User:Laurencarr24/slacktivism

Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it take satisfaction from the feeling they have contributed. Slacktivism can be defined as the act of showing support for a cause but only truly being beneficial to the egos of people participating in this so-called activism. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist. The underlying assumption being promoted by the term is that these low cost efforts substitute for more substantive actions rather than supplementing them, although this assumption has not been borne out by research.

Many websites and news platforms have integrated social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter into their interface, allowing people to easily “like”, “share” or “tweet” about something interesting they saw on the Internet. People can now express concern about social or political issues with nothing more than the click of a mouse, raising the question, what is actually being accomplished by these “likes” when very little thought or effort is required?

Slacktivist activities include signing Internet petitions, joining a community organization without contributing to the organization's efforts, copying and pasting of social network statuses or messages or altering one's personal data or avatar on social network services. Research is beginning to explore the connection between the concept and modern activism/advocacy, as groups are increasingly using social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS describes the term "slacktivist", saying it "posits that people who support a cause by performing simple measures are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change".

Use of the term
The term appears to have been coined by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark in 1995 at the Cornerstone Festival. The term was meant to shorten the phrase slacker activism, which refers to bottom up activities by young people to affect society on a small, personal scale (such as planting a tree, as opposed to participating in a protest). The term originally had a positive connotation.

Radio host and political commentator Dan Carlin was using the term on his show in the 1990s and may have coined the present day meaning.

Monty Phan, staff writer for Newsday, was an early user of the term in his 2001 article titled, "On the Net, 'Slacktivism'/Do-Gooders Flood In-Boxes".

An early example of using the term "slacktivism" appeared in Barnaby Feder's article in The New York Times called "They Weren't Careful What They Hoped For." Feder quoted anti-scam crusader Barbara Mikkelson of Snopes.com, who described activities such as those listed above. "It's all fed by slacktivism ... the desire people have to do something good without getting out of their chair".

Another example of the term "Slacktivism" appeared in Evgeny Morozov’s book, Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (2011). In it Morozov relates slacktivism to the Colding-Jorgensen experiment: In 2009, a Danish psychologist named Colding Jorgensen created a fictitious Facebook group, as part of his research. On the page, he posted an announcement suggesting that the Copenhagen city authorities would be demolishing the historical Stork Fountain. 125 Facebook members joined Jorgensen’s page within the first day, and the number of fans began to grow at a staggering rate, eventually reaching 27,500. Morozov argues the Colding-Jorgensen experiment reveals a key component of slacktivism: "When communication costs are low, groups can easily spring into action." Clay Shirky also similarly characterized slacktivism as "ridiculously easy group forming."

Criticism of slacktivism
Yet skepticism of slacktivism’s value certainly exists. Particularly, some argue that it entails an underlying assumption that all problems can be seamlessly fixed using social media, and while this may be true for local issues, slacktivism could prove ineffective for solving global predicaments. A 2009 NPR piece by Morozov asked whether "the publicity gains gained through this greater reliance on new media [are] worth the organizational losses that traditional activist entities are likely to suffer, as ordinary people would begin to turn away from conventional (and proven) forms of activism."

Criticism of slacktivism often involves the idea that internet activities are ineffective, and/or that they prevent or lessen political participation in real life. However, as many studies on slacktivism relate only to a specific case or campaign, it is difficult to find an exact percentage of slacktivist actions that reach a stated goal. Furthermore, many studies also focus on such activism in democratic or open contexts, whereas the act of publicly liking, RSVPing or adopting an avatar or slogan as one's profile picture can be a defiant act in authoritarian or repressive countries. The Western-centric nature of the critique of slacktivism discounts the impact it can have in authoritarian or repressive contexts. Journalist Courtney C. Radsch argues that even such low level of engagement was an important form of activism for Arab youth before and during the Arab Spring because it was a form of free speech, and could successfully spark mainstream media coverage, such as when a hashtag becomes "a trending topic [it] helps generate media attention, even as it helps organize information. The power of social media to help shape the international news agenda is one of the ways in which they subvert state authority and power." In addition, studies suggest that "fears of Internet activities supplanting real life activity are unsubstantiated," in that they do not cause a negative or positive effect on political participation.

