed to be to create a mass movement in favor of voting.)  Showing awareness of the ability of social media to spread a campaign, the site also linked to its own Facebook group, Twitter stream, and a page on Balitarin, a community website that helps its users find links of interest on the Iranian Internet.

This previous organizing proved crucial in helping activists to organize worldwide protests only two days after the election on June 14th.  The Setade Ma Twitter stream did not end up being particularly useful, amassing only 125 followers (and excellent graphic design).  However, the Setade Ma Facebook group proved key. After the election it was transformed into the largest “where is my vote?” Facebook group and was used to organize the London, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC protest on June 14th.

The Facebook group organized by the Sedate Ma activists ended up being only one of the many Facebook groups (see right) created using the “where is my vote” (WiMV) meme and logo. There are dynamics of both centralization and decentralization at work here. There are 24 WiMV groups on Facebook and the Sedate Ma group is by far the largest with 3,000 members at this time. The other groups are smaller, with a few hundred to less than 10 members. This is not necessarily a weakness. Facebook allows groups to only message 5,000 members at a time, so Facebook groups can only be used for effective communication at low volume.

Some organizers, who may or may not be associated with Setade Ma, created a stand-alone web site, whereismyvote.org, to direct potential supporters to Facebook groups organizing protests in Toronto, Vancouver, Paris, Boston, and Winnipeg. It is generally a good idea to create a stand-along site to mirror and centralize information on the frustratingly decentralized Facebook (as recommended in DigiActive’s Facebook Guide). However, only three of the five links point to the pages indicated. In the flurry of event creation, centralized control seemed to have been difficult.

Another interesting Facebook action was the campaign to change your profile picture to the green WiMV icon (also at right). This meme appears to have been started by a smaller WiMV Facebook group and the profile action seems to have been that group’s  main purpose. The only information in the description section of the group is “If you voted for Mousavi change your profile picture to / WHERE IS MY VOTE? image / Join this group and invite your friends to do the same. lets make facebook green”.  (Green is the symbolic color of Islam and Iran.)  Changing profile pictures really leverages the network effects of Facebook. When one person changes their profile image that change is pushed out to all that person’s friends via the friend feed. Ideally, the following exchanges occur:

Finally, the organizers attempted to promote their events through citizen media sites, which have a wider audience than a Facebook group but are more accessible to activists than the mainstream media.  For example, A supporter posted a photo and links about the San Francisco protest on the site Now Public, which collects and distributes news from unconventional sources by letting citizen journalists upload their own stories.

Outcome: Based on the photos and video uploaded by WiMV supporters, it appears that international protests on June 14th occurred in San Francisco (USA), London (UK) , Dallas (USA), Paris (France), Dubai (UAE), Melbourne (Australia), Köln (Germany), Atlanta (USA), Washington DC (USA), Los Angeles (USA), Winnipeg (Canada), Boston (USA), and Toronto (Canada). At somes protests dozens were present, at others over 100.  (You can see a selection of images from the protests after the jump.)

It was certainly a successful example of fast, free, international collective action. The question is, where will the movement go r from here and will it be able to transform current enthusiasm and ad hoc organizing into an organizational structure with the stamina to continue a longer campaign?

Analysis: The WiMV campaign followed a decentralized structure that is common to digital activism campaigns built around high-profile issues.  However, was this decentralization a good thing for the cause? On the positive side, it is likely that more events were organized because people who became aware of the WiMV/June 14th meme could create their own Facebook page to organize an event in their area and invite their friends and contacts. This seems to be the case with the WiMV Melbourne, Dubai, and Atlanta groups. (Other local pages were created but they did not seems to organize protests.) In another benefit of localization, the very active Paris group created their own profile icon in French: “ou est leur vote?” (where is their vote?) and their own Blogspot blog, which acted as a stand-alone site to centralize information about their protest.

Unfortunately, the negatives of decentralization seem to be more substantial than the positives. The first reason is misinformation.  While the “official” DC protest was meant to take place at the Iranian Interests Section, someone posted on the wall of another group that the DC protest should be on the lawn of the White House.  Second, many of the groups were “identity” groups rather than “action” groups. People joined them to identify with the cause of free and fair elections in Iran, but no protests were organized within those groups.  People who potentially could have been recruited to attend a protest fell into the “dead zone” of inactive group.

