I'm on a 20+ city book tour for my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me TOMORROW (Feb 14) in BOSTON for FREE at BOSKONE , and SATURDAY (Feb 15) for a virtual event with YANIS VAROUFAKIS. More tour dates here.
"Premature antifacist" was a sarcastic term used by leftists caught up in the Red Scare to describe themselves, as they came under ideological suspicion for having traveled to Spain to fight against Franco's fascists before the US entered WWII and declared war against the business-friendly, anticommunist fascist Axis powers of Italy, Spain, and, of course, Germany:
The joke was that opposing fascism made you an enemy of America – unless you did so after the rest of America had woken up to the existential threat of a global fascist takeover. What's more, if you were a "premature antifascist," you got no credit for fighting fascism early on. Quite the contrary: fighting fascism before the rest of the US caught up with you didn't make you prescient – it made you a pariah.
I've been thinking a lot about premature antifascism these days, as literal fascists use the internet to coordinate a global authoritarian takeover that represents an existential threat to a habitable planet and human thriving. In light of that, it's hard to argue that the internet is politically irrelevant, and that fights over the regulation, governance, and structure of the internet are somehow unserious.
And yet, it wasn't very long ago that tech policy was widely derided as a frivolous pursuit, and that tech organizing was dismissed as "slacktivism":
Elevating concerns about the internet's destiny to the level of human rights struggle was delusional, a glorified argument about the rules for forums where sad nerds argued about Star Trek. If you worried that Napster-era copyright battles would make it easy to remove online content by claiming that it infringed copyright, you were just carrying water for music pirates. If you thought that legalizing and universalizing encryption technology would safeguard human rights, you were a fool who had no idea that real human rights battles involved confronting Bull Connor in the streets, not suing the NSA in a federal courtroom.
And now here we are. Congress has failed to update consumer privacy law since 1988 (when they banned video store clerks from blabbing about your VHS rentals). Mass surveillance enables everything from ransomware, pig butchering and identity theft to state surveillance of "domestic enemies," from trans people to immigrants. What's more, the commercial and state surveillance apparatus are, in fact, as single institution: states protect corporations from privacy law so that corporations can create and maintain population-scale nonconsensual dossiers on all the intimate facts of our lives, which governments raid at will, treating them as an off-the-books surveillance dragnet:
Our speech forums have been captured by billionaires who censor anti-oligarchic political speech, and who spy on dissident users in order to aid in political repression. Bogus copyright claims are used to remove or suppress disfavorable news reports of elite rapists, thieves, war criminals and murderers:
You'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd describe the fights over tech governance in 2025 as frivolous or disconnected from "real politics"
This is where the premature antifascist stuff comes in. An emerging revisionist history of internet activism would have you believe that the first generation of tech liberation activists weren't fighting for a free, open internet – we were just shilling for tech companies. The P2P wars weren't about speech, privacy and decentralization – they were just a way to help the tech sector fight the entertainment industry. DRM fights weren't about preserving your right to repair, to privacy, and to accessibility – they were just about making it easy to upload movies to Kazaa. Fighting for universal access to encryption wasn't about defending everyday people from corporate and state surveillance – it was just a way to help terrorists and child abusers stay out of sight of cops.
Of course, now these fights are all about real things. Now we need to worry about centralization, interoperability, lock-in, surveillance, speech, and repair. But the people – like me – who've been fighting over this stuff for a quarter-century? We've gone from "unserious fools who mistook tech battles for human rights fights" to "useful idiots for tech companies" in an eyeblink.
"Premature Internet Activists," in other words.
This isn't merely ironic or frustrating – it's dangerous. Approaching tech activism without a historical foundation can lead people badly astray. For example, many modern tech critics think that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which makes internet users liable for illegal speech acts, while immunizing entities that host that speech) is a "giveaway to Big Tech" and want to see it abolished.
Boy is this dangerous. CDA 230 is necessary for anyone who wants to offer a place for people to meet and discuss anything. Without CDA 230, no one could safely host a Mastodon server, or set up the long-elusive federated Bluesky servers. Hell, you couldn't even host a group-chat or message board:
Getting rid of CDA 230 won't get rid of Facebook or make it clean up its act. It will just make it impossible for anyone to offer an alternative to Facebook, permanently enshrining Zuck's dominance over our digital future. That's why Mark Zuckerberg wants to kill Section 230:
Defending policies that make it easier to host speech isn't the same thing as defending tech companies' profits, though these do sometimes overlap. When tech platforms have their users' back – even for self-serving reasons – they create legal precedents and strong norms that protect everyone. Like when Apple stood up to the FBI on refusing to break its encryption:
If Apple had caved on that one, it would be far harder for, say, Signal to stand up to demands that it weaken its privacy guarantees. I'm no fan of Apple, and I would never mistake Tim Cook – who owes his CEOhood to his role in moving Apple production to Chinese sweatshops that are so brutal they had to install suicide nets – for a human rights defender. But I cheered on Apple in its fight against the FBI, and I will cheer them again, if they stand up to the UK government's demand to break their encryption:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20g288yldko
This doesn't make me a shill for Apple. I don't care if Apple makes or loses another dime. I care about Apple's users and their privacy. That's why I criticize Apple when they compromise their users' privacy for profit:
The same goes for fights over scraping. I hate AI companies as much as anyone, but boy is it a mistake to support calls to ban scraping in the name of fighting AI:
It's such a huge mistake to assume that anything corporations want is bad for the internet. There are many times when commercial interests dovetail with online human rights. That's not a defense of capitalism, it's a critique of capitalism that acknowledges that profits do sometimes coincide with the public interest, an argument that Marx and Engels devote Chapter One of The Communist Manifesto to:
In the early 1990s, Al Gore led the "National Information Infrastructure" hearings, better known as the "Information Superhighway" hearings. Gore's objective was to transfer control over the internet from the military to civilian institutions. It's true that these institutions were largely (but not exclusively) commercial entities seeking to make a buck on the internet. It's also true that much of that transfer could have been to public institutions rather than private hands.
But I've lately – and repeatedly – heard this moment described (by my fellow leftists) as the "privatization" of the internet. This is strictly true, but it's even more true to say that it was the demilitarization of the internet. In other words, corporations didn't take over functions performed by, say, the FCC – they took over from the Pentagon. Leftists have no business pining for the days when the internet was controlled by the Department of Defense.
Caring about the technological dimension of human rights 30 years ago – or hell, 40 years ago – doesn't make you a corporate stooge who wanted to launch a thousand investment bubbles. It makes you someone who understood, from the start, that digital rights are human rights, that cyberspace would inevitably evert into meatspace, and that the rules, norms and infrastructure we built for the net would someday be as consequential as any other political decision.
I'm proud to be a Premature Internet Activist. I just celebrated my 23rd year with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and yesterday, we sued Elon Musk and DOGE:
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
The Everlasting Influence of #MeToo: From Online Hashtag to Real-World Change
Introduction:
Social media movements, the phenomena that are redefining contemporary activism, find their roots not in the digital world but in the lived experiences of individuals. They originate in the offline spaces, the daily lives of ordinary people who are driven by the need to stand up for what is just and right. These movements are deeply entwined with social and political activism and serve as platforms for the disenfranchised and marginalized to have a voice.
However, the trajectory of social media movements, as impactful as they may seem in the digital realm, often faces criticisms of "clicktivism" and "slacktivism." These terms reflect the concern that online participation might lack real-world impact. To truly understand the influence of social media movements, it's essential to recognize the synergy between online and offline spaces, where the most successful movements thrive and endure.
The #MeToo Movement: A Case Study:
A prominent example of a social media movement that has transcended both online and offline spaces is the #MeToo movement. It is a testament to the fact that these movements do not begin with hashtags but with the earnest efforts of individuals who strive to bring about change. The #MeToo movement originated in 2006, created by social activist Tarana Burke. Burke's vision was to create a movement that empowers survivors of sexual violence, particularly young women of color in underprivileged communities. She coined the phrase "Me Too" to symbolize empowerment through empathy, laying the foundation for a movement against sexual abuse.
Five years after #MeToo went viral, its founder reflects on why we're still falling short
The movement remained largely under the radar for over a decade until 2017, when actress Alyssa Milano shared her personal experience of sexual abuse on Twitter using the hashtag #MeToo. Her call to action resonated with countless others, encouraging them to share their own stories. The hashtag quickly spread across Twitter, being used 1.7 million times in 85 countries. It received support from numerous female celebrities who echoed the message of "Me Too."
