Is an Internet-based revolution possible?

[UnknownPerson]

If someone doesn't want to risk his/her life participating in the revolution, can he/she lead it through the Internet, and give orders to the newly established government through the Internet?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If someone doesn't want to risk his/her life participating in the revolution, can he/she lead it through the Internet, and give orders to the newly established government through the Internet?No. Internet and other communication technology may make it easier to coordinate and pass information, but it's a tool not unlike copy-machines or radio or whatnot that also makes organizing easier and more available.

Having said that, I don't know if you meant to suggest this, but I don't think "fighting a revolution" means mostly - let alone only - physical military or gurella-style battles. Most likely a mass movement of workers fighting for their own liberation will primarily be large strike actions and general strikes and workplace seizures and occupations by workers. Military style fighting and armed worker militias may be involved to various degrees depending on the conditions of the revolution and ruling class backlash, but it probably is only useful in defending the gains brought about through these mass worker actions I described.

[AnonymousOne]

Define what you mean by internet revolution. Obviously no we can't overthrow Capitalism *only* by using the Internet. The internet is an excellent tool for communication, information, and collaboration but no matter how excellent it is we still need action taken in the physical world.

Asking if an Internet-based revolution possible would be like asking if a "telephone-based" revolution were possible. In both cases the answer is no, but a lot of good can be done through wisely using both.

[Principia Ethica]

If someone doesn't want to risk his/her life participating in the revolution, can he/she lead it through the Internet, and give orders to the newly established government through the Internet?

Like someone sitting behind a computer and perhaps telling everyone to go protest/picket/take up arms while the only risk they are taking is getting carpal tunnel syndrome from typing too much?

THEN

Once all the "heavy lifting" is done, this person or group will address us via youtube or something? Give orders via the internet to the newly established govt? How seriously can anyone take a person or group who didn't want to "risk their life" in the revolution but thought nothing of the people they "ordered" who was risking theirs?

Nah, I'll pass.

If someone is "too scared to risk their life for the revolution". . .perhaps they should consider not leading it but do some sort of support role like writing revolutionary poetry for morale boosting purposes.

[UnknownPerson]

Like someone sitting behind a computer and perhaps telling everyone to go protest/picket/take up arms while the only risk they are taking is getting carpal tunnel syndrome from typing too much?

THEN

Once all the "heavy lifting" is done, this person or group will address us via youtube or something? Give orders via the internet to the newly established govt? How seriously can anyone take a person or group who didn't want to "risk their life" in the revolution but thought nothing of the people they "ordered" who was risking theirs?

Nah, I'll pass.

If someone is "too scared to risk their life for the revolution". . .perhaps they should consider not leading it but do some sort of support role like writing revolutionary poetry for morale boosting purposes.

Look up the Egyptian revolution. Orders were given through Facebook by various activist groups, and it was largely Internet based.

[The Idler]

Of course, those unable to physically take part will be able to participate in decisions using the internet in any majority revolution.

[PhoenixAsh]

Look up the Egyptian revolution. Orders were given through Facebook by various activist groups, and it was largely Internet based.

No it wasn't. There was some facebook activity...but the organisers went door to door in most neighborhoods. And most of the protesters were not connected or informed through facebook.

The whole facebook thing was mythologising part of the movement and is basically a western invention as the main drive behind the change in leadership.

[Principia Ethica]

Look up the Egyptian revolution. Orders were given through Facebook by various activist groups, and it was largely Internet based.

I'm sure at some point in time, these "mysterious" internet "forces" weren't so mysterious. Seriously, do you *honestly* believe that people will risk jail, getting killed etc taking orders from a nameless, faceless internet entity?

I'm not saying that every/all/some revolutionary activities require some sort of harm. I'm not going to quantify or guess as to what degree or what exactly is required.

I'm merely suggesting that someone who can use the justification "doesn't want to risk their life" (I'm quoting the OP) and calls for other people to do exactly that doesn't really need to lead in that manner. They need to stick with what risks they are comfortable with. . .like signing online petitions or leaving their porch lights on in a show of solidarity.

[AnotherAnon95]

Anonymous kind of does this, but it takes on the form of a Communist/Anarchist society, being that there is no leader and everyone is equal. However, I doubt just internet can cause a full blown revolution.

