Social Media ‘Clicktivism’ Creates More Apathy Than Empathy

Clicktivism critics are missing the point: the internet and social media are tools to be harnessed by activists and are not ends in themselves. They are the blunt imperfect implements and like all tools, you’ll get the greatest effect when you use it appropriately.

Seasoned Greenpeace activist JulietteH believes thatthe weak ties of online activism can become stronger [2]:

“It just happens that bigger bits help more, but on issues the importance of which we face (combating Climate Change, as far as I’m concerned, is one of the most important fights facing my generation), we can’t afford to turn anyone down. So dismissing weak ties because they’re not strong would be about as stupid for us as turning down a kid wanting to empty his piggy bank to donate to us because we need more money than he can give. That would be insulting, callous, irresponsible and frankly counterproductive.

Dissing things that produce weak ties, like Twitter, Facebook and blogs means closing yourself to people who might just want stronger ties later on. And that would be counterproductive too.”

Editor at AdBusters, Micah White, shows that clicktivism uses invasive databases to meticulously track which members are opening emails, signing petitions, donating money. These emails monitor which emails are more frequently opened – the focus is simply on the clicks. Not on the message itself. [12]

Taken one step further, ‘sponsored petitions’ are advertised with access to the databases of supporters (such as the 75 million names on USA website Change.org). Nithin Coca, commenting on the profit model of clicktivist organisations on popular culture website Vice, states that:

“With each click, Change.org makes a profit, and increases its clientele base. Clients are often organizations with deep pockets; Amnesty International,Sierra Club, and even the Democratic Party.” [13]

Avaaz is a global web movement of over 40 million individuals to bring people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere. Look at the anti-Murdoch campaign as reported in The Guardian [4], for example.

Avaaz activism played a critical role in delaying the BSkyB deal until the recent scandal was able to kill it, according to Avaaz’s founder, New York-based Ricken Patel. Last November, in collaboration with 38 Degrees, a similar online campaign group, Avaaz sent 60,000 complaints to Ofcom during its initial review of the BSkyB merger.

“Through the winter, Avaaz kept chipping away, shifting its aim on to David Cameron and culture minister Jeremy Hunt. Shortly before the 2011 New Year, 50,000 of its 700,000 British members sent the pair messages that called for a full investigation into the deal. In early March, after Jeremy Hunt decided that the merger would not compromise Sky’s editorial independence, Avaaz mobilised another 40,000 complaints (which all had to be read by DCMS officials) and organised several stunts, including pickets outside the Royal Courts of Justice and Hunt’s constituency surgery.

Avaaz argues that this – coupled with its 160,000-strong petition in early July – led to the merger decision being delayed until September, then referred to the Competitions Commission, and finally junked by Murdoch altogether.”

Could the BskyB deal have been challenged and defeated without the thousands of clicktivist activists? Absolutely not.

South African researcher Khadija Patel believes that while it’s easy to ‘click’ about issues on social media, it’s just as easy to disengage [3]: “A study published in the Journal of Sociological Science in early 2014 found that the majority of people who ‘like’ a Facebook page for a cause don’t follow up that gesture with a donation. The study found that return rates for charities and campaigns on Facebook can be a tenth of those of more traditional routes such as solicitation through mail. Analysing the ‘Save Darfur’ page on Facebook, it was found that of the one million-plus people who had liked the page, less than 3,000 ever donated, raising around $90,000 over three years. In comparison, the broader Darfur campaign raised more than $1 million in 2008 alone. The authors of the study feel that the Facebook page simply lends the “illusion of activism rather than facilitating the real thing.” It’s easy to click, but it’s also just as easy to disengage. More than a million people like the ‘Save Darfur’ page. But it is also these kinds of numbers, the crowd, the public act of liking the page, of being seen to engage with a cause that characterises much of our online engagement with causes. It is not activism at all. It is a few strategically placed clicks in the eyes of the people we wish to impress.”

One student blogger, Konsolations, captured the mood in England on the digitalism of activism in the student movement in recent years:

“With recent emphasis on the pressure facing students, expectations and mounting stresses of gaining employment after graduation, it has been claimed that students aren’t prepared to risk getting excluded from the university.

Particularly aware of the clamping down of protesting now that universities are gradually asserting themselves as autonomous businesses and insistent on maintaining reputations, the general student body can be said to be more aware of the heightening risks of protesting than in past decades. This may not be a conscious awareness, but a gradual evolution that has resulted in a political ambiguity and bearing down other paths to blow off steam in bars and clubs instead – or otherwise imploding over projects, exams, fees or internships.

I feel discouraged. This is not just the hallmark of a tradition of studenthood that is dying, but how it sits in the greater topic of political apathy. Freedom of speech and protest in the digital era seems to be exercised only within the void of social media with ‘clicktivism’ and viral video stunts making people believe they are doing their bit. But ultimately, we’re all alienated audiences, no longer active participants in solidarity.” [15]

Clicktivism is mainly used as a starting point for engagement with a subject. Activist Nate Prosser of clicktivist.org acknowledges [6] that it doesn’t always work, but it can work quite effectively once used in the proper way – to spark people’s interest in an issue.

As one Conservative MP puts it: “When you get ten or 20 emails on a subject you take it in your stride. When suddenly it’s 200, you start to shit yourself.” [7]

The Invisible Children social media video campaign, Kony 2012, may have done more harm than good in terms of motivating people and the aims of the campaign simply to ‘get people talking’. As reported in thejournal.ie in May 2012:

“Although there was no meaningful action taken by the overwhelming majority of the 89 million plus people who watched the video – only two emails were received by the Irish government in relation to the Ugandan warlord afterwards – they did learn about the topic, as well as spread the message.” [17]

All of the liking and sharing on Twitter and Facebook has done nothing for the people of Uganda since 2012. Digital platitudes are no replacement for old fashioned pressure in words and in the actions of the powerful.

The broader context that online activism takes place cannot be ignored. Apathy in politics, politicians and the very idea of successfully achieving social change has been a symptom of a much deeper crisis in western democracies for some time.

The Children’s Referendum in 2012 had a 33% turnoutof eligible voters. The local and European elections in Ireland had a 52% turnout. Across the 28 EU member states the average turnout was 43 per cent in the European elections. According to a NewEuropeans.net report, voter turnout hasn’t been above 50% across Europe in the EU elections since 1994. [9]

Australian writer Sarah Burnside makes the argument that in attempting to build the good society we meet many obstacles, including, “rigid party systems, a parliament generally dominated by the executive, the influence of powerful lobbyists, a highly concentrated media landscape, and a seeming consensus between the two major parties on many issues of importance…. well might we feel powerless faced with this impasse.” [10]

By dismissing clicktivism we risk ignoring the evidence that our political systems are in the middle of a global democratic crisis in governments. Rather than creating apathy, online activism challenges it.

Clicktivists have become known as ‘slacktivsts’ due to the sharing, liking and clicking in disgust at a global issue while stationed at a laptop and never having to remove bum from seat. Slacktivists can be active without ever having to leave the comfort of their own chair. Should politicians trust this form of ‘engagement’ as the movement so loudly cherishes? Reflections by politician Paul Tyler (House of Lords peer in the UK) is worth listening to in terms of 38 Degrees’ (UK web-based activist organisation) campaign to save the NHS in England:

“The organisation had not asked people to engage with any of the detail of this issue, and had given a false impression about the headlines. Some would say this route leads us into a form of one-click rent-a-mob – what is now termed “slacktivism” – enabling ill-informed and disconnected instant electronic communication to take the place of genuine political discussion and interaction. I fear this recent experience will increase the scepticism of decision-makers, when we should be instead seeking more fruitful forms of dialogue.” [19]