Thank you very much. Normally, in German, you say that you want to live with your friends and friends, live with the Republica, live with the people who come from... I'm going to make a tone check here.

Live with the people who come from the Re-Campaign. We are very proud of you and I thank you for your support. We are very proud of you and I thank you for your support. Re-Campaign is the first small company in the Republica. You know that I'm talking about a concept, that we, as the Republica, have to work together with the market and the conference,

with the people who come from the Republica. Today, and that's also what's new, Morgan, the Re-Campaign, is the first small company. Here, I'm very proud to be part of the Republica.

I'm very proud of you. So, I'm going to give you an idea. I'm going to show you the idea. You can see it in the relative codes. I'm going to show you a non-profit organization, a non-profit organization, for NGOs, for people who are engaged. To connect, to see the best ideas.

To see the best ideas. And this is, yes, we're very proud of you. You are very proud of us. Morgan and I are very proud of you. Barcamp, workshops, really, unpacking. And, how about you?

Yes, I'm from Re-Campaign Team. We're very proud of you, because today we're going to talk about the case of the Re-Campaign.

But we're going to talk about a lot of things. The first thing is that we're very proud of you. And you can see that everything you've done with the Re-Campaign is made up. We're very proud of you because we're very proud of you. We're very proud of you. And you can see the Republica is very proud of you.

We also have the best company in the United States. We, Andreas and Arshuna, are very proud of you. For us, we're very proud. We're very proud of you. For all of you, best practice, we're very proud of you. And we're very proud of you. As you know, the people of the United States are very nice to us.

And we're very proud of the NGOs that are coming today. More and more NGOs are here. They're on Twitter, Twitter, Facebook, etc. There are many standards, but this can be a discussion.

For example, in America or in England, for example, here in Germany, and also here in England. How will that work? This is also our best practice, so we can learn more about it here.

Today's forum is going to be one of my biggest questions about net activism, about culture, about online strategy. I'm going to talk about concrete in workshops, about concrete questions like, how to be on and off-line, how to work together,

what is with fundraising, what is the right system for NGOs, but also community management, which is probably the best. And we also have the opportunity to talk about the work we are doing here, and to be hands-on and interactive. And that is all for today. This is also the second part of the Re-Campaign.

We are going to talk about the basis of the Re-Campaign, and the basis of the basis for an open-source. And here is the Re-Campaign. I'm going to talk about it today. I won't go into the next part, but I'll talk about it in a few minutes.

Good morning, everyone. I'm very happy to be here. I'm very excited. I'm going to talk about a couple of things. First of all, I'd like to talk about Jeff Jarvis, an American blogger and journalist.

I'd like to talk about one thing, which is the private sector and the public sector. And I'd like to talk about a few things, such as Facebook and Google. I'd like to talk about a few things. I'd like to talk about what is the next step, which is not a huge step. And I'd like to talk about the second part, which is the Twitter revolution in Iran. The last free media event which the people

watch on TV. I'd like to talk a little about the recent social media. I'd like to talk about a few things from the beginning. I'll talk about video and a few things I'd like to talk about. The biggest one, you can watch the firewall in China or even

and also what many Republicans think is the most important thing. So that's why I'm saying that this is also the most important thing in the world. Okay, I can go to the entire Republican panel, that's what Andrea is talking about. So let's start here. We're here with Martin Dufen.

Today, I'm going to talk about this program. We're going to do a re-campaign. You can see our program. As you can see, this program has a lot of things to do. It also has a lot of things to do with our internet and an infopoint in the lounge. There are a lot of things to do. I'd like to say that there are a lot of things to do on social media.

There is a lot of extra things to do. For instance, I can't say anything about it. And another thing about our other partners. Now, the Republicans are already parallel. They have the last day, the first day, the first day, and we're all together. It's important that they attend to all of the Republicans.

And when all of 2015 is over, then we're all together in our own room. I'd like to say that the first two days are over. I'd like to say that we're all together. We're all together in our own room.