As slacktivism progresses, technocracy, a form of organizational structure or system of governance where decision makers were selected on the basis of technological knowledge, begins to disappear as nearly anyone and everyone can take part in decision-making and action taking. Digital activism is a dancer to social equality as its ineffective marketing campaigns spread political scepticism and draw attention away from genuinely radical movements.

Micah White has argued that although slacktivism is typically the easiest route to participation in movements and changes, the novelty of online activism wears off as people begin to realize that their participation created virtually no effect, leading people to lose hope in all forms of activism.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his October 2010 New Yorker article, lambasted those who compare social media "revolutions" with actual activism that challenges the status quo ante. He argued that today's social media campaigns can't compare with activism that takes place on the ground, using the Greensboro sit-ins as an example of what real, high-risk activism looks like. Gladwell further writes:

As the historian Robert Darnton has written, “The marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the Internet.” But there is something else at work here, in the outsized enthusiasm for social media. Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.

A 2011 study looking at college students found only a small positive correlation between those that engage online in politics on Facebook with those that engage off of it. Those who did engage only did so by posting comments and other low forms of political participation, helping to confirm the slacktivism theoretical model.

Brian Dunning, in his 2014 podcast, Slactivism: Raising Awareness, argues that the internet activities that slacktivism is associated with, are a waste of time at their best and at their worst are ways to "steal millions of dollars from armchair activists who are persuaded to donate actual money to what they're told is some useful cause." He says that most slacktivism campaigns are "based on bad information, bad science, and are hoaxes as often as not."

He uses the Kony 2012 campaign as an example of how slacktivism can be used as a way to exploit others. The movie asked viewers to send money to the filmmakers rather than African law enforcement. Four months after the movie was released, Invisible Children, the charity who created the film, reported $31.9 million dollars of gross receipts. The money in the end was not used to stop Kony, but rather to make another movie about stopping Kony. Dunning goes as far as to say that raising awareness of Kony was not even useful, as law enforcement groups had been after him for years.

Dunning does state that today, however, slacktivism is generally more benign. He cites Change.org as an example. The site is full of hundreds of thousands of petitions. A person signing one of these online petitions may feel good about himself, but these petitions are generally not binding nor lead to any major change. Dunning suggests that before donating, or even "liking", a cause one should research the issue and the organization to ensure nothing is misattributed, exaggerated, or wrong.

An example of a campaign against slacktivism is the advertisement series “Liking Isn’t Helping" created by the international advertisement company Publicis Singapose for a relief organization, Crisis Relief Singapore (CRS). This campaign features images of people struggling or in need, surrounded by many people giving a thumbs up with the caption “Liking isn’t helping.” Though the campaign lacked critical components that would generate success, it made viewers stop and think about their activism habits and question the effect that slacktivism really has.

Defense of slacktivism
In response to Gladwell's criticism of slacktivism in the New Yorker (see above), Mirani argues that he might be right if activism is defined only as sit-ins, taking direct action, and confrontations on the streets. However, if activism is about arousing awareness of people, changing people's minds, and influencing opinions across the world, then 'the revolution will be indeed be tweeted', 'hashtagged', and 'YouTubed'. In a March 2012 Financial Times article, referring to efforts to address the on-going violence related to the Lord's Resistance Army, Matthew Green wrote that the slactivists behind the Kony 2012 video had "achieved more with their 30-minute video than battalions of diplomats, NGO workers and journalists have since the conflict began 26 years ago."