The most serious concern with regard to decentralization is its implications for sustainability.  Supporters are spread across a miriad number of event groups on Facebook, which was effective enough for this first action, but how will these supporters be contacted for future actions that are not organized at the local level? (Also, what about people who attended the protests but are not members of the Facebook group?  Was their contact info collected?)

For true coordination beyond a high-attention meme, centralization is necessay and WiMV’s current structure on Facebook does not lend itself the the sustainable community which is most likely to lead to future collaboration and action. After the the explosion of activity for June 14th, people interested in continued action will need to come together into a single leadership team and then start reaching out to the group founders in an effort to get everyone on the same listserv and in the same group.  It will not be a fun or easy process but it will be necessary to create a sustainabile community for this issue.

Protest photos after the jump…

Read more »

DigiActive’s Introduction to Digital Activism

It’s been a long time in coming, but here is DigiActive’s official introduction to digital activism.  This short presentation (19 slides) includes the following content:

• definition of digital activism
• examples from 3 countries (Colombia, Pakistan, China) including 3 different tools (social networks, mobile SMS, blogs)
• qualities of good digital activism: sustainability, effectiveness, reproducibility
• challenges to digital activism: the need for online-offline coordination, elitism and inequality of access, hype and tool transience, and persecution of digital activists
• what DigiActive does in this space and ways to get involved

Like all DigiActive content, the presentation is created under a Creative Commons Attribution License, so we encourage you to download it, use it, and remix it with your own content.  You can download the presentation here.

Presidential Candidates Go Virtual in Iran

Description:The Iranian presidential election will be held in about a month and more than 400 people have registered as candidates. However, they still need the Council of Guardians to approve their nominations. In the last presidential election in 2005, less than 10 people among over 1,000 registered candidates got the chance to run, and all the lucky candidates were faithful and loyal to the Islamic Republic. This time the supporters of leading candidates are using digital means to promote their favorite politicians. Facebook and YouTube, which were banned until recently, have been used by candidates to beef up their chances in the coming election.

Tools and People: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supporters started to use all the digital means at their disposal. Their virtual campaign is named Dar Emtade Meh (means “following kindness”). In this site supporters are invited to use Facebook, SMS,Twitter,YouTube and blogs to communicate the message. YouTube is used in very pivotal way by campaigners and several Ahmadinejad’s meetings and trips are there. Ahmadinejad is considered a conservative politician.

Mir Hussein Mousavi, former Prime Minister, has launched an internet based TV. His campaign claims that more than 1,000 blogs announced their support of Mousavi. He is supported by former reformist president Mohammad Khatami and he calls himself an independent candidate.

The supporters of Mehdi Karrubi’s, former parliamentary speaker, have launched a Facebook page where several election films are published. Karrubi is considered a reformist candidate.

Impact: It is very interesting that Iranian authorities allowed Iranians access to Facebook and YouTube just a few months ago and already we see they are really present in candidates’ campaigns. The presence of bloggers as adviser to candidates and/or their campaigners reveal that citizen media has creeped its way into mainstream politics. Mohammad Abtahi, former vice president and blogger, is adviser to Karrubi and several bloggers are active in Mousavi’s campaign. Just as we now have “governmental NGOs” in Iran, in the future we will probably have “state-run citizen media.”

Michael Silberman: Creating an Online Strategy

Michael Silberman (original image: NetSquared)

Today I “attended” a webinar on online strategy hosted by the New Organizing Institute.  The presenter was Michael Silberman, a partner and co-founder of EchoDitto, a communications firm founded by the techies of the Howard Dean campaign.  Below are Michael’s steps to building an online strategy.  I’ve presented his ideas, which are aimed at American non-profits, and then given commentary on how the steps relate to grassroots activists in other countries.  I’ve also added examples from international digital activism.

1)  Choose your moment:  It’s best to link the launch of a campaign to the news cycle so it is relevant.  This can be particularly challenging for activists that work on longterm issues, like the environment, public health, and or women’s rights.  It is common for these kinds of campaigns to link their actions to planned holidays like Earth Day or International Women’s Day, but smart organizations will also be attuned to the news for unforeseen opportunities and be ready to push their environmental campaign when there is news of a toxic clean-up or their women’s rights campaign when a female celebrity is the victim of domestic violence.

An excellent example of connecting an advocacy goal to the news cycle is Syria LinkedIn fail.  Social network LinkedIn had blocked its users in Syria because of a broad interpretatation of US sanctions against that country.  In order to make the block relevant, activist Jillian York created a Twitter tag #linkedinfail, which simulated the incredibly embarrassing #amazonfail story only a few days ago.  Eager not to follow in Amazon’s path, a PR representative responded to Jillian quickly (and on Twitter) and Syrians regained most of their access to the site.

2) Create an “ask”:  An “ask” is a jargon term that campaigners use to refer to the request you will make to your supporters.  While it is tempting to post a list of several actions, in Michael’s experience the most successful asks make only one request. For example, the project Postcards for Iran makes one simple ask:  send a postcard (snail mail or digital) to an Iranian political prisoner. Read more »

Why LinkedOut Syrians are LinkedIn again

Although professional networking site LinkedIn remains blocked for Sudanese users, Syrian users recently got their access to the site back.  Let’s take a look at how that happened.

Background: In early April, Syrian users of LinkedIn found that their accounts had been blocked.  Initially,  it seems that LinkedIn simply blocked Syrian IP addresses, since Syrian users could still access their accounts through proxy servers like TOR.  However, a few days ago LinkedIn (I’m guessing here) figured out that Syrian users (no strangers to Internet censorship) had found a way around their basic block and started shutting down individual accounts.  Syrian blogger Anas received the following explanation for this denial of service on April 17th from LinkedIn Customer Service:

Per the terms of our User Agreement, use of LinkedIn services, including our software, is subject to export and re-export control laws and regulations. This includes the Export Administration Regulations maintained by the United States Department of Commerce and sanctions programs maintained by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Under the User Agreement, LinkedIn Users warrant that they are not prohibited from receiving U.S. origin products, including services or software. As such, and as a matter of corporate policy, we do not allow member accounts or access to our site from Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.

Apparently, this reference to “sanctions” refers to a 2003 law which limited software exports to the above-mentioned countries.  Other online services, like Google, Amazon, and the domain site GoDaddy have totally or partially blocked Syrian access to their services in accordance with this these sanctions.  But why did LinkedIn act now, six years after the sanctions were passed?

Activist Response:  Not surprisingly, when the blockage first occurred, Syrian bloggers spoke out.  However, this did not result in a lift of the block, but in making the blockage more effective by cutting off user accounts.   Then, two actions began after this story broke on Global Voice Advocacy on April 18th. First, Jillian York, writer on Global Voices, started  a small Twitter meme using the hashtags #boycottlinkedin (22 tweets) and #linkedinfail (3 tweets).  This was an attempt to recreate the recent hype of the hashtag #amazonfail (over 1500 tweets), which occurred when gay-themed books were removed from Amazon’s rankings.

Second, Jillian  wrote a piece on the blockage in the prominent American political blog Huffington Post and Evgeny Morozov mentioned the case in a piece for Foreign Policy’s Net Effects blog.

LinkedIn’s Response: What’s surprising is that, small as it was, it seems that the Twitter campaign was what finally got a reaction from LinkedIn.  According to Jillian:

kluo (Kay Luo), Senior Director of Corporate Communications for LinkedIn (or as she refers to herself, LinkedIn employee #99) contacted me and others on Twitter to find out what was going on. After a few short back-and-forths, she announced that the deletion of Syrian user accounts was in fact an error and would be fixed.

And it was fixed. According to Jillian, LinkedIn is still honoring the sanctions in that they do not allow Syrians to download applications from their site, but they have scaled back their limitations, so Syrians once more have access to their LinkedIn accounts.

Why it Worked:  While Jillian credits the cumulative effect of Syiran bloggers + Huffington post + the 2 Twitter hashtags, I think what caused LinkedIn to capitulate  so quickly (and so obsequiously) was fear of another #amazonfail fiasco.  (Noted one popular blog, “The only thing anyone can agree on was Amazon.com PR’s complete mishandling of the situation.”)   Though Kay mentioned Jillian’s Huffington Post article in a tweet, it seems that Twitter was where LinkedIn’s attention was, since that’s how Kay contacted Jillian and that’s where she issued her mea culpa (left).

