Author: Preethika Arunkumar

Using the internet as a method of information distribution has become extremely common over the past few decades, partly due to a large increase in social media use. According to Britannica, social media activism is a form of digital activism that “uses the internet and digital media as key platforms for mass mobilization and political action.”¹

First, let’s look at just how prevalent social media activism is in our lives. In general, the public uses social media to convey their ideas and find like-minded people. It provides a means for people to immerse themselves in the issues they care about. Studies have shown that 34% of social media users in the U.S. state that they have taken part in groups that share their interests and 14% have changed their profile picture to show support for a cause. Overall, 46% of all American social media users have been politically active on social media.² Some everyday examples of popular activism on social media include the Black Lives Matter and Me Too movements. Movements such as these can prove to be beneficial to promote social justice through event planning and providing a safe space where people can share their experiences and create unity. Furthermore, social media activism is especially beneficial for nonprofit organizations, who can utilize online platforms for fundraising and spreading awareness.³ Overall, using social media can greatly increase the ease at which anyone can interact with topics of concern and allow organizations to quickly spread their cause online.

Despite all the positive outcomes of digital activism, it has several issues that can greatly impact its effectiveness. People who have greater economic, social, and cultural capital typically have increased access to social media, including “physical access to the ‘hardware’ required … as well as access to the necessary digital infrastructure and resources to use these platforms effectively.”⁴ A large portion of the world still has limited access to the internet and online platforms, reducing the number of people that can participate in activism. But among individuals who do have access to social media platforms, the problems don’t end there. Users may find themselves showing support for their favorite cause without taking steps to combat the issue. This is known as slacktivism, and social media users increasingly participate in it by posting online or putting up a flag or sign for others to view and understand their beliefs.⁵ Consumers can support a cause through either private actions, which include donating, or public actions such as social media posts. Through private actions, individuals may continue to donate or volunteer, which contributes to overall good, but public actions that involve shares and retweets don’t actually provide support to the problem at hand in the way that private actions do.⁶ While these actions can actually increase awareness of the issue, the real problem lies when people believe that changing their profile picture or liking posts is “good enough” to solve the issue. This is what prevents organizations from actually benefiting from slacktivism. Another negative effect of social media activism is the rise of virtue signaling. This is when companies and organizations make use of a trending movement to try and make themselves seem like they’re “good people”. However, in some situations, there are good intentions, but organizations can take over “a trending hashtag and flood the online space with their own messaging. This can be potentially damaging as the clarity … of the original message can get lost in a sea of posts.”⁷ Finally, social media can impact the effectiveness of activism by creating an echo chamber, a space where the user is exposed to content that aligns with their beliefs. This can be seen in “For You” pages in certain social media platforms, which limit diverse viewpoints and perspectives by only featuring content similar to the user’s preferences. Echo chambers are a prime example of social media activism gone wrong because though they increase awareness of trends and movements, they may also contribute to the spread of misinformation and prejudice.⁸

Let’s look at an example of some of the effects social media has on a serious, well-known problem: climate change. Sites such as YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter have strong positive social effects on climate change awareness,⁹ providing users with a space in which they can expand their opinions. Social media can also benefit climate change-battling organizations by creating communities of climate-conscious individuals. People are able to discuss the latest findings on climate research and increase their understanding of the work of organizations. Furthermore, social media is a great platform for organizations to spread awareness through easily connecting with the general public. Particularly, using images to tell a story, let viewers connect with local spaces, and showing ways how climate change impacts people is especially helpful.¹⁰ Meaningful visual campaigns help people feel that this issue is relevant in their lives, rather than promoting the common sentiment of “why should I care?” Social media can also aid in disaster response, which is particularly important as we are currently seeing a rise in climate change-related severe weather. By utilizing online platforms, governments can share information with the general public, alerting them to disasters. Increasing awareness “pushes politicians to hold businesses accountable for their actions and can help prevent ecological disasters in the future.”¹¹

However, we should also consider another side of social media in combating climate change. The spread of misinformation is rampant when considering this issue. Misleading content about the climate is usually spread by industries such as the fossil fuel industry, who mainly don’t want to lose favor of the public due to the spread of renewable energy sources. The average citizen that comes across this misinformation may spread it, unintentionally misleading other users of online platforms.¹² This is the goal of groups that spread misinformation in the first place, as they aim to create confusion and controversy, which eventually leads to a reduction in effective climate change mitigation. This can clearly be seen when Exxon conducted experiments in the 1970s which determined that continued burning of fossil fuels would have extremely harmful effects on the planet, and they continue to conduct studies with similar findings to this day.¹³ However, much of Exxon’s public communications state the opposite. Uncovered by Eco-Bot.Net, an AI system that can reveal climate change misinformation on social media, ExxonMobil had been targeting people with climate change misinformation through more than 350 ExxonMobil ads.¹⁴

With large amounts of truth and misinformation rampant on social media platforms, it can be hard to know what to trust. Information online must be carefully evaluated to determine its true motives, and there are a few tools that an ordinary citizen can utilize to protect themself. These include identifying techniques such as false expertise, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, conspiracy theories, and cherry-picking data.¹⁵