Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________The Era of Digital Activism
Marcos Sivitanides
Ms06@txstate.edu
Vivek Shah
vs01@txstate.edu
Dept. of CIS & QMSTMcCoy College of BusinessTexas State University
San Marcos, TX 78666
Abstract
The world is in the midst of a digital revolution. The new tools of social media have reinvented social
activism. The purpose of the paper is to provide a framework and terminology to use when referring
to digital activism and to provide and understanding of the fundamental difference between traditional
activism as it existed for decades and as it has now transformed itself into a sharper and more focused
tool with the use of digital technology.
Keywords: Digital Activism, Social Media

1. INTRODUCTION
The world is in the midst of a digital revolution.
The new tools of social media have reinventedsocial activism. Over the past decade, people
around the globe have become increasingly
aware of and interested in the expanding use ofdigital technologies, computers, mobile phones,
and other Internet enabled devices, in the battle
for social and political change. These practices,
AKA “digital activism,” have been approached byjournalists, picked apart by bloggers, andenthusiastically studied by scholars, students,
activists, and corporations who desire tounderstand and derive conclusions concerning
such a controversial and disagreed upon topic.
The subject of digital activism is often associatedwith stories and case studies: tales of political
campaigns, like Barack Obama’s, that used asocial network to mobilize volunteers; inspiring

stories from Iran or Moldova about citizens
broadcasting mobile phone videos on YouTube
or giving protest updates on Twitter. These tales
are analyzed, reported, and critiqued. And finallylessons are derived and best practices are
imitated. The field, nonetheless, is fragmented.
Thus, in order to properly depict digital activism,
this paper will look into the fundamentals ofdigital activism as well as the practices,arguments, and effects associated with the field
today.
The purpose of the paper is to provide aframework and terminology to use whenreferring to digital activism and to provide andunderstanding of the fundamental difference
between traditional activism as it existed for
decades and as it has now transformed itself
into a sharper and more focused tool with theuse of digital technology.

_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 1

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________
Digital Activism Defined
Traditionally, activism is defined as “the doctrineor practice of rigorous action or involvement asa means of achieving political or other goal,
sometimes by demonstrations protests, etc.”(www.dictionary.com).
Just as the field ofdigital activism is jumbled, so is theterminology. In fact, some would argue that“digital activism” is not even the proper term forthe use of technology for activism. Although thephrase “digital activism” is challenged, weelected to use it due to the fact that it best
describes the speed, reliability, scale, and low
cost of the Internet. Factors such as these are
precisely what enable the scale and scope ofmodern-day activism.
The term, digital activism, describes activities orpractices that are both in-depth and exclusive.
In-depth in that it encompasses all social and apolitical campaigning practice that use digital
network infrastructure; exclusive in that it
excludes practices that are not examples of thistype of practice (Joyce, 2010).
Therefore,
because of its exhaustive and exclusive nature,“digital activism” is the best term to discuss all
instances of activism that use digital network
infrastructure.
2. The Digital Activism Environment
The environment of digital activism refers bothto the digital technology that is used in a given
activism movement and to the economic, social,
and political context in which such technology
use occurs. Digital technology infrastructure, thecombination of networks, code, applications, anddevices that make up the physical infrastructureof digital activism, is a starting point but not an
ending point. Differences in economic, social,
and political factors ultimately alter how activists
use this technology. In view of the fact that thispaper has to do more with the technology sideof activism we only briefly touch on theeconomic, social, and political circumstances ofdigital activism.
Technological Infrastructure
The infrastructure of digital activism is centeredon a digital network, an interconnected group ofdevices that use digital code to convey
information. The advantage of networks is thatconnectivity is distributed. Networks do not only
link us to the center, but they also connect us toeach other as well. Therefore, allowing large
groups of people to easily link to one another,exchange content, and coordinate acts, in turn,aiding the ability to create an effective politicalmovement. Several different physical materials
are used in the production of networks. The
materials used in one country are notnecessarily the materials that are used inanother. This is an example of how theinteraction of infrastructure, economic, social,
and political factors leads to different digital
activism outcomes. Modern cable infrastructure,such as fiber optic, which transmits a signal
more quickly, is more expensive than older andslower cable. Thus, those living in rich countries
are likely to have a faster Internet connection
than those who live in poorer countries (Joyce,
2010.) Politics contribute to this point as well.
For example, in many developing countries,
state-owned firms have historically monopolized
Internet service, leading to higher prices. As aresult, people in wealthier countries are usuallymore able to participate in digital activism
because the cost and quality of Internet
connections available to them.
If materials are what differentiate digital
networks, then codes, the series of the digits 1
and 0 that transmit all information on theInternet, are what unify them. Therefore, digitalcode is the universal medium of digital activism.
If an activist in Gaza wants to upload a digital
video, so that a college student in Texas canwatch it, digital code is what transmits thoseimages and sounds. Technology theorist
Lawrence Lessig (2010) described the nature ofdigital as “perfect copies, freely made.” If you
create any piece of content and upload it to adigital network, a copy of that content will
become immediately transmissible to anyone
else in the world with Internet access. The wholeworld speaking one language, that’s the powerof digital code. Even though we use digital
networks to transmit 0’s and 1’s to one another,
digital activism is not thought of in terms ofcode but in terms of applications.
Applications are the software programs that
decode those 0’s and 1’s into information weunderstand. Luckily, digital infrastructure is,accordingJonathanZittrain(2008),“generative.”
Peoplecaneasilydevelopapplications that operate on top of the networkand create content using those applications,both of which may not have been intended bytheir creators (Joyce, 2010). Take for example_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 2