[Comrade Crow]

Is this thread mainly about the OP not wanting to get shot up, if some serious revolution happened? Regardless, I think the internet could be a possible tool for organization and so forth but like another member said about the Egyptian uprising, people mainly went door-to-door. I think it's kind of weird and somewhat worrying, this thread. We should be focusing on real-world action and doing things in the real-world. I get that technology is becoming an increasingly bigger part of our world, that it could be a helpful tool and all that but still.

I don't know about anyone else here but I'm down for for whatever must be done for the revolution, I'm fucking sick of living like a god damn robotic pauper peasant, if it means, going out, doing some terrorist or guerilla shit to make something happen fine, it it means the seizure of the means of production, general strikes, then fine.

None of that matters to me.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Look up the Egyptian revolution. Orders were given through Facebook by various activist groups, and it was largely Internet based.

Yet the revolution only occurred because hundreds of thousands of people occupied Tahrir Square and repelled the physical force used by Mubarak loyalists.

People died.

It is also no Socialist revolution if people are giving 'orders'. We are not an army.

[UnknownPerson]

Ghonim - the key organizer of the Egyptian revolution who has become a symbol for the Egyptian movement:

"I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him [...] I'm talking on behalf of Egypt. [...] This revolution started online. This revolution started on Facebook. This revolution started [...] in June 2010 when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians started collaborating content. We would post a video on Facebook that would be shared by 60,000 people on their walls within a few hours. I've always said that if you want to liberate a society just give them the Internet. [...]"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revolution-wael-ghonim_n_822078.html

[Welshy]

Ghonim - the key organizer of the Egyptian revolution who has become a symbol for the Egyptian movement:

"I want to meet Mark Zuckerberg one day and thank him [...] I'm talking on behalf of Egypt. [...] This revolution started online. This revolution started on Facebook. This revolution started [...] in June 2010 when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians started collaborating content. We would post a video on Facebook that would be shared by 60,000 people on their walls within a few hours. I've always said that if you want to liberate a society just give them the Internet. [...]"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/egypt-facebook-revolution-wael-ghonim_n_822078.html

As other people have said, things like Facebook are only tools that people can use during the process of a revolution. They don't start revolutions. Ultimately in the case of Egypt, it was neo-liberal policies that were implemented by a corrupt government that cause the people of Egypt a great deal of pain, that caused this revolution to happen. The ones who start the revolution were the Egyptian people who risked their lives in the streets (as someone said above, people did die. Hell I remember seeing a man catch on fire while watching the live feed). It wasn't because of Facebook and it sure as hell wasn't because of Wael Ghonim, the man who told the Egyptian workers to go back to work as soon as Mubarak left.

[Principia Ethica]

From the article:


Ghonim, a marketing manager for Google, played a key role in organizing the January 25 protest (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/wael-ghonim-egypt-protests-google_n_820330.html) by reaching out to Egyptian youths on Facebook (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/wael-ghonim-freed-activis_n_820290.html).


"I'm not a hero. I was writing on a keyboard on the Internet and I wasn't exposing my life to danger," he said in an interview (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/subtitled-video-of-wael-ghonims-emotional-tv-interview/) immediately after his release. "The heroes are the one who are in the street."

The OP was asking about giving orders during the revolution and giving orders to the newly formed govt via the internet.

No one is questioning the fact that the internet is a very useful tool for communication.

[UnknownPerson]

As other people have said, things like Facebook are only tools that people can use during the process of a revolution. They don't start revolutions. Ultimately in the case of Egypt, it was neo-liberal policies that were implemented by a corrupt government that cause the people of Egypt a great deal of pain, that caused this revolution to happen. The ones who start the revolution were the Egyptian people who risked their lives in the streets (as someone said above, people did die. Hell I remember seeing a man catch on fire while watching the live feed). It wasn't because of Facebook and it sure as hell wasn't because of Wael Ghonim, the man who told the Egyptian workers to go back to work as soon as Mubarak left.

I agree, Facebook didn't start the revolution, but the revolution was largely organized and led using Facebook and other social networking websites.

[Welshy]

From the article:





The OP was asking about giving orders during the revolution and giving orders to the newly formed govt via the internet.

No one is questioning the fact that the internet is a very useful tool for communication.

To be honest, I don't think someone can or should just sit behind a computer and give orders during a revolution through the internet. Yes the internet should be used, but the place "orders" should come from is from someone who is active in the struggle with the rest of us. Even then I don't think anyone should really be giving orders per se, unless it's during some military action, during a revolution. In my opinion, the internet should be used by groups active in struggle to either coordinate efforts or to get information out to areas that are going through a revolution and those not going through a revolution.

