Catherine Paull
Abstract
This paper explores how the surviving victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School mass shooting have created a strong community and used social media to advocate for tighter gun control. They have formed the Never Again movement that has already gained widespread support, and organized two national events (National Walkout on March 14, and March for Our Lives on March 24). This paper examines how Web 2.0, and more specifically Twitter, has been used to form, mobilise, and maintain online communities. It also explores how social activists can use Twitter to create branding and social capital.
Introduction
“Be a nuisance where it counts. Do your part to inform and stimulate the public to join your action. Be depressed, discouraged and disappointed at failure and the disheartening effects of ignorance, greed, corruption and bad politics – but never give up.”
Marjory Stoneman Douglas (Willingham, 2018).
Marjory Stoneman Douglas was a journalist, environmentalist, activist, and had a high school named after her in Parkland, Florida USA (Willingham, 2018). Her quote was placed near MSD High School on March 14, the day of the National Walkout in North America in response to the school shooting, one month after 17 people were killed (Willingham, 2018). After the horrific event, several MSD students came together and created a movement which swept across North America, and the world, via the web. It is through the affordances of Web 2.0 that this community has been so successful. Twitter facilitated the formation, mobilisation and maintenance of the community, and without Twitter the community may not have formed.
The Never Again movement can be classified as a community of practice that formed as a result of their effective use of Twitter, and maintained through their leaders’ focus and determination. According to Katz, “the essence of the community is one of networked individualism, in which we all choose our own communities, rather than be fitted with others into them involuntarily” (Katz et. al., 2004, p.332). Through Twitter, other users have connected to the movement, and participated in debate surrounding gun reform with the leaders of the Never Again movement. A community of practice has three main features; it has a shared domain of interest, lively and active community members, and has a form of practice (e.g. sharing information, planning events, etc.) (Komorowski et. al., 2018). The Never Again movement can therefore be classified as a community of practice because of the shared interest in gun control, the community members and leaders are very active. Emma Gonzales, one of the more well-known leaders because of her passionate speech at the Fort Lauderdale Rally a few days after the shooting (Witt, 2018), created a Twitter account for the movement and has already posted 1, 653 tweets, and has over 1.5 million followers (Gonzalez, 2018). The community has a form of practice that includes sharing information, creating events (National Walk Out, March for Our Lives), and rallying against the NRA (National Rifle Association) (March For Our Lives, 2018). To understand how social activism is able to utilise the affordances of social media, this paper examines the Never Again movement, focusing on how an online community was formed, its ability to mobilise community members into real-world action, and how self-branding and social capital are used for activism.
Community formation and mobilisation
A community is a group of people connected through a common interest or topic, and it is based on the exchange of information (Katz et. al., 2004). The Never Again community was formed through the social media platform Twitter, using its hashtag tool. The hashtag #NeverAgain was created by Cameron Kasky two days after the shooting in MSD High School in Parkland, Florida (SBS News, 2018). Hashtags are a form of tagging folksonomy, which is a user-generated system of classifying information (Highfield & Leaver, 2015). Bruns and Burgess agree, and further suggest “hashtags are used to bundle together tweets on a unified, common topic,” which is why they can be useful for crisis situations, or activism movements (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.5). Hashtags on Twitter allow users to find tweets that are not generated by the people they already follow, and allows people who do not have Twitter accounts to also find posts (Bruns & Burgess, 2012). The #NeverAgain hashtag sparked the movement, and it quickly gained traction on Twitter, and a few days later the community was formed. According to Bruns and Burgess, “it is this very flexibility of forming new hashtag communities as and when they are needed, without restriction, which arguably provides the foundation for Twitter’s recognition as an important tool for the discussion of current events.” (Bruns & Burgess, 2011, p.7). The victims of the school shooting were standing up and talking about gun reform in a way that had never been done before. According to Dana Fisher, an expert on US social protests from the University of Maryland, the shooting happened during a period of intense political activism, which began with the Women’s March the day after President Trump’s inauguration (SBS News, 2018). Fisher argues “people are paying attention to politics like they haven’t before, including children,” and unlike the last school shooting at Sandy Hook, where 20 elementary school children and 6 staff members were killed, the students of MSD High School are older and therefore able to speak up (SBS News, 2018, “What Makes Parkland Different,” para. 3). Professor McAndrew, a mass shooting expert, argues “the ease with which social media is integrated in their lives also gives them an edge when it comes to organising and communicating with each other, as well as with the world at large” (SBS News, 2018). The cohesion of the movement is suggested to have been why it gained so much traction in such a short amount of time (SBS News, 2018).
Some scholars argue online activism is not strong enough to mobilise or sustain a movement, because these communities do not have any face-to-face communication (Harlow, 2011). Huberman et al, also argue there are two types of networks on Twitter – those that “matter” and those that do not (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). The networks that matter are smaller, include people who are friends of the user offline, and they interact more frequently (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 2009). Huberman et al, argues the broader network, which reaches more people, is less influential because there is less interaction (Huberman, Romero & Wu, 200).
However, the MSD students were able to successfully mobilise their online community, and hold two significant protests offline – the National Walkout (March 14) and the March for Our Lives (March 24). According to Aguiton and Cardon, Web 2.0 platforms like Twitter highlight the importance of weak cooperation because they allow weak ties to mobilise and work together to share information (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). This is demonstrated by the interaction and collaboration between the main organisers (the MSD students) and their weaker ties (their Twitter followers), which generated success for the two events, the Walkout and the March. The movement started online, however, the organisers effectively mobilised their community to flow offline. The National Walkout was originally planned to be a seventeen minute walkout with each minute representing a fatality in the MSD High School shooting, however, in many cities the demonstrations continued (Grinberg & Yan, 2018). According to USA Today, 2,800 schools across North America had students participating in the walkout, with some teachers joining in as well (Bacon & Hayes, 2018). It is estimated that 800,000 people marched in Washington DC on March 24 (Reilly, 2018), which demonstrates the successful mobilisation of weak ties. Marches were also held in Parkland, San Francisco, New York, Oakland, Bethel (location of 1997 school shooting where two students were killed), Newtown (location of the Sandy Hook shooting), and all around the world including Paris (The Guardian, 2018). Not only was online communication effective, it was the only way for these two events to unite students across the country in a way that has never been done before. TIME suggested “they’re the first school-shooting survivors who are old enough, angry enough, and medi-savvy enough to force the nation to grapple with a problem that adults have failed to solve” (Alter, 2018). Bruns and Hanusch argue social media platforms, like Twitter, “offer unprecedented opportunities for users to reshape public understandings of crisis events, contesting or reinforcing mainstream media frames” (Bruns & Hanusch, 2017, p. 1138). This is exactly what the MSD students, and other North American students, are successfully doing now to push back against the NRA. Twitter allowed these students to form and mobilise their online community, thereby turning it into an offline community as well.
Maintenance of the community and its message
The Never Again movement has been prolonged in the global news cycle because the MSD students have control over their message. Two core members of the Never Again campaign have tweets pinned to their Twitter account addressing the issue of others blaming or attacking political parties.
Instead they remind people to support the movement, work together, and advocate for change. After the initial reaction to the event, the MSD students narrowed the focus of their movement to a five core aims – fund research into gun violence and prevention/intervention programs, eliminate restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), universal background checks, ban on high-capacity gun magazines (magazines which hold more than ten rounds, that allow rapid firing), and a comprehensive assault weapon ban (March For Our Lives, 2018). The movement also promotes an increase of voter registration and turnout (for the upcoming midterm elections) (Alter, 2018). Instead of a generalised conversation about gun reform, the Never Again movement has centralised their message. Bastos argues social media platforms, like Twitter, “can rapidly shift between information diffusion and social network formations as users move from specialized to generic topics of conversation” (Bastos et. al., 2018, p.291). This means the centralisation of information allows more people to join the community because there is a clear topic of focus. This makes the movement more inclusive and helps appeal to Americans who do not want to give up their right to bear arms (under the Second Amendment in the Constitution).
Social capital and self-branding
This case study on the Never Again movement demonstrates how branding and social capital on Twitter can be used for social activism. Social capital is the concept of value that is associated to a person or that is constructed and reinforced by social contact, civic engagement, and a sense of community (Katz et. al., 2004). According to Katz, social capital is built through trust, which allows communities to accomplish more than any individual can (Katz et. al., 2004). It has become common practice for prominent public figures to use “self-branding” on social media to increase their social capital (Hanusch & Bruns, 2016, p. 39). The core members of the Never Again movement have effectively accomplished this using the affordances of Twitter. Four of the leaders of the Never Again movement mention their campaign, and demonstrate some aspect of their individuality through their Twitter account bio (refer to Appendix B).
Cameron Kasky brands himself as a Gryffindor (a Hogwarts house in the popular UK book series Harry Potter written by J.K. Rowling), and founder of #NeverAgain (Kasky, 2018).
Delaney Tarr brands herself as a student, an activist, and a “meddling kid” (in reference to the popular kids television show Scooby Doo) (Tarr, 2018).
David Hogg brands himself as a surfer, dreamer, reporter and activist (Hogg, 2018).
Jaclyn Corin brands herself as a “high school girl trying to save the country with her friends” (Corin, 2018).
These Twitter bios are personal, link to the Never Again movement in an effective demonstration of self-branding, and allows people to connect and relate with them. This approach by the leaders of the community builds social capital for the campaign, which influences more people to connect to the movement. In an interview with TIME, Corin suggests that without social media the Never Again movement would not have spread as effectively as it has – “social media is our weapon” (Alter, 2018). As activists, they have utilised the affordances of Twitter powerfully to promote themselves and their campaign.
Conclusion and future research
In conclusion, the Never Again movement has effectively used social media as an activism tool to promote their campaign. The MSD students are part of the generation that has been labeled narcissists by adults and stereotyped as constantly on social media. However, they are utilising the affordances of the very tools, such as Twitter and hashtags, that they are mocked for using, in order to advocate for change and lobby for tighter gun control in a way that has never been done before. According to Alter, “over the past month, these students have become the central organizers of what may turn out to be the most powerful grassroots gun-reform movement in nearly two decades” (Alter, 2018). To those who mock their movement, slander their leaders, and berate their message, Emma Gonzalez’s reply is – “we are prepared to call BS” (CNN, 2018, minute 10:35). In future studies, it will be important to evaluate how other student led social activism online will develop, and determine whether it is as widespread as the Never Again movement. However, in the near future it will be interesting to see how successful the Never Again movement is as the debate for gun control continues. The movement should be followed to determine if effective gun control measures are implemented in North America.
References
Alter, C. (2018, February 21). ‘We Just Had a Gun to Our Heads.’ The Florida Shooting Survivors Are Transforming America’s Gun Debate. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5169436/florida-shooting-kids-gun-control-debate/
Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070
Bacon, J., & Hayes, C. (2018, March 14). ‘We deserve better’: Students nationwide walk out in massive protest over gun violence. Retrieved from USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/14/thousands-students-across-u-s- walk-out-class-today-protest-gun-violence/420731002/
Barnitt, John [John_Barnitt]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/John_Barnitt
Bastos, M., Piccardi, C., Levy, M., McRoberts, N. and Lubell, M. (2018). Core-periphery or decentralized? Topological shifts of specialized information on Twitter. Social Networks, 52, pp.282-293.
Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2011) The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.
Bruns, A. and Burgess, J. (2012). RESEARCHING NEWS DISCUSSION ON TWITTER. Journalism Studies, 13(5-6), pp.801-814.
Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2016). Journalistic Branding on Twitter. Digital Journalism, 5(1), pp.26-43.
Bruns, A. and Hanusch, F. (2017). Conflict imagery in a connective environment: audiovisual content on Twitter following the 2015/2016 terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. Media, Culture & Society, 39(8), pp.1122-1141.
CNN. [CNN]. (2018, February 17). Florida student to NRA and Trump: ‘We call BS’ [Video File]. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxD3o-9H1lY
Corin, Jaclyn [JaclynCorin]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://twitter.com/JaclynCorin
Gonzalez, Emma [Emma4Change]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/Emma4Change
Grinberg, E., & Yan, H. (2018, March 16). A generation raised on gun violence sends a loud message to adults: Enough. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/national-school-walkout-gun-violence- protests/index.html
Harlow, S. (2011). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media and Society, 1-19. DOI: 10.1177/146144811410408
Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015, January 5). A Methodology for Mapping Instagram Hashtags. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from First Monday: http://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5563/4195#p4
Hogg, David [davidhogg111]. (2018, March 31). Retrieved March 31, 2018, from https://twitter.com/davidhogg111
Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. First Monday. Volume 14 Number 1. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063
Kasky, Cameron [cameron_kasky]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://twitter.com/cameron_kasky
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Komorowski, M., Huu, T. and Deligiannis, N. (2018). Twitter data analysis for studying communities of practice in the media industry. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), pp.195-212
March For Our Lives. (2018). How We Save Lives. Retrieved from March For Our Lives: https://marchforourlives.com/how-we-save-lives/
Reilly, K. (2018, March 24). Here’s the Size of the March For Our Lives Crowd in Washington. Retrieved from TIME: http://time.com/5214405/march-for-our-lives-attendance-crowd-size/
SBS News. (2018, February 23). Who are the #NeverAgain teenagers pushing for US gun control? Retrieved from SBS News: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/who-are-the-neveragain-teenagers-pushing-for-us-gun-control
Tarr, Delaney [Delaney Tarr]. (2018, April 2). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://twitter.com/delaneytarr
The Guardian. (2018, March 25). March for Our Lives: hundreds of thousands demand end to gun violence – as it happened. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2018/mar/24/march-for-our-lives- protest-gun-violence-washington
Willingham, A. (2018, March 14). In the wave of walkouts, a quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas becomes a rallying cry. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/14/us/marjory-stoneman-douglas-quote-walkout-trnd/index.html
Witt, E. (2018, February 19). How the Survivors of Parkland Began the Never Again Movement. Retrieved from The New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-survivors-of-parkland-began-the-never-again-movement
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License.
Feature Image attributed to TIME Magazine and photographer Peter Hapak.
Hi Cat,
This is a great analysis of the links between social media, communities and activism. I found it really interesting how, as you mentioned, a lot of social media critics argue that online communities only “matter” when those involved are also connected offline – even though clearly, online communities made up of lots of people with mostly weak ties, can often effect more social change by mobilising in larger numbers. Another great example of this is the Black Lives Matter movement, which started out online with the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, and then became an enormous, international movement both online and offline. There is obviously something significant to be said about groups like Never Again and Black Lives Matter, but, as you addressed, it will be interesting to see how successful these movements are in effecting real change. I’m curious to know what you think will happen.
I also liked that you touched on social capital and self-branding within activist communities. The whole concept of “self-branding” is off-putting to a lot of people when those who do it are motivated by fame and money, but (to me, anyway) it feels different when it’s done by activists trying to humanise themselves to further their cause. Did you have this reaction as well?
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Kelsey
Hi Kelsey,
Thank you for the insightful comment!
Weak ties are an interesting topic of study, and I completely agree with you in that they allow for greater mobilisation of community members.
We live in a 24 hour news cycle where news stories are rapidly gaining traction, then losing it again just as quickly. Therefore, the MSD students have done an admirable job of staying relevant in this environment. They have maintained and strengthened their community, controlled their message, and continued to advocate for change. So, if they continue to do this, and successfully capture the focus of the news media, then I believe they will be able to effect change within the US.
I also found it fascinating how the MSD students were able to use self-branding as a tool for their activism. They were able to curate an appropriate brand to help other people connect with them and with their community, without appearing vain. Did you think social activists are becoming more accessible or ‘mainstream’ because they are able to do use self-branding in this way?
Hi Cat,
Not a problem. I agree, these students and other activists involved in large-scale online social/political movements have done a tremendous job in pushing people to engage in difficult discussions about increasingly urgent matters. I’m not entirely convinced of how much change will actually be brought about – however, that has much more to do with certain ideologies of people in the US than the effectiveness of online activism. It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
Yes, I do believe that activists are becoming both more accessible and more mainstream due to self-branding via social media. Self-branding humanises people, and I think teenagers and young adults in particular are more likely to respond to people with whom they feel a connection.
Sorry for the late reply. You made some very interesting points, and I completely agree with you that activists are becoming more accessible due to their social media self-branding. Thank you for your comments.
You mentioned that the MSD students have encouraged more discussion about contentious issues in the US. Do you think that this movement has changed the way that ordinary people view social activists, because they are so young while still able voice these big issues?
-Cat
Hi Cat,
This was such a fascinating paper to read and gain insight into the #NeverAgain movement that was able to gain momentum rapidly thanks to the intuitive user experience of Twitter. I thought the point you brought up about online activism not being strong enough to mobilise or sustain a movement also interesting – the fact that these Gen Z students who were not afraid to utilise the affordances of these social media platforms, technology they have integrated into their daily communication likely their whole lives, to make a stand and start (and sustain) this important conversation that needed this level of exposure to make an impact. The fact they made the cover of TIME suggests that this is really an instance of the first movement that will be the one to prove those scholars wrong – and though it’s definitely changed the debate for the better, if it doesn’t have an impact now, it’s likely the legacy it leaves (even moreso thanks to the digital footprint that remains online) will be a contributing factor when things do change!
Cheers,
Teresa
Hi Teresa,
Thank you for reading my paper, and for the encouraging comment!
The movement may not succeed in achieving all of the goals they set out to achieve. However, I completely agree with you – the MSD students have changed the way that social activism will be carried out, on social media and offline. The US media have constantly referred to them as “media-savvy” (the TIME article I cited in my paper), and it’s because they grew up with computers and mobile phones evolving and becoming more technologically advance right in front of them. They are able to use this technology effectively because they are not learning how to use it, but because they already know how to use it. This is what makes these students so fascinating to read about.
I also agree with your point about their ‘digital footprint’ which will live on long after the community is dissolved. Their movement will remain online, for future activists to look to for inspiration. I honestly believe that these students have written themselves into future history books, because this type of activism has never been so effective in mobilising people.
Do you think that because they have been so effective in managing their digital footprint, and engaging their community members, that they will also be successful with their overall goals for the movement?
Cheers,
Cat.
Hi Cat,
Sorry to reply late! I’m undecided as to whether they will success in their overall goals for the movement (although I do want them to!) because such a big part of this involves influencing politicians to change laws which has so many other determining factors at play that affect this significantly.
However, their digital footprint and the various subsequent online content that has surfaced out of this movement will only further support and strengthen their cause for when the time comes to make changes.
Cheers,
Teresa
*Oops! I meant to say “whether they will find success…”
That’s a very interesting point Teresa! Thank you for your comment. It will definitely be interesting to see where the movement will go, and how successful it will be in effecting real change in the US. However, the fact that we are still talking about the movement three months after it began, especially in our media rich news cycle, is possibly a testament to how they will fare in the future.
-Cat
Hi Catherine!
I loved reading about this topic as it is so relevant to undoubtedly the biggest issue facing society in the USA. The shooting occurring at the Texas school today was absolutely tragic! I couldn’t resist reading your paper after this and you present some great arguments on the progression of the social media side of this debate.
Similarly to the other comments on your paper, I was intrigued by what you had to say about the research by Huberman, Romero & Wu (2009) regarding the side to social media that “matters” as well as the side that “doesn’t matter”. I find it fascinating how it is distinguished in this way as I always assumed that if something was more popular (eg. a post with many retweets) especially in the gun law debate, I would’ve thought that in fact it DOES matter to many people. I thought your use of the MSD students and their debates was a great example of how potentially this research is outdated in the modern day. I think they have build a very strong community backlash to the gun laws and much of it has been generated through social media as you discussed.
