This
posting may be out of synch with our class discussions but I came across this
blog today and it offers comment on slacktivism – the accusation that social
media really does not effect change because it is easy for people to sit behind
computers and click “like” without making any real commitment. It is part of the criticism that
Malcolm Gladwell made in his commentary in the New Yorker when he compared this
to courageous activists who bravely fought for racial equality in the deep
south during the 1960s . This was
one of the references in Linda Komori’s posting, Cute Cats and the Arab Spring.
I
like Gladwell’s writings but I couldn’t help but think he may have missed an
important point on this one. While we will never know for sure, I wonder if a quiet
majority of people had had access to the Internet and used it to tell elected
officials that they wanted change, what impact it may have had. I’m not
suggesting it would have or could have replaced the hard sacrifices people made
in that important movement. I
don’t think change would have happened without the actions of people like Ezell
Blair and his supporters from North Carolina A.&T. And while their actions spread quickly,
social media might have provided another powerful message behind those actions.
No doubt mainstream media hampered the delivery of messages
of those who were protesting for change – social media would have provided a
channel that those in control could not have stopped.
It
is said that the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to stand
by and do nothing. Perhaps those likes and links on social media are a way for
good men to do something – if it is not within their abilities to take any
other form of action.
The
toppling of corrupt regimes as we have witnessed this past year didn’t happen
just because of social media, but social media did play a role.
http://stryvegroup.com/if-this-is-called-slacking-what-do-you-call-doing-nothing/
