Can Social Media Promote Civic Engagement And Collective Action

In the article “Did Social Media Ruin Election 2016,” the author, Sam Sanders, makes many valid points about social media, one being that it is not being used for what it was created for. Today, especially these past few months during the controversial election, social media has been used as a place for users to argue with others that do not agree with them. Sanders goes on to make many other points about social media being used destructively, and I agree with the vast majority of them.

The term “social media” refers to the wide range of Internet-based and mobile services that allow users to participate in online exchanges, contribute user-created content, or join online communities (Dewing). It has become common today to use applications such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to express and share your thoughts, opinions, and common interest. In Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, writer Malcolm Gladwell touches upon the issues of social media’s role in activism vs. the traditional way of becoming a true activist Many of us today use these social networks for its beneficial approach to attract users and acquaintances to support their cause or

In his article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell complains that the casual, low-stakes activism that takes place on social media will never make a difference in the real world, and that sharing political posts online does not have nearly as powerful an effect as physical, real-life activism. He claims that the Internet allows us to feel disconnected from the issue at hand, and unless people feel true, personal outrage about something, and are willing to make concrete sacrifices, big-picture change is a hopeless pursuit. While I find myself primarily agreeing with Gladwell, I believe he doesn’t give social media enough credit for all that it can do for the world of activism when used effectively.

The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. during the 1950’s and 60’s showed how effective activism is on political issues. Under the leadership of major civil figures, most notably Dr. Martin Luther King, the organized and peaceful movement brought about major change to the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities. Moreover, this movement made historical strides in changing U.S. policy, and did so without the use of social media. Today, social media activism is merely a means to an end. Social media can share a vast amount of information, and raise awareness on a broad spectrum of issues. However, the ability to make major changes on government policy, as proven by many occurrences in history, requires high-risk activism under an organized hierarchy. I argue that social media is not an effective tool for political actions because it lacks the necessary traits to make an effective impact.

Activism using the Internet and other new media is increasingly having an impact in broadening the scope of civic action in support of human rights in East Asia. Select one or two case studies of activism in ONE East Asian country studied in this course. With regard to your chosen case studies, how effective is online activism as a force for social change? How are government authorities responding to the challenge of internet activism?

The meaning of social action is addressing issues within society in order to spark awareness and result in change. Their main objective is to evoke an emotion to the public. Community Media is any form of media that is created and controlled by a community. The most popular form of community media is through radio as it is listened to by various groups within different communities and allows people to reach out and connect with the world 's poorest communities. Documentaries are used as a purpose of showcasing social action and community media.

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

As technology develops rapidly in the modern society, the broad social influence it brings is also widely discussed, especially about its effects on social change. In the past, social movements were raised without the help of technology, specifically without social media, whereas social media has recently played a non-ignorable role. The connection between social media and social activisms concerned, here come some different voices. Few people maintain that social media now has no practical influence on social change, while others hold the opposite view, thinking social media is already a crucial factor in it. Personally speaking, I agree with the second kind of view: it is true that social media is not able to create social movements by itself in today’s world, but it plays an important and essential part in making real social change.

Nowadays, social media is practically a staple in everyone’s lives. While some use it solely to stay in touch with friends or family, others wouldn’t even know the latest of current events if they didn’t have their phone notifying them that their friends are talking about it. The Internet and social media have bred a new generation of socially-aware people which has given them a platform to learn and share on. Because this generation’s growth is largely-based online and through technology, it has formed a new brand of social activism. While some feel social media has made it too easy to claim a movement or position, others believe that it is what we need to spread a message

No matter how much potential social media has for political or societal change it is important to criticize its negative aspects. An article written by Andrea Moncada, begins her argument with the question has social media had the same impact on advocacy. Similar to Gladwell’s points of view, Moncada states, “social media can help get the word around, but participants must be united by a core message and traditional methods…” This source of uncertainty is the basis for its support and is understandable.

Then, how would Baumgartner and Jones (2010) explain this new kind of phenomenon where such scattered individuals themselves take an active part in the policy process? Although the book does not explicitly mention such new form of citizen participation, the authors would argue that such social media use and citizens’ policy inputs as a result could be understood as a part of the nonincremental stimulus that induces new policy ideas and thus policy punctuations by impelling policy makers in the ‘venue’. However, this interpretation leaves room for refutation. Even if individual citizens could finally induce policy changes by utilizing social media and by interacting each other and with key players in the policy process, they are still atomized without a group and do not have a tangible power unlike other actors such as policy entrepreneurs. Moreover, the social media spheres could not play the identical role with that of the venue. Thus, it is not easy to simply argue that citizens using social media could explicitly or directly exert their power over the policy process. Yet, it still seems that such new actors in the online space and their influence on policy change

The use of social media sites remain as atop down information feed rather than interacting active input as issues can become polarising resulting in conflict leading to bad publicity to elected officials (Fredricks & Foth 2012, p 246). Those that already have an interest in a local issue will seek out other mechanisms of public participation (Fredricks & Foth 2012, p 248). The use of the internet in public participation requires a technical knowledge that may involve training in some areas (Seltzer & Mahoundi 2013 p. 11). Additionally utilising telecommunications requires a decent network (Leighninger 2012 p. 4).

Executives today operating in large corporations know just how tough it is to get away from network tools like Yammer, SharePoint, etc. Such instruments are currently used in a regular base to cooperate communication, entertain groups, and trace gatherings. Found in an article, social media entrepreneur and political organizer Jeremy Heimans said, “ Social media helps all institutions become transparent and engage in a more participatory dialogue with the stakeholders. Social media and technology have helped political organizations, providing a more democratic mechanism to get people involved” (429Magazine).

Social media has influenced the growth of social capital as it provides a thriving environment for creating and maintaining networks as opposed to civic clubs and volunteer organizations. Through social capital creation of human capital has been enabled as it is able to engage and sustain effective communities and identifies closure – collective observance of social norms that

Social media presents a new method of communication in which the modern citizen may participate in informal political debate,