The #MeToo activist and author of “Hope: Project Middle School” opens up about why she told the story for the first time on her podcast “Sor
The Symbiosis of Online and Offline Spaces:
While the #MeToo movement gained immense traction online and earned recognition as a global digital campaign, its impact was not confined to the digital sphere. It transcended into the physical world, sparking campaigns against sexual violence across various industries, including film, music, politics, education, sports, military, and medicine. The movement prompted legislative and legal actions, such as the Me Too Congress Act, and led to convictions of rapists and sexual abusers, especially those who held positions of significant power in society. One of the most notable outcomes was the conviction and downfall of Harvey Weinstein, a former film producer who had enjoyed a position of authority. The #MeToo movement mobilized diverse groups, including celebrities, activists, survivors of sexual abuse, and everyday citizens. It spanned multiple spaces and platforms, from social media to workplaces, red carpet events, and courtrooms. The movement leveraged social media for awareness, and this digital presence spurred real-world efforts against sexual violence.
Conclusion:
Social media movements are not born with hashtags but with the dedication of individuals determined to champion social justice. The #MeToo movement exemplifies how social media can amplify voices that have been silenced and ignored, providing survivors of sexual violence with the power to share their stories. While hashtags are crucial for mobilizing these movements online, it's essential to acknowledge the pioneering work of activists like Tarana Burke, who laid the groundwork long before hashtags began trending. Social media movements thrive when they bridge the gap between digital and physical spaces, forging lasting change in an increasingly connected world.
The #MeToo movement illustrates that social media movements are more than mere hashtags; they are driven by individuals committed to societal change. This movement, initiated by Tarana Burke in 2006, showcases how real-world impact transcends the digital realm. By sparking campaigns against sexual violence, inspiring legislative changes, and leading to high-profile convictions, it demonstrates the tangible influence of social media movements. Their continued relevance underlines the significance of bridging the gap between online and offline spaces. Social media movements amplify silenced voices and exemplify that true change begins with dedicated individuals.
References:
Hashtag Activism. (2012). Margaret Rouse. Retrieved October 28, 2023, from https://www.techopedia.com/definition/29047/hashtag-activism
Goswami, M. P. (2018). Social media and hashtag activism. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326655352_Social_Media_and_Hashtag_Activism,viewed on 28 Oct 2023
alignmedia. (2023, March 16). More than a Hashtag: The #MeToo Movement is 10 years in the Making - ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab. ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab. https://carleton.ca/align/2023/more-than-a-hashtag-the-metoo-movement-is-10-years-in-the-making/,viewed on 28 Oct 2023
Burke, T. (2022, October 12). Tarana Burke: What “Me Too” made possible. Time. https://time.com/6221110/tarana-burke-me-too-anniversary/,viewed on 28 Oct 2023.
Jeff Grabmeier. (2023, August 8). Why #MeToo remains a rallying cry for sexual abuse survivors. OHIO STATE NEWS. Retrieved October 28, 2023, from https://news.osu.edu/why-metoo-remains-a-rallying-cry-for-sexual-abuse-survivors/
Rosa, J. (2019, October 16). Alyssa Milano on sharing alleged sexual assault story 25 years later. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/alyssa-milano-sharing-alleged-sexual-assault-story-25/story?id=66317784,viewed on 28 Oct 2023
TEDx Talks. (2021, May 1). Can a “Like” change the world? The power of clicktivism | Jenk Oz | TEDxYouth@Engomi [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evvv45BAYvc,viewed on 28 Oct 2023
TEDx Talks. (2018, November 12). Slacktivism: Social Media’s Effect on Activism | Sophie Egar | TEDxYouth@PepperPike [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhPIgES_hws,viewed on 28 Oct 2023
Giphy. (n.d.). GIPHY - Be animated. GIPHY. https://giphy.com/,viewed on 28 Oct 2023
The Internet as a stepping stone to revolution (Week 9)
Many believe that as of recent, the world has entered a mentality of ‘sousveillance’. Coined by Steve Mann, the term ‘sousveillance’ reflects the opposite of surveillance. This means that although we are constantly being watched over by the Government and large corporations, these groups and the officials within them are being monitored just as closely by us (Light 2020). With the rise of the Internet and social media platforms, users are able to both post and view regular updates from another city, state or country around the world. Anyone has the ability to be a journalist of their own accord, meaning that the resources are limitless. This gives the population the ability to be highly critical. Any misstep of a politician or a billionaire is relentlessly published over thousands of news sources.
