Is Facebook changing the way we protest?

Simon Young says the Save Radio New Zealand protest has shown not only how many people care about our state broadcaster, but also how social media is changing the way we protest.

* * *

National Radio (sorry, Radio NZ National) recently ran a piece about the Australian cyber-attacks protesting against internet censorship. (That's a link from Australia's public broadcaster, ABC)

While the attacks, in the form of distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks, are technically illegal, the commentator raised the possibility that one day, cyber protest may be a legal and acceptable form of civic dissent, in the same way that forming and belonging to a trade union is today.

It's a fascinating thought. Arguably, fewer people get hurt when it's servers getting hit, not people. 

Thankfully it's not a question New Zealand is facing, with the extremely nonviolent Save Radio New Zealand protest gaining a lot of attention on Facebook, and to a lesser extent on Twitter.

Over 17,000 people - no small number in New Zealand - are lending their voices to this Labour Party-led leveraged (see comments below) campaign to stop funding cuts. The number alone sends a strong message - but group is also offering a venue for discussion.

One commenter asks:

"I am 110% behind saving Radio New Zealand's news services but don't (currently) believe the Concert Program should be propped up with government money. Is there a reasoned and rational argument as to why I should think otherwise?"

Try having that reasoned and rational conversation in a street demonstration!

Meanwhile on Twitter, most of the action is linking back to the Facebook group. However some of the voices are those of dissenters, like a little-known Tweeter called Bill Ralston (a mere 302 followers) who says: 

"What exactly are we supposed to be Saving Radio New Zealand from? Saving it from living within its means? Save me from doing that!"

Sometimes the best way to answer criticism is silence. And that's what the Save Radio New Zealand community are doing. 

When social media first came out, it brought with it the possibility of a world of dialogue. Instead of a shouting match, social media offered the promise of a genuine conversation. 

It's still a possibility. Social media potentially gives people the personal space to genuinely explore issues rather than be caught up in the excitement or politicisation of a cause. 

However technology alone doesn't achieve this zen-like state of conversation. If we're to get beyond rhetoric to relationship, we need to supplement our technology with some new skills.

Or, we could just continue the way we always have, remaining utterly convinced of the rightness of our views, and trying to convince as many people as possible of that. 

Now I risk sounding like a disillusioned hippy. Let me bring out the pragmatist, and pose the other point of view - don't we sometimes need to state a very clear point of view, just to get attention?

What do you think?