While Twitter and other social media platforms increase the awareness of issues and events in the United States, I am not convinced by their effectiveness. Gaining awareness is great, and Twitter allows you to keep updated, but I think it decreases the connection between people and the whatever the issue may be. With #Ferguson, many people took to Twitter to protest police brutality against African Americans. Using the hashtag, people could see other people’s thoughts on the issue and any updates regarding the riots. One point that was brought up in class was that Twitter can also act as a wormhole. It is a useful and easy way to stay updated, but there is so much fake news out there and it is easy to get caught up in something that may not even be true.
Social media has changed the way people protest, and it makes “protesting” more accessible, but I don’t believe it is more effective than a traditional grass-roots campaign. Social media can provide scale to a protest, but it does not ignite the same emotion and passion as being part of a grass-roots campaign. Social media movements lack the organization and structure that every protest needs to be effective. Communicating via social media will also never be a substitute for human interaction because the connection is so limited. My issue with social media protests is that they garner all this excitement, which eventually wears out as soon as the next big issue comes up, which people move on to. People will sit at their computer and phone and post something and then go on with their day. What is that actually doing to help the situation? If you want to see or be part of significant change in the world, hiding behind a phone will achieve nothing except back-and-forth arguing down a wormhole of posts. It is natural to want other people to hear out your opinion, but as cliché as it is, actions will always speak louder than words on a screen.
Despite my cynical view of #hashtag activism, there has been some success due to protests, like #Ferguson and #OscarsSoWhite, which have produced progress in the right directions. This past week, Michael Slager was sentenced to twenty years in prison for shooting Walter Scott, who was unarmed and running away. The millions of social media posts have played a part because everyone is aware of how bad it really is. While twenty years is an extremely light sentence for murder, it is far better than officers not even getting convicted.
I totally agree. I think if social media is used as a tool to aid the movement on the ground, like creating events or spreading the word about actions happening, that is certainly positive. I also think it can be used to raise awareness for people who are ignorant to issues. That being said, I definitely think social media activism cannot be solely virtual to be effective. Campaigns that are exclusively online allow people to hide behind the screen and pledge allyship without having to actually commit or put themselves in vulnerable places. I think this speaks to commitment as well. Someone can profess their support for a movement online, and then operate in their real lives in a different way, without any repercussions. Hashtag activism and social media protest has very little risk associated with it, and while this can entice more people into the movement, it also allows people to be complacent in real life while still feeling the gratification of having supported the cause online. I don’t think it is bad or counterproductive at all for people to share articles, change their cover photos to a filter supporting a cause, or use hashtags to show support to a movement. I just do not think it stands on its own as a movement, and I do not think it can create real change.
I agree in that hashtag activism is not all its cracked up to be. There are certain aspects that Twitter and other social media outlets cannot provide when attempting to create serious change. Grass-root campaigns and on the ground protests say a lot more than someone sitting behind their computer. On the ground protests leave a greater lasting impression because it is a news feed that gets lost in the Twittersphere over time. If mass demonstrations are large enough, they garner the attention of the media allowing a greater audience to hear and learn about the protest. Many bystanders may discredit Twitter users because of potential fake news creating arguments that lead to Sam’s idea of Twitter wormholes.
I definitely agree with both your points and I think the aspect of anonymity is important. For most social media accounts, people are posting privately to a certain group of people who they want to give access to. The risk/reward of posting to a set number of “friends” is just not there. Whatever you post, you can delete, or otherwise, hide behind your screen. @Lwgaglia- I think your point “tag activism and social media protest has very little risk associated with it, and while this can entice more people into the movement, it also allows people to be complacent in real life while still feeling the gratification of having supported the cause online” is spot on. Posting your opinion is a lazy and complacent attempt at changing other people’s opinions. The self-gratification aspect of it is growing. In mainstream society, social media is taking over people’s lives because they want that feeling of gratification from followers. It leads people to post pictures or updates solely for “likes”.
It’s also interesting to note how online “discourse” can be divisive in its own right. For many, anonymity may present an opportunity to bring the conversation from civil to hateful. This cycle can become exacerbated and portray an image of extreme division when in reality it may be two sides on the fringes taking the conversation to a different level. Taking a snippet of a Twitter conversation can often mislabel an event and really change people’s opinions about a movement or rally.
The role of hashtag activism has definitely transformed, especially within the past couple years on Twitter, and extending to posting Facebook statuses, changing profile pictures in solidarity, etc. I’m glad you do bring up two “successes” of hashtag activism (#Ferguson and #OscarsSoWhite ), but I agree that online activism doesn’t necessarily hold the same gravity as a grass-roots movement. However, I feel that many of the physical protests that have occurred within the past few years also feel a little lackluster, in the same way online where people can move on as soon as the “event” feels over. For example, the Women’s March, the March on Science, and numerous Climate Marches have all sprung up as ways for physical bodies to occupy space in a way that references the 1960s March on Washington, but these protests feel like they give people a “pass” as activists, in a similar way of moving on from the conversation online. When there’s thousands of people holding similar signs in one protest that only lasts a few hours, do their words necessarily speak much louder than their Tweets (which also get lost in a sea of other voices)?