Social Issues

Racism and social media: The judge or the computer programmer?

by Edgar Szoc, BePax

At a time when, for a growing part of the citizens, social networks are the first source of information – without hierarchy, editorial work and ranking other than that imposed by our “friendships” and the obscure operation of algorithms, it is vital to ask what links this new mode of sociability and “consumption” of information has with racism and calls for hatred.

This is a truism: the emergence of the Internet in general and social networks in particular has brought about considerable transformations of the modes of communication of information but also of “political affects”. Without listing here all these transformations, it may be useful to return to the sometimes paradoxical effects of one of the main ones: the radical democratization of the process of publishing, publishing or disseminating information. . To get an idea, just remember how reduced was the circle before the advent of the Internet for people likely to address more than one thousand people at a time. In this privileged situation, there were only a few political representatives, rare scientists or experts, representatives of civil society.

Ambiguous horizontalization

Henceforth, if the barriers to mass diffusion have not disappeared, they have fundamentally changed in nature: it is no longer a few ” gatekeepers ” who are in charge of deciding who has a sufficiently legitimate and “authorized” word can be broadcast. Or, in any case, alongside the old media logic that continues, have appeared new rules if no legitimacy, at least advertising, which make visibility on social networks depend not on the recognition of this legitimacy by these famous ” gatekeepers ” but the mastery of the rules and codes of this particular grammar to social networks.

No one will dispute the democratic virtues of this “horizontalization” of the process of publishing, publishing and disseminating information, which at least potentially allows Facebook’s 2 billion users – to speak only of this network, to benefit from loudspeakers which they were deprived until then. But no one will be able to dispute that 2 billion loudspeakers do not necessarily facilitate the hearing and that, via Facebook and other networks of the same type, it is the coffee of the trade which is invited in the “consumption” of information…

To read the rest of this article, click here.


Advancing ‘just peace’ through strategic nonviolent action

By Dr. Maria J. Stephan
U.S. Institute of Peace

Note: The following article was submitted to the Nonviolence and Just Peace conference in Rome in April 2016 as one of the primary background papers of the conference.

All across the globe, from Guatemala to Poland to Venezuela to Palestine, ordinary people are organizing and challenging systems of injustice, inequality, and oppression using weapons of will and active nonviolent means. Their struggles are part of a rich history of nonviolent movements and “people power” that include the Mahatma Gandhi-led fight for self-determination in India, the Polish Solidarity movement against communist dictatorship, the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, the peaceful ouster of dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and recent nonviolent movements for human rights and dignity in Tunisia, Guatemala, Brazil, and elsewhere.

The Technique of Nonviolent Action

In each of these cases, unarmed civilians used nonviolent direction action, or what nonviolent action scholar Gene Sharp described as techniques outside of institutionalized behavior for social change that challenges an unjust power dynamic using methods of protest, noncooperation, and intervention without the use or threat of injurious force. The theoretical underpinnings of nonviolent resistance, articulated by Sharp and by earlier scholars including German philosopher Hannah Arendt, holds that power is fluid and ultimately grounded in the consent and cooperation of ordinary people, who can decide to restrict or withhold that support. Sharp identified six key sources of political power, which are present to varying degrees in any society: authority, human resources, material resources, skills and knowledge, intangible factors, and sanctions. Ultimately, these sources of power are grounded in organizations and institutions, made up of people, known as “pillars of support”. When large numbers of people from various pillars of support (bureaucracies, trade and labor unions, state media, educational institutions, religious institutions, security forces, etc.) use various nonviolent tactics to withhold consent and cooperation from regimes or other power-holders in an organized fashion, this can shift power from the oppressor to the oppressed without bombs or bullets.

Sharp identified 198 methods of nonviolent action that included peaceful marches, vigils, social and consumer boycotts, stay-aways, sit-ins, street theatre, humor, and the creation of parallel structures and institution (included in what Gandhi referred to as the “constructive program”, which focused on social uplift for the poor and marginalized). The rise of social media technologies, including Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram has expanded the universe of tactics even further, while offering new avenues for communication, mobilization, and peer learning across borders. Successful movements have integrated both on and offline forms of mobilization, organization, and direct action – online activism is never a substitute for nuts and bolts offline organizing…

Click here to read the rest of this article.