If it seems like I jumped on the OP, I apologize. It just frustrates me when people say that the Egypt revolution is happening because of Wael Ghonim or Facebook while ignoring the conditions that lead to it.

EDIT: To clarify, I think that the internet is a useful tool and should be used where needed.

[Principia Ethica]

To be honest, I don't think someone can or should just sit behind a computer and give orders during a revolution through the internet. Yes the internet should be used, but the place "orders" should come from is from someone who is active in the struggle with the rest of us. Even then I don't think anyone should really be giving orders per se, unless it's during some military action, during a revolution. In my opinion, the internet should be used by groups active in struggle to either coordinate efforts or to get information out to areas that are going through a revolution and those not going through a revolution.

If it seems like I jumped on the OP, I apologize. It just frustrates me when people say that the Egypt revolution is happening because of Wael Ghonim or Facebook while ignoring the conditions that lead to it.

EDIT: To clarify, I think that the internet is a useful tool and should be used where needed.

I am in total agreement with you :). . .did it seem like I was saying something else?

[Welshy]

I am in total agreement with you :). . .did it seem like I was saying something else?

I thought so when I posted that. Either way I hadn't fully addressed the OP, before that post.

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree, Facebook didn't start the revolution, but the revolution was largely organized and led using Facebook and other social networking websites.

No, it really wasn't. The social debate was already taking place. There were already protests every month in Egypt. And things were heating up in the weeks and months leading to the revolution... There were several groups and several unions already working for a national strike day and several independent protests to protest the killing of Kahled Saeed. their FB page latched on to the idea and spread the date of the 25th.

FB and social media and blogs were manifestations of already existing initiatives which were already spread and being planned and functioned more in the role of providing a debate and discussion platform than strike and protest leadership.

Most of he the FB and twitter traffic was completely silenced after the initial protest day as well as their operatores being arrested. There was absolutely nothing posted in the FB pages of the media mentioned planning and leadership other than advocacy of already real world initiatives.

It was used as a communication tool. Effective in spreading the word, in allowing debate and communication of ideas and most of all influencing international opinion.

But the whole concept that this was an internet social media revolution is quite drawn out of proportion....with a political agenda behind it.

Because the internet groups accreditted with starting and leading the revolution as you put it had a lot of direct ties and cooperation with OTPOR.

The reason jornalists jumped on this was because of one single tweet from Tharir square which stated:

We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.

[Misanthrope]

I don't know, give it a shot, let us know how it goes.

[PhoenixAsh]

All that about Egypt stated...

Internet is an incredibly exiting new option which opens up another front to attack capitalism, capitalist structures and specific induvidual targets. Not to mention its potential, which has already been proved, to discuss, communicated and get information across to large audiences.

We can´t ignore it.

Unfortunately. It is exactly the same things for our political opponents and antagonists.

[AnonymousOne]

Is this thread mainly about the OP not wanting to get shot up, if some serious revolution happened? Regardless, I think the internet could be a possible tool for organization and so forth but like another member said about the Egyptian uprising, people mainly went door-to-door. I think it's kind of weird and somewhat worrying, this thread. We should be focusing on real-world action and doing things in the real-world. I get that technology is becoming an increasingly bigger part of our world, that it could be a helpful tool and all that but still.

I don't know about anyone else here but I'm down for for whatever must be done for the revolution, I'm fucking sick of living like a god damn robotic pauper peasant, if it means, going out, doing some terrorist or guerilla shit to make something happen fine, it it means the seizure of the means of production, general strikes, then fine.

None of that matters to me.

Well I don't know how far I'd go with that line of thought. Individuals that engage in cyber-disruption and information warfare are putting themselves at risk on a daily basis. People are put in even more risk when they are new to the Anonymous scene and dont' take proper precautions. An excellent example of this was during the Operation Payback period in December and November where a lot of very idealistic and naive people began using DDOS tools without taking proper precautions. There are over forty people currently (and the investigations are just beginning) that have been raided by the FBI over their actions.

To suggest that the reason why people would be interested in taking direct cyber action or engage in hactivism is due to fear is ludicrous. Would you chastise a gun smith for making guns and supplying revolutionaries instead of running out to battle? Would you criticize a doctor or surgeon for practing their craft instead of throwing away their skills? I would much rather do something that appeals to my strengths than go get killed in the streets. That's not to say I wouldn't go and fight but that would only be at the point where I can no longer be effective in engaging in the fight for a society free of government and capital.

