The Benefits of Online Activism

                   This post is a summary of two articles. The first was published with the title above at  https://storify.com/Amberlin23/the-benefits-of-online-activism. The second article was published in January of 2017 at  http://www.unpan.org/Regions/AsiaPacific/PublicAdministrationNews/tabid/115/mctl/ArticleView/ModuleId/1467/articleId/53060

           In the past decade, the merits and faults of online activism have been debated among digital media scholars. Some of these scholars believe that net-activism is making it easier than ever to make your voice heard, and therefore increases democracy. Others claim that the internet decreases what they consider to be real-world activism. Essentially, some people believe that online activism will lead to a more active and complete democracy.  This essay will focus on the progressive activist site MoveOn.org to argue that the internet provides an opportunity for increased participation in the democratic process and complements rather than replaces traditional means of political activism.In his article "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will not Be Tweeted," Malcolm Gladwell claims that, as a society, we have forgotten what it means to be an activist. Gladwell does not appear to buy the assertion that online activists are activists. Gladwell seems to think that social media activism rarely leads to high-risk activism and that only high-risk activism can lead to meaningful change. There are two powerful critiques of Gladwell's argument. Depending on the situation, internet activists can be high-risk activists. For example, in an authoritarian state, an internet activist can be involved in high-risk activism. Even in the U.S. internet activists can be considered high-risk activists. Take the case of Aaron Swartz, at just 26 years old Aaron was being made an example of by federal prosecutors after his conviction that information should be free led him to release scholarly articles from JSTOR's database. Facing up to 35 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines, Aaron hanged himself in his apartment in Brooklyn. Certainly online activism can be considered high-risk activism. The second critique to Gladwell's article is the fact that low-risk activism can in fact lead to meaningful change. In his argument, Gladwell calims that the members of the Facebook page for the Save Darfur Coalition have donated, on average, nine cents each. However with over a million members, they have raised over $115,000 which should be considered meaningful. Furthermore, after Aaron Swartz's death, people were empathetic to the cause of free information and online activists redoubled their efforts. Many people express high hope for future of online activism, but people are deeply divided about whether the online activism will bring about positive change. Most everyone can agree that online activism have effect on political future but disagree about what that change will entail. Palfrey and Gassey are clearly optimistic in their article "Activists." They believe that online activism can lead to a better represented citizenry, at least in the media. Despite some concerns, most scholars have settled on the theory that online activism will enhance democracy. Furthermore, the internet has mobilized average citizens into action. Even with people like Siegel expressing the dangers of increased online participation, hopes are running high about the democratizing of online activism. One common assumption, made by those both for and against online activism, is that the internet is a motivation machine, taking previously disengaged people and turning them into political activists. However, a study conducted by Jennifer Orser, Marc Hooghe, and Sophie Marien found that those people who were active online were likely to be active offline as well. For instance, someone who floods your Facebook wall with political comments and reminders to vote correctly is likely to volunteer, contribute to a campaign, or otherwise participate in the political process outside of the internet. Orser, Hooghe and Marien, in their published report of the study, conclude that the internet works more as a reinforcement tool than a mobilization technique. MoveOn.org recognized early that online activity comes along with offline activity and now this webpage works by harnessing the power of over 8 million progressives activits from across the country. Besides providing an opportunity for individuals to be more active in their government, the internet has also helped to level the playing field between activist groups and well-funded organizations. In the article "Activism, information subsidies, and the internet," author Erich Sommerfeldt claims that the internet have helped activist groups gain professionalism and garner more attention with needing the resources they needed in the past. Palfrey and Gasser's article "Activists" expresses a belief that the internet has given activist groups power enough to compete with resource-rich organizations. They even take it a step further, claiming that because of new highly interactive, easy-to-use applications, professional journalists are not the only people who can determine what the nation talks about. Rather, they say, our social agenda is increasingly determined by our own "observations, experiences and concerns." The fact that social policy can be changed by one person starting a petition is demonstrative of Palfrey and Gasser's claims. I think this essay has demonstrated that despite the naysayers, internet activism goes hand-in-hand with traditional activism, increases participatory democracy, and create real social and political change. Though there were always be those who will doubt and those who will pin their hopes too high, activists will continue on, using all the tools at our disposal in order to make changes in the world we live in.

             Online activism emerged in the early 1990s in the USA and later spread very quickly to all countries. It initially consisted of mass email and E-bulletin board campaigns. Later, organizations such as Avaaz, Change.org, MoveOn.org and other brought civic engagement to a new level and put online activism at the center of political and business decisions. Online activism via petitions and campaigns has become an effective way to raise awareness about important political, economic, cultural and social problems and challenges society is facing. Some governments and parliaments are also creating online petition sites. Thanks to them, citizens have a more direct way to influence policy-making. Wikileaks and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists can be considered different examples of online activism. By revealing thousands of classified documents, these sites are contributing to transparency. Moreover, online political activism is helping to tip the balance in contested electoral campaigns. While online activism is growing in popularity, the rejection this type of activism generates among people also increases. Those people think that online activism is simply encouraging people to passively click in support of a cause rather than take concrete action, which may have a greater impact in bringing about change. We have summarized some of the main advantages and limitations of internet activism. Pros of online activism : 1) Online activism is cost efficient. It requires low effort from the organizers and supporters of a cause. 2) Digital activism is democratizing activism. 3) Online activism is demonstrating the transformational impact of internet on society. There are many examples of online petitions that have worked. 4) As many viral campaigns can attest to, it is an extremely effective means to raise funds if social media campaigns become viral. 5) It generates significant debate and awareness amongst people. "clicktivists" who are simply sharing a link or a post or clicking to endorse a petition, often learn about problems through this process. Some of them will later on find out more about that issue or cause and may end up becoming "fully-fledged activists." The limitations of online activism are: 1) Clicktivists are usually passive activists, they usually get involved because of the hype on social media. 2) Online activism can become hypocritical way of getting peace of mind when we know that we are not doing anything substantial to solve the problems. 3) Although the potential to transform society is real, sometimes the impact of online activism is negative for society. For instance, terrorist groups and xenophobic parties are also using online activism to achieve their goals.