We're all together in our own room. So, what we're doing now is to say that we have a stream about the negative things that we're doing. So, that's why we're using the hashtag, and the hashtag re-campaign, to get on Twitter.

And then you can see that the URL is already here. You can click on the link. You can see that it's a small auto-grip. You can see that the link is very good. You can find the link in the description. So, when you click on the link in the description,

by YouTube and by Flickr, you can see the re-campaign. You can see a good branding. You can also see a YouTube video with the re-campaign. You can also see it here. I'm glad that I'm here today. And I'll come back to you, right?

Okay. Let's go to the next one. Yes, I'll come back to you. And it was... I don't know if you can hear me. And it was the re-campaign organized by Oxfam Deutschland. It was organized by a social bar. You can see it on our stream.

You can also see it with the logo. You can also see it on the website. We'll now go to the media partner. Thank you. I'm not sure if you can hear me. The media partner is not here yet, but the forum is here.

The blog ReZ2. I'm not sure if the blog is online. The website is ReZ2. And the political communication. Also, I'd like to say that the blog ReZ2 is online. I'm not sure if you can hear me. I'll come back to you. Yes? No? Good. Yes?

I'm not sure. Okay. ReZ2 is here. It's our first keynote. Its title is Net Sculptures and Games. If you don't know, the English language is in English. I'd like to know if you speak English as well. If you don't know, we have the most people in Germany.

If you don't know the English language, then the most people in Germany have the English title. We have no English language. If you don't know a little bit of English, you'll find out here. I hope you'll find it. I'll leave you with a link to Facebook and Twitter. It's also a critical part of the Net Sculpture.

I'd like to thank you for your support of this social network, for the Mobile Zero, for NGOs. If you'd like to order another social network, you can go to our website. Thank you very much. As Professor of New Media at the UNI Amsterdam, I'd like to welcome you to the Institute of Network Cultures.

I'm here with the Professor of Social Media for New Media. I'm here with Nana. She has the opportunity to talk about tactical media. This modern form of activism can be recognised by its use of current technology and its hit-and-run tactics, media campaigns which are often short-lived in nature.

I'd like to say a few words about the Yes Men, these are the only ones that can be used as creative versions of activism. Thank you very much. Good. So, how did you find this part? How did you find it? How did you find it? How did you find it? How did you find it? How did you find it? How did you find it?

Yes, thank you. My name is Tern. This is a question about English language.

Why is it not so right? But, good, that we are not so far away. Me, it is a guy, but... Why is it not so right? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Good. Good morning, everyone. This lecture will be in English.

I'm very grateful to be the first speaker at this event. I do have a lot of personal ties, historical ties to this topic. I've been working on the relation between activism and the media for at least 30 years.

Been involved in a lot of movements, social movements still are, of course. Been doing a lot of print and radio. Radio is one of my passions and still involved in that.

And, of course, since the late 1980s also in first bulletin board systems, early Internet, and then from 1992, 1993 on, it really started with the opening up of the World Wide Web and so on.

Okay. This is my current position since 2004 when I came back from Australia. I had the unique opportunity to have my own research institute. It's rather small.

We are only two people, but nonetheless, we try to do a lot with little money. And coming from the squatters movement, I know exactly how to do that. So with a little money, we can do quite a lot of projects over there.

Most of them are kind of related to the idea that I formulated together with a lot of others in the early 90s around this concept of tactical media.

Started around 93, just after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in the midst of the Balkan Wars, and a lot of changes in society towards globalization, neoliberal policies, privatization, you name it.

It was a time of big changes, I think, also for social movements. I think also, well, we thought that this concept of tactical media was fitting quite well in the times. The idea of tactical media is, of course, that you look for the most appropriate media in your social struggle, in whatever you are doing,

and that by trial and error, you kind of find out what works and what doesn't work.

And I think now in the age of Web 2.0, I think we are there again. We have to find out through trial and error what is actually suiting our purposes and what is not. The idea of tactical media, I think, is also very much related to the awareness of the visual, tactile, audio nature of the media.

