![]() Contributed by Amanda Smith In the digital age, being an advocate has become much easier. People no longer have to go out on the streets rallying to support their cause. Instead, a simple click of a button can signal support. And this does not have to be a bad thing, despite what some people might say about it (Huffington Post). Yet, despite the changes, the definition for advocacy has remained the same. It is, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary, “public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy.” Instead of changing the definition to include online involvement, a new word was invented: slacktivism. According to Oxford Dictionary, slacktivism is “actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement.” So where does that leave the people who advocate for causes online? Are they really advocates, or do we brand them as slacktivists who have no impact on a cause? I would argue that the people who use the Internet to show support are advocates. They are making a difference, even if it is small. Branding them as a “slacktivist” takes away the power that they do have. Take the Ice Bucket Challenge that took over social media in 2014 for example. The point of this campaign was to raise funds to fight and treat A.L.S. People posted videos in which they dumped cold water on themselves, and then tagged their friends to do the same. If people did not want to dump water on their heads, they could donate money instead. Some did it that way, and others did the challenge and donated money. Some even became repeat donors, as reported in the New York Times. The ice bucket challenge was taken as emblematic of "slacktivism” by the Times. But if one looks at the definition of slacktivism, how can the challenge be considered that? Sure, people were sharing and tagging friends online, but it had a “real world” component too. That makes people advocates, not slacktivists. While it may not have a direct impact on the cause, it did raise awareness and it created change. In fact, a year later, the funds raised from this challenge led to the discovery of a faulty protein that could be blamed for the disease (Quartz). Without social media, the ice bucket challenge would never have become as powerful and popular as it did. Not only did it promote awareness of the disease, but it got people taking action, even if it was something small. It might have been reported in the news and picked up by a national newspaper, but would it have spread like it did? I believe that social media is what made this campaign what it was, and that is what is powerful about online advocacy. It is not negative as the term “slacktivist” implies. Instead, it is something that can make a difference, even if it is something as simple as raising awareness or showing the importance of a cause. Not everyone can actively participate in some movements in-person, but through sharing, commenting, liking, etc., someone else might become aware of the issues and that person can become actively involved. A simple action can make a difference. So go ahead and support a cause on Facebook, Twitter, etc.! It may not make much of a difference now, but sometimes a little support goes a long ways. And when you have time, go out and do something hands-on to show your support. In the end, online advocacy is just as important as real world advocacy. You can make a difference through a simple click of your mouse.
0 Comments
|
New and Social MediaOn this page, students provide reports and opinions on various developments and social concerns in new media communication. Categories
All
Archives
April 2019
|