During the Occupy protests occurring all across America, people were out

occupying populated areas for long periods of time to show discontent for the current political

and economic system. Other people showed their support and we actively spreading information

on the protests making sure people not involved were well informed about the events taking

place ranging from support to reporting atrocities committed by the police in an attempt to

silence the dissent of the protesters. Both groups of people had an important role in the occupy

protests, but which group had more of a positive impact on the movement?

The internet is a wonderful thing and since its creation it has shown its capabilities to

connect people, share ideas, and create a stage that stretches to every continent, state, and city.

For these reasons it becomes obvious why a new form of activism utilizing this great tool has

come into the spotlight and into the mainstream. By creating a movement online, a movement

can have a larger audience and more supporters than a standard protest on the streets. It appears

that online activism could be the salvation of the voice of the people. Unfortunately, the platform

that most online activism takes is not a legitimate mean of inciting real political change. By

recognizing, not that online activism is useless, but rather simply the limits of online activism,

the people who genuinely care about issues can make a firm stand and actual make a change in

society on any scale. Instead of clicking “Like” for a movement that speaks to you, research it;

from research you will find that the movement speaks to you less and that’s the end, or you’ll

find a fire burning in your stomach that fills you with desire to take to the streets and show that

you really do care about change.

Part 1: Newtonian Activism

Inciting change on society or a governing body is not a small task. To do so requires an

idea with a strong voice and people with even stronger voices. Unfortunately for online activists,

the strength of the people’s voice and passion is not easy to portray.

Peter Kropotkin was the prince of the Russian aristocracy but at age 12 he renounced his

title and became a revolutionary writer and a leading theorist for anarchism. He was forced to

flee from Russia for his activities against the Czarist government. In one of his pieces called

“The Spirit of Revolt” he wrote the following.

“There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative

necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere,

seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life; everywhere they

are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they

suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions.”

-Peter Kropotkin “The Spirit of Revolt”

A writer and enlightened era thinker whose writings have stood the test of time have proved that

they’re arguments are valid and as most know the word choice of an author is deliberate and

exact. Notice in the excerpt provided the mechanical word choice; “force” and “inertia.” These

are physical properties applied to a political setting which states that even politics are ordained

by the constraints of mechanical physics.

To explain briefly:

Force (N )=Mass (kg )∗Acceleration ( ms2 )

Momentum (P )=Mass (kg )∗Velovity( ms)

Now consider governments as an object with a mass given by the validity of that government,

acceleration is given by how large it is, and velocity would be how long it has been around (as

velocity is the integral of acceleration and time is integral to a large government). So a small new

government with not a lot a validity doesn’t have a lot of force where a government, such as that

of the United States, has a lot of validity and is very large, therefor has a lot of force. In the same

way a government that has been around a long time has a lot of velocity and a larger one will

have more, therefore less and more relative momentum respectively.

Given the previous statements, how is it possible to change the direction of a governing

body? Looking back to Newtonian physics, the only way to change the momentum is to apply an

impulse where;

Impuse ( N∗s )=Force (N )∗Time (s )

With that in mind it can be said that the only way for a government to be changed is by a

movement with some amount of validity and a number of supporters being applied to a

government. This makes sense given that revolution and protests are only successful if they have

legitimacy and a large number of supporters protesting and fighting for a decent amount of time.

Now that all of these things have been established, why do online movements ultimately

fail? Clearly the problem isn’t the number of supporters. A tweet can accumulate a hundred

thousand retweets and still have zero impact. So that must mean the problem is validity, not

necessarily the validity of the movement, although that could be part of the problem, but the real

problem comes from the validity of the medium. The legitimacy of online activism as a mean of

political change is challenged by the lack of successful movements. Social movements online

can be very successful at fundraising and raising awareness. The ice-bucket challenge, Boston

strong, it gets better, all have been successful social movement. But when it’s time for political

change online activism falls short whereas when people take to the street the government notices,

whether or not they do anything about it is a different question but they are more likely to listen

to a thousand people on capitol hill than from a hundred thousand on twitter.

Part 2: Potential and Actualization

Online activism is a great tool for fundraising and bringing issues to attention but when it

comes to creating change and making a difference it can’t do what boots on the ground

protesting can. The problem is when it comes to protesting the online aspect is only potential.

