Chewing on cyber activism

You're hungry. You prepare a meal and take a large bite. You chew... and chew... and chew. You're still hungry. And that won't change until you start swallowing, right?

You can chew for hours and you'll be no closer to satisfying that hunger, unless you take that last step and swallow. This is the simple lesson that needs to be applied to digital activism.

We can do all the online screaming we want about abused children, sick Africans, war-torn Palestinians and hungry Somalis, but it won't make a difference until that final step is taken - until we swallow. Not even typing in caps will help us be heard in a way that matters.

We can sign e-petitions and join Facebook groups, but just clicking on a “join” button doesn't fill the belly of any child. These efforts must be taken forward to policymakers, world leaders and/or the press in order for signed names to make a difference. That's the swallow.

The digital era, with its ability to reach a large number of people in a short space of time, presents one of the best opportunities for activism, but will only be effective if it's done right.

Taking this next step is what caused the success of the Facebook group called “Wachovia = Fail”. Outrage over bank charges on donations to Haiti and that specific bank's refusal to waive these fees led student Heather Lynn to create a protest group and then take the story to the press.

From there the story spread rapidly and gained a lot of online coverage. The result was that a representative of the bank commented on the page, saying they would waive the fees and would refund transaction fees on donations that had already been made.

Not doing anything with the efforts of online activism is just one of the problems that plague it.

There are just too many e-mails and Facebook groups that ask me to associate myself with them.

Farzana Rasool, journalist, ITWeb

I receive maybe 40 e-mails a day to my personal address and about half of these ask me to help stop the war in the Middle East, or to aid starving children. What do I do? Mark and delete.

I've even stopped screaming back: “But how?” at the screen.

It's easy to judge me for ignoring these e-mails, but I have the sneaky suspicion that I'm not the only one. This is where I sympathise with my old pre-school teacher when she said: “I can't hear you if you all scream at once.”

There are just too many e-mails and Facebook groups that ask me to associate myself with them, when nothing is eventually achieved. The problem also is that when there are too many, I tend to forget which of the 20 requests I've responded to almost the minute I release the click.

All these e-mails and requests turn into one large, loud pre-school class. I can't distinguish one voice from the other and so they all lose their message.

Proof of this exists with one specific Facebook group that was called “Stop the injustices in Palestine”. As expected, a large number of people joined the group, but what wasn't expected was that none of these members would notice when the name of the group then changed to “stop the media bias against Israel”. Only one member of the group did notice and was shocked at the fact that no one else had. He then decided that this was the place for a cyber-activism experiment.

Zubair Mahomed made himself the administrator since there wasn't one at the time. “To see how many people will notice the absurdity, I chose the most random fruit that came to my mind, which was a lemon.”

And so, from being a group in support of Palestine, to one that sided with Israel, it finally became “Lemon trees are our salvation”.

Less than a handful of members noticed this change. One who did, said: “It's funny how many people you see joining these 'activist groups' and voicing their opinions... but how many of them get off Facebook and actually do something to help the situation? Typing on your keyboard isn't going to make some rebel put down his gun.”

This leads to the next obstacle for sincere activism - people don't pay attention to what they “support” and have a false sense of satisfaction that comes with every click.

The problem with just joining groups or adding your name to a list and forwarding it is that people who really want to do something to make a difference will feel they are making a difference in this manner and so may not do anything else.

And a person who could do something constructive is wasted.

People need to be given options or ideas on what they can do to actually help certain causes, besides clicking their support.

Facebook groups and Twitter feeds are fine, but they should promote active support of causes. Trips to the hospice or old age homes can be arranged with members, or supporters can get together to set up a fundraising event and then send the money to Haiti.

What needs to spread virally are suggestions for activities that actually make a difference.

There are some cases where the idea is simply to circulate a mindset in the hopes of getting people to adopt it and not really to make any physical difference. In this case, there is no need to approach any authority to make a difference, because it is done by simply spreading the word.

“I am SA neutral” is an online campaign that was started by advertising agency Cross Colours in the recent racially tense environment. It has a Twitter profile and a Facebook page and people have been writing about the idea, some rejecting it and some embracing it.

The idea behind the campaign is simply that SA and its citizens should not be divided into black and white as the radicals of the country hope to do. It gives a space to the people in the “middle”, who identify with people of all colours.

A campaign like this is valuable in itself, because it presents to users ideas that are different to their own, and options that they may never have considered. It also allows for healthy, constructive debate on matters that are essential to the unity of the citizens.