It means that it is no longer, maybe like in the 70s and 80s, just a tool that we use.

We have to be very, very aware of the specifics of all these tools. We have to know the very specifics of them and how they work best. And what this means is that we, in this concept and with a lot of the projects that we do, emphasize that for social movements and NGOs, it is best to think of these media in terms of temporary coalitions between activists,

artists and researchers. And this is kind of the nature of tactical media, that we should be very, very aware of the aesthetic qualities of the work that we make.

There is an increasing awareness of the importance of design and visual communication. It is not enough anymore just to have a disturbing message, a disturbing image, an urgent campaign, right?

And luckily, the tools have become more and more cheap and available for many, many people to work on these issues. And I think in the late 90s, then, after we discussed a lot of the things,

of course, in the media came on and that was kind of an important moment in time for all of us in 99, when a lot of the kind of groups and coalitions that we were talking about and that we were experimenting with kind of entered the global stage.

And the Seattle riots were a manifestation of that. But even before, in the months before, a lot of us worked on the preparation of this website and of the related event.

But, of course, as we all know, we're now a decade further and there are a lot of flaws with the very concept in the media. Not only did it develop, it now has a history, also here in Germany, but in many countries.

Not all the stories are the same, but still we can say that this type of using the media, especially in the beginning,

was very exciting, but somehow ran into a lot of endemic problems that it had. For instance, within the media it was always unclear whether this tool was actually made to mobilize activists

and to spur the internal discussion amongst activists, or whether it was really a tool to inform the broader audience and to involve and to speak with, let's say, the mainstream media.

And you can see that ambivalence in a lot of websites. And I think that was one of the reasons why the media, in the end, could not really further develop. The concept of the independent media center that was developed, which kind of was attached to major events and protests,

worked very well. It worked very well on a temporary basis when there were big mobilizations going on.

And these mobilizations really needed a better internal communication. So, in those instances, the media worked quite well. But in between, as a kind of independent or alternative press agency or whatever,

it never really, I think, took off. And also it unfortunately did not put a lot of effort in a broader international coordination.

So this is a global website, but what the media really failed to do is to benefit from its own diversity. It kind of got stuck there. In a way, maybe you were listening to my speech yesterday that I gave in the other building,

where I spoke about the rise of the so-called national webs. And I think the media somehow also embodied this because of language barriers. There were lots of troubles, in fact, to bring together the rich diversity of all the different websites around the world.

And there was just not enough money or not enough emphasis on the international coordination. Of course, from that whole wave of tactical media, a lot came out of it.

And let's say ten years later, we just celebrate the release of the second Yes Man film.

And they are certainly the ideal tactical media activists slash artists. They are really further refining the concept of tactical media, in the sense that they dress up and, well, you all know what they're doing probably.

Anyway, this kind of short and very pointed, very effective interventions remain quite successful and quite disturbing.

In that also that they really transcend, let's say, the activist community. They go beyond, let's say, the traditional constituencies of the social movements and really through these very critical interventions reach a really broad audience.

What we have also seen in the field is that online activism, activism in general, media activism, tactical media, give it a name, has become a subject of academic research.

Of course, this already started in the 1980s and 90s with people studying the social dynamics of the so-called new social movements.

But certainly over the last few years or so, we have seen a real rise of kind of more detailed academic research into what we're talking about here and what we're going to deal with over the next two days.

I think it is good to at least be aware that this is going on. From my activist perspective, I'm always a little bit skeptical about what the academics really contribute, but then I'm also an activist myself, at least recently.

At least this is something to look at. Do you really want to be involved in this? Do you think that long-term academic research will help us any further?

Let's just see what we can get out of it. I would certainly like to see a much closer collaboration between these media scholars and you out here.

I think that is really important and I think it's not so good to just hide somewhere in a room in some department to do some studies and then to publish a paper. This is, in my view, not the way to go. This is not the way to do research and I'm, to be honest, quite skeptical about that.

