When questionably unethical or illegal issues happen within the world, it creates a general unease among the public. This uneasiness is caused by the widespread broadcasting of these issues, such as rape, murder, or political unrest, and can sometimes instigate a desire within individuals for justice. Even worse than the issues that become broadcasted however, are those that are not broadcasted which the majority of the public does not know of. The amount of issues like this that occur without the general public knowing, such as corruption, is unknown, but merely thinking about it makes my skin crawl. Since the common civilian can feel useless when it comes to achieving legal consequences on a possible perpetrator, especially when not all questions are answered, the next best outlet to reach the masses becomes the Internet, especially social media. When most people use the Internet to obtain justice for others, the most common used outlet is blogs or petitions; however, the hacker activists known as Anonymous, use their computer intelligence to go about justice in a more shocking way. Anonymous is a collective in which self-proclaimed members manipulate the Internet through hacking in order to effectively combat those that they believe are hurting the common good. Even if their tactics aren’t always legal, rather than simply being upset over how bad the world and its people are, Anonymous is honorable in that they illustrate immediate action upon injustice that might otherwise slip by our legal system.

These so called “digilanties” (digital vigilantes) or “hacktivists” (hacker activists) are known for this swift action upon injustice all over the world. Generally speaking, the people that participate in this hacker collective are knowledgeable in different types of computer code and programming and will utilize these skills to employ attacks against companies or individuals that they believe are acting crude, unethical, or are potentially even engaging in illegal activities. When Anonymous sees something happening that they do not believe is just, such as the police brutality or political corruption, they start what is called an “operation.” This operation usually starts with a video informing the world as well as the chosen company, group, or individual that they will be starting their movement. To protect their identity during these videos, individuals of Anonymous also wear unsettling Guy Fawkes masks worn in the movie “V for Vendetta”, which has ultimately become their known identifier or symbol, while they lay their claims. The video is almost used as an intimidation tactic, as they usually follow the outlines of giving their target an ultimatum that they must do X or stop X or else Anonymous will not stop fighting until the target is forced to do so. When those on the receiving end of the ultimatum to do not comply, the collective begins their hacker quest to stop the identified injustice.

These hacker quests most commonly include methods such as DDoS attacks and “doxing.” DDoS attacks, or Distributed Denial of Service attacks, are usually used when Anonymous wants to take down websites. This attack, “floods a site with so much data that it slows down or crashes” (Kushner, The New Yorker). In the article, Kushner explained this kind of attack and that although it takes stamina to continue attacking, with Anonymous, it is as simple as organizing a group of hackers that will back the belief to continuously hack and overwhelm a target’s servers. Doxing is a different approach to an attack that usually consists of leaking e-mails and disseminating private information such as telephone numbers and personal addresses as well. This approach can be seen when Anonymous doxed Aaron Barr, the C.E.O. of a cybersecurity firm who reported Anonymous to the FBI and claimed he knew some of the top members of Anonymous (Kushner, The New Yorker). Not long after, Anonymous leaked some of his e-mails and information that revealed he had been using unlawful practices and Barr resigned soon after. This shows that the collective’s attacks are an effective effort to oust injustice.

The elusive entity of Anonymous is called a collective because it is not necessarily a designated group of people. As Kushner explained in the article The Masked Avengers, Anonymous “could be thought of as a shape-shifting subculture.” Although there are well known Anonymous members that battle on the front line of their attacks, essentially any person could merely decide today that he or she would like to become a member and create his or her own operation/video himself. There is no application process, no regular meetings, and no member fee. From my viewpoint, this is what makes Anonymous so great- it is not biased and doesn’t just have one agenda. On the other hand, it isn’t completely a free-for-all; the people who join Anonymous’ operations or start their own are still encouraged to act ethically and reasonably. This idea of structured operations promotes that people must only attack unethical issues with good reason rather than using Anonymous as an excuse to hack any company at random. However, when people do use Anonymous as an excuse to target the wrong issue, it could be argued that those people aren’t even a part of the Anonymous culture since they are not seeking true justice for the greater good.

With their efforts to try to make a better, more ethical world, these hacktivists could even be described as a communitarian group because they treat those that they hack as a means to an end. This means that they are looking to achieve a goal of widespread justice and positive change from their operations. By claiming, “We are legion,” at the end of every video and saying that they are “everyone and no one” on the Anonymous Headquarters website they are showing their allegiance to not just one individual or one group of people, but a multitude of people, and that they themselves are a multitude of people fighting for a unified cause of the greater good. This is why Anonymous’ actions could also be thought of as ethically viable and communitarian because it shows that Anonymous is focused on society as a whole, rather than an individual based society.

