Activism in Web 2.0

Are the Internet and social media good or bad? Do they represent an advancement of our society, or the beginning of its collapse? As Howard Rheingold points out in “Net Smart,” the better way to frame the question is to look at what are the good ways to use these tools, and how can we encourage them?

While the increased reach afforded by social media is obvious, Mathias Klang and Nora Madison, in their article, “The Domestication of Online Activism,” argue that various social media platforms impose limits on their use that dilute the effectiveness of online activism. Some of these limits are due to community standards rules set by the platforms. Facebook, for instance, will delete a post promoting breastfeeding if a nipple is visible.

There is also the issue of what will get noticed. Those who post social awareness messages are competing for attention with cute cat videos. I was intrigued enough to watch a video designed to illustrate white privilege yesterday. Half an hour later, I watched a video showing a chubby cat trying to climb into a tiny box (I am not proud of this). The creator of the white privilege post had to fashion the message in an attention-getting way. This struggle is not new, nor is it confined to social media. The only way to prevent this would be to distribute activist messages on dedicated activism channels, which would then not reach a general audience. Preaching activism to an activist audience would defeat the purpose.

I find myself focusing on how to fashion my messages to take advantage of the strengths of social media, rather than lamenting their limits, as Klang and Madison seem to be doing.

Changing media and messages are nothing new. As Rheingold points out, Socrates believed verbal communication was superior to written language. He feared written language would lead to superficial understanding. Written communications have been getting shorter and shorter over the centuries, from books to articles to posts to tweets. We should not forget, though, that through much of human history, few people could read at all. If you’re looking for an ideal period of history where all people took it upon themselves to be fully and accurately informed, I don’t think you’ll find it.

The question is, how much can we expect of the audience? Rheingold outlines the skills we need to cultivate to be good online citizens. The hope is that people will make the effort. Every day in my Facebook feed, I see posts shared by old high school classmates that indicate they have no interest in crap detection. I am engaging in crap detection by checking out their sources, controlling my attention by ignoring certain posts, and tuning my network by unfriending those who continually waste my time. On occasion, I see one of these folks apologize for sharing a piece of fake news after someone has called them out on it. Maybe they’ll be more thorough next time.

Klang and Madison are right to point out that the platforms themselves have power to block or shape messages, and activists should continue to challenge policies that are barriers to certain viewpoints. However, they may be overstating the weaknesses of online activism. While it is true that it does not take much effort to like a post or tweet, or even to share one, each person who does so is investing some social capital. As I watch the posts that my connections like and share, I am continually evaluating their credibility as a filter. I will ignore junk news, whether it is shared by a person I rarely agree with or by a like-minded friend. If someone shares an opposing viewpoint from a reputable source, I’ll give it my time. I don’t want to trap myself in an echo chamber of one-sided discussion.

It is up to me, as a consumer, to engage in this crap detection and tuning of my network. While the term “fake news” has become a crutch to dismiss any opposing viewpoints, at least it brings the need for crap detection to public awareness. I agree with Rheingold that students need to be taught to consider online sources critically. I recently read an article in the American Federation of Teachers magazine outlining these very concepts.

We have a ways to go, but I think we are slowly learning that participating in web 2.0 requires us to become our own fact checkers.

Posted on October 14, 2017, in Social Media. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. I teach my students how to evaluate online sources; however, like you pointed out, many of my Facebook friends (usually those my age or older) post or share news which isn’t credible. Perhaps this is because their generation is not of the Web 2.0 generation and still has the trust that news is actually factual and objective.

    • Good theory–although I wouldn’t say all “digital natives” know how to evaluate sources either. In fact, it’s clear the media organizations are making things more and more difficult for everyone! Right now I feel the only voice I trust is Dan Rather and I’m so glad he’s gone on Facebook to share his takes on the world.

      • I agree! I just watched the new Sarah Silverman show and it made me think of much going on in the U.S. — and this class and how to identify fake news, crap.

  2. Dan,

    I recommend you check out Kitten Lady’s (www.kittenlady.org) social media feeds. There you can watch cute cat videos with a purpose. Kitten Lady fosters kittens until they are old enough to be spayed/neutered and adopted. She posts on Twitter using Instagram, and she also has a Facebook and YouTube channel.

    The biggest “fake news” poster in my family has always been my great aunt. At first, she used to pass fake news via e-mail forwards. Now she uses Facebook. My grandpa asked her many years ago to stop sending him e-mails, and my uncle said he introduced her to Snopes.com, but no luck.

    Snopes is always my first stop whenever I received a forwarded e-mail or a questionable post on Facebook.

    Jennifer R.

    • There will be a continual challenge with fact checking, I think. All it took was one partisan post accusing snopes of liberal bias for a former coworker of mine to discount it entirely as fact-checking option. Good to know there’s a productive cat video site. Ironically, I am allergic to cats and have never had one as a pet!

  3. Dan, I’m actually comforted by your video variety! You might be surprised to see there’s an entire Wikipedia entry on Cats and the Internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_and_the_Internet

    In all seriousness, though, the emphasis on the rhetorical nature of the web you provide in this post is excellent. I feel it always comes back to the debate between Keen and Weinberger and as web users and professional communicators, we need to see both sides and learn from every problematic example. I think the main complication these days is the speed with which these examples are coming at us!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.