This rapid dissemination of information leads to a build up of knowledge and therefore opinions. People are distraught as they read anecdotes of the struggles of others, and as the secrets of the powerful are exposed. As a result, there has been a wave of what is often referred to as ‘clicktivism’, defined by The Oxford English Dictionary as “the use of social media and other online methods to promote a cause” (Clicktivism 2020). The online sphere has been a location for many waves of activism, and this can be attributed to the simplicity of it. To participate in an online campaign, it is as straightforward as tweeting a hashtag, signing a petition, transferring money or producing something creative (Clicktivism 2020). The power of these seemingly small actions can be derived from the masses. If thousands or even millions of individuals participate, declare their opinion through a tweet or two, the impact of these minor contributions can become major.
Image from @coast.designstudio on Instagram
This can be seen in the UK’s #StopFundingHate campaign. Discussed through an ‘Impakter’ article in 2018, co-founder Richard Wilson explains that the campaign was launched in 2016 in response to anti-migrant rhetoric stemming from news outlets including the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Express over the previous year (Wilson 2018). The video published to initially explain the campaign was immediately shared thousands of times on Facebook, accumulating over 3 million views in a matter of days. Their Facebook page and Twitter hashtag immediately became an outlet for conversation and expressions of concern that had existed well before the campaign began. He highlights how this build up of anger pushed supporters to send messages to companies themselves who were supporting these corporations. The first major success was initiated when supporter Bob Jones made a heartfelt post on Lego’s Facebook page, which was shared by thousands of followers. This one message led to Lego concluding their agreement with Daily Mail and ceasing any future promotional activity with them. Following this event, the hashtag #StopFundingHate began to trend globally, beyond the UK. Today, the campaign has influenced thousands of companies and online advertisers to draw their support from hateful sources, with The Sun publicly apologising and Daily Mail changing their editor of 26 years. In May 2017, Stop Funding Hate was invited to address a meeting of UN member states developing a new Global Compact for Migration. This is now formally adopted by UN member states, endorsing“stopping allocation of public funding… to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants”.
Image from @artbaby.co on Instagram.
Despite the success of this campaign, it is also argued that clicktivism is not always enough. Mahatma Gandhi believed that we must be the change we want to see in the world (Ahern 2013). Tweeting #BlackLivesMatter or #StopFundingHate does not combat racism. Racism begins to be combatted when caucasian individuals acknowledge their privilege, recognise that this does not make them superior, and reach out to those who may be struggling to learn more and ask what it is that they need. It is important to take responsibility not over just large corporations, but to call out racism in ourselves and others. Clicktivism is a great beginning, however revolution is only possible with intentional internal change.
References:
Ahern, C 2013, Real change must come from within ourselves, The Sligo Champion, viewed 16th May 2020, https://www.independent.ie/regionals/sligochampion/opinion/real-change-must-come-from-within-ourselves-28983806.html
Clicktivist 2020, What is clicktivism, viewed 16th May 2020, http://www.clicktivist.org/what-is-clicktivism
Light, J 2020, Sousveillance, Reset, viewed 16th May 2020, https://en.reset.org/knowledge/sourveillance-11152016
Wilson, R 2018, Stop Funding Hate – How a Movement for Ethical Advertising is Making Hate Unprofitable, Impakter, viewed 16th May 2020, https://impakter.com/stop-funding-hate/
When I think of activism, names like Doctor Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks come to mind, people who dedicated their lives to campaigning for human rights and social causes that brought about change on a large scale. As I began to read about activism in the digital age, I started to wonder what the activists of past generations would make of online campaigning. Would the ‘I have a dream speech’ been as potent delivered via a YouTube video instead of in front of a crowd in Washington? Would the message have had the same result, or would it have been lost within the millions of other videos? And would sharing a hashtag have brought about the same amount of change as the quarter of a million people who descended on the mall in Washington in 1963?
Today, through social media and the internet we are bombarded with charities, causes and videos showing horrific atrocities and society is quickly becoming desensitised and unmotivated to take real action. As a result, a new culture of activism is emerging known as ‘clicktivism’ and ‘slacktivism’ which Reddin (2018) defines as ‘armchair activism’ whereby ‘complex, serious issues are oversimplified to the point where viewership, likes and clicks is thought to be the equivalent of making a difference’. Scholar Evgenyi Morozov (quoted in Gerbaudo 2012) take this definition further describing slacktivism as ‘feel good activism’ that ‘creates an illusion of having a meaningful impact on the world without demanding anything more than joining a Facebook group’.
But is activism in the digital age all negative?
