Slacktivism

[1] Additional forms of slacktivism include engaging in online activities such as liking, sharing or tweeting about a cause on social media, signing an Internet petition,[2] copying and pasting a status or message in support of the cause, sharing specific hashtags associated with the cause, or altering one's profile photo or avatar on social network services to indicate solidarity.

Critics of slacktivism suggest that it fails to make a meaningful contribution to an overall cause because a low-stakes show of support, whether online or offline, is superficial, ineffective, draws off energy that might be used more constructively, and serves as a substitute for more substantive forms of activism rather than supplementing them, and might, in fact, be counter-productive.

[9] Monty Phan, staff writer for Newsday, was an early user of the term in his 2001 article titled, "On the Net, 'Slacktivism'/Do-Gooders Flood In-Boxes.

"[10] An early example of using the term "slacktivism" appeared in Barnaby Feder's article in The New York Times called "They Weren't Careful What They Hoped For."

"[11] Another example of the term "Slacktivism" appeared in Evgeny Morozov's book, Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (2011).

[12] Morozov argues the Colding-Jørgensen experiment reveals a key component of slacktivism: "When communication costs are low, groups can easily spring into action.

Particularly, some skeptics argue that it entails an underlying assumption that all problems can be seamlessly fixed using social media, and while this may be true for local issues, slacktivism could prove ineffective for solving global predicaments.

"[15] Criticism of slacktivism often involves the idea that internet activities are ineffective, and/or that they prevent or lessen political participation in real life.

However, as many studies on slacktivism relate only to a specific case or campaign, it is difficult to find an exact percentage of slacktivist actions that reach a stated goal.

[16] Malcolm Gladwell, in his October 2010 New Yorker article, lambasted those who compare social media "revolutions" with actual activism that challenges the status quo ante.

Those who did engage only did so by posting comments and other low forms of political participation, helping to confirm the slacktivism theoretical model.

Though the campaign lacked critical components that would generate success, it made viewers stop and think about their activism habits and question the effect that slacktivism really has.

[21] In response to Gladwell's criticism of slacktivism in the New Yorker (see above), journalist Leo Mirani argues that he might be right if activism is defined only as sit-ins, taking direct action, and confrontations on the streets.

[26][27] A 2011 correlational study conducted by Georgetown University entitled "The Dynamics of Cause Engagement" determined that so-called slacktivists are indeed "more likely to take meaningful actions".

"[28] Cited benefits of slacktivism in achieving clear objectives include creating a secure, low-cost, effective means of organizing that is environmentally friendly.

The authors note that although slacktivists are less active than committed minorities, their power lies in their numbers: "their aggregate contribution to the spread of protest messages is comparable in magnitude to that of core participants.

[39] This study concluded that, although the act of changing one's profile photo is small, ultimately social media campaigns such as this make a cumulative difference over time.

[16] For example, the British group UK Uncut use Twitter and other websites to organise protests and direct action against companies accused of tax avoidance.

[42] The act of "liking" a photo on Facebook or clicking a petition is in itself symbolic because it demonstrates that the individual is aware of the situation and it shows their peers the opinions and thoughts they have on certain subject matters.

For example, a slacktivist may buy Ben and Jerry's ice cream because its founders invested in the nation's children, or promoted social and environmental concerns.

[47] Certain forms of slacktivism have political goals in mind, such as gaining support for a presidential campaign, or signing an internet petition that aims to influence governmental action.

Change.org claimed the fact that hackers "felt the need to bring down the website must be seen as a testament to Change.org's fast-growing success and a vindication of one particular petition: A Call for the Release of Ai Weiwei.

In sympathy slacktivism, images of young children, animals and people seemingly in need are often used to give a sense of credibility to the viewers, making the campaign resonate longer in their memory.

Using children in campaigns is often the most effective way of reaching a larger audience due to the fact that most adults, when exposed to the ad, would not be able to ignore a child in need.

An example of sympathy slacktivism is the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's campaign "Vi Gillar Olika" (literal translation: "We like different").

[53] The campaign was used as an experiment to see if an online video could reach such a large audience that it would make a war criminal, Joseph Kony, famous.

"[56]In the weeks following the kidnapping of hundreds of schoolgirls by the organization Boko Haram, the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls began to trend globally on Twitter as the story continued to spread[57] and by May 11 it had attracted 2.3 million tweets.

One such tweet came from the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, holding a sign displaying the hashtag, posted to her official Twitter account, helping to spread the awareness of the kidnapping.