Activist Project

On March 29, 2008, Canadians joined communities all around the world in turning off their lights for Earth Hour, which was organized and sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). During this hour, Toronto`s energy consumption was reduced by about 5%, which is a significant reduction when you consider how large the city is. Earth Hour, however, goes beyond the success of this one hour of darkness and reduction in energy use to spread awareness of environmental issues.

I first learned about Earth Hour in early March while I was working for the Peel District School Board. I was asked to write an informational letter about Earth Hour so that parents and students would have the option of participating. While writing this letter, I researched Earth Hour quite a bit, learning what it was about, what its goals were and what other countries were participating in it.

I was really intrigued by the idea of Earth Hour because I thought it was a great way of spreading awareness of environmental issues. I participated on March 29, turning off all the lights in my apartment. I also convinced by boss to turn off almost half the lights in our store (a Loblaws grocery store) for the hour. I felt like I made a significant contribution to Earth Hour.
There is also a Facebook group established about Earth Hour. Many people in this group believe that Earth Hour should be held monthly, if not weekly or even daily. They believe that this would go beyond the simple symbolism of Earth Hour to make a significant impact on our global energy consumption. There are also people who criticize Earth Hour for being an outlet where people who do very little to be environmentally friendly on a regular basis can participate for one hour and act as if they are environmentally conscious.

I think that Earth Hour is a great way to spread awareness of an issue that is currently happening all over the world. It creates awareness of energy consumption by organizing an event that people can feel good about participating in. We are given the opportunity to be an activist – even if only for one hour – while doing very little. I can say that I felt good about myself after Earth Hour because I felt that I participated in something worthwhile and made a small difference. I have also learned that, just be turning off any lights I don`t need and watching my energy consumption, I can make a difference on a daily basis.

WWF is a great organization that does a lot in terms of conservation. They make it easy for people to get involved so that they can feel as if they are truly making a difference. I think this is the most important aspect of an activist group: when they allow the public to participate but make it easy for them to do. This will encourage more people to get involved and will create more awareness of an issue in the public eye.

Participatory Cultures

Participatory culture is a culture in which the public produces or creates some type of published media. I believe that, in North America, most people are involved in a participatory culture, especially in younger generations. With the huge success and popularity of websites like Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia, it is incredibly easy to publish or create your own information and post it on the Internet. I would also assume that, of those people who are involved in a participatory culture, most of them do not even consciously realize that they are creating and publishing content on the Internet – it is just a part of their life and a means of communicating with others.

Until I really started to think about participatory culture in order to write this blog post, I didn’t fully realize how much content I create and publish online. With every Facebook message, or blog post, or online consumer review, or photo I post on the Internet, I am involved in a participatory culture. I am publishing some type of media online. I am involved in the online world where anyone and everyone can publish virtually anything they can create.

By writing this blog, I am involved in a participatory culture. Although I am fairly sure that the only people who read this blog are my instructor, teaching assistant and possibly a couple other students from my class, I am still publishing content that can be accessed by anyone who has Internet access. I am participating in the culture of blogging, the culture of speaking your mind and writing whatever you want about anything you can think of. I am free to speak my mind, discuss my ideas and publish any information I can come up with. I am creating a type of media, a discussion of topics relevant to my Mass Communication class.

I am involved in other participatory cultures as well. I often shop online, for many different items, and I often write consumer reviews on the companies’ websites so that other consumers can get a feel for the products. I really like reading consumer reviews before I make a purchase because it helps me decide what to buy. When I write my own consumer reviews, I am participating in online discussion groups that revolve around the topic of the product(s) being discussed. This participatory culture is somewhat similar to blogging in that I am expressing my thoughts and opinions in an open, online forum, but it differs in that I am expected to discuss a specific topic – the product(s) at hand.

