[: hacktivism :]
>I think it's worth noting that a government website is
>not an "opposing point of view" or even a point of view
>for that matter. The texts that governments produce for
>the public (usually) are expressions of the regulatory
>regime under which we live. These texts are not really
>view points in the sense that they set the stage and the
>terms of which we live and act. NPR, the BBC, the
>NYTimes, the TV are all going to report based on these
>texts not on ours (as (h)activists). These texts are
>considered the neutral facts by the media while in actuality
>they betray the political regulatory regimes we live
>under.
Democratic governments are supposed to mirror the majority's point of
view : we have the politicians we deserve.
For example, afraid people will tend to elect authoritative governments.
And governments will try to make people afraid, in order to get more
power(the mainstream of state propaganda, concerning the internet is that
it is not secure, and therefore more control is needed).
It may be a mistake to consider governments as ennemies, as long as they
are, more or less, representative of the majority. Even if you could shut
down a government, if people themselves don"t change, the next government
would be alike the previous (or worse).
Therefore, it is unuseful to fight a government.
Instead, we should try to change people's mind. If people change,
governments change also.
That's why I maintain that a true, efficient activism should aim to
change people's mind by constructive actions.
For the average man, very likely, when a hacker shuts down a site, it
just strenghtens his opinion that the internet is not secure, and haunted
with terrorists and pedophiles.Therefore, you work for the state
propaganda, instead of breaking it.
Moreover mainstraim media are not free : these are commercial companies.
It would be dangerous to consider them as neutral, because they are not.
>
>Many (h)activists maintain
>these regulatory regimes are oppressive and unjust. Thus
>disruptions in the expressions of such regimes can open
>up new spaces for constructive possibility.
How ?
>
>Let's be real. Shutting down a Mexican government website for
> a few hours does not mean that the Mexican government's
>"view" will not be heard. The Mexican government's
>"view" is the one that millions of Mexicans citizens live
>under. This "view" is the view with the means to
>massacre thier own citizens as in Acteal.
>
>Why bother with these brief interruptions in the
>message? Because it may also be in a one-line report on
>NPR tommorrow
The first times, maybe....because it is still "new and hot", and related
to the internet.
But after ? Media always want new things, and people too.
Indeed, there was a great coverage of what has been done re Zappatta.
But why ? What was the subliminal message ? That there is something wrong
with the Mexican government, or that the internet is not secure, haunted
by techno-terrorists ?
>From the arguments showed here in favor with shutting down sites, it
results it is good because :
- it is a kind of technological poetry
- it may attract the media's attention.
About poetry..well, it is a subjective opinion.
About drawing the media's attention, it may have side-effects...., and
even be counter-productive, if they decide to emphasize the fact that
"terrorists" can shut down web sites.
Philippe Egret
_____________________________________________________________________
The Noosph project : a vibrant venture for free citizens
http://noosph.org
*********************************************************************
[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]