Activism in the modern era
The wave of protests throughout the Middle East and North Africa commonly referred to as the Arab Spring revealed a new kind of revolution: a networked form of protest which saw social media platforms and digital communications leveraged to organise mass protests and challenge authoritarian governments’ censorship. Despite initial excitement at the potential for technology to unlock a fuller expression of a movement’s cultural and political roots compared to those that predate the Internet, the disappointing end results and the way in which governments have sought to contain this new form of protest, have raised doubts as to the real-world utility of such online organisation.
The power and influence of social media in modern day activism can be seen in the fact that many of today’s social movements are referred to by their hashtags:
According to Pew Research, from its initial appearance in 2013 through to 2016, #BlackLivesMatter appeared on Twitter almost 11.8 million times. Although the movement began following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, its use has grown to speak out against police killings of black people in general, and other broader racial issues such as racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the US.
Following the 2014 kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria by terrorist group Boko Haram, the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign swept across the Internet. As Nigerians marched into the capital Abuja to demand action from the government, the global social media community, including celebrities, rallied around; in less than three weeks, the hashtag had been used over 1 million times.
Although started off the back of the Harvey Weinstein exposé in 2017, #MeToo is no longer about justice for those brave enough to come forward about a single individual, but a fight to change the way society discusses sexual harassment and assault on a whole. It is estimated that across Twitter, #MeToo was used more than 12 million times within the first 24 hours of actress Alyssa Milano tweeting: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”
Bijan Stephen credits the successes of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign because it “figured out how to marshal today’s [communication] tools”. But there is much more to online activism than that. These well-known social activist campaigns, and others like it, have a hit and miss response when it comes to viral Internet activism turned movement.
When asked if the #BringBackOurGirls campaign had been a success, Ben Hewitt from A World At School said: “the girls are still missing … that is the ultimate measure of success and we are not there yet.” At the 2015 anniversary of the abduction, Amnesty International estimated that over 2000 girls had been abducted by Boko Haram since the beginning of 2014, with many forced into sexual slavery. Moreover, while #MeToo is referred to as a social movement, it isn't, says Deana A. Rohlinger. Social movement emergence requires a sense that an injustice can be fixed, an opportunity to advocate for change effectively, and an organizational base. #MeToo, and many other Internet campaigns like it, lack the latter.
Policy change only occurs when activist groups have invested in “softening up” the public over an extended period of time; educating people about their cause and gradually bringing them around to support it. Networked online political action is often derided as “slacktivism” or “clicktivism,” terms that suggest easy action requiring little effort or commitment. This is because, as John W. Kingdon argued, “without preliminary work, a proposal sprung even at a propitious time is likely to fall on deaf ears”. This step is important so that when a short-term opportunity in the environment — or triggering event — occurs, people will be prepared for change and make the transition from online to offline.
Regardless of the inconsistent results of social media activism, the existence and history of such activity alone has provided governments with justification to closely monitor online activity and restrict Internet freedom.
Freedom House’s 2018 “Freedom on the Net” reported an eighth consecutive year of global internet freedom declines. A prime example of this occurred in April 2019 when police shut down public access to WiFi on the London Underground in an attempt to disrupt planned protests by climate activists, Extinction Rebellion. “In the interests of safety and to prevent and deter serious disruption to the London Underground network, British Transport Police has taken the decision to restrict passenger WiFi connectivity at Tube stations,” British Transport Police told The Independent.
But governmental restriction of the Internet has now also occurred in the wake of crisis. Out of concern that “false news reports … spreading through social media” could lead to violence, the Sri Lankan government blocked all social media sites in the aftermath of the Easter terror attacks where almost 300 people were killed. This included Facebook, YouTube, Viber, WhatsApp and many more. Most interesting about this decision was that the government shut down access before any social-media-inspired violence was known to have taken place.
These extraordinary examples reflect the concern and distrust among governments about the capacity of American-owned networks to trigger waves of protest, widespread misinformation, hate, and violence.
This is a direct result of continual failures by tech firms to police their own platforms effectively. This distrust represents a remarkable comedown from a time, less than three years ago, when Facebook was viewed as “one of the world’s most important emergency response institutions”, as Wired magazine wrote.
Nevertheless, even a temporary ban sets a bad precedent. One government’s genuine crisis is another’s opportunity to squelch dissent. As press freedoms and civil society come under increased pressure around the world, it’s a dangerous thing to normalize the practice of shutting down what is, from a social perspective, critical infrastructure. In an interview, Facebook’s vice president for policy solutions, Richard Allan, said that Facebook might seem powerful to small governments like Sri Lanka, but “they [governments] have the ultimate weapon, which is the off switch.”
Social media is a powerful tool. But the solution is not for governments to flick the switch. Following a series of scandals which has increased awareness of the role social media companies play in the fabric of society, governments are in a prime position to create meaningful collaborations with the tech industry to lead developments that can better approach and confront the many issues facing our online world, from extremist content to misinformation and privacy violations.