What’s your position on the portrayal of these students by the media? Do you believe that the media portray these students as people with serious potential to impact change? I personally think the media have played down a lot of what they’re trying to accomplish simply due to their age. I have however seen them portrayed in a heroic way too due to the fresh and modern perspective they bring to the matter.
Again, great paper! I really enjoyed reading it.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thank you for reading my paper, and for the interesting comment.
What happened in Texas was absolutely awful, and my condolences are with the family and friends of the victims and the staff and students of Santa Fe High School.
I completely agree with you, the Huberman, Romero & Wu source was an interesting read because it highlighted how much has changed in the world of social media since 2009. The point they were making was that the interaction between the user and their weak ties was not strong enough to be meaningful. Whereas the interaction between offline friends on social media is stronger and more meaningful. This has definitely changed because we are able to have meaningful conversations with strangers online, and the MSD students were able to form this community of strangers and turn it into a movement.
The portrayal of the students has been mixed. I think you’re right, some news media outlets have not taken them seriously because of their ages. However, there have also been others that marveled at their hard work and bravery. Personally, I think the people trying to discredit these students are underestimating their power and intelligence. They also grew up with technology at their finger tips and, as we have seen, they know how to effectively use it to support their cause. Therefore I honestly don’t think they should be treated like kids. They know what they’re talking about and they know how to talk about it in an engaging way.
I recently found an interesting video by The New Yorker about how the Never Again Movement began. Here’s the link if you wanted to have a look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSE5LlmdNQU
Do you believe that they will be successful in accomplishing any of the aims they have declared? Or do you think the movement might fade from the news cycle before concrete change occurs?
Thank you for your very interesting comment, and I hope to hear more of your thoughts!
-Cat
Hey Cat!
I thought this was a really great read especially as it targets a controversial topic that is currently being debated and discussed so much right now in the USA and globally. Your focus on the MSD survivors and their passion to fight for gun control really enhanced your point of Twitter being able to form communities on the Web 2.0 and transfer them from online to offline. Not only did it assist with the formation of this group but it also invited others to interact and participate in the Never Again movement, giving rise to the issue and proving that social media can have a huge impact on the creation of communities and increasing awareness of issues such as this.
After reading the comments, I do agree with your statement on the MSD students’ ability to stay relevant especially as news comes and goes so quickly. School shootings are becoming common in the USA, for example the Texas school shooting that happened on Friday and I hope that these students will continue to advocate for change so that implications can be made.
I’m interested to know if you think activism online has as many benefits as offline? Do you think one-day people will stop protesting offline and only use social media to spread their word?
I also discuss social media communities in my paper if you want to check it out 🙂 Here is a link: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2018Bentley/2018/05/06/the-role-of-communities-embracing-and-adapting-to-the-web-2-0-through-facebook/
– Sophia
Hi Sophia,
Thank you for reading my paper and for your lovely comment!
I think what’s so interesting about the Never Again Movement is that it started online, that’s where the hashtag was posted and where other Twitter users were able to rally around the cause two days after the shooting in Parkland. The community was then formed through the hard work of the MSD students. However, the truly remarkable part of their story is that they were successfully able to mobilse their community in the physical world (the March for Our Lives and the National Walk Out).
Therefore I believe activism online is vital in forming, building and eventually mobilsing a movement. However, this does not mean that movements can stay fully online. Without the physical mobilisation of supporters (March For Our Lives) the Never Again Movement would not have demonstrated how powerful and successful it is. So to answer your question, no I do not think that activists will stop protesting offline. I believe offline protests, marches and rallies are still relevant even in our social media rich world.
I have read your paper, and you made some interesting points about Facebook’s tools as a platform for community engagement. Do you think Facebook and Twitter are equally suited for social activism? Or is one platform more suited over the other?
Thank you for your comment.
Cat.
Hi Catherine, this is a great paper on an interesting and very relevant topic. With the media constantly reporting on the number of shootings in schools across America rising it is also great to read about the activism that is occurring on social media to try and combat this. I think this paper is well researched and has a clear argument.