This action for a unified cause can be seen when Anonymous recently hacked and took over all webpages and social media sites operated by the white supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan, on November 16, 2014. After taking over the KKK’s Twitter, @KuKluxKlanUSA, the page has donned the new byline “Under anon control as of 16 NOV 2014 09:11:47. You should’ve expected us,” for months. This action by the collective was prompted after threatening KKK flyers were allegedly distributed in Ferguson, Missouri.

Ever since police officer, Darren Wilson, shot and killed unarmed teenager, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, Anonymous has shown their support in the investigation of possible race-based police brutality. The death of Brown caused constant protests since the date of the event, August 9, 2014, that occasionally would turn violent according to MSNBC (Lee and Sakuma). Because of these protests, the KKK distributed flyers in Ferguson stating that “lethal force” would be used against protesters (CBS St Louis). This was when Anonymous stepped in and took matters into their own hands, shutting down the KKK’s website completely and taking over two of the KKK’s twitter pages. Anonymous, like they normally do, then released a video containing a person in a Guy Fawkes mask and text-to-speech voiceover along with a written statement claiming that they are not attacking the KKK for the organization’s beliefs (since anonymous fights for freedom of speech), but rather because the organization has threatened “the brothers and sisters of Anonymous”- the men and women of Ferguson. Anonymous then called the KKK a bigoted “terrorist group” and used that statement as reasoning to why others should support their initiative. Anonymous’ hacking and ongoing investigation into possible KKK ties with Ferguson police was given the title Operation KKK or in social media terms “#OpKKK.” Anonymous would use the Twitter page to post serious statements regarding #OpKKK along with comical posts, such as a picture of a unicorn, assumingly to poke fun at the KKK (Altus, BBC News). Anonymous continues to have control over the Twitter pages however the posts have discontinued since December.

This is nowhere near the only time that Anonymous has taken over a website. In the past, Anonymous members have taken down the home pages of MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon, Visa in “Operation Payback” where they launched the attack due to the corporations withdrawal of donation to the website “WikiLeaks” which is now commonly known for its use by whistleblowers (Kushner, The New Yorker). Even every website of the whole government of Tunisia was once taken down when the hacktivists found out about the unethical governmental practices (Kushner, The New Yorker). This shows that they have actual power behind them, and even if they don’t create immediate results, they are at least generating conversation about the issue, which is something to help formulate change in itself. With foreign cases regarding government unrest, such as Tunisia, sometimes their website hacks will even include tips and information for protestors (Kushner, The New Yorker).

Although it is easy to side with Anonymous and support their efforts such as taking over the KKK’s social media and website, we must reflect on the ethical and legal issues involved when one group prevents another from accessing their right to freedom of speech. One issue is whether or not it is acceptable to take over the intellectual property of another group, even if Anonymous is trying to protect citizens from the threats of bigoted or corrupt people. If a group starts to terrorize others on social media or other Internet outlets, does that make it acceptable to shut down those sources entirely? For example, is there another way Anonymous can fight the hate and threats of the KKK or other organizations besides the use of illegal hacking and spamming? Another issue within Anonymous’ actions is the hindrance of free speech of other organizations such as the KKK, even if Anonymous may have described different groups as “terrorists” in their argument for a specific operation. There can be different arguments made for both sides, especially since America prides itself on freedom of speech including within the Internet. However, when threats against civilians are made, especially during a sticky situation such as the unrest within Ferguson, we can see the ethical validity in Anonymous’ argument.

Those that argue that Anonymous is acting unethically and unlawfully by taking over websites such as the KKK, will claim that Anonymous is infringing on America’s belief in freedom of speech as well as the alteration of intellectual property. Social media can often be regarded as intellectual property (Brody and Goetz, Bloomberg BNA) and when hacked, it is not only infringing on legal rights, but ethical rights as well. As can be read on the National Conference of State Legislature’s website, hacking of computer systems is illegal regardless of the cause for doing so because it is unauthorized tampering. Other than being illegal however, when it comes to the ethicality of the issue, one could argue that according to philosopher Immanuel Kant’s system of ethics, Anonymous’ actions are not ethical because the hacking could not be made into a categorical imperative (McCormick, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). In other words, people could not constantly be hacking each other and taking over each other’s social media, regardless of the cause, because then there would be cyber unrest within the Internet. Abiding by the Kantian ethical principle, one may also argue that Anonymous is using the people and their property as a means to an end, social justice, instead of allowing people to be treated as a mean in themselves. Therefore by using Kant’s ethical principles it would be unethical to take over organizations websites and social media pages.