I think there are much, much better and much more involved ways of academics, how they can actively contribute and maybe also reflect and critique what you are doing. There is, we could say, one subsection of online activism, one other form of activism

that we should, of course, talk about and that we should involve in our discussions.

And that is certainly activism. Activism, as it was defined in the 90s, as an active approach to disturb the online communications of big corporations, of states and of bodies that try to censor us, that try to crack down.

This is a much more active way of disturbance. The Critical Art Ensemble has practiced it. There's the so-called Electronic Disturbance Theatre that has developed certain tools and

certainly, you know, we should realize that, especially over the next two days, I would like to emphasize, you know, that we should actively build the bridges towards the free software and open source community.

This is really, really vital. We cannot just reduce this topic to whether, how and how you are using Facebook and, you know, a few other of these, at the moment, quite successful corporate communication platforms.

And it is really important for me, and I'm going to speak about this more in this presentation, that you are playing an active role in the further development of the free software and open source alternatives that are out there.

We have to use them, test them, we have to critique them and, you know, this is really a unique opportunity to bring people together.

This is Ricardo Dominguez. He has been actively involved in a lot of that stuff. At one stage, he was also a member of the Critical Art Ensemble. He became a staff member teaching at the University of San Diego on the Mexican border.

And maybe you have heard about this, maybe not, but I would certainly like to draw your attention to this kind of scandal or this case that is building up right now as we speak. A lot of stuff has been happening over the last few weeks or so.

Together with his group, he has developed this tool, the transborder immigrant tool, and it's been covered already a little bit, but I think not enough.

Because recently, he's been running into a lot of legal trouble with his employee, the University of California. And we don't know yet, you know, how this is going to be played out and what exactly is going to happen in this case.

But suddenly, over the next few months or so, we're going to see a lot of media attention drawn to this case. Much in a similar way as happened a few years ago with Critical Art Ensemble member Steve Kurtz who was

arrested because he was himself experimenting with a few of these biotech tools that all these big corporations are using. Which we as private citizens are not allowed to freely touch.

It's called Transborder Migration Tool. It's quite simple. The tool just helps, you know, with its GPS, helps people to point them at temporary flaws in the US-Mexican border. It points people that are on the move to places where they can find water. It's in the middle of the desert, it's very hot there.

There are lots of people out there that assist migrants in their move. Some people even make this move on a daily basis because they work in the US and live in Tijuana on the other side.

So, yeah, this is a very, very critical tool. You could also say it's a very symbolic action. It's really, with a lot of the tactical media examples, we can really ask is this really effective or not?

Is this just symbolic politics or is there more to it? But how symbolic are our actions anyway? So it goes back to the question of what is a real action and what is a symbolic action.

A discussion we of course had extensively since the 1970s or 80s. This of course again touches on this. Is this tool really meant for migrants or is it just meant to disturb the mainstream media, which it has done of course.

People are very upset that American citizens are assisting Mexican and Central American migrants to cross the border. So it touches a nerve of course in society.

Okay, now I would like to go to where we are at and what is the topic of today's conversation here. And that is Web 2.0. Here you see all the signs and we're all kind of already aware of them.

And yesterday I touched briefly on my definition of Web 2.0. It certainly wouldn't be this kind of collection of corporate websites.

For me Web 2.0 simply means the face of reconstruction of the internet after the dot com crash. The rise of popular software that finally works where you don't need to do a lot of coding

but where you can actually start to work with the actual tools even if you are not a programmer. So it's all got to do with the democratization of the media which also is related to the rise first of all of broadband, always on connection. The growing rise of multimedia content, moving images and so on.

The general rise of high speed computers and connections and on top of that the mobile applications.

So this means that there is an opening up of internet. Internet is now mainstream I would say even here in Germany. It is now the mainstream medium and the problem is of course that print

and broadcast media have a lot of difficult time accepting that this is the case. That the actual population, the vast majority of the population is using this medium and that we in fact should no longer speak about new media. That's nonsense. It's been with us for quite some time but not only that, the vast majority of people are using it in one way or the other.

And yes, that is disturbing. What we see then is of course that ever since the 90s there's a big, big

kind of influence coming from the United States in which certain ideologies, certain discourses are spread. But they are also translated into code, they are translated into network architectures.

So if we are talking about let's say the Californian ideology or techno libertarianism or if we're talking about the very conservative points of view of Lawrence Lessig and so on.

If we're talking about all these kind of very specific, it is more than just an opinion. These opinions and here you look at Henry Jenkins, he's a big fan of Web 2 .0, a promoter of not so much political activism but he's particularly interested in fan cultures.

So he's probably the most well known of them in that particular field. We always have to be kind of aware that this is a very specific, rather conservative political agenda that comes with it.

There's almost no really interesting kind of progressive or emancipatory agenda attached to this. And from a perspective of social movements, this is at least something you need to be very aware of.

That we should maybe try to disconnect that very specific ideology that in the 90s of course caused the whole dot com boom and then the dot com crash and then reconstructed itself over the past few years into the so-called Web 2.0.

That this agenda should be disconnected from the actual applications that we use and this is of course what a lot of activists kind of struggle with.

I like the functionalities of Facebook but I don't like Facebook the company, right? It kind of sums it up. How can we do it? How can we do that? It starts probably with just a growing awareness of the very, very specific political agenda of these so-called techno evangelists.

And Jeff Jarvis of course is one of the main evangelists these days and you've heard him speak maybe on Wednesday or yesterday.

It's a very specific agenda and I would say that we need to formulate our own agenda. And this is what I hope will be one of the outcomes of this summit where you come together and

maybe also in these initial meetings kind of say okay, let's not only design clever campaigns but let's go beyond that.

Let's create some tools that a lot of people will be able to use over time. Now this is for me is a very inspiring website and if you want to really engage into this topic, how do activists deal with or not deal with or relate to Web 2.0?

This is for me at least the best site. It's a very recent one. It only started I don't know, one or two years ago. Digi Active, a world of digital activists. It's one of the sites that you could

also say this is something that the media should have done but it's not really doing. To have that kind of explicit clash of cultures. Yes, we want to use it. How do we use Twitter and so on? But also what are the downsides of it?

At what point do we bring activists in danger? This is something we need to talk about. This is kind of how according to Digi Active the world of digital activists looks like and I really like

it because it comes in fact quite close to what I mentioned earlier about the coalition between artists, activists and researchers. Here you can kind of see something similar where the programmers are also very much involved as builders, builders of websites.

People that do are probably more the traditional activists and the thinkers. Probably most of you maybe are in the thinkers or I don't know.

I would be curious to find out if that's the case. Probably a lot of you will kind of bring home new ideas from this conference.

So you probably or maybe you're even in the middle somewhere. It's also interesting that they mention entrepreneurs there. I think there is also a site to that. Which to be honest I don't really mind. I think in theory that's a good thing.

If you were around yesterday at my talk you might remember that I'm really emphasizing that in this world we should also think about how to maintain certain levels of professionalism.

That we should be skeptical about the appraisal of the amateurs and that we should at least think how programmers, activists, designers and a lot of other people in this field can somehow make a living over the long term.

This is of course how NGOs came into being. In my understanding, in my experience of it are organizational leftovers of social struggles. The social struggle is happening and the NGO is kind of an organizational residue of

it. They don't come into being out of the blue. They don't just present themselves. These are people who have been doing a lot of stuff. They come together and decide we

want to really go for it. We want to do it in a much more structural, better way. This is how of course NGOs come into being. This is something I think that we should pay a lot of attention to. At least in my understanding, and this might be my personal conviction or might be a theoretical statement, but it is

very important when we're talking about Web 2.0 to keep in mind that the struggles of the movements are coming first. We don't have an organizational question of how are the NGOs doing. In my perspective,

there is a primacy of the social movement and all the rest follows after that. If there is no social movement around an emerging topic, an urgent topic, it is very, very hard to organize it. It also becomes a little bit questionable.

This would be my thesis of today, my central thesis of this lecture, that it is of no use to utilize Web 2.0 if there is no active social movement behind the topic.

You cannot resolve that lack of involvement by utilizing these tools. The tools in my understanding, and that's my central debate here, my contribution for this conference is that Web 2.0 comes at the very end of a trajectory.

And not at the beginning. And it is very interesting, I find, that we can see in

this website of DG Active that there is a real movement and a discussion of this particular generation. A lot of them are young and very involved, mainly in climate change, but also in a lot of other stuff, that are

kind of rethinking this moment where, in a certain struggle, Web 2.0 tools become really productive and really amplify something that is happening. And where it just remains some kind of media activity, social awareness, yes, but for how long, micro awareness, what is

it? You can develop a lot of kind of tools, sorry, concepts for that, how that micro activism should be judged.

Some people are really negative about such developments. And well, here we can see some of the examples that the DG Active website and their handbook for Facebook activism deals with.

Really, there are a few really influential examples. This is one. Anyway, these days there are many more. One was

just mentioned, the Greenpeace Nestle campaign, which I think is really reaching a new level, I think, in online activism. So I think that's a good sign. A lot of it maybe has been learned also over the last few months or so. But the environment itself is also changing.

And here we see what they say about the changing privacy policies of Facebook.

The website DG Active warns activists for making all too clear what they stand for and particularly what their network is about. This becomes quite difficult.

You want to use it as a tool to reach a lot of new people. At the same time, you don't want to expose your own social network, or at least not too much. It depends of course a little bit whether you want to do anything subversive or

surprising. But there's always a surprise element in a lot of the actions that are happening. Even if they're not illegal, you have to be aware that a lot of people on the other side are following what you're doing. You can be entirely mapped out who you are, what your strengths are, what your weaknesses are, and so on.

I think this is something that you all need to talk about, maybe also find out by doing, what you can find out about others.

And if you see what you can find about others, you'll also know what others can find out about you. Is this really what you want? In general, yes. But of course there is always the Web 2.0 suicide machine. It was recently forbidden and cracked down.

It was developed by WUM and New Media Initiatives in Rotterdam, in the Netherlands. And Facebook is now trying to make sure that none of the activities of the suicide machine service can no longer influence Facebook.

You have to be aware of that. It is becoming increasingly difficult to erase what you are doing.

So you cannot say, okay, we'll do a campaign, and then we close it, and then what? All the information there will remain so. And particularly Facebook is making it very, very hard for individual users to delete tracks or even to delete their identity.

It's next to impossible. And this machine, of course, has helped a few people in that. It claimed, at least originally, that it was really thorough, that it was doing a really good job. But we also know that this is not really entirely true. There are a lot of traces left.

And I would like to also say something about this wonderful man, Eugene Morozov, which I think is really this superb kind of net critic. I mentioned a few yesterday in my talk. Nicholas Carr, the writings of General Lanier, and so on.

But he's the one originally from Belarus, now in the United States, who is kind of a really, really good kind of net activism critic.

And I can highly recommend his website and his writings, because he really shows our weak spots. He's not some kind of cynical guy, so I think he's doing it really with the best of intentions.

But nonetheless, these are people that we need. We need our own, let's say, critics that ask this rather difficult question. You know, has Twitter, for instance, been really effective in Iran? Yes or no?

Has it harmed people? Did people go to jail or even got death sentences because they used Twitter? Or has it indeed played a productive and active role in the mobilization and the internal communication?

And I am, with Morozov and with others, quite skeptical about this. I think we should be very, very careful using Twitter, for instance, in the streets. During actions, it's a pretty dangerous tool, because it can be traced immediately. And that's, of course, one of its strengths. But also, you make yourself very, very vulnerable.

And he has written a lot about different cases. The case of the so-called Twitter revolution in Moldova is one of them.

Well, the Iran case, I think, is still unresolved. And I would really, really like to read more detailed studies about this, because when it happened, I had the kind of suspicion that, particularly because of the American foreign policy, it was very much pushed up,

pushed as a hyped-up item in the news. It served certain political agendas, and not exactly the people in Iran, not exactly the people who were in great danger out on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere.

So, from an activist perspective, it was, you know, at least a dubious thing. At least, let's say, we put a lot of doubts in it. I like this picture a lot, because, you know, you can see that she's holding her mobile phone in her left hand.

There's certainly a lot of, you know, a lot of strength that comes out of these sudden outbursts that we see happening around the world. They're often quite brief. Social protests these days are often, you know, quite violent, very big, but very brief.

And this goes together, of course, with the tendency towards real-time media that I spoke about yesterday and that many in this conference are speaking about. Social unrest is becoming shorter, but also, you know, will mobilize support more and more quick, in a shorter period of time.

So maybe this is also something that you need to be aware of, and we all know about that in kind of campaign design. We need a lot of time to develop the campaigns, but the campaigns will roll out and will happen in an incredible short amount of time.

And when they are picked up, they really blossom, and they can blossom in hours, literally. And that kind of compression of time is a real concern, especially for activists, because you've got less time to raise your concerns, to communicate your arguments.

And more and more, emphasis will go into the kind of the symbolic politics of media, into the images. Yeah, I don't know if I have time to show the...

Okay. This is a really inspiring video that you should really try to get your hands on and show to your group or your constituency. It's called 10 Tactics. It's been developed by tacticaltech.org.

You can find it on the internet through the URL called informationactivism.org. These people have been doing this kind of stuff also for the last 10 or 15 years, and they made a beautiful one-hour video.

And they kind of summarised their tactics, their advices to you all, because it's primarily targeted at this audience. This is a video that is particularly for you, and it's called 10 Tactics.

I've listed them here. Mobilise people, witness and record, visualise your message. I've talked about that, the rising importance of aesthetics. Amplify personal stories, add humour. That's a real kind of tactical media thing of Yes Man and so on.

Investigate and expose. Well, that's WikiLeaks, we could say, which was prominently dealt with yesterday. How to use complex data. This is the whole issue that I said also about info visualisation. You've got less time to communicate more complex topics. There are ways of dealing with this.

Use collective intelligence, let people ask the questions, manage your contacts. I wanted to just briefly look at the intro, just to give you an idea of this.

OK, sound.

It's about using new spaces that have opened up because of the internet and even new media as well. Even cheaper forms of digital technology, whether it's video or other platforms such as online publishing. Has to be people-centred, has to be participatory, and has to be strategic use of different communication tools.

Torture crimes were rarely mentioned on TV, so torture images highlighted it. A project I was involved with was the featured awareness on the Dark Forward crisis in Google Earth.

We embraced awareness of the issues there. We developed a system that uses a short code as a message and we get people sending in queries about amounts of money that have been allocated for projects. One of the things that we did was to help people find out where to vote. Using technologies, you can combine the collective voice of people.

During that period when we started, we discovered different uses for it, in organising relief work and facilitating reconstruction later on. The fact that 700 people got together and took a rally out was a great thing and it was one of the biggest impact that we've had. By making people laugh about dangerous stuff like dictatorship, repression, censorship.

That became like a kind of narrative platform to build an actual movement that is demanding democratic reform. And it's about making use of all these new spaces to do our fashion activism.

Okay, so you can contact Tactical Tech and get the video from them.

Of course, this Avaaz is quite well known. It's the most successful website for online petitions. There are local national online petition sites. I'm not aware of the one that is mostly used in Germany.

But it is something that I'm a bit ambivalent about. I think it works quite well once a campaign is really on its way.

To deal with difficult issues in the beginning, certainly the online petition doesn't work. So it's really something that if you want to set your targets, you should do at the very end, at the height of a campaign. When you've already got a lot of media attention, then this could work.

I would like to point here at what I see as the future. And the future for me is a move away from the corporate platforms like Twitter and Facebook towards seeing social media as a tool.

And this is, I think, what they originally are at the moment in the development. They are temporarily, they are huge platforms which introduce us to the social logic and the possibilities that are out there.

Facebook, like many, many other of these sites, will crumble, they will fragment, they will fall apart. For the simple reason that people prefer to install their own tools on their own websites to reach their specific audiences, because in that way they are in control about all

the settings, the privacy issues, and so on. And Ning is a very good example of where this is going. The Ning is a kind of a hybrid at the moment, it was created by the Netscape founder, Mark Andreessen, he is still very much involved in it, it's pretty successful, and it kind

of shows us where social media are going as a tool, where people have much, much more control over these sensitive issues, who can find out what we're doing, who do we allow in, how do we communicate.

Yeah, and I think that is a good, if you want to just experiment with it, please do so, because it tells you something, you know, where it's going. But this, in my view, is where it's really going. Crabgrass, it's an initiative by RiseUp.net, an American grassroots organization, and

Crabgrass claims that it's, you know, it's fully open, it's free software, open source. You can install it on your own server and you will have the full kind of Twitter and Facebook functionality, but you are in control yourself.

At the moment, it's still in beta, but it is coming. So keep an eye on this, because I think for a lot of social movements, this is really the ideal tool, and this is a direction where it's going anyway. Much in the same way, as with blogging, we have seen the move from away from,

let's say, blogger.com, blogspot.com, and so on, towards WordPress as a tool that you install yourself. This is eventually also what's going to happen with social media. From my perspective, what we have been doing over the last few years is that we've developed,

further developed this concept of organized networks. I've been shying away a little bit to organize yet another kind of tactical media reunion event of my specific generation.

I'm not so interested in that kind of next five minutes was influential. It was four huge events that happened, but I think it's better to move on. And the concept of organized networks, I think, is much more promising in that way, because it tells us something about how people prefer to do activism these days.

And then we're not in offices, not in huge kind of NGO structures, but networked. But the problem is, of course, with networked is that we face this problem of the so-called weak ties that people have not enough commitment. And this is not because they are lazy or because they don't like you or no, but also

because the technical infrastructure is such that all these social media that are around are, in fact, promoting weak ties. They are not promoting for you to get better organized. There's a whole reason why that is the case.

I'm not going to talk about that so much in the history of weak ties. But, okay, this is kind of where we are at. So last year we organized a big event in Amsterdam called Winter Camp, where we invited 150 artists and activists to work in one week for us.

So if you want to know more about this whole issue, you can just look for Winter Camp. And I would like to close this presentation with this, to me, very moving and inspiring. Again, I think a technical media project is called Tank Man Tango, developed by the media activist Deborah Kelly.

And what it does is that it has mobilized activists and artists around the world to dance what she called the Tank Man Tango.

And as you remember, there's the, here it is, this is the website. Yeah, and it's called, the project itself is called Forget to Forget.

And it's kind of explained here. So, as you remember, you'll see at the... Remember 1989, when spring bled into summer in Beijing's Tiananmen Square? The gathering of the people turned into a wave, demanding reform, chanting for change.

The people's petition against corruption, calls for free speech, for collective responsibility, and for democracy echoed round the world. Remember when the government sent the military into the square, bearing weapons meant for war? They fired on their own people, turning June the 4th into a day of massacre.

Remember June 5, when the tanks rolled again on a defeated Tiananmen Square? A man stood before them, bearing only shopping bags, stopping the tanks' advance. He became Tank Man. Remember Tank Man? As the tanks tried to evade him, he defied them.

He dodged, he wove, he stepped up. His actions spoke for the voices silenced by force. Dancing the Tank Man Tango, we traced his steps. We marked time. We danced him into memory.

On June the 4th, 2009, Forget to Forget, do the Tank Man Tango. Democracy is never completely won, but must be constantly worked on. Sun Yat-sen. Thank you very much for your attention.