Despite the pejorative connotation of the term, a 2011 correlational study conducted by Georgetown University entitled "The Dynamics of Cause Engagement" determined that so-called slacktivists are indeed "more likely to take meaningful actions." Notably, "slacktivists participate in more than twice as many activities as people who don’t engage in slacktivism, and their actions “have a higher potential to influence others." Cited benefits of slacktivism in achieving clear objectives include creating a secure, low cost, effective means of organizing that is environmentally friendly. These "social champions" have the ability to directly link social media engagement with responsiveness, leveraging their transparent dialogue into economic, social or political action. Going along this mindset is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer at Salon, who published an article on the ethics of smartphones and how we use them. Though the means of producing these products go against ethical human rights standards, Leonard encourages the use of smartphones on the basis that the technology they provide can be utilized as a means of changing the problematic situation of their manufacture. The ability to communicate quickly and on a global scale enables the spread of knowledge, such as the conditions that corporations provide to the workers they employ, and the result their widespread manufacturing has on globalization. Leonard argues that phones and tablets can be effective tools in bringing about change through slacktivism, because they allow us to spread knowledge, donate money, and more effectively speak our opinions on important matters.

Others keep a slightly optimistic outlook on the possibilities of slacktivism while still acknowledging the pitfalls that come with this digital form of protest. Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina and a faculty associate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, analyzed the capacity of slacktivism to influence collective group action in a variety of different social movements in a segment of the Berkman Luncheon Series. She acknowledges that digital activism is a great enabler of rising social and political movements, and it is an effective means of enabling differential capacity building for protest. However, she argues that the enhanced ability to rally protest is accompanied by a weakened ability to actually make an impact, as slacktivism can fail to reach the level of protest required in order to bring about change.

Clicktivism
The term "clicktivism" is sometimes used to describe activists using social media to organise protests. It allows organizations to quantify their success by keeping track of how many "clicked" on their petition or other call to action. For example, the British group UK Uncut use Twitter and other websites to organise protests and direct action against companies accused of tax avoidance. This varies from slacktivism in that it merely replaces older ways of communicating a protest's existence (telephone, word of mouth, leaflets etc) and does actually involve a real life, physical protest. On the other hand, clicktivism is also sometimes used to describe forms of internet based slacktivism such as signing online petitions or signing and sending form letter emails to politicians or corporate CEOs.

The idea behind clicktivism is that social media allows for a quick and easy way to show support for an organization or cause. Organization’s main focus has become inflating participation rates by asking less and less of their members/viewers.

Clicktivism can also be demonstrated by monitoring the success of a campaign by how many “likes” it receives. Clicktivism strives to quantify support, presence and outreach without putting emphasis on real participation. The act of “liking” a photo on Facebook or clicking a petition is in itself symbolic because it demonstrates that the individual is aware of the situation and it shows their peers the opinions and thoughts they have on certain subject matters.

Critics of clicktivism state that this new phenomenon turns social movements to resemble advertising campaigns in which messages are tested, clickthrough rate is recorded, and A/B testing is often done. In order to improve these metrics, messages are reduced to make their "asks easier and actions simpler." This in turn reduces social action to having members that are a list of email addresses, rather than engaged people.

Charity
Charity slacktivism can be described as actions in support of a cause that take little effort on the part of the individual. Examples of online charity slacktivism include posting a Facebook status to support a cause, "liking" a charity organization's cause on Facebook, tweeting or retweeting a charity organization's request for support on Twitter, signing Internet petitions, and posting and sharing YouTube videos about a cause.It can be argued that a person is not “liking” the photo in order to help the person in need, but to feel better about themselves, and to feel like they have done something positive for the person or scene depicted in front of them. This phenomenon has become increasingly popular with individuals whether they are going on trips to help less fortunate people, or by “liking” many posts on Facebook in order to “help” the person in the picture. Examples include the Kony 2012 campaign that exploded briefly in social media in March 2012.

Examples of offline charity slacktivism include awareness wristbands and paraphernalia in support of causes, such as the Livestrong wristband, as well as bumper stickers and mobile donating.

The term slacktivism is often used to describe the world's reaction to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The Red Cross managed to raise $5 million in 2 days via text message donations. Social media outlets were used to spread the word about the earthquake. The day after the earthquake, CNN reported that four of Twitter's top topics were related to the Haitian earthquake.

