The Foundation of Global Change: Outreach Efforts Through The Internet

The mediatization of our modern world is a largely controversial matter with notable pros and cons littering its discourse. Mass communication now includes the internet, mobile phones, and new forms of intelligent communication systems. It’s affected governments with Open-Data being increasingly prominent globally, it’s given an individual voice to those once drowned-out by the booming voice of greater society, it constructs and molds many communities creating a sense of cultural centrality- for better or for worse. Media is the dominant voice which dictates and sways our views, it is the news reports we read, and the radio we hear. It can break people apart, ignite and promote increasingly individualized consumerist views, and neo-liberal capitalism. Just how much globalized media has inspired global change is increasingly hard to pinpoint. If everything is now presented through globalized media, how does this affect individual communities? Through various global case studies, the impact of dispersed worlds, becoming unified tendons, connected by central media is discussed. Whether this harbors negative connotations for society, as well as the limitations of virtual connectivity- as communications and media are under continuous advance.

Hashtag activism, a term coined by media outlets refers to the use of Twitter hashtags for internet activism, as well as other actions such as liking and sharing to display support to a social movement. Many notable examples including #BlackLivesMatter and #ShoutYourAbortion have broken the silence surrounding taboo topics and raised awareness and support for these causes. Free petition set-up and hosting sites, such as Change.Org, further simplify the process of community unification for a perceived just cause. These petitions act as a common course of action for nascent social movements. As described by Change.Org (the prevalent online petition community database): ‘people everywhere are starting campaigns, mobilizing supporters, and working with decision-makers to drive solutions’. Synonymous with the idea that everybody has the power to say what they’d like to change about the world and unite/ connect with others sharing their belief. The community of ‘likers’, acts as signatures for the petition. These petitions are effective in bringing about social change as they present community values- the numbers of signatures can be used to apply pressure to those whom popular online controversy may affect. Online petitions have been used for a variety of means globally, including political, business, and environmental campaigns. Success stories include (but are not limited to) Erica Perry’s 2014 petition, encouraging Centerplate (a large corporate contender) to fire its CEO, who was caught on video abusing a young Doberman Pinscher in an elevator. The petition called for Hague’s resignation. A petition in the Philippines saw death row convict Mary Jane Veloso released, after gaining 250,000 signatures from over 125 countries.

However, it’s notable that often political campaigns are not affected by hashtag activism or online petitions. After two earthquakes hit Central Mexico in 2017, a petition asserted that the money destined for the upcoming 2018 general elections, should be redirected to the victims of the earthquakes in Central Mexico. No action was taken as a result of the petitions gaining over 3 million signatures. Popular political petitions have also swept over France, making no change. Most prominently, the Change.org petition to ‘Make Hillary Clinton President’, surpassed four million signatures. However, ultimately failed as on December 19, 2016, Trump officially gained the presidency. With 4.9 million signatures, the highest in change.org history- the petition failed to make any real change except to arouse public interest and provide a virtual platform for a dissatisfied community to share grievances. Hashtag activism allows the community a voice and makes notable (minor level) changes in the world, such as those aforementioned. A noteworthy problem with the accountability of online activism is the threat of ‘fake signatures’ or meaningless likes- without the ability for the public to put pen to paper or take any real action. In 2018, the CEO of Bicycle Queensland, Anne Savage claimed that the anti-cycling petition against Bicycle Queensland, generating over 100,000 signatures, was bursting with pseudonyms, created by electronic bots. This was denied by the spokesperson for Change.Org but sheds light on the fact that we cannot instill our trust wholeheartedly into everything we see and read online. There is a great deal of fake news and propaganda influence.

As demonstrated by the 2016 failure to digitally bolster Hillary into the presidency, online activism has limitations. A primary example of ‘slacktivism’, described as the slack nature of modern activism, is the popularity of the viral ‘Invisible Childrens Inc’ video; when compared to the dismal amount of activity performed by the individuals who had liked and shared the cause. ‘Invisible Children, Inc’ is an organization founded in 2005. It aims to foster awareness of the Lord’s Resistance Army, in Central Africa. The 2012 campaigns specifically target the military leader, Joseph Kony, and aim to end the horrific operations of the LRA. These include, but are not limited to child abduction and the rearing of child soldiers. The campaign took off when three, inexperienced filmmakers produced a DVD ‘whose target audience came to represent a new demographic for charitable giving: American teenagers. Most notably young, white, middle and upper-class girls and young women’. They were targeted through media campaigns that relied heavily on a strong social media presence and regular collaboration with celebrities. One of the efforts included a release of a video ‘Kony 2012’ on their website and through Youtube.