Even though in Operations like Op KKK, Anonymous took over the accounts to try to protect protesting civilians freedom of speech, they are also infringing on the KKK’s ability to act upon their freedom of speech. Anonymous claims that they are not against the groups like the KKK having the beliefs they do because a majority of their cases rest in fighting for freedom of speech or Internet; however, since Twitter is inherently defined as a place where individuals share their beliefs, ideas, and thoughts, they are preventing the organization to act upon that freedom to a full extent. Herein lies the paradox that Anonymous fights for rights, but apparently not for rights of people with what they called bigoted beliefs. Since this is not necessarily a legal argument, but solely an ethical one, we can approach this ethical argument through philosopher John Stuart Mill’s ethical philosophy. Since Mill was a big supporter of free speech and greatly opposed censorship, he would most likely argue that this prevention of any group’s ability to share their opinions freely on social media is unethical, and that all opinions, even the uneducated ones, should be allowed (Heydt, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). According to this philosophy, the argument can be made that Anonymous has their right to practice free speech as long as it does not also prohibit others from practicing theirs.

Although using Mill’s ethical philosophy may have seemed to deem Anonymous’ hacking as a whole unethical, the fact that Anonymous is focused on attaining justice for the common good goes hand in hand with Mill’s ethical principle of utilitarianism (Heydt, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). From this standpoint, we could argue that Mill would most likely agree with Anonymous’ mindset of keeping the focus of their intentions on justice. This is where the fact that the groups such as the KKK terrorize others civilians has an impact on why Anonymous is ethically a good part of society. Since the KKK, a group known for past violent crimes, threatened people in Ferguson, these common actions by Anonymous are more justifiable. Since Mill’s philosophy of utilitarianism urges others to do that which will promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, Anonymous was in the right by trying to prevent groups like the KKK from excelling (Heydt, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is exactly what Anonymous is looking to do when they hack the websites of people who harm others. By hacking and unearthing information about unethical or unlawful people and groups, this information will ultimately help the greater good by informing the population.

This is why even if Anonymous is impinging upon legalities, their actions are indeed ethically viable because even if it means taking a certain group’s outlet for free speech or breaking the law, these actions are only to take down issues that are much greater and are hurting the common good. In today’s society, performing such bold actions such as cyber hacking is the best way to grab people’s attention. In this day and age, it is nearly the only way to be heard. The Internet acts as the new battle field where civilians are finally able to stand their ground and have a fighting chance at making a dent in combatting those who try to oppress us. The Internet also expands our reach, enabling ordinary citizens to send a message to other countries thousands of miles away, such as Tunisia, that other commoners are supporting the oppressed. It gets the intended message out that the oppressors shouldn’t always feel so confident and impenetrable. With billions of people in the world it is hard to make your voice stand out, so by doing stunts such as hacking the web pages of people who have done injustices, Anonymous’ voice is heard.

Although there are more legal, subtle ways to go about fighting injustices, such as creating blogs and forums, these things do not always catch the majority of the population’s attention. Anonymous has found a way to make people listen to their cause because if they aren’t listened to, they’ll take action. By having the power to hack the web, Anonymous is able to create a buzz and reach the masses with their case of injustice, whatever it may be. For example there is a case where Anonymous helped unravel the cover up of the rape of a 16-year-old high school girl by football players in Steubenville, Ohio (Kushner, Rolling Stone). Although Anonymous makes a point not have leaders, this movement started when a single man, Deric Lostutter, created a video claiming he would unearth all people involved in the cover up if they did not come forward themselves. This video gained a lot of attention rapidly and many people, including some still unidentified hackers, helped unravel the details of the case together and make public what happened (Kushner, Rolling Stone). During this operation, named “Op RollRedRoll”, people wanting to help further the operation would send Deric, then known as “KYAnonymous,” videos and tips and even helped to form rallies in honor of the victim that demanded justice. This shows the absolute raw power of the people that Anonymous embodies. Without Anonymous, the rapists would have never been punished and could have potentially never been told their actions were wrong. Essentially by creating Op RollRedRoll, Deric and other Anonymous members saved future potential victims from ever falling victim, thus helping create a better society.

