Remember, the revolution depends on the proles…

For example a repressive regime might be initially worried id 500k people joined a Facebook group “we are opposed to the repressive regime”. If they think that if only <1% of these people were to get involved in traditional activism like marching to the city centre and risking arrest they would have a huge civil unrest problem. However, in reality they don’t need to worry at all because the number of slacktivists who will join the Facebook page bears no relationship with the number of people who are motivated enough take the risk of getting involved in real activism.

On the other hand if you are a famous golf player, you should probably get very worried if 500k people join a Facebook group saying “I am disgusted by the behaviour of player X”. The owners of the brands who sponsor player X will rightly guess that a significant portion of the slacktivists who join this group will be motivated to switch away from the brands endorsed by player X (because in this case roughly the same amount of commitment to the cause is required).

What I don’t understand is how one person on a site as busy as Facebook could actually be noticed by such a large number of other users.

I’d have been behind the cause, however, if it had been something like (just pulling a name out the air here Jono, don’t get too excited) Severed Fifth, or some other “Open Licence” music. This would have been a better message to send out, rather than the rather lackluster message that was sent.

I think Aq burst my eardrums as soon as I clicked play.

I don’t think social media is limited to the movements which require costless sacrifice, “click the link to show support”. The cost people are willing to pay is dependent on the merits of the cause, not the medium by which the cause is communicated. It will help smaller movements get communicated where they otherwise wouldn’t have and will allow a movement to circumvent an authority who controls the distribution channels, as seen with #iran.

The funny display is a victory for social media because it shows that not only can it get the word out cheaply, but it also organizes individuals into a group. The most important step in creating a movement is realizing “I am not alone, others feel like I do”. Which will validate the movement and get things rolling. While those qualities might not be unique to social media, Usenet (as was mentioned) etc. The number of people touched by this force, through “face-twitter”, has never been larger.

I guess what I mean to say is, wouldn’t it be nice if the power that social media gave people to change the Christmas number 1, could also empower people to effect real political change.

To the nay sayers: RATM, while being a big label band nowadays, was the right choice for this protest, imho. Their freedom fighting agenda has always been genuine and not a marketing stunt. Zach is an activist since long and the band featured monthly “freedom fighters” on the band page for a long time. It is not just about cussing in the mic and do mosh pits with agitated teens as some ppl seem to think.

Also, while RATM is on the Sony label it does not mean that they agree with Sony’s methods. This is an old article from the Napster days (http://www.livedaily.com/news/2346.html) where RATM “raged” against Sony for hunting down their fans and both made them drop the bans and gave the community free music via their site to show that they disagree with their methods.

So while it might look like RATM is “just another Sony product” benefiting from this battle, the story of RATM differs quite a bit from most other Sony label properties.

Just my thought.

I think it’s a shame that it was a 17 year old song, and not something from a young unheard-of band.

Aq is 100% correct. This was never about money, or record companies. It’s about showing a) that we’re fed up with shit music in the charts and b) that online communities are a very powerful way of uniting people behind a common cause (and winning).

Listening to Killing in the Name being played on the Radio 1 Chart show made me feel like Andy Dufresne listening to opera in the warden’s office. Just for a while, we were in control.

Tom Morrello is giving away some of the money he personally receives from this whole thing to UK charities. At least somebody has the right perspective. I am a fan of Rage and “Killing In The Name Of” is a killer song, excuse the pun. But if anyone thinks they changed the world by buying this song they’re sadly mistaken. If only it were that easy. It all reminds me of Iron Maiden beating Cliff Richard to no 1 with “Bring Your Daughter To The Slaughter” back in the 80’s. They had to play it on Top Of The Pops as well, classic.