Violent flash mobs, how should we understand it?

What should we make of these swarms or flash mobs?

When you are living in a society that you perceive as being unjust, unfair, when you're unable to dream anymore about a brighter future, when you feel trapped within a cycle of poverty, when you perceive that the society you live in is not yours, what incentives do you have to preserve order, to respect the commons or the property of those that you associate with the higher casts? 

As the chasm between the haves and the have-nots deepens, the tension also increases. This tension was kept under control through psychological and physical means. We tell young people that destroying property or steeling is not good, and hope that they will voluntarily behave in a moral way, moral as defined by the establishment, camouflaging the systemic injustice. When that is not enough, when the pressure is too large, when the injustice becomes obvious, when people decide to act against the haves indiscriminately, "we" send in the "security" forces (security mostly for the rich, less for the poor). The problem is that current "security" systems were not designed for a coherent and well-coordinated mob, which is now awaken by alternative information sources. The traditional psychological and physical means of control are breaking down! 

The answer is NOT more brutal force, but a more just society. Social stability, as defined by the upper class, is not sustainable anymore for a large gap between the haves and the haves-not, because the classical means to sustain it are now inappropriate, ineffective. This is the multitude social revolution, the emancipation of the masses, a natural transition towards a more just society that plays on the unbalance of power in the favor of the multitude (see The multitude page on our website). The answer is to let the masses emancipate, to let them participate, to provide people with a sense of belonging, to provide them with real opportunities, to give them a reason to respect the commons and the property of others, because they feel that in doing so they help build a society for themselves. Otherwise people will passionately destroy the assets of those who they perceive as being part of the oppressing class, or participating in the oppressive system, if they are pushed to their limits, because they can. Yes, they can... and there is nothing in place to stop them! 

"the police are getting quite savvy in heading off these gatherings before they come to a head, they are routinely monitoring Internet websites, including in particular social networking sites..."

How much resources does the police have to play cat and mouse with the disenfranchised, jobless youth?

"Why they [violent flash mobs] happen? ...kids being bored and acting stupid"

Acting stupid? I don't think so... These kids realize a gap in the system, which they perceive as being unjust, unfair, and they exploit it very brilliantly. They collectively understand the power of social media to coordinate spontaneous actions that can overwhelm the "security" forces. These young people understand that the balance of power is shifting. Call that stupid...        

Swarm of flash mobs, or any other type of decentralized, spontaneous, and well-coordinated massive action are a reality. We saw them coming by analyzing the possibilities introduced by the new technology. They can target positive as well as negative action. The only effective way to reduce negative action is by giving people a reason not to engage in it. We cannot prevent it by force. The multitude is the power, and it will move in one direction or another depending on the signals it gets form the environment. A more just society will generate dynamically stable attractors characterized by positive action. 

See also the article on Pre-programmed mass movements on our website.           

London, England: "Just to show the rich people that we can do what we want..." video bellow. 

By AllOfUs

Clay Shirky: Institutions vs. collaboration

Important concept

• coordination costs. 
• power law distribution, 80-20 curve, or long-tail distribution. 

The classic answer to getting a group to do something was the institution (centralized organization based on power relations). Today, the costs of communication, which is fundamental for coordination, has fallen. It is now possible to put the coordination into the infrastructure and to reduce the need for planning.  

The institution asks for:

• explicit goals 
• management, 
• enforcement of goals (carrots and sticks) 
• structure (economic, legal, physical, etc) 
• exclusion (cannot higher anyone) --> professional class 

Collaboration infrastructure: moving the problem to the people instead of moving the people to the problem, shedding institutional costs, adding flexibility. Decentralization, openness, inclusiveness. 

Tension between the institution as an enabler and institution as an obstacle. "Many of the relative advantages of hierarchy are now reduced."

It's all abut value! Open collaborative networks are mostly value-based organizations, and are increasingly replacing institutions (power-based organizations) on different arenas. 