Although Anonymous’ hacking tactics do not support Kant’s ethical principle of his categorical imperative, their tactics are efficient when it comes to helping others. Anonymous has a loyalty arising from shared humanity which means the collective of Anonymous strives to help those that are oppressed or those who have been done an injustice by communicating with the public truthfully and honestly information that most do not know. Although Anonymous’ research and exposition methods are far from being considered classic journalism, Anonymous still acts as a sort of watchdog journalist for the community, following the communitarianism ethical principle that society comes first. With its dramatic tactics, such as branding themselves with the notorious Guy Fawkes’ mask, Anonymous acts as a voice to the voiceless and fosters discussion within society about change. Whether people believe in what Anonymous brings to surface or not does not matter as long as discussion is being made. Without any focus on network ratings that other journalists have, Anonymous members are not concerned or bribed with employment stakes, forcing Anonymous to be solely focused on what’s good for the world’s society at large; this makes each individual’s contribution to Anonymous a completely selfless act of service to the community.

By acting selflessly for a cause, Anonymous’ illegal and drastic-measure sort of behavior is more of what we should see in the world today. According to Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies, “If justice becomes the fundamental value of American journalism, then the media have the goal of transforming society, of empowering individual citizens to acts in ways that promote political discussion, debate and change.” Anonymous has just that- the goal to transform society and promote change. If Anonymous did not go about issues as they do, hacking into websites and creating ominous videos that claim the demise of groups of people such as the KKK or those who covered up the Steubenville rape, many people would not be informed about the unethical injustice that happens in the world. Anonymous is currently the watchdogs of the world, and as they say- we should expect them.

This watchdog action is exactly what I have attempted to portray within the illustration I created. In this illustration, I took a piece of code from a picture of police brutality in the riots of Ferguson, Missouri. I show the code entering the Guy Fawkes mask, which is now the known symbol of Anonymous, and out of the mouth comes the word “CHANGE”, which as I have explained is what I believe is the heart of what these “hacktivists” are attempting to do. They are not only trying to change the way the world thinks, but change the way the world acts, which to me is an important aspect of that word. Many people passively say they want to “change” things, but when referring to Anonymous, the word change should not be considered as stagnant. This is why I included words such as “discrimination,” “terrorism,” and “corrupted governments” translated into binary code in the background of the illustration. I took words and phrases that Anonymous fights to rid the world of in able to show that extent of how they actively fight for a variety of causes currently plaguing our world. The words are translated into binary because it is one of the many computer languages that hackers recognize. This group of men and women see these extreme problems that need to be fixed and throughout the different operations have actively and selflessly promoted change.

This change they have promoted can be seen in the evidence of betterment of society. They don’t just hack to troll like some people will argue; they have had actual results in places where the typical legal system fails. Collectives such as this should not only be applauded for their efforts, but encouraged to continue keeping a citizens’ watch on those who remain higher up the ladder. Although Anonymous has taken upon some social justice issues too quickly in the past, such as initially blaming the wrong policeman for shooting Michael Brown, the collective recognizes that they are human and not infallible. Mistakes such as this however, still shows the fervor in which the collective is eager to use action and jump on an opportunity to promote change, which is an admirable trait and something that is not always present in government made justice systems that take years to prosecute.

Although Anonymous has a long way to go with people recognizing their importance, they have also come a long way as well. According to The Masked Avengers, back in 2008 when they organized a rally around the world against The Church of Scientology, the only reason the collective wore Guy Fawkes masks was because they wanted to keep the anonymity theme and those were the cheapest masks that were also easy to find online and accessible in other countries. This was merely five years ago and now most people will relate the mask not to the movie it originated from, but to Anonymous. This shows that people are indeed watching and listening their actions. I believe in the central reason Anonymous exists and continues to fight for what they believe to be ethical and just.

