You can't ram your cause down people's thought. They don't care and won't be made to care, all of a sudden, because you linked them to it.

Furthermore, Google and Yahoo have nothing to worry, seeing as the slaps have been piled on to that type of linking.

I wouldn't do it because of the marketing stand-point. To me it just seems like a ridiculous way to market your cause. Anyone who's been online knows about the importance of relevance, to the target audience. Porn buffs don't want to be exposed to feminism, just as they were getting their groove on, and, kind of sadly, feminists don't want to be exposed to porn. It's a loose-loose situation.

the whole tagging/linking/social marketing thing is so fascinating to me (if still quite overwhelming). I hadn't thought of this technique as a political tool but a similar thought had occurred to me just out of sheer vanity and desire to boost my web hits.

I guess the interweb is confusing enough without getting lost or stuck on those infamous "most annoying site evers" but I did laugh out loud at the thought of britney crotch taking one to NOW. Laugh in a "you go girl" kinda way.

Also, sidebar, being that it's been a long time since college for me, and that DC while ultra-liberal is also cynical enough that the Womyn-with-a-y groups are not AS public or in your face, the CUSS group was news to me and took me back to days of reading Andrea Dworkin and reading everything out there as subversive or a feminist campaign.  No offense meant Suzanne and other CUSSers; I'm all for not turning myself into a pre-pubescent girl but...I find a sense of humor can be a good political/marketing tool, too and this kinda made me wonder if the group was designed to make people wonder if you were kidding or not. It did for me, which, hey, got me to look at it, so...

My final comment re: "choice" - yah, i might be mad if i were mis-directed, but I'd also have the choice to leave, click out, go elsewhere. To me the overwhelmingly intoxicating thing about the Internet is the getting lost, going left when you thought you were going  straight, and finding those wonderful gems.

Just my two cents. 

washy

http://washwords.wordpress.com

washwords.dc@gmail.com

Hi Melinda,

Just thought I'd chime in here...

I feel that there are big differences between the radfem, uh, "crotch-shot redirection" v. Google Bombing for Choice.

It seems to me that in politically charged cases like abortion rights, those who are Google Bombing for Choice are trying to ensure that people who are using the Internet to get fact-based information are getting it. Incorrect and inflamed propaganda is dangerous, and throwing religious arguments around (which is what the Google bombing pro-life faction has done) isn't the answer for, say, women who are seeking medical advice...

In the case of Britney, it seems that the radfems simply don't like that people want to see the celebrity's nether regions. The platform that Porn = Misogyny is at the root (and this is an opinion, one not universally shared by feminists). They do not agree with and vehemently oppose all the reasons why men and women might go seeking the image, because whatever the "reason" is, it's a destructive one.

Thus (sorry for the long-windedness) --

It is likely that people seeking info. on Roe v. Wade are looking for facts. Google Boming for Choice wants to make those facts readily available.

Whereas it is likely that people seeking an opportunity to see Britney's *ahem* are not looking to be educated, are not seeking facts, and are not going to be receptive to being redirected to NOW.

You ask: "Would you subvert community-agreed uses of technology for your political beliefs?"

Yes, if I thought that was the only way to balance the scales in favor of truth v. opinion being falsely presented as truth.

No, if I was just doing it to give my personal opinion more page views (however noble the reason).

Melinda, what a fantastic post. There's a lot to think about. I do have to laugh at the thought of those people trying to get a better look at the completely tasteless Britney (who even my fourth graders call "gross"). Kristy makes a good point regarding the distinction between different groups doing this type of thing.

No, I would not do it, but when I was a young radical college student marching against the Vietnam War I might have done it if the internet had existed then.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

I have no love or hate for Britney. Her business is in the entertainment field. I have a choice if I want to listen or view her "product." Her primary commodity as far as I can ascertain is her body. Not interested, never have been, never will be.

Having said that, I learned a long time ago that you can't regulate sexual icons or other people's sexual interests. Sexual icons, real or manufactured serve a purpose - they allow in this case young men and old coots to safely explore(in their heads)sexual fantasies.

Who did you lust after when you were 13, 14, 16? Who's photo did you have plastered all over you bedroom or in a scrapbook? And let's be real ladies, who where you thinking about as your finger(s)were busy exploring down below?
For many of us it was a movie, tv or pop star.

What part of choice don't people understand? If I see a link to Denzel Washington and I click it and it takes me to the Betty Crocker web site I am gonna be damn mad and I won't forget who mis-directed me.

It is not fair when "some" conservatives try to promote adult sexual abstinence with my tax dollars nor is it fair when "some" feminists try to bring those with prurient interests to consciousness by redirecting them to other sites.

I trust that when I click on a link it would take me where I want to go AND that the blog or website has honestly directed me to that location. Why is this different than link spamming?

I long for the day when people are able to distinguish between sexual images, erotic material, pornography and violence against women.

I am against violence against women but not all sexual images, not all erotic material and yes, not all pornography is constructed to be a tool of oppression of women. Let the agents of Rosco and Rosie Palmer alone.

I think this is the wrong way to force a point of view. No one like having ideology shoved down their throats.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

I linked to Britney's pictures because I thought that it was a good case study on the benefits of actually retaining pubic hair. (Amy Poehler later mentioned on SNL that pubic hair is good as a backup pair of underwear, if nothing else.) It didn't even occur to me that I'd wind up getting hundreds of hits a day as a result. In the end, I think it made no difference because almost no one seemed to stick around to see what else I had to say. So I would argue that if you really want to change people's minds on a topic, deceptive linking is not a good method.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants