Slashdot Mirror
Does the Internet Spur Social Change, Or Lazy Activism? (usc.edu)
An anonymous reader writes: If you participate in social media, you've probably noticed the flood of posts that happen any time a social issue becomes prominent in the news. Whether it's sharing a supportive picture, changing their profile, or signing a petition, users flock to these causes. But are they really doing anything useful? An article from USC Dornsife debates whether this form of "lazy activism" is actually effective in pushing social change. It's been long established that people are surrounded by a "filter bubble" online, where they're only exposed to viewpoints they already agree with. There's also the question of whether liking something on Facebook makes you less likely to contribute to a cause in more substantive ways.
On the other hand, this type of internet activism does do what social networks are designed for: building a community. Strangers with the same views can more easily organize into groups, and groups of a certain size are heard by lawmakers, regardless of their origin. Plus, engaging in small, low-risk activism does make people more likely to engage in further activism with more impact. The real question we need to answer is whether the smaller and more ephemeral groups are doing more good than harm. For now, it's clear that protesting face-to-face is far more effective than gathering in a chat room — but at the same time, hacktivism is growing in popularity as well. It may eventually have a similar effect to sit-ins and picket lines as our culture moves more and more online.
On the other hand, this type of internet activism does do what social networks are designed for: building a community. Strangers with the same views can more easily organize into groups, and groups of a certain size are heard by lawmakers, regardless of their origin. Plus, engaging in small, low-risk activism does make people more likely to engage in further activism with more impact. The real question we need to answer is whether the smaller and more ephemeral groups are doing more good than harm. For now, it's clear that protesting face-to-face is far more effective than gathering in a chat room — but at the same time, hacktivism is growing in popularity as well. It may eventually have a similar effect to sit-ins and picket lines as our culture moves more and more online.
It's also social signaling of one's virtue, and a way of expressing personal psychological issues. Many "activists" are deeply angry and unhappy people, and their fervor is not really about the subject of their activism.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
For now, it's clear that protesting face-to-face is far more effective than gathering in a chat room
This quote from TFA says it all: what happens on the Internet is of little relative value compared to what actual people do in the Real World, because there is little to no risk involved in anything you do on the Internet,and if you protest in the Real World? You may get arrested, or even killed, depending on where in the world you are. Words on a screen don't mean a whole hell of a lot compared to actual physical action because words on a screen can be easily ignored. Oppressive governments are not overthrown with posts on an Internet forum, and no real social change occurs because 100,000 people signed an online petition, not unless the powers-that-be receiving said petition are holding themselves to a set of rules that means they're willing to take said petition seriously. The Internet gives you the illusion of making a difference; if you want to make a real difference, you have to do something in the real world; ISIS may use the Internet to radicalize people who are susceptible to being radicalized, for instance, but the rest of the world isn't going to defeat ISIS by posting in online forums or signing online petitions. That all being said: Does getting people 'talking' have any value at all? Yes, it does. But if posting on the Internet is all you ever do, and you never get out of your chair, go outside, and actually do something? Then you're just kidding yourself. The Internet is now what people sitting in a living room discussing things over drinks used to be; it's all fine-and-dandy to talk over a glass of wine about how you think the human rights abuses in some far-off country is terrible and what you think should be done about it, and a far, far different thing to actually get out of bed the next morning and go do something about it. Most people won't, they're satisfied with the illusion that signing some online petition or voicing their opinion on Reddit 'made a difference'.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It's been long established that people are surrounded by a "filter bubble" online, where they're only exposed to viewpoints they already agree with.
As opposed to people consuming traditional media, who are exposed to a healthy broad range of viewpoints and in-depth analysis of The Truth. Give me a break. Personally, I find exchanging ideas and arguing with people holding opposing viewpoints to be rather educational, and that's something that the internet offers but traditional media can't. Online discussions have made me rethink my deeply-held beliefs, forced me to re-examine my arguments, changed my opinion on several occasions, and offered me a more nuanced view of those with opposing viewpoints, and insight into their lines of reasoning. At the very least it has made me critical of anything that is offered up as "evidence". And that's something that I only very rarely get in traditional media. A newspaper article can offer up bullshit statistics as "facts", the same statistics online will be picked apart, debunked, and countered with other data in no time.
But you're right: this is still just talking, not protesting.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...