We're both being attacked by the state and corporation, so to say that one is "real-world" and the other is I guess, nearly worthless in your eyes, is both insulting and incorrect. There is no simple dichotomy anymore between the virtual and the real because the two are so intertwined. If I go hack into someone's bank account and I use up all their money, that person is going to be living on the street. If I introduce a virus onto an aircraft (which is more possible than might appear on first glance (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4547649/French-fighter-planes-grounded-by-computer-virus.html)) that aircraft doesn't take off. If someone hacks into a security firm's network and finds a covert plan to attack innocent people (http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/02/07/hbgary-federal-hacked-and-exposed-by-anonymous/) that has an effect on the real world.

It is one thing to say that revolution can not be achieved through only cyber action, and a whole nother to suggest that cyber action is an excuse for cowardice.

[Ingraham Effingham]

The (free) internet of today is like the printing press of the 1500's. A tool that helps society jump from one age to another, by making the exchange of ideas and info more accessible.

You wouldn't say that the Enlightenment wasn't solely brought about via the printing press, but pamphlets and books were a key component, that the thinkers (and leaders) of the the French, American, Calvinist, etc. revolutions, and other movements used to great avail.

However, before any great change was made, people HAD to take to the streets, and become a physical presence, not just an intellectual one. This is still true of the unrest in the Middle East and parts of Europe.

Maybe one day, when society is closer to being 100 percent based in cyberspace, the great revolutionaries will be bloggers and hackers. But at this point in time, there has to be both writers at the press, and bodies in the streets.

You can be a leader at your computer, and you can be a leader at the picket line. A real revolution needs both.

[Aspiring Humanist]

The Iranians attempted that back in 08-09...it failed miserably because not only did the supporters of the revolution know where/when/how/who the events were taking place, the state did too

[AnonymousOne]

The Iranians attempted that back in 08-09...it failed miserably because not only did the supporters of the revolution know where/when/how/who the events were taking place, the state did too

No, Iran failed because we became too reliant on the Internet and then Iran turned the internet off and we weren't fast enough to respond and create internet access to manage that giant break in communications. That's when the Iranian people started really having problems because it was so difficult to get messages out, and communicate.

But I think we as Anonymous learned our lesson from that, for example when Egypt tried to do it we had Telecomix (an anonymous collective) provide free dial-up internet. We also faxed over hundreds of manuals on using dial-up, short-wave radio etc.

Iran was a great learning experience, and I feel that Anonymous can take a more pro-active role in providing technical support to help revolutionary movements.

[Aspiring Humanist]

But who can tell what's reliable and what isn't on Twitter? It's impossible to know even if what you're reading was actually written by people in Tehran or elsewhere in Iran, especially since there's a movement for as many people in the Twittersphere to use the Iranian capital as their location a l� "I'm Spartacus" to make it harder for Iranian censors to stop tweets that are actually from Iran.

The unintended consequence of that move was to make it even harder for the non-Iranian censors to figure out what's really from Iran and what isn't. For instance, how do we know that Gabhan is really in Tehran and not, say, spoofing from Johannesburg?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/which_tweats_from_iran_are_tru.html?ft=1&f=103943429



Carried away by the enthusiasm of the protests, tens of thousands of Twitter users across the world switched their locations to Tehran in an attempt to confuse Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's henchmen. The US state department official who persuaded Twitter to delay a technical upgrade of its software so that it didn't occur during a protest was described as the "man who saved Iran". And a former aide to George Bush even suggested awarding Twitter the Nobel peace prize for its role in the Iran crisis.

Tehrani estimates that there were fewer than 1,000 active Twitter users in Iran at the time of the election. "Some people did provide updates from Tehran, but many didn't check out. When someone tweeted that there were 700,000 people demonstrating in front of a mosque, it turned out that only around 7,000 people showed up."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/iran-twitter-revolution-protests


Omid Habibinia, a dissident Iranian who left Iran seven years ago for Europe, says he has always been harassed, but the pressure has grown this year. He claims Iranian security services early this year created a fake Facebook account for him and tried to "friend" people on his behalf and ask them questions. Other Iranian dissidents, along with some journalists, described similar experiences.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125978649644673331.html

Meanwhile, some of the organizing activists worry that their technique has been flawed from the start. "The first thing was fixing the dates and places," says 20-year-old activist Khaled Kamel of the main Facebook site, which lists four specific Cairo locations for the protest. "Because of that, security is going to be prepared."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2044142,00.html

[AnonymousOne]

AspiringHumanist,

I'm confused as to what you're critique of Internet organization is. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the Internet is a magic bullet solution for organization. I even mentioned in my post we were too reliant on it. But to be honest, the internet is probably the best we've got. There are tradeoffs with using the Internet, for example it's public which means people can gain access to that information, however governments can as well. People can be Anonymous online, but once again then it becomes difficult to know what Glorious Leader is ordering.