Absolutely not, modern movements like #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter, #MarchForOurLives, #Kony2012, and the Arab Spring are all grassroots causes that used social media in one way or another to further their mission and generate awareness. According to Youmans & York (2012), social media was a powerful tool in bringing about the collective actions during the Arab Spring providing a method to coordinate action, share information and raise public awareness of the issue on a global scale. Further, Rutledge (2010) strongly supports social media for facilitating sustainable activism suggesting that it brings together people who are passionate about an issue and provides them with a way to harness this collective energy and turn it into action.
There is no doubt that social media has a role to play in modern activism. However, as Sophie Egar cautions in her TEDx Talk, “social media activism is useless if it doesn’t create awareness that leads to action off the internet” (TEDx Talks 2018). Yes, real change requires action beyond the hashtag, like or share. We’re not going to change the world sitting in front of a computer.
I’ll finish with a favourite quote of mine – “it’s better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand.” Actions do speak louder than words (or clicks).
Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets : Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Pluto, London.
Reddin, M 2018, ‘Looking back at Kony2012, the father of modern “clicktivism”’, The Big Smoke Australia, 7 November, viewed 4 January 2018, <https://thebigsmoke.com.au/2018/11/07/looking-back-kony2012-the-father-of-modern-clicktivism/>.
Rutledge, P 2010, ‘Four Ways Social Media Is Redefining Activism’, Psychology Today, 6 October, viewed 4 January 2018, <https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/positively-media/201010/four-ways-social-media-is-redefining-activism>.
TEDx Talks 2018, Slacktivism: Social Media's Effect on Activism | Sophie Egar | TEDxYouth@PepperPike, 12 November, viewed 4 January 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhPIgES_hws>.
Youmans, W, & York, J 2012, 'Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements', Journal Of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329.
Images
Blain, A 2017, ‘Slacktivism’ [image], in Slacktivism – When You Care Enough To Do The Very Least, Amanda Blain, 1 November, viewed 4 January 2018, <https://www.amandablain.com/slacktivism-when-you-care-enough-to-do-the-very-least/>.
Cheng, G 2012, ‘Clicktivism meme’ [image], in Is social media the cause of slacktivism?, Johnson King Blog, 16 March, viewed 4 January 2018, <https://johnsonking.typepad.co.uk/johnson_king_blog/2012/03/is-social-media-the-cause-of-slacktivism-.html>.
‘Clicktivism definition’ [image], in WARNING: Clicktivism, 1in17, viewed 4 January 2018, <https://1n17.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/twittermind/>.
Linda 2016, ‘Click here to save the world’ [image], in I’ve added the hashtag, now what?, Gender Worlds, 17 October, viewed 4 January 2018, <http://wpmu.mah.se/nmict162group5/tag/clicktivism/>.
In my previous post, I talked about how netizens engage in politics through social media, but have yet to bring up an important question: Is activism and protests on social media effective? When you really think about it, it would be useless if it does not garner result regardless of the Internet coverage and reachability.
The sparks between Activists and Social Media
Social media forms a society where people are connected through their own and other people’s social circles. With this concept of society, activists that needed to spread awareness of their campaign or protests to as many people as possible, instantly “fell in love” with social media activism. It allows live and instant response and engagement from the public when things need to be done quickly. For instance, the #NeverAgain movement was live streamed on Tumblr.
Clicktivism and Slacktivism
The idea of clicktivism has been under fire recently because of how “not impactful” it is, as experts think that nothing can be changed through clicking or applying a photo filter or theme. Online petitions and e-campaigns such as Change.org have been said to be ineffective as people who click or vote to support the campaign or protest are not actually doing anything. Thus, it leads to this idea of “Slacktivism”, where people participate without understanding what they are supporting when there are more that can be done than just clicking. An example would be #bringbackourgirls where 276 girls are abducted and still cannot be found even though the hashtag was trending.
Adios, Slacktivism!
However, the idea of social media activism is not fully ineffective as the e-campaigns, online petitions and hashtags are spreading awareness worldwide. Here’s a question to think about: How are you going to get people to join forces when they do not what is happening or what is the cause? At the end of the day, it’s just a different way to protest or spread awareness. Some people are able to take it to the street and march, while some people can only support by signing online petitions and spread the news. When you make something seems easy to do or can be achieved within their strength, most of the people would do it. That is why we have hashtags such as #MeToo, e-campaigns and online petitions. When more people are aware of an issue, such as animal cruelty, people will have a cause to fight for, and social media is just one of the ways for them to participate and engage with social or political activism. An example would be #NeverAgain that has more than 800 sibling rallies worldwide in such a short time after the Parkland school shooting and the Umbrella movement.