Though I credit LinkedIn with their decision to enforce their sanction obligation with a surgical blade rather than a battle ax, I question their decision not to address this in their response to Jillian.   LinkedIn Customer Service gave a very clear reason why Syrian users were blocked (the sanctions), which is quite different from “human error bug from a release last month” which Kay provided as an explanation.  (Ethan Zuckerman is more sympathetic to LinkedIn’s response to the sanctions.)

Implications:  Why am I being critical, since LinkedIn did, in Jillian’s words, “do the right thing”?  First off, because they are still blocking users in Sudan and, since the customer service response also mentioned Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, we can assume that they are still blocking users in those countries as well.  (Readers, please confirm if you have contacts.)

Unlike blocking Google Gears, blocking  a social network is particularly insidious because these platforms are extremely useful organizing tools for activists.  And, while DigiActive is the first to admit to the drawbacks of these tools, anyone in the US government interested in supporting open societies should seek to increase access to social networks in repressive countries, not block them with sanctions.  President Obama’s recent policy of granting access the of US telecom companies to Cuba makes LinkedIn’s actions towards Syria all the more perplexing.

Another sad lesson from this story is that this Syrian issue really only gained traction when it hit the US/English media.  Kay makes specific reference to Jillian’s Huffington Post article, so we can assume that this kind of high-profile attention was one of the warning signs for LinkedIn of this-might-turn-into-#amazonfail. Good news is that, thanks to blogs like Huffington Post and Global Voices Advocacy, which broke the story, raising the profile of a foreign injustice is more accessible than it was in the days when you needed to convince a newspaper reporter with a deadline that your story mattered.  These new media outlets, particularly Global Voices, are much more accessible to the world’s activists.

Lessons for Activists: I think this case has 4 lessons for digital activists.  Here they are:

1. Think like your target:  What was LinkedIn’s greatest fear?  Another #amazonfail.  Jillian’s Twitter campaign was a realization of that fear and LinkedIn reacted quickly.
2. Use media your target is using: It’s almost a cliche to say that you need to meet your supporters where they are, but this is also true for your target.  Twitter was only an effective means of pressuring LinkedIn because their PR person was keeping a close watch on her Twitter feed.  This is actually rather surprising.  (Clearly, LinkedIn is quite hip.)  A better bet was the article on Huffington Post.  If you publish in a place where influential people seek information, chances are your target will see it too.
3. Link your campaign to the news cycle:  Again, #linkedinfail built off the embarrassment of #amazonfail, which had been leading tech news only a few days before.
4. Go to where your target is: Blocked users live in Syria.  LinkedIn is an American company.  LinkedIn reacted when the news hit in America.  This is no coincidence.  Get into the media market where your opponent is.

LinkedIn has been very responsive about lifting the account block on Syria and I hope it will lift the blocks on Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and North Korea as well, or at least give an explanation of why it is choosing to lift some bans while leaving others in place.

Image credits: (from top) DigiActive, Jillian York, DigiActive

Action Alert: Day of Solidarity with Persecuted Bloggers

Background: Omid Reza Mir Sayafi, an Iranian blogger, died tragically in prison on March 18, demonstrating the sad fact that a blogger’s life can be lost as easily as a blog can be filtered by authorities.

Bloggers have been praised on many occasions for their contribution and value to the information society. They are admired in many cases as unheard voices but unfortunately most of the time, when a blogger faces persecution, his or her voice is not heard.

Sadly, Omid Reza’s case is not an exception and dozens of cyber dissidents are in jail around our globalized world and many more face political persecution.

When: I would like to propose March 18 every year as an International Day of Solidarity with Persecuted Bloggers.

Why: We can remember, talk and honor in this day jailed, tortured, killed and threatened bloggers, regardless of their political ideas and social or ethnic backgrounds. We can also discuss on this day what measures should be taken to support persecuted bloggers.

How: Please contact me at helpforbloggers@gmail.com if you’d like to get involved.   So far I have received very positive feedback from Committee to Protect Bloggers, Global Voices Advocacy, Freekareem, Mideast Youth and several bloggers and  I am ready to receive your comments, ideas, initiatives and words on this topic.