The Westeros Wing

In her blog post “Slacktivism: Is it all bad?” Avaash examines the issue of online activism, often characterized as “slacktivism,” and whether  it is as detrimental to society as authors such as Morozov have claimed. While she acknowledges some of the drawbacks of slacktivism: it is often inauthentic and often short lived, she concludes that its potential for creating small change is ultimately a net benefit.

I have several problems with Avaash’s analysis. First, I believe that she has focused on destroying the weakest criticism of slacktivism. Although she is not necessarily setting up a straw man argument, she is certainly targeting the weakest fighter in the group. Secondly, Avaash’s conclusion–that even a small benefit is good– entirely neglects that some internet activist campaigns can actually have a negative impact.

In her post, Avaash points to inauthenticity as the fundamental flaw in slacktivism. She writes,

“Buzz around a cause is good, but it has to be genuine. People have to care about the Facebook page as much as the person who created it. They have to tweet their support for a candidate on their own account, rather than retweeting a celebrity. The lack of authenticity, in my opinion is the downfall of slacktivism”

Does it really matter whether a supporter tweets or retweets? Is intent really the important part of an activist campaign?  Of course, if pressed, most people would prefer activists with a steadfast belief in their cause, but questioning people’s intentions is not a very useful tactic in activism. It doesn’t seem to be a widespread issue in offline campaigns. Most street marches are comprised of different groups with different intentions. The 1999 Battle in Seattle was made up of anarchists, peace activists, environmental activists, labour, and women’s groups to name only a few. Some attendees were probably their to support their friends. Is this an “inauthentic” motive?

Online, the story seems the same. A $20 donation is a $20 donation whether or not you did it to save the polar bears or to one-up your cubicle mate.The “It Gets Better” campaign, where celebrities and regular people made videos in support of LGBT youth was an extremely popular online project. Some of those celebrities were probably looking, in part, to create buzz around themselves and a good reputation. This fact did not seem to taint “It Gets Better.”Authenticity is hard to gauge, but more importantly, it’s not important to gauge. What matters is money, boots on the ground, and support, not invisible intentions.

To be fair, although Avaash writes about the importance of genuine activism, she seems more concerned that an inauthentic supporter will abandon a cause quickly. While this may be true, it seems to be less a product of the supporter’s intentions than what is arguably the biggest problem with online activism: it goes too fast.

Online campaigns gain and lose support quickly because of the nature of the internet, not the nature of their supporters. If you blink, you will miss your chance to sign the petition, save the child, or raise awareness before a newer, more pressing problem comes along. With offline activism, you dedicated yourself to the slow fix of one problem area, but the internet does not have time for slow change.

Avaash points to Kony 2012 as a campaign that slowly bled support, but this is the truth reversed. Kony 2012 encouraged an “act now” mentality, and in a matter of days the video was everywhere, followed by the backlash and then the backlash backlash. No one had time to research or understand the complex situation in Uganda because Kony 2012 demanded immediacy.

Similarly, after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, members of the online community Reddit organized themselves to analyze photographs, testimonies, and video of the incident on a new subreddit r/findbostonbombers. Within a few days, they had pointed the finger at several culprits, all of whom were ultimately unconnected to the bombings, although their photographs and personal information were nonetheless leaked to the media. The reddit vigilantes were well-intentioned, genuine internet slacktivists and to them, their need was immediate.

Everyone’s need on the internet is immediate. The instant, clickable, international nature of the online community is conducive to flash in the pan movements, and flash in the pan movements are not conducive to critical analysis. In the cases of r/findbostonbombers and Kony 2012, slacktivists cared, just not enough to spend the time, do the research, and end up missing the show.

By characterizing all slacktivism as small, Avaash misses the real harm that it can do.