Social media: Is slactivism/mousey activism enough?

Claire Thompson, freelance PR consultant, Waves PR

Panel at Amnesty International Debate

We’ve all done it. Turned our icons green or pink or red. Or added a Twitter avatar. Retweeted a good cause. Posted something to a profile. Joined a fan page.

Social media makes it easy to support a cause, but to what effect?

Take Twitter. Things aren’t right in Iran, but somehow Iran is yesterday’s tweet. Haiti was so last month. Support is big, powerful and turns it’s glare on an issue, but it’s  as fleeting as an article in yesterday’s paper.

Social media support for human rights can amount to little more than ‘slacktivism’ (coined by Kevin Anderson, the Guardian) or ‘mousey activism’ (coined by Annabelle Sreberny, Professor of Global Media and Communication, School of Oriental and African Studies).

Yet it still has its place. Each social media ‘clan’ engages differently. The way that news disperses is complex, and sometimes it will take social media/bloggers stories being posted on Digg to make a story ‘catch’ with ‘big media’ – but there’s no doubt that it is feeding ‘big media’ when enough noise is made.

From all that’s been said, my take on the current big two social networks is that Twitter’s power lies in the sheer numbers and uncomfortable spotlight beneath which it can make someone squirm. Facebook, by contrast, can sustain a longer term relationship (through signing up to groups, private and group messaging). “Facebook was green long before Twitter was” (Sreberny) but it was the furore on Twitter that brought attention to the wider masses.

But the question has to be asked: What did it achieve?

It’s perhaps not as glum as it sounds. Whilst it has become easier to support from the comfort of our sitting rooms – too easy to support at a mouse click and forget – it has also become easier to mobilise people, to shine a light where it might otherwise have remained ‘unshone’.

Amnesty International’s work has long recognised the safety in numbers rule.

Wrongdoers squirm as stacks of mail arrive in support of someone whose rights they are abusing. An email or tweet is for them as easy to delete as it is for the rest of us. Just a bit of spam (but very irritating, especially when it won’t go away). A letter, by contrast, indicates a commitment to the cause. The numbers matter. And they give hope to those incarcerated.

Similarly, standing alone against a wrong is an uncomfortable place. Around the world, journalists have found themselves the targets of attacks for just that reason. The content of the Amnesty debate made it very clear that organisations like Amnesty International and Article 19 offer protection not only for those they stand up for , but for those who speak out on their behalf.

By acting together we afford each other a degree of protection. ‘Social media’ can help do this. If it further serves to inspired us to write letters or get onto the streets to demonstrate strength of feeling, long may it last.

As summarised wonderfully by John Leyne, the BBC’s Teheran correspondent (expelled from Iran): “Don’t ask if Twitter is a force for good, but how we can make it a force for good.”

One of a series of Waves PR blogs relating to ‘Is Technology Good for Human Rights?’

1 Comment

Other Links to this Post

1. Is Technology Good For Human Rights? | Waves PR, freelance PR consultant, UK — March 4, 2010 @ 12:08 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment