After reading "#Ferguson," I was particularly challenged in my way of understanding online activism and how it relates to offline activism. Perhaps, even, the article suggests, the online-offline distinction isn't even as discontinuous as one may think. Offline may be a continuation of online activism and vice versa.
I find there to be a large distinction between spreading news and information to others and what I consider to be online activism. I appreciate scrolling through online news sources and reading articles, and I appreciate when friends share and post particularly interesting articles. What I often don't consider valuable is the political echo-chamber that fills my timeline and newsfeed from time to time. I generally take statuses stating opinions rather casually with my thought process being "it's just online activism." To me, online activism means very little if you don't act in person. I feel as though social media and online activism can create a sense of being aware and making a difference, when in reality, a status or tweet doesn't have that large of an impact.
I know that in some sense, this way of thinking is wrong. Online activism brings attention to topics that may not be otherwise covered in the media, and this is extremely important. What "#Ferguson" brought attention to me was how Twitter can be an important site for activism by allowing those to voice opinions who are not typically represented. For example, the article mentions that percentage of African Americans that have mobile technology and what that can provide. "Today, 56 percent of the U.S. population carries video-enabled smartphones, and the use of mobile technology is particularly high among African Americans. The increased use and availability of these technologies has provided marginalized and racialized populations with new tools for documenting incidents of state-sanctioned violence and contesting media representations of racialized bodies and marginalized communities" (5). I had most definitely been overlooking how social media can serve as a platform to get opinions out in a productive manner.
I however, still weird about online activism. I recognize it's importance. I recognize that strength often comes in numbers, and online interfaces allow hundreds to thousands of people to connect and support one another in ways that they could not have before. The article mentions the story of Elzie and how online activism led to her offline activism and success while collaborating with many others that reached out through online activism as well. Here, the online activism sped up offline activism and actions, which is extremely valuable. Converting online activism to offline activism is one of the most productive and influential things that can come be produced from hashtags and statuses and tweets.
I think my issue lies, rather, in something that I once labeled as "activism" but is not really in that category at all. I am referring to aggressive statuses, tweets, posts, etc. that state an opinion with not much substance behind them. These posts then lead to discussion, but not productive discussion--I have never seen a controversy in the Facebook comments go well. Social media is not only about activism--it is also about posting photos of your day, interacting with friends, etc.--so posting controversial statuses can often bring in people that aren't actively aware. This can be good in some cases, because social media can make people more aware. But many times, I think social media polarizes people in their opinions further. I don't think that social media posts ever sway people to believe something drastically different. Social media often acts as a place for people to state their firm opinion and not budge. I was at first associating this social media behavior with the online activism that the article was talking about, but after deliberation and writing this blogpost I realize these two are not the same thing. I'm not exactly sure how I would label aggressive posts and aggressive discussions on social media, but it definitely isn't as productive or awareness-raising as the online activism "#Ferguson" described.
I find there to be a large distinction between spreading news and information to others and what I consider to be online activism. I appreciate scrolling through online news sources and reading articles, and I appreciate when friends share and post particularly interesting articles. What I often don't consider valuable is the political echo-chamber that fills my timeline and newsfeed from time to time. I generally take statuses stating opinions rather casually with my thought process being "it's just online activism." To me, online activism means very little if you don't act in person. I feel as though social media and online activism can create a sense of being aware and making a difference, when in reality, a status or tweet doesn't have that large of an impact.
I know that in some sense, this way of thinking is wrong. Online activism brings attention to topics that may not be otherwise covered in the media, and this is extremely important. What "#Ferguson" brought attention to me was how Twitter can be an important site for activism by allowing those to voice opinions who are not typically represented. For example, the article mentions that percentage of African Americans that have mobile technology and what that can provide. "Today, 56 percent of the U.S. population carries video-enabled smartphones, and the use of mobile technology is particularly high among African Americans. The increased use and availability of these technologies has provided marginalized and racialized populations with new tools for documenting incidents of state-sanctioned violence and contesting media representations of racialized bodies and marginalized communities" (5). I had most definitely been overlooking how social media can serve as a platform to get opinions out in a productive manner.
I however, still weird about online activism. I recognize it's importance. I recognize that strength often comes in numbers, and online interfaces allow hundreds to thousands of people to connect and support one another in ways that they could not have before. The article mentions the story of Elzie and how online activism led to her offline activism and success while collaborating with many others that reached out through online activism as well. Here, the online activism sped up offline activism and actions, which is extremely valuable. Converting online activism to offline activism is one of the most productive and influential things that can come be produced from hashtags and statuses and tweets.
I think my issue lies, rather, in something that I once labeled as "activism" but is not really in that category at all. I am referring to aggressive statuses, tweets, posts, etc. that state an opinion with not much substance behind them. These posts then lead to discussion, but not productive discussion--I have never seen a controversy in the Facebook comments go well. Social media is not only about activism--it is also about posting photos of your day, interacting with friends, etc.--so posting controversial statuses can often bring in people that aren't actively aware. This can be good in some cases, because social media can make people more aware. But many times, I think social media polarizes people in their opinions further. I don't think that social media posts ever sway people to believe something drastically different. Social media often acts as a place for people to state their firm opinion and not budge. I was at first associating this social media behavior with the online activism that the article was talking about, but after deliberation and writing this blogpost I realize these two are not the same thing. I'm not exactly sure how I would label aggressive posts and aggressive discussions on social media, but it definitely isn't as productive or awareness-raising as the online activism "#Ferguson" described.
No comments:
Post a Comment