Slacktivism
By Tara Hoskin
The invention of social media has led people to be more informed on both political and human rights issues worldwide. Forty years ago, we relied on newspapers and radio stations to let us know what was happening on the other side of the world. Now, we can open up Instagram and watch someone livestream newsworthy events as they happen. However, it is unfair to compare these two things as the spread of information online has different implications than that of traditional media.
This has created a unique experience for young activists who find themselves online. We are receiving information about issues differently and also have the means to spread this information much further. It has also given rise to a new type of activism known as Social Media Activism, sometimes referred to as Slacktivism by those less in favour of the phenomenon.
There are obvious benefits to being able to spread important information further, having a platform to discuss issues with like-minded individuals and to utilize people power. Take the Arab Spring Protests for example when social media enabled people to spread information about revolutionary protests that were happening in the Middle East and North Africa from 2010-2012. The important thing to note here is that although some of these protests did utilize social media for organisational purposes the actual action happened on the streets. Also, the impact of social media on these protests is still highly debated. There are serious problems with activism that is primarily online such as a lack of complexity, a false sense of accomplishment, and the danger of spreading disinformation.
How quickly these stories can be shared is both a positive and negative thing. It means that for people to engage with this content it must be short, snappy, and shareable. This may work when trying to market a product however it can be detrimental when trying to create a conversation around a social issue. In order for stories to get the most reach, they can be oversimplified and important context is often left out. Take for example the #blackouttuesday movement, in which participants posted a black square to show support for the Black Lives Matter campaign. I myself took part in this, however upon reflecting I see as a white person how futile this action was in the fight against racism. It did not force me to question my privilege, donate to people fighting racism, or even so much as question the root of the problem. My post did not contribute much awareness to anyone’s knowledge nor did it give context to the problem at hand. It was easy to share, and I believed that by doing so I was standing up for something. But we must ask ourselves what these types of posts actually do to propel social change, or are they simply an easy trend to feel like you have done something?
One of the few direct actions that can be taken online is to sign petitions. However, new research suggests that the power of petitions to make real change is limited. Petitions are important for raising awareness of an issue, but they are not legally binding and in lots of cases, even with garnered media attention, the governments they are directed at do not pay attention to them. However, the biggest problem in my opinion with online petitions is that they can lure people into a false sense of creating change. If you sign a petition you are simply encouraged to share it with your friends and move on. Surely someone else will do something about the issue then, right? Unfortunately, this is wrong. A petition is not a magic solution to creating change. Campaigning for change takes lots of hard work and often many different types of actions such as boycotting, a social discussion, policy change, and grassroots protest. By advertising petitions as the be-all-and-end-all of direct-action, online activism falls short in creating lasting change.
Lots of the types of activism posts we see online are infographics with compelling statistics and startling facts. They rely heavily on evoking emotions to get people to care. This tactic works and can be successful when used for good but on the other hand, it can be utilized just as easily by groups with less than strong morals. These types of posts are also easily shareable and have the potential to go viral. When George Nkencho was tragically killed by Gardaí in Dublin last year, false information quickly spread on social media about Mr. Nkencho having previous convictions. This type of disinformation being spread relies on playing on people’s emotions without considering fact. Without doing background checks on the organisations we share information from or engaging in some form of fact-checking, it creates a dangerous atmosphere in which information is not shared on a factual basis but that of an emotional one.
This article is not meant to shun all online activism or to discourage people from raising awareness about issues they are passionate about, rather than to question what is the most effective way to do this. If we question the way we go about creating change, the more likely we are to create change that will last.
