By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As part of a coordinated effort, nationwide organizers are leading a “Free America Walkout” on January 20th across all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and various international locations, including Canada, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, in response to the Trump administration. The walkout, differing from previous anti-Trump protests, encourages activists to organize literal walkouts from schools, city halls, and federal buildings, as well as holding vigils and sit-ins. Organizers, like Women’s March, are aiming to protest and voice their belief in a free America, which they believe is the only America worth calling great, as a response to various actions by the Trump administration. The White House has expressed a differing viewpoint, as well as the intent of those participating in the walkout.
Read the original article here
Fifty-State ‘Free America Walkout’ Targets Trump, ICE, US Militarization, as this event appears to be, raises a lot of questions. The most immediate is, why did so many people seem to be completely unaware of it? The conversations online suggest a widespread lack of information, with many participants expressing surprise at even hearing about it, some even moments before it was supposed to happen. This begs the question of whether the outreach was inadequate, or if there were other factors at play, such as information being suppressed or manipulated. There’s a definite sense of frustration, with people feeling like they’re missing out on vital information.
The lack of widespread awareness casts a shadow on the effectiveness of the walkout. Many see the value in such actions, but the inability to get the word out, and build momentum is a clear issue. A common sentiment is that this kind of effort needs more preparation, and better communication, including more lead time, better news dissemination, and a way to avoid the pitfalls of platforms that can be easily manipulated or censored. The need for a centralized, reliable source of information, like the website 50501.one, is highlighted, along with a recommendation to check local subreddits and other online sources.
The concerns go beyond the immediate lack of participation. There’s a suspicion that some events might be “set up,” or that “funny business” is afoot, potentially involving actors looking to disrupt or discredit such actions. The sources of the information itself are questioned, such as when the information came from the website “military.com.” The perception of the event is that the organizers did not give people enough time to prepare. The comments illustrate a significant lack of trust in the information channels and a fear of manipulation. The sentiment is that such actions should not be taken lightly.
The goals of the “Free America Walkout” are clear: to express dissatisfaction with the former President, the policies of ICE, and the growing militarization of law enforcement within the United States. The issues that have drawn attention are the same ones as for other protests. The focus on these key issues reflects a broader concern about the direction of the country. This includes a worry that the government, through a myriad of entities, and private sector tech platforms, can manipulate or control the narrative. There’s also a call for accountability, with some participants expressing a desire to see those “puppeteering” the former president held responsible for their actions.
The strategy of a one-day walkout, or even a series of walkouts, also comes under scrutiny. Some commentators suggest that one-day actions are insufficient to create meaningful change. They feel that they send the wrong message. The idea that a single day of inconvenience can force major shifts in policy is seen as unrealistic. The suggestion is that sustained pressure, perhaps through longer-term strikes or more disruptive actions, is needed to effectively challenge the status quo. The comments also stress the need to gain the support of labor unions, and a general strike, in order to make more meaningful impacts.
The online conversation highlights the challenges of organizing and sustaining a protest movement in the modern age. The digital landscape can be a powerful tool for mobilization, but it’s also vulnerable to censorship, manipulation, and misinformation. The calls for better communication, more preparation, and greater trust in the sources of information reflect a growing recognition of these challenges.
The “3.5% Rule” is mentioned – the idea that a movement involving 3.5% of a population can bring about change. The implication is that if the effort can be sustained, change can happen. The “Free America Walkout,” as a starting point, would then be an important step.
A recurring theme is the need for more effective ways to organize outside of platforms that can be manipulated or censored. Some of the comments suggest that the lack of coverage or the suppression of information can undermine the efforts to create the change people want to see. The frustration with the lack of coverage, the limited information, and the rapid pace of events, underscores the difficulty of maintaining a clear understanding of the situation. This makes it challenging for people to assess the situation and participate in a movement.
In summary, the “Free America Walkout” faced significant challenges, from a lack of public awareness to skepticism about its organizers and a debate about its effectiveness. The conversation underscores the importance of effective communication, coordinated planning, and a clear understanding of the political landscape. The event serves as a microcosm of the broader challenges facing social movements today, from the need to build trust and overcome disinformation to the critical question of how to translate protest into meaningful change. Despite the hurdles, the underlying sentiment is clear: there’s a desire for change, and a willingness to fight for it.