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________
the creators of Facebook, a group of US college
students, most likely didn’t see it as a worldwide
activist tool, but it is in fact just that. Similarly,
Twitter’s founders probably did not envision that
their service would be used to publicize protestsin
Moldova.
Thoughcommitted
activist
applications and open source software docontribute,
mostdigitalactivists
selectcommercial applications such as Blogs, Twitter,YouTube and Facebook to do their work. It isthroughtheseapplications
that
network
infrastructure is defined. The visibility elementthat these applications bring to digital activism isthe main reason so many books, blogs, andteachings concentrate on the use of such specificapplications (AKA “apps”) for political and socialchange campaigns. However, applications are aweak base for an analysis of digital activism dueto the fact that they are constantly changing,
gain popularity through media hype just as
much (or maybe more) then does actual utility,
and result in outcomes that are subject tolocationfactors.
With
that
being
said,
applications are just one part of the digital
activism environment. The reason there is sucha strong association with them is not because
they are more essential than other factors, but
because they are what defines our encounter ofdigital activism.
Peoplebase
theirassessmentof
suchapplications on “end devices,” the piece ofhardware that connects the user to the network.
Today the most common end devices are thecomputer and mobile phone. Although this may
soon change, computers currently allow for awider range of applications than mobile phones
because most mobile phones are restricted to
Short Message Service (SMS) and calling, while
the Internet allows activists to connect to all theapplications on the Internet. With the release ofdigital technologies, such as the Apple’s iPad andthe rise of smartphones are prime examples of
the narrowing line between these types ofdevices. This change has and will continue to
produce more superior and less expensive
devices for activists and thus a greater volume
will be able to use digital infrastructure as a tool
for political and social change.
Other Contextual Factors
Digital technology is the infrastructure of thedigitalactivism
environment.
However,
economic, social, and political factors are what

inevitably determine how and if people employ adigital infrastructure.
Economic: The economic power of digital
activists, their ability to buy digital goods andservices, affects their digital activism practices.
For example, because more individuals in
wealthy countries are able to pay for Internet
services, these markets are more profitable forfirms to enter, leading to greater competitionand lower prices. As a result, more people canbecome involved in activism. Economics also
affects the type of hardware activists can buy.
The high price of computers, consequently,
affects
accessibility
makingthesehighfunctionality devices more accessible to thosewith financial resources. This, in turn, greatly
affects digital activism participation rates.
Although, it does not directly prohibit citizens
with limited financial means from taking part indigital activism, it does limit their ability. Luckily
the growing worldwide digital phone use has
increased the availability of such tools for
effective digital activism in many parts of theworld.
Social: Norms of a society can alsosignificantly control whether and how anindividual utilizes digital technology for activism.
Just as there are expectations about how one
should act or what one should wear,
expectations concerning digital activism exist.
These expectations will differ amongst socialgroups and are usually based on characteristics
such as:age, gender, religion, education,
ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.
Political: Political factors also influence
activism. In democratic societies, where citizens
have meaningful influence over the actions of
their government, the political context of digital
activism can be understood in terms of law andregulation.
However,
repressive
andauthoritarian
governments
do
not
limit
themselves to legal channels when determining
the digital activism environment. In thesecountries, even activists who have access todigital technologies have difficulties using thembecause of government-imposed limitations. For
example, governments sometimes track online
political speech and/or block applications usedby digital activists. Often such online obstruction
leads
toofflinepersecution
andeven
imprisonment.
3. Value of Digital Activism_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 3

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________The value of digital activism is not always crystal
clear. For example, one case of digital activism
might illustrate how digital technology isstrengthening social movements by providing
new tools and capacities, while another could
exemplify a new world in which new tools not
only assist but transform the way activists caninteract with one another and with supporters.
This
inconsistency
raisestheimportantquestions concerning the ultimate value ofdigital activism. The issue of whether digital
activism does or doesn’t have value has become
a popular debate amongst several bloggers,
journalist and scholars and in turn made a rangeof viewpoints and opinions obtainable. Every
new technology, even those that are designed
for lay-people, has a learning curve. It should be
expected that the newest technologies willprobably be used in a different way six months
after their introduction than they were used on
the first day of their introduction.
The Digital Activism Debate
There are three basic perspectives on the valueof digital activism: optimists, pessimists, andpersistents. The first two categories entail abasic positive or negative viewpoint on thepotential of digital technology to alter the
distribution of political power. While optimists
believe that digital activism will change existing
political hierarchies and empower citizens,
pessimists believe that digital technology is justas likely to be used to put forth illicit authority or
promote chaos. Like optimists, pessimists also
believe that digital technology will have an
impact on the world, but they see thetechnology as morally impartial, uniformly usefulfor constructive and destructive motives.
Pessimists use the moral neutrality argument tounderline the possibility of destructive behavior
and to counter the optimists, who tend to be
more optimistic about human nature in generaland view the moral nature of the Internet as areflection of the moral nature of its users. The
third category, “persistent”, refers to those who
see neither deliverance nor damnation in digitaltechnology, but instead believe that little willchange and previous political power distributions
will “persist.” Persistents can be optimistic or
pessimistic about digital technology, but they
feel it doesn’t matter much for activism. Thus,
they differ from the other two groups as theiroptimism or pessimism about digital activism’s
outcomes is less important in defining theirintellectual identity than is their opinion about

what author David Weinberger calls “webexceptionalism.” Simply put, they do not believethat the Web, and by extension digital activism,
is exceptional. The same rules of politics still
apply and technology will not change existing
power structures, either for good or for ill(Weinberger, 2010).
Optimistic Perspective: The optimistic view,
as put forth by such scholars as Yochai Benkler,
Clay Shirky, and Graeme Kirkpatrick, is foundedon two basic principles. First, according to
Benkler (2006), the networked nature of thedigital world allows for people to communicate
and take action outside of, and sometimes in
opposition to, traditional hierarchical power
structures. In a hierarchy, those at the top havepower over those at the bottom; networks havea much latter power distribution, with authority
defined by peer-to-peer relationships. The hopeis that the nature of power in the digital network
will change the nature of power in the real world
as digital networks become ever more integrated
into our lives. The second principle of digital
optimism, as put forth elegantly by Graeme
Kirkpatrick (2008) is that technology is “sociallyconstructed.” This means that users construct
the value and meaning of technology by how
they use it, for example, choosing anentertainment platform like YouTube and using it
to transmit alternative political content. In thisway, the optimistic view proposes a more justand egalitarian future, along with a means ofachieving this future that empowers the ordinary
user to create meaning.
Pessimistic
Perspective:
Many
of
the
pessimistic views of technology, on the other
hand, hinge on the fear of anti-democratic
control of technology. The journalist and blogger
Morozov (2010) is one of the most well-known
proponents of this view. He points out that
digital technology provides new methods ofcontrol, surveillance, and persecution for
repressive governments, as well as the ability toempower destructive individuals like hackers andterrorists to coordinate their actions and use the
network to attack targets that would previously
have been beyond their reach. This argument issubstantial. The physical infrastructure of theInternet exists within territorial boundaries, even
if its capacities are virtual. It is at the level ofphysical infrastructure that governments canblock access to content and track the online
actions of citizens. Networks also enhance theeffectiveness of surveillance as all content can_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 4