It was interesting to read that some people think that social media activism cannot translate into real activism when there are so many examples of communities formed solely on social media platforms rising up and bringing about change in the real world. My paper also touches on this topic but focuses more specifically on how social media can encourage Indigenous people become political activists.
I also really enjoyed reading about how the functionality of the social media platform used has influenced the effectiveness of the movement. Do you think that if this campaign had been undertaken in majority on Facebook where hashtags aren’t a prominently used this campaign would have been as successful?
Perri
Hi Cat
Thanks so much for writing this insightful and topical piece. Like Tom, I found your commentary on Romero & Wu’s (2009) concept of what “matters”, and what doesn’t, compelling. In her 2011 work on online Indigenous activism, Petray similarly concludes that the supposedly hands-off or “push-button” style of activism afforded by Internet use and social media does not effectively mobilise users or sustain community, yet your paper demonstrates the exact opposite. It seems these views are becoming outdated. The new generation of “digital natives” is effortlessly navigating the digital space and remaining connected and engaged in matters they care about.
I do hope the movement makes an impact in the next US elections, though as you and Teresa have discussed, it is up against a powerful political establishment. I am particularly interested in power, media and institutions – in my paper on networked participation and Indigenous activism I look at how power works through digital networks to alternatively support, silence or ignore online movements. I wonder what the role of the mainstream media has been in widening the reach of #NeverAgain. What do you think?
Cheers
Carmen
Hi Carmen,
Thank you for reading my paper and for your fantastic comment! It is really interesting how outdated the Romero & Wu source is when you consider that it is only nine years old. I find it really entertaining reading older sources to see whether their predictions of the future of technology will come to pass, or will pass them by – because technology is changing all the time. That’s why I am keen to make predictions in my paper, and in my comments, to be able to look back on them in the future to see how my thinking and technology has changed. That’s why I still believe the Romero & Wu source to be important, because this is how scholars thought social media would behave.
I also liked your point about “digital natives” because that is exactly what the MSD students are, and they have used their skills to fight for their beliefs in an incredible way.
I think mainstream media caught on pretty quick to what the students were attempting to do, and at the beginning they was a flurry of movement to understand what was happening. Students had never stood up like this before and said “no, this is unacceptable” and mainstream media reported on the movement, and gave opportunities for the leaders to spread their message. However, some mainstream media outlets pushed back against them with patronising language, and ultimately underestimated their intelligence and power just because of their ages.
Right now, I believe that the MSD students, and other student leaders around the US, are doing an incredible job keeping the Never Again Movement relevant through alternative media on social networking sites. Twitter seems to be the most popular and active platform that they use to distribute information, and engage with their community.
A recent video was produced by ‘Now This’ which was then distributed on the ‘March for Our Lives’ Twitter account. It was about Marcel McClinton who supports the second amendment but believes in gun reform. He co-organised Houston’s March Four Our Lives. The video had 6.9 thousand likes and 2.3 thousand retweets after being published for only seven hours, therefore demonstrating the reach that these leaders have through social media alone.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/999391129819893760
Back to your question – I certainly believe that mainstream media initially helped widen the reach of the movement (especially to older generations), but I think the students really found their voices on Twitter and other alternative media outlets.
I will definitely check out your paper, and thanks again for the great comment! Sorry for the late reply.
Cat.
Hi Perri,
Thank you for reading my paper and for your amazing comment!
I completely agree with your point about social activism online because there are so many recent movements (e.g #BlackLivesMatter #MeToo) which began online and have also flowed into the physical world in the form of protests, rallies, and marches.
I will also have to check out your paper, it sounds really interesting!
To answer your brilliant question, no I do not think that the movement would have been as successful on Facebook. In North America Twitter seems to be more popular than Facebook. In comparison the March For Our Lives Facebook Page has 272 571 likes and its last post was on March 26. While the March For Our Lives Twitter account has 407 000 followers and last tweeted two days ago.
https://www.facebook.com/marchforourlives/ https://twitter.com/AMarch4OurLives
Secondly, you are right, hashtags are not used very often on Facebook, meaning the community would not have formed around the Never Again hashtag. Thirdly, in my opinion Twitter is a more open social networking platform because users do not have to be ‘friends’ with other users in order to communicate and engage with them. Instead Twitter encourages the communication between strangers. This means it allows for greater networking with users who aren’t necessarily offline friends.