Another - and perhaps the most significant - participatory culture in my life is social networking. To be more specific, I am talking about Facebook. Like most people my age, I am constantly logging into Facebook, changing my status, messaging my friends, posting messages in different groups, and uploading pictures and videos. This is all one big act of participatory culture. With every message, video and photograph that I post on Facebook, I am conveying information to the public. I am participating in the culture of social network, and interacting with both my friends and complete strangers who use Facebook.

When you really think about participatory cultures, you realize that they exist almost everywhere on the Internet. Even by reading a blog post, surfing through discussion groups or watching videos on YouTube, I am involved in participatory cultures. I may not be posting anything myself, but I am involved by being the audience. When it comes to the Internet, participatory cultures exist at almost every turn. It is just so easy for us to be involved in participatory cultures, and I think it is almost a routine event for people in our society, especially the younger generations, to do so.

Culture Jamming

One of my favourite examples of culture jamming is the Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping. Reverend Billy is not actually a reverend, but an anti-consumerism activist who leads a group of activists who believe that consumerism is overwhelming our lives. The Church of Stop Shopping is made up of a 35-person choir and a 7-person band. They have dozens of original songs, a major motion picture, a critically acclaimed stage show and multiple media platforms. They protest consumerism peacefully while attempting to educate the public about the consequences of unsustainable consumption.

There are several YouTube Videos about Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping. Here is the link for one video, which is a trailer for one of their shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axp-dW00daQ

This video provides a quick overview of some of the initiatives of the Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping. It shows Reverend Billy walking through a Starbucks and explaining why it is not a fair business in terms of how it treats its employees and suppliers, and why people should not shop there. The choir and band are outside of the coffee shop, singing ``no more Starbucks.`` Then it shows Reverend Billy speaking to a group of people in store that sells Disney products about how Michael Eisner (the previous CEO of the Walt Disney Company) makes $330,000 an hour and the people who make Disney`s products make $2 a week. The members of the Church of Stop Shopping are then seen walking down a street, carrying crosses with Mickey Mouse nailed to them. Reverend Billy says that the Disney Company is the high church of retail and, by putting Mickey on the cross, they are putting two forms of organized religion together.

I think that what Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping are doing is fabulous. Their stunts are really funny at times, such as another YouTube video where Reverend Billy is performing an exorcism on a credit card. They are taking organized religion – which they often compare to consumerism, especially when it comes to Disney – and they are using it to poke fun at our society. The Church of Stop shopping has a gospel choir that songs about things like boycotting Starbucks and the ``Shopocalypse.‘‘ It is really entertaining to hear their songs because I think it is pretty smart to get your message out in that format.

I think Reverend Billy often compares consumerism to religion because he is trying to point out the similarities between the two. Religion is an organization, something you belong to and believe in. It has leaders and people that you trust. People follow religion devotedly, which is similar to how people consume. We want to keep up with the latest trends and buy whatever products are popular, and many people are constantly consume as if it is a religion that they feel the need to follow every day. It is almost as if advertisements are the gods and consumers follow whatever they say in hopes of achieving a better life – no matter what the price tag.

In a previous blog, I wrote about satirical fake news and how I think it is a great way to get people thinking about important issues while still informing us about what is going on in the world. I think that Reverend Billy does the same thing. He provides entertainment while still spreading an important message about over-consumption. Reverend Billy seems like a ridiculous character in the way he dresses and acts but, if you actually listen to what he is saying, he makes a lot of good point and really knows his facts about businesses and consumption.

I think that what Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping are doing is really great and has the potential to make a significant impact on society. They are making a strong statement about our society and the lifestyle choices that so many people are making. Culture jammers have the potential to change our world for the better. Culture jamming is all about breaking the old syntax of our lives and replacing it with a new way of being in the world. Culture jammers aim to take a step toward a transformation of the North American way of life. They have adapted a lifestyle of defiance against our society`s culture; against a society that they believe has taken a wrong turn and they no longer want to participate in it. They are acting out against the masses and consumerism by using different forms of the media to spread their message and educate people about the error of their ways. Reverend Billy is a powerful example of culture jamming because he is acting out against consumerism in our society and he is spreading his message through a variety of ways while providing entertainment.