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________
now be directed through the same gateways and“read” as it passes by, a convenience
unavailable in the days of paper notes andwhispered messages. Following this logic, digitaltechnology may endanger activists more than ithelps them.
Persistent
Perspective: Similar
tothepessimists, the persistents are not too
impressed by digital activism. They believe that
networked technology signals a change in the
degree of activism practice. It simply makes
existing
offlinetactics
likemobilization,organization, and message dissemination more
effective. Persistents like Marshall Ganz, anarchitect of President Obama’s grassroots
organizing campaign in 2008, focus on the factthat digital tools facilitate activities that werealready possible offline, only more slowly or at
greater cost. For every e-petition, a paper
petition could also have been circulated. For
every Facebook group, a house party could havebeen held. We can all acknowledge that,
because institutions of political and social power
exist offline, all digital campaigns must at somepoint make the leap into the real world if they
are to be successful (Ganz and Kohn, 2010).
Persistents take this logic one step further. They
do not believe that the cumulative digital effectof bigger, cheaper, faster, and further will leadto fundamentally different kinds of activism, only
to potentially improved versions of current ones.
4. Digital Activism in the Corporate WorldIn the previous sections we saw how theInternet can be an effective tool for activism,
especially when combined with other digitaltechnologies. It can benefit individuals and small
groups with few resources as well asorganizations and coalitions that are large orwell funded. It facilitates such activities as
educating the public and media, raising money,
forming
coalitions
acrossgeographicalboundaries, distributing petitions and action
alerts, and planning and coordinating events ona regional or international level. But what effecthas digital activism had on corporations? Whatabout brand Image? Is it something managers
should be concerned with?
Anti-Brand
Consumer
Activism:Asacounterattack against capitalism, there has beena growing resistance towards certain brands andcorporate globalization. Consumers online haveincreasingly begun to oppose global brands andexpress concerns about corporate practices

related to environmental issues and humanrights. Through the use of digital technologies
consumer activist have been able to form online
anti-brand communities and grow online inrecord numbers. Anti-brand activists typicallyfocus on one dominant brand or corporation andare non- geographically bound based on a
structured set of social relationships. According
to Hollenbeck and Zinkhan (2010) Anti-brandactivists could oppose specific brands (e.g.,
Jeep, Marlboro cigarettes), but could also
oppose corporate brands (e.g., Wal-Mart,
Procter & Gamble). In anti-brand communities,
consumers take on social activists roles byvoicing their opposition towards corporations.
Anti-branding demonstrations are emerging as a
new form of consumer activism and these
activist
strategies
havereceived
morerecognition in recent years as consumer
rebellion is viewed as a worldwide social
movement. Historically social movements haveemerged in a geographical pattern, revolving
around physical gathering spaces. Today social
movements are transpiring in virtual space,which sets the stage for new forms of protest,
organization, cooperation, and coalition building.
In this way, digital technology plays a major rolein the anti-brand activist movement by providing
communication methods for people around the
Globe irrespective of geographical space or time.
Pros and Cons for Corporations: From anegative point of view, participation in antibrand activism does not require much time orenergy. As a result, they serve as a powerful
consumer agency and information resource.
Consumers
haveinstant
accesstoanempathizing audience and to historical accountsof accusations against the firm. These
communities also provide social benefits as theInternet enables one consumer to connect with agroup of other likeminded consumers. Theircommon negative stance against the firm unifies
members, and as a community, the group has
more marketplace power. The Internet enhancesmarketplace power by providing members with aspeedy, convenient, and anonymous means ofcommunication.
With
easy
accessandwidespread communication, anti-brand activists
have the ability to damage a firm’s brand name.
On the positive side of anti-brand activism forfirms includes the notion that these activism
communities serve as a means for rejuvenating
business functions. The Internet provides anopen forum for discussion about branding_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 5

