I’m just getting around to reading some of the articles you’ve posted up. All looks interesting. I will be brief here. This is just my short response to some of the shows comments.

1) I realize that those who engage in “hactivism” have a working defintion of it. However, the nature of the interent, gives us a vast number of opinions about “hactivism” and these ideas are acted upon and create a completely incoherent result. Common people, when discussiong these issues are apt to feel anything from apathy to confusion and they might possibly feel threatened.

2) This incoherence is then ironiclly hailed as the internet’s greatest success: whenever anyone seeks deeper understanding of such matters, rather then getting clarification we are instead pointed to Egypt and told that “we just don’t get it.”

This to me is some of that elitism that you seem to deny. Now, I am willing to admit a misunderstanding and that most people in the community do mean well, but I don’t think the hacktivzist community has done a very good job addressing the specifics of HOW the revolution was both “leaderless” and/or “tweeted.” (instead most just dismiss Gladwell outright with out due consideration). I’ve got my own ideas on the TYPE of leadership that was at work in Egypt, but that’s another issue.)

3) Now, thinking “opticly” or in the “poltical sense”, the only signs of hactivism apparent to the general public are: Lulz, Wiki-leaks, and Anon. Its not a stretch to see how you’ve now got a potent brew for extreme misunderstandings.

I don’t know what it will take for the idea of hacktivism to go mainstream. I just think that right now the climate is being set by the bad apples who could in the end cause more poltical damage to the community then good.