Even the biggest of movements that most everyone knows about and has made

tons of money is almost totally useless if it’s efforts are only behind a keyboard. A video release

in 2012 rapidly went viral and soon enough everyone was in support. The organization and the

movement was a candle that burned so bright everyone in America and many other countries

couldn’t escape its glow. Unfortunately, because there was no real activism the movement

fizzled in apathy and the co-founder was arrested for masturbating in public. Most everyone

remembers Kony2012. To summarize Joseph Kony was/is a warlord in Uganda who kidnaps

children from their families, hands them an AK-47, promises protection, and has them fight for

him. For a small donation you would get a bundle of stickers and buttons and other accessories to

show all your friends that you are a good person. All in all, with the donations and sales the

organization “Invisible Children” had 17 million dollars in assets and raised over 20 million

dollars. And amazingly despite all that money and resources, Joseph Kony is still not in custody.

This was a movement that was purely done by online activism, counted by likes, dollars,

and profile pictures. Because of that nothing changed and people in Uganda continued to die or

sometimes worse. The problem is all that money, likes, profile pictures, and other acts of support

can only be measured as potential. Meaning online activism in all shapes and forms in only

potential and lacks any type of actualization. That being said, potential is in no way unimportant.

Potential is prerequisite to actualization.

During the occupy movement there was no shortage of foot soldiers ready to camp for as

long as it took until their demands were met. There was also no shortage of support from

activists online. At that point the movement was working and doing what it was supposed to;

incite political change. The government knows that online activists on their own can’t create

political change on their own and are only relevant as long as protestors have their boots on the

ground. So they sent police in the intimidate and if necessary use force as can be seen in the

video. When protesters weren’t intimidated they

tear gassed them. These were not isolated

incidents of “a few bad cops” this was all across

the country, a sign of zero tolerance for political

dissent. A government fearing change will do

what it takes to stop it. Some tried to stay as long as they could but eventually protesters had to

disperse. With them gone all that was left was potential. What does it say that people can still

post this kind of thing on twitter or facebook?

It says that the government does not fear online activism as a legitimate method of political

protest because it has not shown itself to be able to do so.

Part 3: Misinformation

A problem coming from social media is the fact that new information comes out and

spreads so rapidly that a handful of it just turns out to be untrue. This leads to further problems

when a large movement is relying on relaying information rapidly. When one wrong statement

goes out it can lead a chain of fallacies which result in unforeseen consequences. Take for

example when Spike Lee tweeted the following all of his followers;

Which lead to responses from people who, understandably, were angry and didn’t fact check.

Posting someone’s home address is pretty terrible thing to do because Spike Lee must have

known the tension that existed so he must have known people would send death threats and other

things similar. What’s even more terrible is that that is not George Zimmerman’s address. That is

the address of an elderly couple who sued Spike Lee for posting their address and for their

suffering.

Sometimes entire movements

start because of false information.

Such as the hashtag movement

#IStandWithAhmed. In September

2015 Ahmed Mohamed, a freshman

in high school, brought a “homemade

clock” to school and one of his

teachers saw it and saw a reason to be concerned due to its resemblance to a bomb. It turns out

Ahmed’s homemade clock turned out to be nothing more than an old Micronta alarm clock taken

out of its plastic shell and placed inside a briefcase (Anthony). Ahmed said that he built it to

impress his engineering teacher and when he saw it he said it was cool but advised him to keep it

in his backpack. Strangely enough Ahmed decided to ignore his teacher’s advice and even set it

up to go off in his next class. When the alarm went off in his English class the teacher was

concerned and called it in. Given the context, that seems reasonable. This whole event seemed to

just be some type of hoax.

During the occupy movement there

was a problem with the movements message.

Multiple times people have been confused

about what the movement as a collective is

about. This stems from people noticing a

movement growing online and people see just one post and it speaks to them so they grab their

tents and signs and head out there without fully knowing what the reason to fight is. Because of

this you end up with people being angry and defensive when questioned by media, such as what

happened in the video to the right. This goes to show that not only does that not only will active

boots on the ground protesting be more beneficial than online activism but that also online

activism can lead to the decline of a movement whose main goal is to disrupt the power chain

with a message of redistribution of wealth. The problem came from people who saw people

using the word “socialism” and the phrase “redistribution of wealth” and thinking they were

synonymous and then never fact checked. The problem came from the internet.

It could be said that in the previous situation that the problem with the movement was the

protesters going out without knowing anything about the movement and the problem isn’t online

activism. Which is valid considering the ones who are ruining the movement in this case are

those who have their boots on the ground and who are actively protesting. However, the root of

the problem is coming from the fact that information on the internet can spread so rapidly. Often

times news comes out on social media a considerable distance before mainstream news outlets

report on it. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, at midnight there were 583,017 tweets about

him, by 9:30 AM there were 2.2 million (Levine). Thin information spread incredibly fast even

during the hours when most Americans were sleeping. The same can happen for info that is flat

out wrong.