The video advocated for viewers to support the cause by sharing the video and ordering ‘action kits’. These kits contained old-media materials such as posters to distribute and display in public places, to generate awareness of the cause. The video went viral: ‘it has been watched more than 99 million times on Youtube and circulated through Facebook, and received almost 1.4 million ‘likes’ on Facebook’. Through the use of the Web and social media, the organization obtained more than 3.5 million supporters for the Kony 2012 event. The organization’s ability for grassroots mobilization was almost unprecedented in size. The intent coincided with Obama’s administrative policies including ‘the prevention of mass atrocities and conflict prevention and regional security cooperation in Africa’. Because of this, they had ‘a profound impact on the U.S. policy, most notably the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act and the decision to send US military advisers to the region to assist Ugandan military forces hunting for Kony’. However, individually many of the supporters took no action after watching the video and ordering action kits. By the time of the ‘what happened to Kony update clip’  one year later, public interest had disseminated, and the video was viewed just over 174,000 times. This shows the temporality of nascent trends in digital media. Responses are aroused as quickly as they are sedated because to ‘like’ or ‘share’ or even write a brief response about a subject, does not foster a real sense of care about the movement.

The arousal of temporary interests sounds unthreatening until considered in dangerous contexts. Since digital access has become a globalized human right in many countries, people have found new and unexpected ways to manipulate this, ‘one such use has been the recruitment of new members by terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda’. Extremist groups use internet properties to share propaganda and foster a sense of community for supporters. Furthermore, the spread of global media enables terrorists to inspire global fear, aiming to utilize this to force governments to follow their demands. Many ideological movements have attempted this method, including (but not limited to) environmental activists, anti-government groups, religious extremists, white supremacists, and nationalist groups. Most terrorist organizations use online mediums and websites to dispel propaganda, befriend and encourage sympathizers and create a community within, ‘using the ideology that ‘people have a psychological need to belong in groups’. For example, ‘Al Qaeda uses social influence techniques to induce individuals to become terrorist sympathizers’ (Burton & Stewart, 2008). As the largest and most influential terrorist organization in the world, Al. Qaeda employs a range of media technologies, making ‘the online recruitment of terrorist sympathizers and terrorist operatives a primary element of its overall strategy’.

‘Extremism is characterized by dogmatic intolerance, expressed mildly or violently, and inclines towards inflexible obedience to an accepted authority, shaped by a common ideology or a sense of group unity’. This may seem non-threatening to those unlikely to be persuaded by terrorist propaganda. However, many groups target the naive. There were 457 white-extremist groups in the United States, in 1999, whose distinctive trait was ‘faithfulness to racial purity’. The most influential websites acted as clearinghouses, providing propaganda and erroneous information about targeted minority groups. They were all interlinked. Research has shown that the sites mainly targeted children, who ‘may be searching for school-related information or free downloadable MP3 music. For example, when researching such topics as Martin Luther King, Jr. or the Holocaust’ sites appear that seem ‘to be authoritative, especially to a juvenile, but each site offers historically inaccurate information and extremist versions of historic events and personages’. One site claimed Martin Luther King Jr, to be a ‘disruptive force in American history’. Examples of child manipulation on the web include ‘Creativity for Kids’, a site offering downloadable coloring books and puzzles about white power in a subtle, child-friendly format. Another, Stormfront for Kids, created a site purporting to be the webpage of a pre-teen boy, sharing his newfound understanding of white supremacy with his peers. MP3 downloads, including ‘a discussion of the dangers of Pokemon for white children and white culture’ existed, with links to support forums and groups. Linkage to the site, however, was limited, so that such online communities could not be caught by authoritative figures such as parents, but stumbled upon by the naïve and vulnerable. E-commerce such as online marketing of merchandise and links to information on e-terrorism, like ‘directions for building a grenade launcher or bomb’ littered the sites. The sites largely incorporated the promotion of a ‘lone wolf’ worldview, with statements such as ‘we will do our part and we will trust that you will do yours’.

