Post #1: The Good and the Bad: Social Media “Slacktivism”

THE BAD:

Within the New Yorker article “Small Change,” Malcom Gladwell breaks down some of the issues with social media-based activism. One of the main takeaways from the article is that social media participation and interconnectivity is a platform that supports the formation of many weak social ties. This is compared to some of the strong interpersonal social ties that have fuelled activism in the past. For example, the sit in at the Woolworth’s in downtown Greensboro on February 1,1960 was organized by 4 university friends who were involved in their church, school, community, and the affirmative action movement.

Gladwell concludes that current social media-based networks of social connectivity that are decentralized and non-hierarchical can affect change but only in minor, insignificant ways that are subject to trends, short attention spans, and band-wagon activism. One of the examples that he uses to demonstrate the silly and inconsequential types of causes that social media can snowball into significance is the movement that became viral to return a businessman’s phone to him after it had been left in a taxi and appropriated by a teenage girl in New York. Through a Facebook campaign, and twitter-based harassment of this girl, the return of his phone and the arrest of the girl became possible. This, as Gladwell points out, is an example of the banal causes that can become popularized and advocated for by people who are enabled by social media to feel as though they are making a social difference. This is certainly an issue.

There are also legitimate causes that become trivialized by social activism and participation that is relatively meaningless and minor and does nothing to actually address a large and legitimate issue at hand (Facebook likes and hashtags, for example) and may actually detract from legitimate activism and charity. There are many examples of “activism” from people who lack real commitment, care only about self-satisfaction, and don’t contribute to meaningful change.

EXAMPLE: UNICEF

In 2013, a campaign by UNICEF Sweden stated that “Likes don’t save lives. Money does.” This campaign asserted that Likes on Facebook are all well and good but that people need to acknowledge that donating money is how UNICEF is actually able to operate and help people in need. While this campaign wasn’t scathing against Facebook likes, it did assert that people can often feel like they’re doing more than they actually are by liking. The following is a video that accompanied this campaign:

There are problems with weak social ties of platforms such as Facebook and Twitter promoting the idea of making a contribution to a legitimate cause through a simple action such as a “LIKE” that allows individuals to pat themselves on the back for a job well done when nothing has been accomplished, no comprehensive information has been used to educate anyone, and the problem remains or worsens. I have no issue with superficial participation in a cause in and of itself – such as changing one’s Facebook profile to have a rainbow filter in order to celebrate the same-sex marriage law after it was was upheld in the United States in 2015. This is a sign of support (albeit very minimal participatory support). Participation in these types of ways is fine. However, engagement and action need to follow. I do have an issue when individuals exaggerate their involvement in a cause (with a low risk high “reward” mentality) and also when these superficial acts of participation actually detract from contribution to charities and organizations that can affect real change and ultimately support the status quo.

I view the Facebook filter trends as analogous to someone wearing a pin to support the fight against breast cancer or a poppy during Remembrance Day. While in and of themselves, these acts do not raise funding or inform people of a complex issue, they are acts of support that are minimal in effort and do show solidarity and support for a cause, such as liking a Facebook page. The double edged sword of these types of actions becomes evident if people tout these physical pins and poppies as well as Facebook filters and hashtags as sufficient in and of themselves for combatting or supporting issues such as gay rights, war, violence, and inequality. They are a good tool but they should not be the only tool.

References:

H. (2015, July 28). Activism or Slacktivism: Can Social Media Cause Social Change? Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.socialmediatoday.com/marketing/hbaker/2015-07-27/activism-or-slacktivism-can-social-media-cause-social-change

Essig, K. (n.d.). Activism Or Slacktivism? How Social Media Hurts And Helps Student Activism. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/activism-or-slacktivism-how-social-media-hurts-and-helps-student-activism

Gladwell, M. (2015, May 12). Small Change. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell

Khazan, O. (2013, April 30). UNICEF Tells Slacktivists: Give Money, Not Facebook Likes. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/unicef-tells-slacktivists-give-money-not-facebook-likes/275429/

U. (2013, April 23). Likes don't save lives - UNICEF Sweden TV commercial. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_M0SDk3ZaM

The problem with #slacktivism - Macleans.ca. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=5D92EC12C9C44ECFA37535A129133343&CID=34F3A5A747886DCC0F3CAFE046B96CC5&rd=1&h=9Ej0DUo96RJfrgmccdQpgS5jgqPAFa5LZXI2AncYmcw&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fwww.macleans.ca%2fsociety%2fthe-real-problem-with-slacktivism%2f&p=DevEx,5293.1