What I will say, is that I find it odd for you to critique online organization by claiming that it broadcasts when protests will happen and where, but if that information isn't made available, then how will protests happen on a massive scale? The Internet is the best way to get information out quickly, to a large group of people. Without this we rely on word of mouth which travels inconsistently and slowly at best.

Without Twitter the protests in Iran wouldn't have been as large or as effective in getting information to the outside world. I know that for a fact.

[ColonelCossack]

no, but it would be a big part of it, firstly because it would probably be the best form of communisation because the state would probably not be able to completely control it (that being said, didn't China make some kind of Chinese-only google? i don't know :P), and also because so many people use the internet nowadays as opposed to phones etc.

[Aspiring Humanist]

AspiringHumanist,

I'm confused as to what you're critique of Internet organization is. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that the Internet is a magic bullet solution for organization. I even mentioned in my post we were too reliant on it. But to be honest, the internet is probably the best we've got. There are tradeoffs with using the Internet, for example it's public which means people can gain access to that information, however governments can as well. People can be Anonymous online, but once again then it becomes difficult to know what Glorious Leader is ordering.

What I will say, is that I find it odd for you to critique online organization by claiming that it broadcasts when protests will happen and where, but if that information isn't made available, then how will protests happen on a massive scale? The Internet is the best way to get information out quickly, to a large group of people. Without this we rely on word of mouth which travels inconsistently and slowly at best.

Without Twitter the protests in Iran wouldn't have been as large or as effective in getting information to the outside world. I know that for a fact.

My criticism is that much of the information on twitter was misleading or outright lies by the iranian government, and gave the state the chance to organize and prepare to control the demonstration. As the link I put out before says, the amount of actual iranian twitterers was less than 1,000, including the fake accounts by the state and loyalists.

Besides, shouldn't we give the credit to the iranian revolutionaries, not a western company with most of the tweets coming from western armchair revolutionaries?

[Kiev Communard]

I do not think the entirely "Internet-based" revolution is possible, as one cannot ignore the fact that face-to-face contact and more traditional means of agitation/propaganda are necessary, yet it is clear that nowadays there are a lot of new technical advances that should be utilized in our work without being too reliant on them. After all, the technological determinism has never done anyone any good.

[AnonymousOne]

My criticism is that much of the information on twitter was misleading or outright lies by the iranian government, and gave the state the chance to organize and prepare to control the demonstration. As the link I put out before says, the amount of actual iranian twitterers was less than 1,000, including the fake accounts by the state and loyalists.

Besides, shouldn't we give the credit to the iranian revolutionaries, not a western company with most of the tweets coming from western armchair revolutionaries?

I'm sorry, but no you haven't yet cited any information or evidence proving that "much" of the information was government propaganda. So I don't see a good justification for your criticism. Not to mention the Iranian people used Twitter and other online methods to also warn about such actions:


This tweet went out over the network earlier today, and was itself retweeted more than 200 times:
DO NOT RT anything U read from "NEW" tweeters, gvmt spreading misinfo

Twitter didn't start the protests in Iran, nor did it make them possible. But there's no question that it has emboldened the protesters, reinforced their conviction that they are not alone and engaged populations outside Iran in an emotional, immediate way that was never possible before.
Citation (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html)


In the case of Iran, for example, there have been several initiatives to compile the online names of Twitter users who appear to be working for the government or spreading misinformation. One such list is available at a Web site called TwitSpam. While their data is definitely not very authoritative, it could still helps us navigate this brave new world of user-generated content. I think we are at a point where we don't really have a choice: if the Iran succeeds in banning foreign reporters from doing any real work in the country, all we'll be left with would be Twitter and blog reports, so we'd better figure out ways in which we can prioritize and authenticate this information.
Citation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/06/17/DI2009061702232.html)

I do agree with you that there were very few actual people tweeting in Iran, but I'm not arguing about Twitter specifically. It was a useful tool that some people in Iran used very wisely to broadcast a message to the outside world and others. Specific instances of violence that never would have made the light of day without twitter were spread quickly across the world.

