what they had to say occupyoakland

What they had to say

This is about retweeting and one way it can be important. It is also a story -- a story about OccupyOakland -- since often the importance of retweeting is not understood apart from the story or stream of communications of which it is part. I tell the story in the first person to cover briefly events that I have documented more fully elsewhere. (Boynton, 2011)

Beginning

They said we were a health hazard even when their public health department said we were not.

They said we were a crime problem even though the police department reported a 19% decrease in crime.

They said the citizens did not want us to stay even though more than 80% disapproved of what they were doing.

Then October 25

Without warning they attacked. Five hundred police dressed in body armor and gas masks and armed with tear gas and batons attacked. They pushed, beat, handcuffed, and tear gassed until the 'occupation' was ended. Many were injured. Scott Olsen was hit by a teargas cannister and rushed to the hospital with a serious head wound. They swept all of our belongings into the trash.

Hundreds of the occupy protestors returned in the evening and again were brutalized by the police.

And then they had the temerity to claim there was no police brutality.

October 26

But the photos and the videos were too many and too vicious. Locally the refrain was "the Oakland police shot a #OccupyOakland protester in the head!!!! -- video looks like a warzone," which was a Twitter message retweeted over and over. Newspapers and television across the nation picked up the story. The criticism was overwhelming.

October 27

The mayor then did what she had to do. The police chief 'resigned.' She said she too was a supporter of the 99% and that OccupyOakland could return to the park.

And this is what they had to say that day.

1332 times: "We received a request from US law enforcement to remove YouTube videos of police brutality." http://t.co/xYq2TbUZ #OccupyOakland

Retweeted 1332 times this sentence went to the world. We said the police brutalized us, and they tried to cover it up. They were not successful because Google refused the request.

1444 times: This is epic. Protesters in Tahrir tomorrow will march to the US embassy to protest the violent crackdown of #occupyoakland protests.

This is epic -- retweeted 1444 times. We in Oakland are being joined by Egyptians in Tahrir square.

564 times: #OccupyOakland, I am saddened & angry at your treatment by the police. I will come tomorrow to Oakland & stand with you.

This phrase was retweeted 564 times, and #standwithoakland became a hashtag used 168 times. We are joined by the world.

471 times: Oakland Mayor backs down, says she supports 99% movement and will minimize police presence http://t.co/qVyq5BHu #occupyoakland

The mayor backs down retweeted 471 times in this form and another 130 times in small variations.

#OccupyOakland disassembles fence keeping them out of park,then turns it into a sculpture http://t.co/NqFAowv5 HT @susie_c

You raid them, gas them, shoot them, and #OccupyOakland builds you a sculpture. http://t.co/NMZW3CBZ HT @GonzOakland

The fence -- the police barrier to our entrance to the park -- is down, and we have converted it into a sculpture.

137 times: So LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.The #OPD attacked the #OccupyOakland camp & shot an Iraq vet IN THE HEAD to *prevent* violence and injuries...

And 137 times -- they did this to prevent violence and injuries?

What they were saying was vindication. We were gassed and beaten, and they could not cover it up. We are joined by the world. They had to back down. And we converted their barrier into a work of art. We are vindicated. It is just what had to be said.

What is the retweeting? On October 27 there were 44,275 Twitter messages that included #OccupyOakland. Of those 2814 were retweeted 30,412 times. The original messages and the retweets were 75% of the 44,275 messages. How should we understand this?

Resonates -- I read it. It said exactly what I felt, but it said it better than I could. So I wanted to send it to my friends who follow me. "This is epic." Quoting YouTube is exactly how it should be said. "You raid them, gas, them, shoot them, and #OccupyOakland builds you a sculpture." How could I write that any better? And "So LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT . . . to *prevent* violence and injuries." It is well said. It is what I would have said. Each resonates for some of the celebrants.

Retweeting

I have investigated retweeting from a number of different angles.

First, I was surprised at the reach of a simple message that was retweeted only a few times in Sarah Palin did what? (Boynton, March 16, 2010) "Sarah Palin Crossed border for Canadian health care." It was retweeted 367 times, and their followers numbered 366,636.

Then I was very surprised when I found that Twitter messages at the inception of revolts in Bahrain, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Wisconsin were between 60% and 70% retweets when researching "RT @bobboynton new media and the revolting middle east" that I presented at the 2011 meeting of the International Studies Association. (Boynton, 2011) Retweets are only about 6% of all Twitter messages. I argued this significant deviation could be understood as constituting a community. It was a community between the originator, and the reader, and the followers to whom the reader sent the message. But it was a bigger community than that. It was constituting a community to stand against tyranny and the injuries tyrants would inflict -- whether in Syria or Oakland.

I analyzed how the spread could occur so quickly in a piece about going viral. Now that's going viral: #ScariestWordsEver "President Palin." It was the kind of word game played on Twitter. Someone starts a hashtag like #ScariestWordsEver and you get to fill in what those scariest words are. "President Palin" were the scariest words in 6,500 Twitter messages. What I wanted to show was how 'going viral' as it is used in characterizing epidemics does not work with Twitter communication because the spread of communication on Twitter, retweeting, does not operate as does the spread of diseases. Different assumptions/constraints characterize the two.

In "Retweeting in big numbers" (Boynton, 11/04/2011) I looked at the character of following that led to more and fewer retweets. Two Twitter messages were so similar it was hard to distinguish them. One was retweeted 453 times. The other was retweeted 8,794 times. It was not the sentiment. They were the same. What was different was how one would follow the two writers. One was news -- sending out messages about all sorts of subjects. The other was expressive; saying what you wanted to say but saying it better.

And that is just the point of this analysis -- resonates. Retweeting is about messages that resonate. That resonating is in the moment. We suffered. Our suffering was denied. But in the end we were vindicated. The world joined us. The mayor/tyrant had to back down. It was a moment. A moment of explosion of celebration. Celebration that was enshrined in retweets. But it is in the moment. It is unlikely, for example, that President Palin resonates today as it did in February 2011. In February 2011 there were roughly 12,500 messages a day mentioning Palin. Today it is only about 3,000. The moment is surely gone.

I should also note that it makes sending a message easier. Just retweet.

References

Boynton, G. R. (2011) When they back down -- That's when #3

Boynton, (March 16, 2010) Sarah Palin did what? The importance of redundancy

Boynton (2011) RT @bobboynton new media and the revolting middle east

Boynton ( 2011) Now that's going viral: #ScariestWordsEver "President Palin"

Boynton ( 11/04/2011) Rewteeting in big numbers