Buy Nothing Day

Buy Nothing Day is an informal day of protest against consumerism. It is celebrated on the Friday after the American Thanksgiving holiday in North America and on the day after that internationally. People in more than 65 nations participate in Buy Nothing Day. In 2008, Buy Nothing Day will be celebrated on November 28. This is one of the biggest top 10 shopping days in the United States, which makes the idea of not making purchases on this day even more impactful.

Buy Nothing Day was first organized by a Vancouver artist in 1992 as a day for society to examine the idea of over-consumption. It is largely supported and advertised by Adbusters Magazine, a not-for-profit, reader-supported magazine concerned about the erosion of our physical and cultural environments by commercial forces.

I think that Buy Nothing Day is a very symbolic idea, but I’m not convinced that this idea will actually work. I think it is great to bring attention to the idea of over-consumption; however, I don’t believe that enough people will stop shopping on this day to really make a difference. Even if people were to stop shopping for the day, they would only have to wait until the next morning before they could start consuming again by going out to shop. It is almost insignificant, in terms of consumerism and commerce, for people to not buy things on this day because they will probably just wait to make their purchases on the next day.

On the other hand, I think the symbolism behind Buy Nothing Day is very powerful. Perhaps this day does not succeed in making a monetary impact on consumerism and it does not really affect businesses on a large scale but, if this day does succeed in raising awareness about over-consumption, then it is doing something very powerful. I think that the true goal of Buy Nothing Day is to make us think. We need to think about the things that we buy and if we really need them, and if we are making wise choices that benefit us, our society and our environment.

I watched a video called “The Story of Stuff” in another class, and it was really interesting in that it talked a lot about the idea of over-consumption and how our lives are driven by consumerism. This video introduces the term “planned obsolescence,” which is the idea that products are designed and fabricated to be used and almost immediately thrown out, and this creates not only a large amount of waste, but an over-abundance of consumerism. The video also talks about “perceived obsolescence,” which is the idea that we are being convinced by advertising, celebrities, large corporations and our peers, to throw away our stuff even though it may be in perfectly good condition, simply because something new, and supposedly better, is available.

Buy Nothing Day, in my opinion, is about resisting planned and perceived obsolescence. As a society, we consume too much. We are bombarded with advertisements and messages from big businesses, which drive us to consume more and more. We believe that we need to keep up with the trends, buy what is currently popular and continuously replace the things we already have with things that are newer and better. By participating in Buy Nothing Day – not necessarily with our actions, but at least by consciously thinking about the significance of the day – we are taking a stand against consumerism. I think that, if people were to consider the symbolism of Buy Nothing Day and perhaps start to realize that we need to change our consumer habits and rethink the purchases we make, then Buy Nothing Day would achieve its goal of make us think about pushing us to take positive action. It seems difficult to get a significant amount of people not to shop on Buy Nothing Day, but it seems a lot more manageable to get those people to simply think about their actions and their purchases. I cannot guarantee that I will not make any purchases on Buy Nothing Day but I do believe that I will think about and recognize the significance behind this day.

Works Cited

"Buy Nothing Day." Adbusters. Adbusters Media Foundation. 12 Nov. 2008

http://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/bnd.

The Story of Stuff. Dir. Louis Fox. Perf. Annie Leonard. The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard.

12 Aug. 2008. Free Range Studios. 12 Nov. 2008 http://www.storyofstuff.com/index.html.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is the idea that all information sent over the internet should be treated equally, meaning that internet service providers (ISPs) should not influence the applications or content that you see on the internet. In other words, if net neutrality was not being practiced, companies could pay ISPs a premium to deliver their website ad their content faster than that of their competitors.

