OK then!:Retro smile: I'm reading Clay Shirky's stuff at the moment (
Everyone is Connected and
Cognitive Surplus) about how the internet has changed social activism (among other things).
One of the things he says is that elected representatives used to think that a letter from a constituent represented 1,000 people who also felt strongly on the issue but who couldn't be bothered to write; similarly for petition signatures. However, now that we have the internet, where sending an email with a quick cut-and-paste of someone else's text and multiple recipients is quick, easy and free, those Congresspeople don't make that assumption. A letter or signing a hard-copy petition took effort; the electronic versions don't, so each signatory stands for very few other people.
Shirky mentions arecent successful "petition" that he believed succeeded because participating clearly had a cost, though small. One consisted of mailing peanuts to the executives of the SF show "Jericho" to try to get it continued; as this interesting
blog post about Shirky's stuff says, "peanuts are not easily deleted" and the studio realised that it had taken real effort for individual fans to send the peanuts; the show was resigned.
One of the things we do here on PR and that is a possible for the XMRVsite is petitions, and Judderwocky has done some great stuff writing and coordinating; but are they effective? Do things like sending a box of peanuts, or a bunch of flowers (as in another protest) have the effects that petitions used to have before the internet? And if so, do we need a critical mass of activists to agree to send them (e.g. via
PledgeBank.com)?
Just a thought - I see a lot of energy going into petitions and I'd like to think that they work but in these internet days, maybe the message stage of the protest needs to be sending a physical object, not some electrons.
I hope this is a helpful question, Judderwocky - I certainly don't want to discourage any efforts but think we maybe need to think about the means. Any views, anybody?