Part 4: The 5 Really Important Reasons to Stop Dismissing Online Activism

Writer for Everyday Feminism, Sian Ferguson, wrote an article on November 4, 2015

called “5 Really Important Reasons to Stop Dismissing Online Activism.” In it she illustrates

great points on how online activism is a very useful thing. The benefits of online activism are

real and can be very useful but they cannot compare to active activism.

“1. Online Activism Can Be More Accessible to People with Disabilities”

This is 100% true. If someone is for any reason unable to make it out to a protest it is

better for them to say and do something online than to do nothing at all. But even this actually

says that boots on the ground activism is able to do more. Ferguson’s argument for this point is

that if you can’t make it to the protest do something online which also implies that if you can

make it to the protest you should. Why? Well the only reason would seem to be that even she

understands it is more beneficial to be there than to talk about there. Of course that’s not to say

online activism is nothing, rather it is a tool in the same vain as crutches. If someone with broken

legs really wants to be a part of some type of informal running event, then they should use

crutches instead of staying home but it might not be smart to expect to have the best time.

Ferguson emphasizes her point by bolding the statement “If we dismiss online activism, we

dismiss the input and work of people who have difficulty accessing most forms of activism.”

Again, very true, dismissing someone’s input just because they couldn’t make it to an event is

wrong. However, if there is no event or protest at all they can’t contribute at all.

“2. Online Activism Can Be Used to Build Community”

Ferguson argues that once you can manage the people on the internet who are there for

malicious purposes the internet can be great for building a community. And a strong community

is essential to a productive political movement. That being said, a strong community taking to

the streets will have to answer to those with dissenting opinions. Ferguson links to an article

about how to deal with people with malicious intent and the article more or less says to deal with

them you must go public, ignore, block, report, engage and educate, laugh (so as not to cry), and

practice self care. The problem here comes with increased sensitivity among people today.

Writers Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt in “The Coddling of the American Mind” mention

safe spaces, where people can feel free from people who intend to hurt them, unfortunately these

safe spaces have turned into ways to avoid dissent. So connecting these two problems is we have

a “community” online that decides they are right and any dissenting opinions are only malicious,

the “engage and educate” turns into block and shout louder, and any scrutiny is deemed as hate

speech” This all means that people in an online movement can’t be wrong as opposed to a protest

in the streets where facing dissent is a reality as much as a fear. Of course this doesn’t mean that

people can’t shut down dissent in a public situation but it is a lot easier to turn a twitter,

facebook, or tumblr page into an echo chamber rather than a public movement.

“3. Online Activism Can Be Used to Educate”

In a perfect world, yes. But as mentioned previously more often than not anymore comes

blocking and claiming the opposing argument as hate speech.

“4. Online Activism Can Help People Pool Resources”

In this case online activism takes the cake. Everyone has seen online movement make

tons of money, such as the Kony2012 movement. In person donations can’t collect that type of

money. However as mentioned in Part 2: Potential and Actualization, money is only potential,

without anything to do with it, it might as well be fire kindling.

“5. Online Activism Can Increase the Efficacy of Offline Activism”

“As I mentioned earlier, online activism should ideally co-exist with offline activism.”

This is absolutely correct. In a perfect world online activism would lead to offline activism.

However, as mentioned previously, sometimes that offline activism takes an impact from

information being mishandled.

Online activism would make for a great tool if it wasn’t used so hypocritically. Most of

the time the people who are the most vocal online are the least likely to actually do anything and

that is a huge part of the problem.

Part 5: Talking vs Doing

For the most part online activism is all talk. It is a way to talk about action but for some

reason it never gets done. This leads to apathy and ultimately the death of a movement. Tests

done by NYU professor of psychology, Peter Gollwitzer, has been doing tests since the 1980’s

about the phenomenon and found that people who kept their goals private were more likely to

achieve them. This wasn’t a newly found phenomenon, in fact in 1933 W. Mahler found that

when a person talks about their goals, and other people validate them, the human brain

recognizes it as reality despite nothing actually being done. This can be seen in the following

satirical video.

It stands to reason that the same phenomenon would carry over to online activism. By a

person posting online their intent to change the socio-political atmosphere and by a large number

of people validating it, a person sees themselves as having already done it, therefore nothing else

needs to be done. When in reality nothing has changed except the individual’s perspective. It

should become clear that not only is online activism not as useful as active activism but it could

even be said that online activism is counter-productive.

