Communities and Web 2.0

Web 2.0 Effect on Society’s Engagement with Activism

Alice McAuliffe

Abstract

This paper explores the ways in which Web 2.0 has modernized how society fights for social justice and engages with activism. Through the exploration of the key components of activism: community, communication, collaboration, organisation, and participation, it is noted how Web 2.0 tools and platforms have individually affected each component.

Keywords: Web 2.0, Social networking Sites, collaboration, digital democracy, online activism

Web 2.0 Effect on Society’s Engagement with Activism and Fight for Social Justice

Society’s fight for social justice has been revolutionized by the introduction of Web 2.0. This new way to fight for social justice, can also be distinguished as online activism, clicktivism and digital democracy. Web 2.0 refers to the

“second generation of the Web, wherein interoperable, user centred web applications and services promote social connectedness, media and information sharing, user created content, and collaboration among individuals and organisations”

(Wilson, Lin, Longstreet & Sarker, 2011, p2).

This has been the case due to Web 2.0 platforms: Microblogging sites, such as Twitter and Tumblr, Social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook, and content-sharing services like Instagram and YouTube; and Web 2.0 tools: instant messaging, tweeting, hash tagging, making a status, commenting, tagging and sharing.

Together, tools and platforms create the Web 2.0 features, resulting in increased usability, efficiency and a user rich experience (Arya & Mishra, 2012). Web 2.0 has allowed for new forms of community, communication, collaboration, participation, and organising – all key components that make up successful activism. Each component has been individually affected by Web 2.0 and is incredibly intertwined, resulting in huge shifts in society’s engagement with activism and the fight for social justice.

Communities

Before the introduction of Web 2.0, community had a core definition that described its key elements as

“a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or settings”

(MacQueen et al., 2001).

Community has and always will be an essential component in how society fights for social justice. Beniger (1987) and Calhoun (1980) both acknowledge that community has a high social influence on human behaviour, and therefore through communities, an individual’s attitudes about social justice issues and activism is influenced. As mentioned in the above definition, community was previously associated with a particular geographic area, such as a neighbourhood, assuming community members met face-to-face to discuss common topics of interest (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). The introduction of Web 2.0 challenged this belief, coining the term ‘virtual communities’. Virtual communities are known as an online destination for people with common topics of interest or goals to communicate via the internet (Dennis, Pootheri, & Natarajan, 1998; Figallo, 1998). As noted by Blanchard & Markus (2004), these virtual communities incorporate a feeling of belonging, influence and shared emotional connection.

These online communities are enabled through major platforms that Web 2.0 enabled. Web 2.0’s introduction of virtual communities further challenged the original definition of community, as it acknowledged that anyone with access to the internet can potentially find and become a part of a virtual community that reaches a worldwide audience (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008; O’ Reilly, 2007). Due to Web 2.0 being a global phenomenon that has resulted in limited geographical, there are also limited boundaries to how far digital revolution may evolve (Mutsvairo, 2016).  This signifies how Web 2.0 has made it easier for like-minded people to find their fitting community despite their physical location, allowing both joining and forming communities to be significantly easier (Faris, 2008).

Web 2.0 platforms further allows individuals to spread their communities’ values and beliefs to a larger sphere of people then previously possible, as on SNS social ties can be rapidly made through network connections. Due to communities converging online, forming a community through Web 2.0 platform has allowed contemporary activists to shamelessly appropriate SNSs, microblogging services, and content-sharing sites, resulting in what is now known as the ‘Twitter Revolution’. Through the platforms provided by Web 2.0, the fight for social justice can be taken part in through revolutionized communication, collaboration, participation, and organization.

Communication and Collaboration

Communication can be defined as the practice of conveying information from one entity or group to another in order to arrive at a common understanding (Keyton, 2011). Before the introduction of the Internet and Web 2.0, communication relied on in-person and physical signals. (Baruah, 2012). In ancient times this meant smoke signals, fires and drumming, and by the 18th – 19th Century, evolved to the use of letters, telegraph, telephone and radio (Baruah, 2012). This limited the speed and distance that activism could reach. Web 2.0 allowed for a shift from mass media, which promoted many-to-one communication, to interactive media, such as SNS, which allow many-to-many communication (Arya & Mishra, 2012). Access to Web 2.0 tools and platforms means that; communication has become more frequent; communication isn’t limited by distance and time; and response time has greatly diminished (Baruah, 2012).

Activists have made full use of these new features of communication on the

“group of internet-based applications … that allow the creation and exchange” of communication and collaboration

(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, pp. 60)

SNS’s provide

“ways to organize members, arrange meetings, spread information, and gauge opinion”

(Ellison, Lampe, and Steinfield, 2009, p.8).