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________
activities and it also serves as a free marketing
research tool. Activism communities can incite
firms
torecognize
innovative
branding
opportunities. By viewing the communities as anatural occurrence in society, one of which
provides opportunities to improve business
functions, firms could turn a possible negative
brand
impactintoapossiblebrand
improvement. For example, Wal-Mart, iscurrently putting this idea into practice bydemonstrating
its
dedication
tolocal
communities during store-opening ceremonies.
As a creative means for building customer
relationships, Wal-Mart invites the community toa grand opening that centers around personal
testimonies from employees and retirees,
greetings from local officials, and the giving
away of prizes. This community-building
strategy is aimed at winning the trust of local
consumers and reversing the claims of anti-WalMart groups.
The impact that technology has had on thebusiness world is undeniable. New digitaltechnologies have and will continue to impact
corporations, and in the case of digital activism
this is no different. From the public relation
challenges presented by anti-brand activists tothe creation of a new platform for improving
business functions from feedback, digital
activism is and will continue to be an important
topic with the corporate world; one of which thatdefinitely should not be overlooked.
5. Activism Impact Assessment Modelis transmitted through digital activism, is that it
is not transmitted by the traditional media. It is
not filtered, it is not edited, and it is notaccompanied by a well-written script of aprofessional journalist.
It is raw footage ofvideo or text that is potentially broadcast live tothe world. It is subject to interpretation andmisinterpretation. It will need to be put into
perspective nearly immediately after it istransmitted but it can have significant impact
even before it is analyzed. Early reaction might
be skeptical and sketchy as events unfold.
Given the examples that we have cited, we offera model that can be used to assess the net
positive impact of a digital activism effort. The
model is a 3-dimensional view of the potential
impact of a digital activism effort. In general
the 3 axes represent the following:
X-axis: This is the most important/criticalaxis. The other two depend on it. Among otherthings, x- axis represents digital technology thatis used for activism.
If there is no digitaltechnology present then the entire model
collapses to nothing; there will be zero digital
activism.
X-axis includes all the digital
resources that the activists can put forth topromote their cause. This includes the numberof people engaged, the kind and volume of
information technology used, how many smart
phones, how many twitter accounts, how many
Facebook accounts, how many computers, howmany websites, blogs, etc. exist, pushing theactivists’ messages out to the rest of the world.
The lower the value of x is, then the lower the
impact of the activism effort will be.
Y-axis: This axis represents the physical or
virtual geographic reach. This axis represents
the physical or virtual geographic reach that theactivists’ message manages to get to. The
revolution in Egypt might not have succeeded
had it remained contained within Egypt. It isbecause it managed to transcend geography andreaching the entire globe that it succeeded inousting Mubarak’s regime. In many efforts, thescope of axis y can be delineated very well. In
Egypt, the effort maximized its geographic
potential. The messages coming out of Egypt
reached the entire globe, regenerated andmultiplied and bounced back into Egypt where
they had the effect of becoming the norm
because of the local and global support.

In addition to compressing time and space, themost important characteristic of information that

Z-axis: This axis represents the number of_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 6

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________
people or high impact organizations (United
Nations, NATO, Doctors without borders, etc.)that start empathizing or start reacting
positively to the activists’ messages. Axis z
represents the total amount of “support for thecause,” expressed near or far from the “hotspot”
where the activism has its nucleus. The activism
may start in a few cells in Cairo neighborhoods
and quickly start receiving support from
Egyptian immigrant neighborhood cells inToronto Canada. The stronger the support given
to the cause through the factors on axis z isthen the stronger the possibility is that theactivists’ effort will be successful. But without
the presence of the digital means from axis x to
spread the activism, the possibility of success isdiminished.
Measurement
One soft way that we can use this model tomeasure the effects of digital media used in theactivism effort is to estimate the volume of the
3-dimensional rectangle created on the grid (seegraph 1.) The volume can be indicative of thepower of the activism, which may have turned
into a full scale revolution in many cases. In
many cases we can clearly mark the beginningof the movement and day the deposed dictator
was ran out of town.
5. The Future of Digital Activism
When thinking about digital activism, focus
tends
to
shift
more
to
the
technical
characteristics. However, what is most importantto keep in mind about digital activism is that it isfirst and foremost activism. Political, social, andconsumer-driven activisms are all practices thatcanbedefinedbyindividuals
workingcollectively to achieve a common purpose.
Therefore, group actions no matter whether
activists organize face-to-face, over the phone,or via a social networking site, are all faced withthe same group action challenges. Challenges
such as: How to get people to join, how tocoordinated action, how should we pursue our
purpose, and who/what is your adversary andhow will who/it be confronted. For thesequestions, technology is not the answer.
Instead, these new technology should be used
as tools to change the ways such issues areconfronted, making some tasks easier, others
more challenging, and leaving many unchanged.
Thus, I believe the most important concern ofdigital technologies in activism will lie neither inthe creation of “digital activism” nor in auniversal transformation of activism but in the
integration of such new tools and theimplantation of new and innovative practices.

6. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Today we are living amidst a revolution in ourcommunications environment. But, like all otherrevolutions,
it isindividual
acts,
some
continuations
ofexisting
orders,othersdiscontinuous and innovative, that whencombined create change. Thus, in this digitalworld, where individuals have more capacity tolearn, communicate, and collaborate than everbefore, the ability of these individual acts ofdigital activism have more potential than everbefore to create a real change.
7. REFERENCES
activism. (n.d.). Collins English Dictionary Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.
Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
Dictionary.com,
website:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acti
vismBenkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks:
How Social Production Transforms Markets
and Freedom. Yale University Press, New
Heaven.
http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_
Networks.pdf.
Falls, J. (2010). Gladwell Is Right. The
Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted. October 25,
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/socialmedia-marketing/gladwell-is-right-therevolution-will-not-be-tweeted/
GRITtv. Marshall Ganz and Sally Kohn: The
Future of Community Organizing. Free
SpeechTV,
http://www.freespeech.org/node/1229.
Gladwell, M. (2010).
Annals of Innovation:
Small Change: Why the Revolution will not
be Tweeted, The New Yorker, October 4,
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell.
Green, C. (2009). Online Technology Transforms
the Face of Activism. InterActivist Magazine.

_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 7

Conference for Information Systems Applied Research
Wilmington North Carolina, USA

2011 CONISAR Proceedings
v4 n1842_________________________________________________
Winter,http://athensinteractivist.com/technology.ht
mlHollenbeck, C. & Zinkhan, G. (2006). Consumer
Activism on the Internet: The Role of AntiBrand Communities. Advances in Consumer
Research, pp. 479-84,
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v33/v3
3_10337.pdf.
Jackson, J. (2010). The Hype About Online
Activism, or 'Clicktivism’. The Huffington
Post. October 4,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnjackson/the-hype-about-onlineact_b_749670.html.
Joyce, M. (2010). Points of Consensus in the
Optimist/Pessimist
Debate.
October5,
http://www.metaactivism.org/2010/10/points-of-concensusin-the-optimistpessimist-debate/.
Joyce, M. (2010). Digital Activism Decoded: the
New Mechanics of Change. International
DebateEducation Association, New York.
Kirkpatrick, G. (2008). Technology and Social
Power. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Lessig, L. (2009). Against Transparency, The
New Republic. October,
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency.
McCaughey,
M.
&
Ayers
M.
(2003).
Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory
and Practice. New York, Routledge.
Morozov,E.
(2009).
Moldova’s
Twitter
Revolution. Foreign Policy. April 7,
http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/200
9/04/07/moldovas_twitter_revolution.
Morozov, E. (2010). Think Again: The Internet.
Foreign Policy. May/June,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/26/think_again_the_internet?page=full.
Sifry, M. (2009). PEW: Online Participatory ClassIs Young and Growing. September 2,
http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/pewonline-participatory-class-young-andgrowing.
Smyslova, O. (2011). Activism Going Digital,
Activism Going Global. June 15,
http://futurechallenges.org/local/activismgoing-digital-activism-going-global/
Weinberger, D. (2010). Internet Exceptionalism.
September 24, 2010,
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/tag/exce
ptionalism/
Zittrain, J. (2008). The Future of the Internetand How to Stop It. Yale University Press,
New
Heaven.

_________________________________________________©2011 EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP)
www.aitp-edsig.org

Page 8