Thank you for your comment and your great question. Did you find my response surprising, or did you also think that the functionalities of Twitter played a key role in the formation and maintenance of this movement?
Cat.
Although online communities help to bring people from different geographical locations together it is interesting to see that different platforms are preferred in different geographical locations. It is not surprisingly that the functionalities of Twitter played a large role in the success of this campaign as from my personal experience with Twitter it seems to be more of a space for political activism than Facebook.
Hey Catherine,
What a great read! I wrote a similar paper to yours, you can check it out here if you’d like: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2018Bentley/2018/05/07/the-influence-of-social-network-sites-on-communities-social-capital-and-civic-and-political-engagement/
I too am really interesting in how SNS foster political engagement in both an online and offline context.
For an event that still feels so recent and raw, you have written a well rounded report about the events after the shooting. I’m not much of a Twitter user, as I find it’s not as popular here in Australia as abroad. In saying this, I felt quite involved and informed regarding this incident, especially thanks to Facebook. My news feed was constantly flooded by news and media channels I follow, both traditional (ABC, 7/9/10 News) and untraditional (Vox, Vice). In reflection, I’ve definitely curated myself a social network that enables me access to so much information, from different perspectives. I believe this enables me to think critically about events, and have a perspective that is un-bias and objective.
I have watched a coupe videos by Vox that cover the Parkland shooting in many cases, from a video of what students really think about the event, to how the NRA hijacks the gun control debate. Particularly, there was a video where they interviewed David Hogg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyUNWpne9CE). The video discusses how he has become one of the most vilified people in right-wing media right now – from articles stating he wasn’t there during the incident, a crisis-actor, even a fascist who has been compared to Hitler of all people. With this in mind, do you think that SNS are becoming a danger to democracy as it facilitates the rise of populism and the alt-right?
Hi Jarrod,
Thank you so much for reading my paper, and for your fantastic comment! I will definitely check out your paper. It is fascinating how you were able to watch these events unfold through Facebook rather than Twitter. I still find it so hard navigating all the different adds and content of my News Feed, but obviously you have a pretty good system in place for news gathering. It’s so important to have a variety of news sources providing you with news media, because of the different bias associated with different outlets. This is why I’ve recently found Twitter to be a useful and efficient tool for my own news consumption.
Your David Hogg video is absolutely incredible! These students are so intelligent and witty, and they are honestly so inspiring.
I think that a lot of the vitriol about the MSD students has also been expressed on mainstream media as well, so we cannot put the blame completely on SNS for being a platform for the false accusations against Hogg and his fellow students. I also don’t think we can condemn SNS for the rise in alt-right groups, because SNS are also allowing for communities like Never Again and Black Lives Matter to rise as well. I believe SNS are allowing for greater noise from disenfranchised groups in society, and some like Twitter are attempting to shut down groups who spread hate.
At the end of last year Twitter banned neo-Nazi’s from using the SNS. According to Vox it was part of an update to Twitter’s safety policies – “You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes.”
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/15/16782428/twitter-ban-nazis
I’m not sure how successful this has been, but the fact that Twitter took the spread of hate speech seriously enough to ban hate groups is a testament to wanting to make the SNS a safe space for users. Freedom of speech is a key aspect of democracy, but so is safety from hate speech. Hate speech is defined as a “threatening form of communication that is contrary to democratic principals” and it “aims to prevent segments of the population from participating in deliberative decision making” (Tsesis, 2009). Therefore I think that SNS are not a danger to democracy, even though we do see undemocratic speech on them, it is no different to the speech we still see in mainstream media.
I hope that long-winded post answered your question. It was a very interesting question, and I’m interested to hear if you believe that SNS are a danger to democracy?
Cat.
Tsesis, A. (2009). Dignity and Speech: The Regulation of Hate. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 497-532. Retrieved from https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com.au/&httpsredir=1&article=1040&context=facpubs.