The abundance and diversity of practices made possible by Web 2.0 mean that communication and collaboration used by activists is almost as “diverse as their venues” (Gerbuado, 2012, pp. 3). Web 2.0 provided the introduction of new tools for communication and collaboration to progress, and continue to progress. These tools include; instant messaging, tweeting, hash tagging, making a status, commenting, tagging and sharing (Pillay & Maharaj, 2018).

Hashtags are a leading tool used in online communication and collaboration that was made popular due to the introduction of Web 2.0 tools and platforms. The use of the hashtag to was seen in the uprisings of #ArabSpring, when in December 2010 a revolutionary movement overthrew the rulers of many Arab States from power. Hashtags were an effective tool during this wave of activism to communicate, collaborate, and raise awareness (Beaumont, 2011). Hashtags allow communication and collaboration in this fight for social justice, as they enable organisation of uprisers, and harmony in working towards a common goal as community, in order to spread a social justice message (Beaumont, 2011). The use of the hashtag combined with the function of Web 2.0in the Arab Spring uprisings accelerated the revolution, and enabled the cause to sweep nations globally. The use of online automatic translation applied to SNS also assisted activists in reaching an audience that spoke almost any language, enabling further connections with more online users and virtual communities (Howard et al., 2011). The use of the hashtag in this circumstance may seem exaggerated, but it truly demonstrates the influence that communication and collaboration through Web 2.0 has had on spreading a message in order to fight for social justice.

Participation

The way society participates in activism and fighting for social justice has been revolutionised since the introduction of Web 2.0. Participation both before, and after the introduction of Web 2.0 can be defined as “action by ordinary citizens directed towards influencing some political outcomes” (Brady, 1999, p. 737). The concept of participation itself radically changed with the introduction of Web 2.0 platforms, which allowed for online participatory culture. Micheletti and McFarland (2011) note that  conventional forms of participation, such as voting, marches and protests, are no longer the only ways people can engage in the fight for social justice (Micheletti and McFarland, 2011). Jenkins et al., (2005) notes that an increased access to the Web 2.0 has runs vital role in how people engage with online participatory culture, due to its ability to allow people to work in a collaborative nature; create and distribute ideas; and connect with individuals who have common goals and ideas.

Web 2.0 platforms, such as SNS’s, microblogging and content-sharing sites have introduced the opportunity for vast, online participation in activism (Rotman et al., 2011). Online participatory culture has encouraged direct and immediate involvement in public discourse and political participation as Web 2.0 platforms provide stimulus, assistance, and incitement for involvement (Kann, Berry, Gant, Zager, 2017). Web 2.0 allows for far more participation activities then previously. These activities are diverse and range from: citizen journalism, online voting, electronic petitions, online profile representation, and use of social media for information distribution (Dalton, 2006). For example, participation in the fight for social justice can be noted in citizen journalism, the practice of ordinary people and not professional journalists, using Web 2.0 platforms to report about issues that currently matter to them. The form of participation in activism as citizen journalism is often used elicit ‘external attraction’ (Aday et al., 2010). Citizen journalism when fighting for social justice could be seen during the #BlackLivesMatter movement, as citizen journalists posted videos to SNS to show police brutality to innocent black citizens.

Web 2.0 and the creation of SNS’s, microblogging and content sharing sites have distorted the image of activism participation into what has become known as micro–activism or slacktivism (Morozov, 2009; Christensen, 2011). This refers to bottom-up activities by a community that affects society on a small personal scale. Micro-activism generally suggests that online participation activities are engaged in because they are easily performed and result in feel-good emotions rather than an achieved goal (Morozov, 2009). Micro-activism has caused concern, as it is believed to influence likely participants to engage online, instead of engaging in the range of participation activities that are traditionally used in ‘real life’ (Putnam, 2000; Christensen, 2011). Shulman (2009) implies that slacktivism is not always capable in producing effective outcomes. Whilst there are both positive and negative connotations about the effect of Web 2.0 on participation, there is no doubt the way in which society participates in the fight for a social justice issue has been revolutionised.

Organizing

The way online communities organize their fight for social justice has evolved due to the introduction of Web 2.0 tools and platforms. The organisation of an activist movement originally involved petitioning, handing out fliers and talking to others in order to organise a march or protest, which took time, effort and money to spread awareness (Madison, 2017). Historically, protests had to be organized and headed by one person, such as the civil rights movement which was directed by Martin Luther King Jr., where he was seen as the voice for everyone involved, essentially taking a top-down approach from the issues raised within the public sphere (Madison, 2017). Now, Web 2.0 provided the tools and platforms to allow more efficient organizing of ‘real-life’ activism (Garrett, 2006). Using SNS, a social justice movement can be spread broadly. This is due to the potential ‘sharing’ with social ties through networked community members. This tactic requires minimal energy and knowledge, reducing resources needed to organize and mobilize a movement (Earl & Elliot, 2018; Ayres, 1999; Bennett, et al., 2008).

