A Positive Take On Slacktivism

Slacktivism is the self-deluded idea that by liking, sharing or retweeting something you are helping out. We’ve probably all been there at some point. The term derives from the combination of the words ‘slacker’ and ‘activism’, to point out the little effort needed from participants to involve in this virtual support for a social cause. To clarify this phenomenon, I will start with describing a few examples.

If you missed this one, you have been living under a virtual stone: the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, which resulted in your Facebook timeline being full of videos of your friends pouring a bucket full of ice cubes over themselves. At the end of the video, people challenged some of their own friends to do the same. During July and August 2014, this challenge went extremely viral all over the world. The idea behind the challenge was encouraging donations to research on the disease ALS, amytrophic lateral sclerosis, which results in weakness of the muscles (with a chance of death).

A participant of the Ice Bucket Challenge in the heat (or cold?) of the moment

Another example of slacktivism regards the online support after the 2015’s Paris attacks. Facebook users massively changed their profile photos into the French flag, to either show respect to the victims of these horrible attacks, to support their friends and family or just to show that they care about what happened.

My brother's Facebook profile photo on November 16, 2015

There has been a lot of criticism of slacktivism: these internet-based social awareness campaigns are seen as a lazy way of showing your support and would be ‘killing’ historical forms of activism, like protests, marching and public speaking. It would just be an easy way out for people to show that they care.

I do agree with the criticism of slacktivism to a certain extent. This online attention on social causes is far from matching the real life work, like going out on the streets or actually donating money to the organization. Of course this is frustrating and simply annoying for the people who participate in political activism in the real world. 

But here’s the thing: slacktivism actually does something. I think if all these forms of slacktivism had not happened – which is unthinkable in the digital era we live in – there would have been much less awareness on many issues. How hard your criticism on slacktivism may be, you can’t deny the fact that people do get more aware. Sure, in case of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, a lot of attention was pointed at popularity of the videos and the excitement behind pouring a bucket of ice cubes over yourself. However, on top of more or less 100 million dollars in donations, many people learned about this disease for the first time. The campaign informed a huge number of people all over the world and created higher awareness to the disease. 

Through slacktivism, more and more people get involved in social issues. This way, it gets easier to get what needs to get accomplished, accomplished. It’s not about the fact that sharing an article about climate change is not the same as donating to the organization behind the article. It’s about the synergy of all these small cases where awareness is created, which ultimately results in actual change, either on a political level or on a personal level.

I want to point out one last thing: the cynics of slacktivism should not stop expressing their critics. Slacktivism creating awareness is fantastic, but isn’t enough to actual get us somewhere. It’s great how people can come together over a cause, either by organizing a protest against TTIP on the streets, or by sharing an online petition against it on Facebook. I rather see this, than another article about the physical transformation of the Kardashian family.

What I’m trying to say is that cynics should keep speaking out against slacktivism, because they will address people who realize they need to do more in terms of actual activism. As much as these cynics might disagree, your online voice does draw awareness to the cause you choose to support.

Facebook divides society

How tragedies change social networks’ agenda

On the 6^th of February French satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” published the comic strips about the Russian plane, which has been blown up by terrorists. “Dangers of Russian low-cost airlines, I should have taken Air Cocaine”, says one cartoon.

These drawings have been placed on the last page of the newspaper under the heading “Covers, which we decided not to use”. There are usually drawings, which journalists offered for the title page, but then they have been rejected. However, these comic strips provoked a wage of criticism from Russian officials, as well as a storm of indignation among Russian users in social networks.

"Are you still Charlie?"

In two weeks the same newspaper publishes the comic stripes about terror attacks in Paris and what do we see? The opposite reaction of the French society.

“The only thing, which can help us, is humor. They attacked French way of life, we fight them with unity, tolerance and caricatures of ourselves. We are proud of our culture but we can still laugh about France. Caricatures are made to represent French routine: drink wine, eat frogs and dance late”, says a student from France Eliza Chasal.

Does social networks really care?

Different reactions show how much the societies are polarized. The same has been proved by Facebook initiative to let its users to pay tribute to the French victims. People immediately started to change the photos of their profiles to pictures showing the French flag Some of them changed it back the following day. 

The users who have done it were sure that it was a way of support. Yet there were a lot of people who had another opinion: popped-up “support” of France in social media is just a way to show your Facebook friends in News feed that you are not indifferent. In fact, there is nothing but self-satisfaction – to show your friends’ list that you do have values. That all social psychologist Eugene Medresh calls “unhealthy reality” – “people try strength of their sympathy”.

Moreover, some people assumed that Zuckerberg’s team elects tragedies for emotional experience. In this case no one could explain why nor Facebook neither any other media reacted to the terror attack in the Kenyan school. So, there is no freedom of choice for users, the social network defines the intensity of mourning for victims and the events that they could support. 

Not all french people were pleased with the new tool of Facebook

As the media experts say, social network is, first of all, a commercial product. If such a button of sympathy appears, it is necessary for somebody to launch it. More clicks – more money. Facebook profits from the tragedy: they have launched a special campaign to support the Parisians to gather user data for marketers and advertisers. There is also the political context: which countries deserve the giant social network’s attention. Experts call this problem “Euro-centrism”, defined as a worldview, which places overemphasised importance on the West.

Nevertheless, Facebook could become a tool, which will decide the problem of polarized groups and unit people if it will start a multinational company. The vice President of Growth at Facebook Alex Schultz has already claimed about this. “We'll also continue to explore how we can help people show support for the things they care about through their Facebook profiles, which we did in the case for Paris, too”, says Schultz. 

Presumably, there is a good term for defining this trend – slacktivism, which is mainly used now for the criticizing of network’ activism – online petitions, flash mobs and mass mailings. Social networks have given us a false sense of belonging: to distribute “socially useful” information, sign the online petition or take part in the flashmob. Thousands of Internet users do it and feel that they are part of something important. In fact, retweets and likes usually bring no practical results. The main problem is that such “slack” activity in social networks has replaced people’s actions in the real life.

Stay ethical or working just for increasing the website's traffic?

These two terrible terror attacks gave experts also a strong reason to think about ethical problems in electronic media. They have been blamed in stealing and spreading through the net private pictures of the Parisian and Russian victims.

Social networks changed the way of covering the stories about catastrophes. They made the information about anything easily accessible. Before Facebook was launched, we couldn’t get any data about the victims of any catastrophe. Now we are all in Facebook and we are empowered in searching information. That is why media, especially electronic media, always try to be more considered to show tragedies.

The professor of the Faculty of Philosophy of Saint Petersburg State University Dmitry Gusev supposes that social networks give users a chance to express their sadness and fears. “On the one hand, these are mechanisms of moral unprecedented consolidation of the society's members, when we strive to demonstrate unity with each other being in trouble. On the other hand, social networks can become a platform for completely immoral discussions <…> when a tragedy is comprehended in the terms of conspiracy and political theories and savored in all the details”, says professor Gusev (in Russian).

It’s too late to change media’s and society’s attitude to it, because Facebook is everywhere and won’t let us change anything easily.