By AllOfUs

A light infrastructure that can support massive collaboration and coordination

The Multitude Project is proposing an example of an infrastructure that can support massive social movements. It is a LEGO-type infrastructure, which means that it is composed of inter-operable individual services. It is a FREE infrastructure, all services used are available for free on the Internet.

This entire infrastructure can be put together and deployed in only a few hours. Because it is free and easy to build, it is the perfect solution for very dynamic massive actions. It enables massive movements to form spontaneously and act swiftly. Because there is no cost associated with it, this infrastructure can be simply dismantlement after it has served its purpose. For actions of a longer duration, the advantage of this type of infrastructure is that all its development and maintenance is delegated to the service provider.  

This example is mostly based on Google free products/services. The beauty of this is that almost all of the infrastructure runes on mobile devices like the iPhone and the Google pone.

You can consult it HERE.

Multitude Project built this infrastructure to support an international coalition fighting an ecologically unstable gold mining operation in Rosia Montana, Romania. It is tested for the first time in a real situation, on a massive scale.

By AllOfUs

Internet and social revolutions

What is different about the Internet compared to other communication mediums when one considers the dynamics of social mass movements? A social movement is the alignment of peoples’ actions according to a new system of values, beliefs, or a new ideology. Before the movement becomes obvious to an observer, before one can notice a new behavioral pattern, it is necessary for the new values system to spread throughout society, and to be adopted by a critical number of individuals. Notice that there are two important components in this process: the spread of information and its acceptance by different individuals.

Concerning the first, there is no much else to say about the efficacy of the Internet technology in spreading information or about its supremacy over all the other means of communication. Not only that, but the Internet is inherently democratic, giving a voice to everyone, rich and poor.

The second component, the adoption of the new ideas, must be examined a little closer in order to reveal the impact of the Internet on social movements. Take two modes of communication: one-to-many and one-to-one. An example of one-to-many communication is a person speaking to a crowd, say Martin Luther JR. King giving his I have a dream speech. The most obvious example of one-to-one communication would be two individuals directly speaking to each other, a form of two-ways synchronous communication, or an individual reading a book, a form of one-way asynchronous communication between the writer and the reader. In both cases we have on one side the teacher, or the person spreading the new ideas, and on the other side the uninitiated crowd or the individual(s) receiving the new teachings. If we consider the receiver, we can easily accept the fact that his/her receptivity is influenced by what others have to say about the message of the teacher. In general, you have a greater chance to convince someone of anything if you are talking to this person alone. In a crowd, if the message is somewhat controversial, if it threatens only a few vocal individuals, their reactions can influence the way others interpret the message, by seeding doubts in their minds. The dynamics of the crowd can help the speaker only when a majority already accepts the message, because the general approval puts pressure on the skeptics who fill themselves rejected. But here we are interested in social revolution and the social movements that make it happen. We are talking about disruptive social changes, which almost always stems from originally controversial ideas. Well, most of the information consumed on the Internet is asynchronous one-to-one or many-to-one. On the receiver side we have one individual alone, which makes this individual much more receptive to the new ideas.

Social movements are much more dynamic today because information is usually transmitted through the Internet to a single receiver at the time, and also because the Internet is the most efficient medium of communication ever implemented. Moreover, the number of those spreading the information is also increased, as new adepts possess all the means (affordable communication tools) to become effective teachers. Furthermore, the Internet is not only a communication platform; it also acts as a coordination and collaboration platform. The growth rate and the coherence acquired by social movements today surpass the capacity of any means to suppress them in the arsenal of those in power.

by AllOfUs

Activism and the new technology

Tiberius Brastaviceanu proposes the Scientific Oeuvre to replace the current system of science communication.