Due to the ease and accessibility of participating in activism online there is a sense of direct democracy, using a networked model of organizing (Madison, 2017). An example of this, is the organization of the Women’s March 2017. The Women’s March was a protest in January 2017, held due to uproar created after the election of President Donald Trump. The day after Trump was elected, a Facebook event was created by women who invited friends, and friends of friends, to march in protest in Washington. In a united front, women of all different races, backgrounds and popularity shared the event, which quickly led to multitudes of women signing up to march. It became the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, and shows how organisation with the use of Web 2.0 tools requires minimal expertise, effort and time.

Organisation now also means considering that using Web 2.0 tools and platforms increases the number and diversity of people involved. This can be a positive and negative affect, as it can allow state observation (Madison, 2017). Web 2.0 organisation has also been dominated by what has been termed the “Facebook-like apathy”, where people may react positively to an event online, and click “going” when they have no intention of actually showing up. (Madison, 2017). Comparing Web 2.0 to the past, the revolution of organization in terms of activism becomes obvious, whether it be for the better or worse.

Conclusion

The revolutionary impact of Web 2.0 can be pinpointed to the introduction and application of Web 2.0 platforms: Social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook, microblogging services such as Twitter, and content-sharing sites such as YouTube; and Web 2.0 tools: instant messaging, tweeting, hash tagging, making a status, commenting, tagging and sharing. Together these tools and platforms resulted in huge shifts in the ways that activism is approached online, as there are no barriers of distance, time or cost. As a global phenomenon, Web 2.0 has broken down geographical barriers and boundaries, allowing a sense of community, as well as the beliefs and values that go with it, to span distances that were previously impossible with the neighbourhood, face-to-face definition. In addition to this, communication is no longer limited by time or response time, and tools that simply did not previously exist, such as hashtags, have become integral in the awareness of social justice issues, accelerating collaboration and revolution. Online participatory culture allows and encourages participation in public discourse, and gives users the sense of having engaged, despite online action possibly discouraging people from getting involved in ‘real life’ activism activities. The way these online communities organise their fight for social justice has evolved, with Web 2.0 tools requiring minimal expertise, effort, and time, and increasing the number and diversity of people involved.

References

Aday, S., Farrell, H., Lynch, M., Sides, J., Kelly, J., & Zuckerman, E. (2010). Blogs & bullets: New media in contentious politics. Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pw65.pdf

Arya, H. B. and Mishra, J. K. (2012). Oh! Web2.0, Virtual Reference Service 2.0, Tools and Techniques. Journal of Library and Information Services in Distance Learning, 6(1), 28 – 46. http://dx.doi.org /10.1080/1533290X.2012.660878

Ayres, J. (1999). From the streets to the Internet: The cyber-diffusion of contention. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 132–143. DOI: 10.1177/0002716299566001011

Baruah, T. (2012). Effectiveness of Social Media as a tool of communication and its potential for technology enabled connections: A micro-level study. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 2(5), 1 – 10. Retrieved http://www.ijsrp.org/research_paper_may2012/ijsrp-may-2012-24.pdf

Beaumont, P. (2011). The truth about Twitter, Facebook and the uprisings in the Arab world. Retrieved https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/25/twitter-facebook-uprisings-arab-libya

Beniger, J. R. (1987). Personalization of Mass Media and the Growth of Pseudo-Community. Communication Research14(3), 352–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365087014003005

Bennett, W., Breunig, C., & Givens, T. (2008). Communication and political mobilization: Digital media and the organization of anti–Iraq war demonstrations in the U.S.. Political Communication, 25(3), 269–289. DOI: 10.1080/10584600802197434

Blanchard, A.L., & Markus, M. L. (2004). The experienced “sense” of a virtual community: Characteristics and Processes. Database for Advances in information system, 35(1), 65-79. DOI: https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1145/968464.968470

Brady, H. (1999). Political Participation. In J. P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of Political Attitudes, 737-801. San Diego: Academic Press.

Calhoun, C. (2002). Dictionary of the Social Sciences: Virtual community. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Christensen, H. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means. Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/view/3336/2767

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6). Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/view/2125/1972

Dennis, A. R., Pootheri, S. K., & Natarajan, V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early adopters of Web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 65– 86. DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1998.11518186

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield C., & Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. (2007). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Faris, D. (2008). Revolutions Without Revolutionaries? Network Theory, Facebook, and the Egyptian Blogosphere. Retrieved from

Revolutions Without Revolutionaries? Network Theory, Facebook, and the Egyptian Blogosphere

Figallo, C. (1998). Hosting Web communities: Building relationships, increasing customer loyalty, and maintaining a competitive edge. New York : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Glaisyer, T. (2011). From slacktivism to activism: Participatory culture in the age of social media. Paper presented at the conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Canada. DOI: 10.1145/1979742.1979543