The biggest issue surrounding net neutrality is that, if it was not exercised in Canada, ISPs would be able to impose restrictions on our ability to freely explore the Internet, or ISPs would not provide the choices that we as consumers want. The Internet is so popular and so successful because it has a basic open nature, which allows it to be a free and open marketplace for all websites and content.

The problem is that, if ISPs start to impose restrictions on the content we see, the Internet will no longer be the huge collection of websites that we can freely navigate through and find a large amount of information. Our Internet navigation will be directed by our ISPs and whatever companies are paying them to have their sites prioritized. How are we being given the freedom to browse whatever we want, whenever we want? The problem is that we aren’t being given that freedom, we are being denied it.

If net neutrality were not in effect, I think it would lead to a whole new realm of the media that is almost completely controlled and directed by big corporations. We are already bombarded with messages and images from these companies, who have the money to buy whatever advertising and airtime they want. If net neutrality were not in effect, these companies could basically buy more space on the internet to further push their products and services onto us, the consumers.

In the United States, net neutrality is an issue that has been ongoing for a few years. In the summer of 2006, major U.S. telecom companies were able to persuade Congress to pretty much abolish the previous net neutrality law that they had in place, which stated that “no provider of physical infrastructure – from roads to railways to electrical or telephone companies – could have any say over the content and services flowing over their networks.” (“Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada”)

In 2006, when the issue of net neutrality first became a big issue, Canadian companies like Rogers, Bell and Telus, said that network neutrality should not be determined by regulations but by market forces. This, however, made people who advocate for an open and free internet nervous. They believed that Canadian telecommunication companies are trying to persuade the public to trust them so that laws are not developed to protect net neutrality so that, should they decide to eliminate this concept, they will be able to easily increase their profits.

We have seen the effects of not having net neutrality regulations imposed here in Canada. In 2005, Telus blocked its users from accessing a community website run by and for Telecommunications Workers Union members because, as the time, Telus’ union workers were striking. Also, Bell Canada has been performing traffic shaping, which is controlling computer network traffic by delaying data packets. This means that Bell was delaying certain data on its network so that other information would be transmitted faster to its users. Preventing this from happening is one of the biggest reasons for imposing net neutrality.

Currently in Canada, a Private Member’s Bill to establish the principle of net neutrality and establish rules to keep the Internet free from the control of ISPs is waiting to be debated and in the House of Commons. This bill would mean that companies like Telus and Bell wouldn’t be able to impose restrictions on consumers’ use of the Internet which, in my opinion, would be a great step for Canada.

In the U.S., the recent election of Barack Obama as the next President is widely thought to be a great decision for the world of technology and, in particular, net neutrality. In the U.S., people have realized that their 2006 decision to abolish laws that support net neutrality was perhaps not the best decision. The government is currently reviewing those laws and will probably impose more regulations to protect net neutrality in the near future. Obama has claimed to support net neutrality fully, and it is believed that when he is in office, he will ensure that laws to protect net neutrality will be imposed in the near future.

I believe that, in Canada, we need to improve our net neutrality laws and establish a plan to fight companies like Telus, Bell and Rogers from imposing their own beliefs and agendas on us, the consumers. We need to fight back in order to keep our internet free and open to its users. We are already heavily influenced by big businesses in terms of advertising and the media, and we need to keep the internet a place where we can browse freely and find the information that we truly want, not what our ISPs believe we should want. I realize that the internet may carry some biases in terms of advertisements and links, but I believe that we should fight the onset of more big business influences so that the internet will remain as free and open as it was intended to be.

Works Cited

"Battle over ‘net neutrality’ arrives in Canada." CBCnews.ca. 2 Nov. 2006.The Canadian Press.7 Nov.

2008. http:// www.cbc. ca/consumer/story/2006/11/02/tech-neutrality. html .

Lenczner, Michael. "Introduction to Net Neutrality." What is Net Neutrality? Comp. Neil Barrat and

Alison Powell. Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking. 7 Nov.

2008. http:/ /whatisnetneutrality. ca/en/node/1 .