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.
"lazy activism" is a complement. There's an age old word to describe what happens in social media, it's "gossip".
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
All those movements for change in the middle east? Looks like they ended up making matters worse. Arab Spring turned out to be a disaster. Only self-styled "keyboard warriors" engage in slacktivism. 100 people protesting is far more effective and far more meaningful than 100x as many people "liking" something.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
But I really, really want everyone to know how much I care about things that don't affect my own life in any meaningful way!
My thoughts and prayers go out to those stricken by apathy.
"His name was James Damore."
I think it's a logical fallacy to suggest there's only those two choices or that one one of them can be right. As for these two I have seen both happen.
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!
The internet is a container for any kind of content. It can hold anything. Saying that people using it can be lazy means nothing.
It's like the whole argument about games and art. Games can contain anything. They have music, creative artistic images, moving digital sculptures, all mixed with varying degrees of audience participation. Whole TV shows and movies are occasionally enclosed in game content. They can be anything, and are made into new things all the time.
The internet is that, and more - it's the combination of whatever anyone chooses to share over certain protocols, and even the protocols can change. It can and likely will become almost anything. Are people using it frequently lazy and ineffective at some tasks? Yes - and people everywhere using virtually all tools are also frequently lazy and ineffective.
Did anyone expect the internet to somehow make people especially efficient or effective at every task? Just because someone reads newspapers, that won't make them any better at journalism - same with internet and activism. More opportunities to learn, but it's not a school, and even specialized schools don't have the greatest correlation in reliably measurable improvement.
The only thing you should expect is that using the internet will likely make some folks better at using the internet. Until the internet changes. Everything else is just bonus.
I wish to voice my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Bill. I ask that you reject the Trans Pacific Partnership until proper time has been given for our citizens to analyse it's effect.
Considering there are roughly thirty chapters and 6000 pages in this Trade Agreement I would be expecting it to be scrutinised and proper time for the ramifications to be thoughly assessed and not rushed passed the house, considering there is no emergency that it addresses.
As an important part of a functioning democracy, citizens should be allowed to veiw all documents being presented to the parliment so that the impact on our society can be evaluated. The secrecy that has shoulded this bill over the last few years of it's construction followed by the limited time granted, relative to the amount of pages in the Bill, to allow for such analysis subverts the intention of democratic process.
As our representatives you are bound to provide 'Responsible Government' to citizens. Passing a Bill that cannot be evaluated is not a form of responsible government, for this reason alone the Bill should be rejected.
I would like the house to go further and introduce laws, practises or other available legislative instruments that prevent the rushing any legislation into law that has a detremental effect to the country and, that in the event of any emergency legislation passed as law, a mandatory sunset period that has the duration of the government that sponsors the bill.
The other issues rasied by segments of the TPP leaked on the Internet that effectively give away the effective sovreignty of our nation, through Investor State Dispute Settlements, is disturbing. Chilling effects on the Health, intellectual property and many other things that are nation destroying.
For these reasons, and many more, I ask you to defeat the TPP passing into law, and enact structures that prevent these kinds of agreements ever being rushed through the House.
As to specific parts of the agreement I object to the following clauses and seek their removal from any finalized agreement:
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
#nothelping ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Apart from mindless regurgitation of cute aphorism is there any actual reason that apathy is better than good intentions?
SJW n. One who posts facts.