"Sharing and collaboration, as well as free access to all scientific knowledge are values that make the ethical framework of this article. I strongly believe that these values have positive consequences in terms of economics (in the general sense of the word) within a strongly interconnected society, but I leave the argumentation for another day. My point is that in the context of our modern society, the solution to the information crisis seems to be aligned with these values, which, in turn, engender positive outcomes in terms of production of new knowledge, and its embodiment into new technologies. "

Read article here http://sites.google.com/site/tibisphilosophy/home/the-scientific-oeuvre

All Of Us

As in Moldova, Iranian demonstrators experiment with the new technology

What we are seeing in Iran, as in other parts of the world, is the genuine expression of the people for freedom, beyond political paradigms.
Iranians know that Ahmadinagad stands against the USA and Israel, and they agree with this opposition, but they want things to be done differently. They want a better future, better economical conditions, as well as sovereignty as a nation. Considering the state of affairs at the international level, their actions seem somewhat irrational. They know that Iran is the primordial target of the USA and Israel for their plan of reconstruction of the Middle East and yet, at the same time, they go against their government, an outspoken regimes against their "enemies". Are the Iranians ready to give up their sovereignty for better economical conditions? I personally don't think so.

We are witnessing at this moment a rising in consciousness at the global level, the realization that we the people can determine our own future. Moreover, we are starting to understand that governments all over the planet have lost their ability to contain the discontent of their masses, that they, the elite, are incapable to maintain their power because they are trapped into the old paradigm. We are like a wolf opening his eyes and smelling the wind, sensing a bleeding pray nearby. There is some irrationality too. It seems that people move to seize the power, to become self-determined but let the problems from the outside to be dealt with later. Irrationality is not strange in mass movements. It is actually part of the norm.

What will happen to Iran if a weaker president comes to power? In this particular case I would say, nothing much… All major powers are facing the same internal troubles. The awakening is happening everywhere. The American government is most probably not celebrating watching the events in Tehran. They are taking notes on how to deal with this new breed of devastating popular movement. Russia and China are probably wrestling with the same problem.
As long as things don’t get totally out of hand, as long as we contain our destructive military power, all societies have a chance to get on the path towards freedom.

My response to the previous video: Is a division of snippers more effective than a coordinated crowd? Not so sure... Spreading fear by cowardly killing demonstrators from rooftops becomes an ineffective tactic if there really is a will for change. Having participated in a bloody revolution, I experienced first hand the tipping point where death becomes glorifying. I saw bare chested individuals affronting loaded guns. Fear tactics only work in favor of a tyrannical regime up to a certain point, beyond which they exert a negative effect, fueling the anger of the crowd. Forces of order are not prepared yet to fight well organized and coordinated masses, and I don't think that they will ever be able to catch up. Their resources are too limited to contain an informed and well coordinated mass movement, because they were not conceived for this sort of situations. With the help of the new technology the multitude can take a systems approach and coordinate attacks on the weak points of a tyrannical regime, undermining its support structures.

Iran Limits Internet Use

"Social networking sites were shut down in Iran after protesters used these sites to coordinate rallies and get news out about government action. Elizabeth Palmer reports."

See YouTube Video

How people are learning to use the new technology to overthrow corrupt governments

Student Protests Are Turning Into A Twitter Revolution In Moldova
(April 7, 2009) by Leena Rao

"Students in Moldova are using Twitter as a tool to mobilize opposition against a communist victory in Moldovian elections. According to reports, close to 10,000 protesters gathered at Moldova’s parliament in Chisinau, Moldova’s capital and were able to eventually break through police lines to storm into the building. From looking at the tweets on the subject, it appears that the demonstration turned into a violent coup attempt."

From All Of Us

The Chinese government recognizes the potential of Internet technology and shots down social networking sites during the Tiananmen anniversary.

To Shut Off Tiananmen Talk, China Disrupts Sites
By MICHAEL WINES and ANDREW JACOBS (June 2, 2009)

The question is for how long do they think they can get away with it? During the Renascence, the catholic church was cracking down on printed books and their vendors. They feared that by having access to information, to new ideas, the people will wake up and rebel against their authority. I still don't understand why these guys in power never get it? After all they are supposed to be the smart ones, the ones that shape and manage our society...

Photo by laihiu