Lists of Interest for OWS Communicators

This post is in part an effort to preserve some of the conversation from the occu-communicators meeting described in the following post.

Who gets to speak on behalf of OWS?

  • Occupy Wall Street Journal
  • Livestreamers
  • Tweetboat
  • ComHub – sms messaging
  • Archives
  • Tidal (theory journal)
  • Occupy Stories
  • Various Facebook Pages
  • Regional Occupy Sites
  • The Project Project
  • Your Inbox: Occupied
  • InterOcc
  • Adbusters

Who else? Who shouldn’t be on this list?

How are Occupiers communicating?

  • Email listservs
  • Mass emails
  • Online forums
  • Facebook comment threads
  • Twitter
  • Youtube videos
  • Livestream videos
  • Feature length films and documentaries
  • Dead trees
  • T-shirts
  • Waves of light bounced off buildings
  • Postering
  • Stickers
  • RSS feeds
  • Brochure websites
  • Text messaging lists
  • Placing stories in mass media (=public relations)
  • Placing stories in alternative media (=easier but less effective public relations)
  • Self produced television shows in public access
  • Micro-radio broadcasting
  • Live music, songwriting
  • Poetry
  • Puppetry
  • Theater
  • Individual and group blogging

 What else?

Categories of Online Tools that Tech Ops (and others) Create, Manage, and/or Fantasize About

  1. Collaborative (foster internal OWS collaboration or collaboration for any purpose)
  2. Tactical (used for direct actions or to implement a real world project)
  3. Broadcasting (carry our voice further)
  4. Administrative (record keeping, lists)
  5. Alternatives (ways of creating non-capitalist options for consuming, producing, living)

Bonus Questions

  1. How is messaging being tested for impact, refined, and tested again?
  2. Does anyone keep record of what messaging works best, using A/B testing?
  3. Is there any functional method of keeping multiple voices (voluntarily) coordinated?
  4. If you wanted to ‘conform’ to OWS messaging priorities, where could you find out what they were on any given day?



  1. Charles Lenchner

    During the meeting, folks placed a red dot on an ‘engagement ladder’ to reflect “where OWS prioritizes its communication efforts or does best with those efforts.” Out of 17 dots total, 14 were for those already show up (at least once) but only 3 for those who sympathize but haven’t come out yet. The implication is that we spend an enormous amount of time talking to ourselves without an appropriate emphasis on growing our ranks or engaging new people.

  2. Owen

    I wonder about the efficacy of a General Assembly for Tech. Of course it would be of value and my intention here is not to question it but also consider a coordinated attempt of identifying tech needs/problems with other groups on a personal level. This takes time and is not the same as a meeting but in a sense keeps things horizontal and forges real relationships that are flexible.

    So much of OWS is about trying to connect people together to foster a stronger movement. I would hope that this would also be encouraged as part of an ongoing long term plan.