Posted by JJ Miller
I began an internship/volunteer role with a county-level political party this week. My role is to build reach and produce content for their social media platforms. I expect to experience the extremes of all online activism in the next few weeks. My interest in online activism began a few years ago when I realized impact of quick spreading information. As much negativity that comes with it, it is also does help to educate and rally people together. I am now calling it digital canvassing. I thought I was clever creating the term, but it actually does exist and has become widely used, especially leading up to the 2016 election. The power of social media tools for facilitating political participation and protest also open the door to use social media as surveillance, repression, censorship, and trolling. Since the introduction to Web 2.0 into our political climate, we’ve seen a rise in issues related to cyberbullying and trolling. (Preface: A decade of Web 2.0 – Reflections, critical perspectives, and beyond). The more volatile our political climate becomes, the more we see how the internet, especially social media, enables individuals to show the cruelest versions of themselves. However, we also get to see the best by stories and communications of support, cooperation, and collaboration.
Howard Rheingold, in Net Smart, discusses convergence culture depends upon what Pierre Lévy calls “collective intelligence”, in reference to Wikipedia. This idea “refers to a situation where nobody knows everything, everyone knows something, and what any given member knows is accessible to any other member upon request on an ad hoc base.” (Rheingold, 2014, p. 159) This type of collaboration goes well beyond Wikipedia and has been studied in many different social situations. In an interview with Lévy, Rheingold asked about “the skills needed to participate in and instigate collective intelligence activity.” The answer exhibits the way we interact on social media platforms or through blogging. It is a creating a “synergy between personal knowledge and collective knowledge management.” (Rheingold, 2014, p. 160). Our collective intelligence is used in online activism. It may be part of its foundation. The positive desired outcome is the sharing information to create a likeminded group and to gain members. However, we’ve also witnessed the ability to troll each other in these interactions which then becomes divisive.
Merriam-Webster defines power as (entry one of three), “1a(1): ability to act of produce an effect, 1a(2): ability to get extra-base hits, or 1a(3): capacity for being acted upon or undergoing an effect.” (Power) Understanding that by definition, power is capacity to elicit effect, conveys that power should not necessarily be considered a positive thing. The power of online activism is its capacity for producing effect, positive and negative. Since our immersion into Web 2.0, online activism, especially political, has become a daily, sometimes hourly bombardment. Before the Web, especially, Web 2.0, we were able to limit our political driven activism exposure to television commercials (usually only aired near elections), some print materials, or door-to-door canvassers. Now, we can’t run away from it. Now, is the power of the online activism encouraging our political engagement and encouraging us to vote, or is it deteriorating our moral so severely that we chose to not engage at all?
Is freedom of speech, in coordination with online activism, creating a healthy functioning collective intelligence? While this could be argued to great lengths and we still wouldn’t all agree, is that the point? The opening line in an article in Forbes discussing the internet and activism states, “How we choose to act in extreme circumstances helps to define our character.” The article goes on to easily explain how quickly we can find our own collective in the digital world. From joining Green Peace to save the world or to join a terrorist organization, it is easy to find your own collective. (The internet and the next generation of activism) We’ve had conversations resulting from blogs this semester surrounding the idea, ‘if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say it at all.” At what point are our words creating divisive online activism and actually causing great harm? I anticipate this question only becoming more difficult to simply answer as our interaction with online activism grows. I think it is better to kind and if you can’t be kind, be silent.