All I'm defending is the use of the internet for communication, organization, and collaboration. I stand by my statement that without use of social media and the internet the Green protests in 2009-2010 would have never been as large as they were.

I never said Twitter should get credit, or any company. All I've been saying was, "Hey, Iranian protestors used Twitter as a way of communicating and broadcasting their message. That was really effective in communicating information to the outside world." I have no idea where you pulled out the message of Twitter deserving any credit, let alone most credit. :/

But I guess critquing what I actually said is much more difficult than making things up. :unsure:

[Aspiring Humanist]

Forgive me, I also implied that YOU and people like YOU (anonymous) take credit for the revolution. You think your group had so much power that you're the reason why it failed

Iran failed because we became too reliant on the Internet and then Iran turned the internet off and we weren't fast enough to respond and create internet access to manage that giant break in communications
That was not an anonymous revolution. That was not a western revolution, that was an IRANIAN revolution. Anonymous sits in its pool of human filth of child pornography and racism known as 4chan all day. Anonymous shouldn't be involved much less given ANY credit for the success or failure of a revolution. That is my criticism

[AnonymousOne]

Forgive me, I also implied that YOU and people like YOU (anonymous) take credit for the revolution. You think your group had so much power that you're the reason why it failed

That was not an anonymous revolution. That was not a western revolution, that was an IRANIAN revolution. Anonymous sits in its pool of human filth of child pornography and racism known as 4chan all day. Anonymous shouldn't be involved much less given ANY credit for the success or failure of a revolution. That is my criticism

Err, well no I don't take credit for any accomplishment that the Iranian people made. I do think that the protests in Iran would have went on longer had Anonymous been better at providing support for dissidents and ensuring connection to the internet. But I can't really say, perhaps even if Anonymous had done better the protests would have faltered. I don't know. But what I do know is that I feel Anonymous let down the Iranian people by not being quick enough to provide assistance when the internet was shut off. I won't take that back, because I seriously believe it.

I don't think we have a lot of power, we're a bunch of random people on the Internet who try to disrupt governments and agencies across the world. I do think that we can definitely provide assistance for revolutionary movements in other countries, as we did in Iran, Egypt and to a lesser extent Tunisia.

In Iran we provided assistance for individuals trying to get through blocked communications channels by providing them with tools to do so until the Internet was cut off. We did the same in Egpyt, except this time we provided Dial-Up Internet, and also sent over instructions in how to use short-wave radio. We've been hacking into government databases, corporations, and security firms. We've exposed plots concoted by banks, security firms and governments.

If you seriously believe every person that calls themself "Anonymous" is a member of AnonOps, you're pretty ignorant of what's going on right now. Seriously, you may as well be these guys:

DNO6G4ApJQY

[S.Artesian]

If someone doesn't want to risk his/her life participating in the revolution, can he/she lead it through the Internet, and give orders to the newly established government through the Internet?

Kind of hard you know to actually seize control of the means of production "virtually."

Impossible to outmaneuver the inevitable counterrevolution "digitally."

This ain't no video game. Be there or be square.

[RemoveYourChains]

If someone doesn't want to risk his/her life participating in the revolution, can he/she lead it through the Internet, and give orders to the newly established government through the Internet?

Nope.

Even putting aside the exaggerations of the western press about the "facebook revolution" in Egypt, those who are in a position to use the Internet as a tool for rallying people for direct action are going to be people with "real world credentials".

Giving orders through the interwebs differs little from the use of phones, radios, letters, couriers, etc. to do the same.

The leadership of the Egyptian uprising certainly were not "armchair revolutionaries" whose only participation was jockeying a keyboard while others took all of the risks.

[Seresan]

I think it might actually be more possible than you'd think...

The world is moving more online, so naturally it would be a vital frontier of the revolution. Think about it: hacking to disrupt their system, exploiting their mayhem through real life events with people gathered though the internet..

But yeah, I agree with the above post that said that if you aren't ready to risk yourself, don't make yourself a target.

[Rainsborough]

If someone doesn't want to risk his/her life participating in the revolution, can he/she lead it through the Internet, and give orders to the newly established government through the Internet?

Of course they can, its called online role playing 'Warcrafters' probably do it all the time. :rolleyes: