Este sitio funciona sobre la 
In 2006, I founded ZapBoom Consulting, which specializes in the analysis of how digital
tools like cell phones and the Internet can be used in social change campaigns in developing countries. I have
researched and written reports on topics ranging from 
In this post I foolishly choose a public forum to hash out a half-baked digital activism theory.
There are currently two main poles of digital activism: comman and collaborative. In command activism, an institution uses the Internet to direct its members to take certain actions, like phoning a member of Congress or making a donation. This model has most successfully been used by MoveOn. The good thing about command activism is that it allows for massive coordinated action. The negative thing about this form of activism is that it tends to be hierarchical and less democratic, as decisions about what actions will be taken are made within the institution, rather than by the members who are carrying out those actions.
In collaborative action, the members who are carrying out the action also decide what actions will be carried out. Most often, collaborative activism occurs within small groups where it is efficient to include all members in decision making. The Free Alaa campaign is a good example of collaborative digital activism. The positive thing about collaborative activism is that all participants are treated as actors and leaders, rather than followers, and are encouraged to take the lead in creating their own campaigns. The negative thing about collaborative activism is that is is difficult to scale as an increasingly large organization would necessitate some kind of hierarchy to keep
Did the end of this post get cut off? For me, it ends with:
"The negative thing about collaborative activism is that is is difficult to scale as an increasingly large organization would necessitate some kind of hierarchy to keep"
I suspect there should be something after "keep," right?