Clicktivism

I have a fairly neutral stance towards clicktivism. There are obvious negatives, but when I take a step back, I can see some positives. Clicktivism by definition is basically the act doing the absolute bare minimum, yet still feeling as though you made a contribution to the cause. Clicktivism is seen on social media: primarily Facebook and Twitter. I believe this is more “dangerous” on Facebook than it is on Twitter because the “echo chamber effect” is stronger on Facebook than it is on Twitter. On Facebook, we see more and more articles and posts that support our viewpoint because many of us have created this echo chamber of like-minded friends and pages that support our beliefs. On Facebook, it tells you how many of your friends have shared a particular article, and seeing that 10 of your friends shared an important article may give you the sense that you are all getting the message out there. However, that isn’t technically wrong. Clicktivism is bad because it makes some people feel as though they’ve already contributed enough, and then they don’t take further action. But when articles are shared more and more, there is a greater likelihood that it will reach someone who will actually do something about it. We see stories all the time about how articles/posts were shared and people took notice and did something about it. The group of people who did really did anything was small, but they would not have even known about the issue had people not spread the message as much as they had. Clicktivism informs people as well. Even if readers aren’t going to do anything, they should still be informed about what is happening in the world around them. So overall, clicktivism has merit, but the hope is that we can turn more clicktivists into activists.