As I mentioned before, although many people try to argue that Anonymous is nothing but computer nerds with nothing better to do or criminals poking fun at the law, I see them as the new soldiers fighting on the front line. When unrest occurs, civilians feel as though they aren’t able to speak up for fear of scrutiny or punishment, and when we do speak up, most of the time our voices are not heard. The next best way to be heard is by force, but since physical force is not practical, the next best tactic is fighting through technology. Those that claim the hackers of Anonymous are just nerds with nothing better to do have severely underestimated the security and surveillance of the United States of America which Anonymous consistently dodges and bypasses. These “nerds” are not stupid; they are intelligent and know they are risking jail time and possibly even their life at some point by doing what they’re doing. But these men and women continue to fight and do what they believe is just for the initial prospect of what got them to join the cause in the first place: Change.

Sources:

Altus, Celeste. “Anonymous versus the Ku Klux Klan.” BBC News. BBC News Online, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Brody, Peter, and Mariel Goetz. “Ten Things You Need to Know About Social Media and Intellectual Property in 2013.” Bloomberg BNA. Patent, Trademark & Copyright Daily, 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <http://www.bna.com/ten-things-need-n17179872092/>.

Christians, C., T. Glasser, D. McQuail, and K. Nordenstreng. Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies. Champagne: University of Illinois Press. 2009. Print. 20 Apr. 2015.

“Computer Crime Statutes.” National Conference of State Legislatures. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/computer-hacking-and-unauthorized-access-laws.aspx>.

Heydt, Colin. “John Stuart Mill.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. < http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/>.

“KKK Warns They Will Use ‘Lethal Force’ Against Violent Ferguson Protesters.” CBS St Louis. CBS Broadcasting Inc. 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 April 2015.

Kushner, David. “Anonymous Vs. Steubenville.” Rolling Stone. N.p., 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

Kushner, David. “The Masked Avengers.” The New Yorker. 8 Sept. 2014. Web. 22 March 2015.

Lee, Trymaine, and Amanda Sakuma. “Ferguson Protests Turn Violent.”Msnbc. NBC News Digital, 17 Aug. 2014. Web. 18 Apr. 2015.

McCormick, Matt. “Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2015. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/>.

“Who We Really Are and How to Become Anonymous.” Anonymous Headquarters. N.p., 6 June 2014. Web. 22 March 2015. <http://anonhq.com/anonymous-who-we-really-are-and-how-to-become-anonymous/>.

Anonymous: The Hacktivist Social Justice Movement was originally published in Communication & New Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

If one thinks about the typical gamer, programmer, or techie, what do you imagine? The answer is most likely a male. The saddest part about this answer is that it’s actually true. According to Astra Taylor, “evidence suggests that as few as 1.5 percent of open source programmers are women.” That leaves a staggering 98.5 percent to determine how the entire cyber world works and performs. This number should be alarming considering the amount of women online is almost even to the amount of men that are present. When the Internet was created, it was known and praised for it’s “openness” and gave people hope that it would be the medium to bridge the gap between all races and genders; however Taylor’s article questions this fairness and openness the Internet had once brought hope for.

Even when women do end up getting into the programming industry, Taylor states that they have an astonishing large attrition rate of 56 percent- double the rate of men. Women in this “brogrammer” industry feel as though they are constantly being undermined and as though their suggestions aren’t taken seriously, so when this toxic behavior doesn’t stop, these equally as qualified women leave. If women are not allowed to feel safe and respected within the companies that create the skeleton of the Internet, then it is hard to expect the contents of the Internet to be any different.

The disproportion of female programmers is not the only problem we see within the cyber world; misogyny of the outside or “real” world has seeped into the Internet, and discrimination against women online has become a norm that most users tend to mindlessly scroll over. There have been multiple accounts of women being harassed and bullied online. According to the Pew Research Center, 25 percent of females who use the Internet are sexually harassed, compared to the 13 percent of men; 26 percent of females who use the Internet are stalked, compared to the 7 percent of men; and 18 percent of females who use the Internet sustained harassment, compared to the 16 percent of men. We can see this data in action through the example of one female activist, Mary Beard. Beard was trying to get more females on the British bank notes and as a result received “online death threats and menaces of sexual assault” merely for appearing on a television show to discuss her campaign. This is not an uncommon occurrence, as Adria Richard, the woman who revealed what is known as the Donglegate scandal, can attest to. Richards posted a picture of two men who were making crude sexual jokes at an open-source conference onto Twitter and as a result, she experienced the misogyny of the cyber world first-hand. Immediately after she posted the information about these men on the medium that is hailed for being “open”, she received an influx of death and rape threats from male users online.

