While I agree that the new age of technology has definitely caused people to be lazy in terms of their support for causes, I am not so sure it is an entirely bad thing. For the laziest of lazy, you can even support a cause through your cell phone (which obviously is attached to your hand 24/7) by texting a number that will automatically draw $10 from your account in support of that cause.
In my opinion, the whole point of creating a Facebook page is to promote awareness. Whether it is for your company, the party you are throwing Friday night, or a non-profit, getting the word out to a lot of people without a lot of stress is possible because of Facebook and other technologies. It is okay to have the Slacktivists--it is okay to have people sitting behind their computer and "liking" the fight against pediatric cancer. That handy dandy like button that we know all too well...
For example, last year THON was heavily promoted after it there was a news report that focused on all the great things THON does for the Four Diamonds Families. This clip was disseminated all over YouTube, Facebook and Twitter and brought much more legitimacy to the THON name. Now, when I stand on the street corner dancing around with a big sign around my neck that says "Help Kids Fight Cancer", people are more likely to think "Hey...I saw that on TV last year!" or "Hey, I saw a YouTube clip about this organization." These thoughts will keep the coins and dollars coming into my can.
Morozov fails to see the bright side of social medias use in the promotion and spreading of awareness of causes. He pretty much views technology in general as an evil, and in this case, I think he is wrong.
Dani you are definitely right that modern technology has been very beneficial in promoting awareness for causes. Never before has it been so fast, so cheap, and so easy to spread information about your cause and to get people to donate. For example my THON org always relied on sending THONvelopes or paper letters to people from whom we wanted donations, but with the introduction of THONline we’ve seen a boom in our donations because we no longer have to pay for paper and postage, and because it costs nothing we can share our message with more people. When compared to the other ways to fundraise (i.e. canning in the freezing cold) there is no easier way to get money.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would not be so quick to apply this example to all cases. As students at Penn State we are constantly hearing messages “get involved with THON”, “raise money for THON”. I would argue that it is because of our daily interactions with our friends that we get the motivation to raise money, and using online media is really just a mechanism. Such a difference can be seen when the organizers of a charity (ex. Save the Children of Africa) are scattered across the country and even the world.
I would not go as far as to say Morozov thinks that technology is “evil”. As a former worker for an NGO for communication freedom I am sure he is aware that technology does have positive effects. He, like Kierkegaard, just believes that online groups just don’t have the same amount of influence over peoples’ actions to create a cohesive group. He argues that instead technology makes us feel active enough that it pacifies us from causing any real change. China’s netizens may have been able to launch an investigation into the “Elude The Cat” incident but if such an investigation stops short of reforming the government that imprisoned him in the first place, what good is there in that? I agree social networking may bring us together like never before, I would just like to ask all the starry-eyed Friedman-ites to examine all of these effects before they proclaim Facebook groups will save the world.
Dani, you certainly raised interesting points regarding the rise of slacktivism in society. Personally, I differentiate between someone that actually donates money via text message and slacktivists. Slacktivists are the people who go online and do nothing more than like something on Facebook or retweet something on Twitter. Morozov views these people as lazy and unmotivated.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your assumption that technologies like Facebook and Twitter increase awareness for a cause. Personally, if I see someone liking a cause on Facebook I forget all about five minutes later. There is just so much information on these sites, that after a certain point I just do not care anymore. One person liking an organization that works to save the Rainforest gets lost in the sea of pictures and status updates.
You certainly raised an interesting point regarding the online presence of THON. As you said, people certainly knew more about THON because of the presence on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. However, I would be interested to see what the knowledge of THON is outside of the mid-Atlantic region. In this area, Penn State and THON is already a big deal so they know about it beforehand. Perhaps, the rise of online activism will not be a global phenomenon, but a regional phenomenon. At the regional level, you probably have multiple friends all commenting on the same issues. By seeing similar information about different causes from multiple people, it helps avoid getting lost in the sea of information. This regional level activism may help bridge the gap between slacktivism and real life acti5vism as they become engaged and involved in the causes highlighted by other people in their region
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that lazy activism adds up enough financially to make a difference. This isn’t demonstrated in the figures disclosed by charities. I agree more with your statement that Facebook is used more to promote awareness. Your story about it helping THON was interesting; however THON is a large and already well known effort. I wonder how effective social media is getting less stylized efforts off of the ground. I remember reading a report that suggested that most charities viewed social media as a part of their media campaign and less as a method to effectively raise money. It also stated that charities were using it to find human capital as well, which is probably more valuable than a $10 donation. Ultimately, I agree that Morozov fails to completely review the benefits social media has in organizations. Social media has proven to be a cheap and effective means to advertise.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree that Morozov views technology to be evil (even though I don't think that was supposed to be completely serious). He views it as a tool that is used for “evil.” This is true, even in social media. Many Facebook charities have turned out to be scams, not that they could raise much money anyway. Tunisia was accused of siphoning login information from Gmail and Facebook, allowing them to access activists’ accounts. Social network surveillance has becoming a tool used by many parties and has proven effective. I think ultimately, Morozov is trying to pointing out to cyber-utopians that technology is used by people with bad intentions as well as good. He really focused on the negative outcomes of technology, probably as a response to all of the positive articles that are dominating the media. This made him seem too cynical and hurt his analysis.
THON is probably the best example of an effort that can be helped through social media. It works mostly through students, who are technologically conscious, and is small enough that the advertising is effective. I liked the personal touch you added to this post.
Dani: I agree that even slacktivism plays a role in creating awareness about causes. However, I’m not so sure that this awareness necessarily translates into people actually caring about an issue, and I’m even more skeptical that this awareness translates into real action on the issue.
ReplyDeletePeople go on Facebook to manage their networks of family and friends and potentially share photos and information among them. Sometimes this information includes articles on important causes or pressing issues, but more often than not it just includes interesting or funny web content. I would classify “learning about causes” an indirect consequence of going on Facebook—if people come across a page on an issue that speaks to them, they might spend 30 seconds reading the brief description and even “like” it. But most people don’t actively sift through causes on Facebook looking for causes that align with their interests. They read; they like; and that’s where the caring stops.
And yet, while social media and the internet provides an excellent medium for slacktivists to get their warm fuzzies, I agree that it also can generate real change. I can’t help but think of other social media websites, such as Jumo (recently acquired by GOOD,) which is a platform for NGOs to promote their efforts and get in touch with other NGOs that have similar missions as them. This websites facilitates collaboration on issues and empowers NGOs to combine their efforts in order to tackle important issues. So even though there are plenty of Facebook slacktivists that passively “like” supporting a cause, social media also facilitates direct communication between likeminded people so that they can ultimately achieve common goals.