Happily Ever After
Social media nowadays offers multiple affordances and one of them is to promote social or political activism worldwide without charges. Activists share their campaigns and get responses from public while the public engage and share again. Now, what do you think? Should there be social media activism? Is it relevant? Share your thoughts by reblogging or in the comment section down below!
When a good man has long devoted himself to a particular kind of beneficence-- to one species of reform-- he is apt to become narrowed into the limits of the path wherein he treads, and to fancy that there is no other good to be done on earth but that self-same good to which he has put his hand, and in the very mode that best suits his own conceptions. All else is worthless. His scheme must be wrought out by the united strength of the whole world’s stock of love, or the world is no longer worthy of a position in the universe.
Nathaniel Hawthorne, “The Procession of Life” (1843)
In the past, if you felt strongly enough about an issue, cared enough, you got off your bum and did something about it, joined a movement, attended a protest. Today, we can be involved with just a click of a button, but do we click and forget? And the question is asked, again and again, activism or slacktivism? It has been argued that this type of activism or ‘subactivism’ should still be viewed as important no matter how frivolous it appears (Bakardjieva, 2009, p. 103), although this view can be hard to swallow at times.
(Nine, 2016)
In 2014, in a bid to decrease alcohol fuelled violence, Sydney introduced 1.30am lockout laws for pubs and clubs in Kings Cross and the CBD (Nine, 2016). With Casinos unaffected by the lockout laws, Premier Mike Baird received backlash that new laws would not only kill off the city’s vibrant nightlife but also the local music scene. The response: the Keep Sydney Open campaign and petition. The petition currently has 54,109 signatures and Keep Sydney Open have held a number of rallys, including one in February, attracting approximately 5000 people (police estimation) (Triple J, 2016) and another in October with approximately 4000 people attending (ABC News, 2016). These numbers are a far cry from the 54,000 that have signed the petition. Does that give less validity to the petition? No, I don’t think so. In the age of technology we are more informed than ever before and have the ability to be more engaged, regardless of our physical environment (Ducheneaut, Yee, Nickell, Moore, 2006). With these types of laws being introduced into our major cities, this was much more than just a Sydney issue, and the online environment allowed anyone, from anywhere, to engage in the situation (ABC News, 2016).
As Morozov has pointed out, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are prodominately for entertainment purposes (Gerbaudo, 2012), but just as the business world has begun to adopt the platforms, so too have activists.
A few years ago I came across a petition with Change.org, which was advertised on Facebook regarding the NBN and how it would be delivered to homes, fibre to the node (FTTN) or fibe to the home (FTTH). At the time, we owned a telecommunications service provider company and this was a big issue within our industry, so I signed the petition. Since then I have received regular emails from Change.org regarding a variety of different matters, none of which have been relevant to me, and they have been discarded. But it does make me wonder, does everyone else discard them? I’m not really sure how I feel about online petitions and their validity now.
ABC News, 2016, Keep Sydney Open: Thousands attend protest against lockout laws, Jimmy Barnes backs campaign, viewed 16 January 2016 <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-09/lockout-laws-rally-sydney-130am/7916524>
ABC News, 2016, ‘Queensland to introduce the country's toughest lockout laws’ viewed 15 January 2016, <http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/brisbane-lockouts-pass/7175962>
Bakardjieva, M 2009, 'Subactivism: Lifeworld and Politics in the Age of the Internet', Information Society, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 91-104.
Charlie Brown image, ‘Technology and Social Causes- Activism or "Clicktivism"?’ 2012, viewed 15 January 2017, <http://kalw.org/post/technology-and-social-causes-activism-or-clicktivism#stream/0>
Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Nickell, E., and Moore, R.J. (2006). "Alone Together? Exploring the Social Dynamics of Massively Multiplayer Games." Proceedings of CHI 2006, pp.407-416
Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets : Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Pluto, London.
Nine, 2016, NSW Government says violence has risen at Sydney’s Star casino since lockout laws introduced, viewed 16 January 2017 <http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/nsw-government-says-violence-has-risen-at-sydneys-star-casino-since-lockout-laws-introduced/news-story/231d9e2d1918cf7d14e2c871e4651e08>