Instances such as these only teach women that our thoughts and opinions are not wanted and can even be dangerous to express. This type of misogyny is dangerous to free speech because if women do not feel safe to post and share their ideas on the most used medium of our day, then we can find ourselves sliding down the slippery slope to a complete biased form of information. According to Taylor, already only 20 percent of science bloggers are women. This means that the majority of people posting scientific facts and articles are men. What happens if women continue to feel unsafe from misogynist men who are waiting to verbally attack their next victim? Many great works and ideas could be suppressed and never come to fruition.

Women have begun to increasingly speak out about this harassment and its negative effects; however, the tables are being turned right back onto themselves. Once the victims of abuse speak out, the harassers then try to accuse victims of trying to stifle free speech on the Internet. The men that make this argument do indeed have a right to write and share as they would like online, but free speech does not include threatening others. This kind of argument is incredibly ironic considering, as I mentioned before, that the prospect of being potentially harassed online by males might already be stifling the free speech of women around the world.

If such intimidating males don’t claim that activist women are stifling free speech, then according to Taylor, they will make the claim that the women speaking up just need “to “lighten up” and that the harassment no mater how stressful and upsetting isn’t real because it’s only happening online, that it’s just “harmless locker room talk”.” This kind of justification of unjust and threatening behavior appears to be the cyber equivalent of the kind of misogyny that women encounter with sexual harassment crimes in the real world. In Taylor’s article, she references a young, female political columnist, Laurie Penny, who has personally experienced such harassment online. Penny’s wrote an e-book called Cybersexism that argues how women’s opinions online are equivalent to that of the illogical “short skirt” argument when men try to place blame on the victims within rape culture. “Having one and flaunting it is somehow asking an amorphous mass of almost-entirely male keyboard-bashers to tell you how they’d like to rape, kill, and urinate on you,” explained Penny. This explanation of sexism in the cyber world is spot on because as we can see from facts and observation, apparently a female merely having an opinion online is enough reason to harass her. Trying to justify online harassment is very similar to how women are taught to cover up because men have “urges” rather than teaching men that rape is inherently bad. Instead of teaching men that treating women this way online is bad and should not be tolerated, the men are telling women who complain of harassment that they must “lighten up”, or argue that these women should have known they would receive harassment because sharing their beliefs was “asking for it.”

Even if women end up being brave enough to enter the cyber world, the misogynistic bias makes it more likely for women to hide the fact that they are women at all. In Taylor’s article, she references a study done by the University of Maryland about female usernames in the cyber sphere. Taylor states, “Those posting with female usernames, researchers were shocked to discover, received 25 times as many malicious messages as those whose designations were masculine or ambiguous.” This shows a direct correlation to a female prejudice in the cyber world. These findings were so shocking that the authors suggested that parents urge their daughters find gender neutral usernames. However, the suggestion to cover up who you are to stay safe only supports Penny’s analogy that women’s opinions are like “short skirts.” This suggestion stems off of how the general population tries to deal with rape culture and gives girls the idea from a young age that men simply cannot control their “urges” to not harass and therefore to avoid harassment you must give up part of your own identity.

Whether or not this “male cult” can be changed by the general public however, is questionable because reform starts from within. This means that if more women break into this “brogrammer” world and make the gender gap smaller, the online world could potentially become a bit more respectful of females. More equality within the companies that structure the cyber world could possibly lead to more equality online in general. However, it is the big time investors that have the biggest say in at least how their companies will stock their employment and Taylor explains that, “more than 85% of venture capitalists are men generally looking to invest in other men.” This means that the chance that more women are brought into the programming and cyber world is slim. However, maybe if enough people vouch for equality reform within the technology industry, then enough stamina can build behind the movement. Women should not have to feel scared online nor should feel discriminated against. Most importantly women should not stoop to believe that “that’s just the way it is” online because that merely is claiming that men have the right to harass women online. There is no simple solution to the misogyny online, but humans are constantly evolving and pushing reform. As Taylor says, “[Technological systems] are made by human beings and can always be changed and improved.”