The Anna Hazare Anti-Corruption Movement, 5th April 2011, marked the day social worker and anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, started his hunger strike, aiming to exert pressure on the Indian government to enact The Lokpal Bill (a stringent anti-corruption law). His fast led to nationwide protests in support, as well as great attention from mainstream and digital media platforms. ‘Some scholars [believe] that it was social media which provided momentum for a huge movement that the mainstream media could not ignore. As a result, the subsequent intervention of electronic and print media has made the agitation into a mass movement’. By the 9th of April, Hazare’s demands had been met. The government issued a gazette notification on the formation of a joint committee, consisting of government and civil society representatives. Where it’s clear the government inflamed the frustrations of the people through flawed policies; electronic media largely catalyzed the movement.

Questions were raised about the legitimacy of media exploiting middle-class anger to expand profits. Journalist Kumar lamented: ‘I saw myself the tremendous reception he received from gathered crowds … TV channels claimed hundreds of thousands had gathered to welcome the crusader’, but in reality, there were ‘no more than 200,000 people’ in attendance. He added ‘what defies imagination, even as it stretches to journalistic credibility, is that the messengers become the lead players, directing the route the story will run, conjuring up twists and turns where there are none to keep the news-in-the-making illusion breathlessly alive’. Tabloidization meant that dissenting voices, such as the government’s, became sidelined. This conjured up an anti-government and anti-politics atmosphere countrywide. The danger is the presentation of direct democracy, rather than liberal governance. Mass media should not revolve around placating the dominant voice of social movements but presenting both sides. Perhaps ‘media had no choice than establishing its credentials in a democratic set up to claim for its continuous guardian and fourth pillar status’.

In September 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement began in New York, campaigning against economic inequality, greed, and the influence of corporations and political corruption. Their intravenous slogan, ‘we are the 99%’, broadcasted immense wealth inequality in the U.S.A. A largely positive outcome of the movement is the regular proliferation of this slogan through a variety of mediums, including social media, print, newspaper, and live streaming. The public outburst became a global protest trend. Seemingly an invocation on the Arab Spring, Al-Arabiya covered the protests on October 9th under the headline ‘Wall Street Spring’. Another European headline: ‘Wall Street Protests come to London’; another article grouped the protestors of the riots in Arab countries and Greece, Take the Square, Real Democracy Now, activists of Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street, the 15-M’ as a ‘heterogeneous mass’.

However, despite generating a great deal of media and political attention, the Occupy Movement seemingly came in like a lion and crept out like a lamb. There have been no tangible results for the middle class or under-represented, the movement failed to engage with institutional politics, limiting the durability of the culture it could affect. The reasons were multitudinous: the following were scattered and vestigial; they held no place in the current Presidential race; there were many small-scale networks around the country, with no clear goals or centered message; they challenged representative democracy without offering an alternative. It seems that the outcome of the American financial system is somewhat set in stone, and although large-scale demonstrations make visible collective anger- no matter how much media coverage, this has little impact.

The examples of Anna-Hazare and Occupy Wall Street, demonstrate that social media cannot alone create meaningful change, as demonstrated by similar protests in Hong Kong: ‘the failure of the Hong Kong protests demonstrate that internet technology is not a technological blueprint for social change that can simply be grafted onto society irrespective of that culture’s socio-economic, political and historical characteristics’ synonymous to the idea that social change and political reform of any kind arising from the population at ground level. The media simply helps the cause. If we compare digital media with physical mobilization movements of the past such as the Montgomery Bus Protest of 1955-1956, we see how effective physical activity is. The peaceful protest had a dramatic impact on the civil rights movement due to ‘the remarkably disciplined and organized nonviolent mass movement in which most of Montgomery’s Blacks refused to ride the city’s buses for over a year to protest the racist policies and practices of public officials’. The organizers communicated with large numbers of people regularly, helping raise morale and preventing slacktivism.

In conclusion, social media has certainly influenced global change through strengthening ‘outreach efforts’, enabling ‘engaging feedback’, and facilitating ‘collective action’. This is true of all the aforementioned case studies. Whether social media affects large-scale issues such as public policy, is another question. Most online activism is merely symbolic, with members rarely putting in the effort to advocate for the change they strive to achieve. As quoted by UNICEF ‘we like likes, and social media could be a good first step to get involved, but it cannot stop there. Likes do not save people’s lives. We need money to buy vaccinations for instance’. Furthermore, in terms of the implementation of laws ‘lawyers advocating for social justice issues might be reluctant to involve themselves in social media campaigns’, although media does allow attorneys to demonstrate a wide support networks to aid their cases and a public voice. Thus, digital media provides a foundation but not an end for global change.