During the Occupy moment there could have it is unknown how many people went out or

didn’t go out to protest because of online activism. Based on evidence it stands to reason that

there would be a handful of people who made it known that they supported the movement and

therefore no longer felt it was necessary to actually go out there and make their voice heard as a

part of “we the people.”

Conclusion

The internet is a tool. Thinking of the internet as a way to change everything is too

simplified of a concept as thinking a house can be built with nothing but a hammer, sure you

would need a hammer to build a house but building a house requires so much more than that.

The internet, if used properly, with an open mind, a willingness to have discourse, and a respect

for dissenting opinion allows for a meaningful and important role in a socio-political movement.

That being said, if the internet is a hammer, the protests in the streets are the lumber;

while a hammer is very important the lumber is required for a house, it is the house. A hammer

can work very well with lumber but in the wrong hands a hammer will destroy the lumber and

the house will crumble.

If used correctly online activism will lead to more people understanding and empathizing

with a movement and will ultimately lead to a larger more powerful movement. Problematically,

the interned isn’t normally used in that sense. The state of online activism as it currently stands,

it’s a way to spread false information and feel like a helping part in a movement without doing

much of anything. That’s not to say activism online is a lost cause but as it stands there is almost

no validity to online activism besides being able to create large amounts of potential that cannot

be converted to actualization. Maybe at some point online activism will gain legitimacy so that

all of those people can actually have the momentum needed to change the direction of the

government’s momentum. All of this could be the reason it’s also called slacktivism.

“Hasn’t anybody learned the last who make the moves are the first to say the words.”

-Pat “The Bunny” Schneeweis

Works Cited

Fantz, Ashley, Christopher Lett, and Catherine E. Shoichet. "'Clock Boy' Ahmed Mohamed

Seeks $15 Million, Apologies." CNN. Cable News Network, 24 Nov. 2015. Web. 02 May 2016.

Ferguson, Sian. "5 Really Important Reasons to Stop Dismissing Online Activism." Everyday

Feminism. 04 Nov. 2015. Web. 02 May 2016.

Kropotkin, Peter Alekseevich. Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002. Print.

"Slacktivism." Google. Web. 02 May 2016.

Levine, Sheldon. "How Fast the News Spreads Through Social Media | Sysomos Blog."Sysomos

Blog. 02 May 2011. Web. 02 May 2016.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, Sept. 2015. Web.

02 May 2016.

Morgenstern, Madeleine. "Spike Lee Retweets George Zimmerman’s Home Address." The

Blaze. 25 Mar. 2012. Web. 02 May 2016.

Never Trust a Man (Who Plays Guitar). Never Trust a Man. Web.

Resistance News. "Clock Kid: What They're Not Telling You." YouTube. YouTube, 19 Sept.

2015. Web. 02 May 2016.

Rios, Cameren. "Need Help Dealing with Trolls? These Feminists Have 5 Ideas." Everyday

Feminism. 30 May 2015. Web. 02 May 2016.

Ritz, Erica. "‘F–KING NAZI PIGS!’: Take a Peek Inside Occupy’s 'National Gathering’ in

Philadelphia." The Blaze. 1 July 2012. Web. 02 May 2016.

Sivers, Derek. "Announcing Your Plans Makes You Less Motivated to Accomplish Them |

Derek Sivers." Announcing Your Plans Makes You Less Motivated to Accomplish Them | Derek

Sivers. 16 June 2009. Web. 02 May 2016.

Skarda, Erin. "What You Need to Know About the 5 Most Successful Social Media Campaigns

for Social Change." NationSwell What You Need to Know About the 5 Most Successful Social

Media Campaigns for Social Change Comments. 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 May 2016.

Anthony. "Reverse Engineering Ahmed Mohamed's Clock... and Ourselves." Tech Voice. 17

Sept. 2015. Web. 02 May 2016.

"Spike Lee Twitter Suit." The Smoking Gun. Web. 02 May 2016.

UPFnews. "Dumb Liberal Hippies Don't Know Why They're Protesting." YouTube. YouTube, 09

Oct. 2011. Web. 02 May 2016.

"Evidence People Will Believe Anything They Read on the Internet." WebiMax Evidence People

Will Believe Anything They Read on the Internet Comments. Web. 02 May 2016.

White, Patrick. "Online Activism Often Ineffective, Pointless." The Collegian. 17 Feb. 2013.

Web. 02 May 2016.