Gender Bias in the Cyber World was originally published in Communication & New Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Glitch art is known to most as the outcome of messing up a perfectly working system. When even the most minor detail is altered, this creates an enormous effect. This is why I chose to create this series. The nature of glitch art is exactly identical to that of what is happening to actual nature on Earth. When corporations, greed, and “the American Dream” came to rise, it unbalanced the order of our precious, natural ecosystem. Oil spills, poachers looking for cash, and the intentional destruction of wildlife, just to name a few, have caused species extinction to dramatically increase. More and more species continue to make the endangered species list, and it is sadly never diminishing.

Just like glitch art, humans are intentionally causing these glitches in the system. Although we may not want the outcomes of the “glitches” we are causing, we still see the effects and continue to alter the system more and more. The system worked perfectly well before humankind, and then came industrialization and the idea of the frontier. We have this innate desire to push forward and be “innovative,” but although we are pushing forward, we are not looking where we’re going. Or at least we didn’t until we were already halfway through the coding of our world. We are aware of what the effect will be if we continue to disrupt the system that worked perfectly well before the greed of humankind, but we can’t stop. Humans continue to rummage through the code that keeps Earth healthy, putting extra gobbledygook here and there- polluting something that was once clean. Animals are being harmed. Factories are being built where wild animals once called home, leaving them homeless and vulnerable. Or in the case of animals living in the arctic, humans are adding extra carbon dioxide where it should not be, causing the ice caps to melt and killing thousands of polar bears whose homes literally melt underneath them. The most important part that humans forget to overlook is that we are animals too. If we continue to push buttons and see how far we can go, we may become an endangered species ourselves. We may not be completely deleted from the world yet, but if we continue altering the natural system, we might just wake up one day after too many alterations and see nothing but black.

In my pieces I either wrote “endangered” into the code, and/or added an extra apple logo (“”). By continuously adding the apple logo I was making a statement on how corporations are gradually destroying what was once a stable ecosystem. The invention of the corporation has caused more greed and egotism in the world than ever before. Businessmen only care about the health of their own business and pocketbooks, making them do whatever it takes to get on top, even if that means erasing an entire species to get there. Not all humans are like this, but it only takes a few self-righteous, money-hungry people to pollute billions of years of programming that Mother Nature has worked to keep clean.

Glitch Art- Endangered Species Series was originally published in Communication & New Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

From 1996 to 2008, there were only a few changes of the website designs. In 2000, a search engine was placed within the site. This can be explained by the birth of Google and other public search engines that were created around 1998 and became increasingly used by the public. In 2005, the website added a new blog addition in the page’s content that allowed users to be able to track different blogs of the Democratic Party. This addition of the blog tab was most likely due to the increasing popularity of blogs in the early 2000s and it has even continued to stay on the page in its different design. The “blog” tab still remains available on the present day website, but in a more interactive way.

In 2010, the website was completely restructured to be more appealing and interactive. The banner of the page displays a large, appealing “D” logo that still remains the logo for the Democratic Party. This is also when the first social media information such as Facebook and Twitter appeared on the page, which echoes the quick rise of these social media platforms and how even large companies and government officials felt it was important to jump on the bandwagon. Videos were suddenly available to watch on the Democratic Party’s website as well, which shows the evolution of interactivity within the web and how people, especially millennials, want a one stop shop with their websites. In 2013, the option to share articles and information became easily available, and with a click of a button, this website would post that article to your Facebook or Twitter timeline. This shows how different information mediums became interconnected and how quickly today’s new media became integrated into our world. As can be seen from the screenshot of the website in 2014, the new interactive page also began to feature graphics that showcased facts in an appealing fashion. This could suggest how modern people of the information age want their information quickly and are not delving into the larger articles the website might have. It is also interesting that the current website available now includes abbreviations and jargon that is popular to Millennials, such as “Dems” and “Factivists.” This could be because the majority of people who use and surf the web frequently are Millennials, or it could also just be because abbreviations and similar jargon has become a part of pop culture, so the Democratic Party is trying to seem modern and relatable.

Even though the changes from 2010 to 2015 are only minimal, this time frame shows us how monumental the shift in technology was during this era. Technology became widely available to the majority of America’s population, and how we wanted our information changed. The layout of the design changed as well as the content, which started to include social media aspects as well as many more visual aspects- showing that our society has become a very visual society who wants information quickly and in a one stop shop.

Design Changes from 1996-present

1996:

1998:

2000:

2002:

2004:

2005:

2010:

2013:

2014:

2015:

Evolution of the Democratic Party’s Website was originally published in Communication & New Media on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.