Charity as a by-product of purchasing products
This is the act of purchasing products that highlight support for a particular cause and advertise that a percentage of the cost of the good will go to the cause. In some instances the donated funds are spread across various entities within one foundation, which in theory helps several deserving areas of the cause. Criticism tends to highlight the thin spread of the donation. An example of this is the Product Red campaign, whereby consumers can buy Red-branded variants of commons products, with a proportion of proceeds going towards fighting AIDS.

Slacktivists may also purchase a product from a company because it has a history of donating funds to charity, as a way to second-handedly support a cause. For example, a slacktivist may buy Ben and Jerry's ice cream because its founders invested in the nation’s children, or promoted social and environmental concerns.

Political
Certain forms of slacktivism have political goals in mind, such as gaining support for a presidential campaign, or signing an internet petition that aims to influence governmental action.

The online petition website Change.org claimed it was attacked by Chinese hackers and brought down in April 2011. Change.org claimed the fact that hackers "felt the need to bring down the website must be seen as a testament to Change.org’s fast-growing success and a vindication of one particular petition: A Call for the Release of Ai Weiwei." Ai Weiwei, a noted human rights activist who had been arrested by Chinese authorities in April 2011, was released on 22 June 2011 from Beijing, which was deemed as a victory by Change.org of its online campaign and petition demanding Ai's release.

Sympathy
Sympathy slacktivism can be observed on social media networks such as Facebook, where users can like pages to support a cause or show support to people in need. Also common in this type of slacktivism is for users to change their profile pictures to one that shows the user’s peers that they care about the topic.

In sympathy slacktivism, images of young children, animals and people seemingly in need are often used to give a sense of credibility to the viewers, making the campaign resonate longer in their memory. Using children in campaigns is often the most effective way of reaching a larger audience due to the fact that most adults, when exposed to the ad, would not be able to ignore a child in need.

An example of sympathy slacktivism is the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet’s campaign “Vi Gillar Olika” (literal translation: “We like different”). This campaign was launched against xenophobia and racism, something that was a hot topic in Sweden in 2010. The main icon of the campaign was an open hand with the text “Vi Gillar Olika”, an icon that was earlier used in a campaign against bullying.

Another example was when Facebook users added a Norwegian flag to their pictures after the 2011 Norway attacks in which 77 people were killed. This campaign received attention from the Swedish Moderate Party, who encouraged their supporters to update their profile pictures.

Kony 2012
Kony 2012 was a campaign created by Invisible Children in the form of a 28-minute video about the dangerous situation of many children in Africa at the hands of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA is said to have abducted a total of nearly 60,000 children, brainwashing the boys to fight for them and turning the girls into sex slaves.

The campaign was used as an experiment to see if an online video could reach such a large audience that it would make a war criminal, Joseph Kony, famous. It became the fastest growing viral video of all time, reaching 100 millions views in 6 days. The campaign grew an unprecedented amount of awareness, calling to international leaders as well as the general population.

The reaction and participation to this campaign demonstrates charity slacktivism due to the way in which many viewers responded. The success of the campaign has been attributed mostly by how many people viewed the video rather than the donations received. After watching the video, many viewers felt compelled to take action. This action however took the form of sharing the video and potentially pledging their support.

As described by Sarah Kendzior of Aljazeera, “The video seemed to embody the slacktivist ethos: viewers oblivious to a complex foreign conflict are made heroic by watching a video, buying a bracelet, hanging a poster. Advocates of Invisible Children's campaign protested that their desire to catch Kony was sincere, their emotional response to the film genuine - and that the sheer volume of supporters calling for the capture of Joseph Kony constituted a meaningful shift in human rights advocacy.”

Cat cruelty picture 2014
In 2014, in part thanks to Twitter, a picture of "a laboratory with a lot of cats strapped into frightening-looking racks" was posted with the caption, "Retweet if you say NO to animal testing." More than 5,000 people spread the message, unaware that at some point, the photo had "been deliberately misattributed by a hoaxer." This hoaxer took the photo from the Gainseville Sun news website. The story behind the photo? The cats had been rescued from an abusive hoarder. Veterinary students at the University of Florida were getting them ready for adoption by spaying and neutering the animals.

This example of slacktivism shows the dangers of what people can get into without doing proper research.