Howard, P., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening closed regimes: What was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Retrieved https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/117568/2011_Howard-Duffy-Freelon-Hussain-Mari-Mazaid_PITPI.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y%20

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. Retrieved from https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/confronting-challenges-participatory-culture

Kann, E., Berry, J., Gant, C., & Zager, P. (2017). The Internet and Youth Political Participation. Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/view/1977/1852#k2

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein. (2010). Users of the World, Unite! The Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681309001232

Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

MacQueen, K., McLellan, E., Metzger D., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., & Trotter R. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. Am. J. Public Health, 91, 1929–1938. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446907/

Madison, S. (2017). How Social Media Has Changed the Way Political Movements Organize. Retrieved from https://www.govtech.com/social/How-Social-Media-Has-Changed-the-Way-Political-Movements-Organize.html

Micheletti, M., & McFarland, A. (2011). Creative participation: Responsibility–taking in the political world. London, UK: Paradigm.

Morozov, E. (2009). The brave new world of slacktivism. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/

Mutsvairo, B. (2016). Digital Activism in the Social Media Era: Critical Reflections on Emerging Trends in Sub-Saharan Africa. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-40949-8

O’ Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. International Journal of Digital Economics, 65(1), 17-37. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4580/

Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity.

Pillay, K., & Maharaj, M. (2018). An Overview of Web 2.0 Social Media as a tool for advocacy. Retrieved https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266502528_An_Overview_of_Web_20_Social_Media_as_a_tool_for_advocacy

Putnam, D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rotman, D., Vieweg, S., Yardi, S., Chi, E., Preece, J., Shneiderman, B., Pirolli, P., & Glaisyer, T. (2011). From Slacktivism to Activism: Participatory Culture in the Age of Social Media. Retrieved from https://yardi.people.si.umich.edu/pubs/Yardi_CHI11_SIG.pdf

Shulman, S. (2009). The case against mass e–mails: Perverse incentives and low-quality public participation in U.S. federal rulemaking. Policy & Internet, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.psocommons.org/policyandinternet/vol1/iss1/art2/

Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). The network basis of social support: A network is more than the sum of its ties. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village: Life in contemporary communities, 83– 118. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Wilson, D., Lin, X., Longstreet, P., & Sarker, S. (2011, August 4-8). Web 2.0: A Definition, Literature Review, and Directions for Future Research. Paper presented at 17th AMCIS Proceedings: A Renaissance of Information Technology for Sustainability and Global Competitiveness, Michigan. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220892879_Web_20_A_Definition_Literature_Review_and_Directions_for_Future_Research

45 thoughts on “Web 2.0 Effect on Society’s Engagement with Activism

  1. Hey Alice,

    I thoroughly enjoyed reading your paper as I believe it definitely adds value to your stream, appropriately addressing and highlighting elements of it. This paper has also been well crafted. It aligns to our contemporary age, which, as a result, a lot of your key themes resonated with me.
    In terms of the paper, I think you did well with the introductory phase, where you clearly defined terms such as the distinctions between micro-blogging and SNS for example. Your paper also has strong context, consistently referring and linking the relationship between pre-Internet age and contemporary Web 2.0. This is incredibly challenging to articulate and support one’s argument, especially as it is rather easy to go off on a tangent. I also liked that you defined activism as, with the facilitation of the Internet, the process (speed) to carry out activism is increased. Lastly I think it was of absolute importance to reinforce that, we need to understand that Web 2.0 means many-to-many, whilst traditional media means many-to-one, a one-way flow. Personally, this sums up what Web 2.0 is to me.

    I have only found one area that could be improved in your paper. This is in the section ‘Communication and Collaboration’, as I felt that what you are essentially arguing for, is the term participatory culture.

    Your paper was very insightful as mentioned, and it does raise me with a lot of ‘food for thought’. This is also open to everyone!

    – Do you think that with Clicktivism, citizens are actually less afraid to speak of issues that concern them, to reveal more truths because of this new filter of them essentially, not intimidated by the physicality of face-to-face when voicing an opinion?
    – Where do you think the fine line is, in a sense of hashtag seriousness. If hashtags are as powerful as it may seem, is it possible to be afraid of it too? For e.g. some nation hash tags #PrepareforWar #Attackin1hour – what do we do with this information?
    – Lastly, because Web 2.0 is prevalent today and rather effortless to disseminate information, how would one be able to control the spread of ‘false activism’, that is the virality and spamming of agenda to distort citizens beliefs and values?

    Great paper once again.
    “Boys, wanna come for a kick? On Xbox I mean!” Hooow and what? Read more about it here:
    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2019Curtin/2019/05/06/press-f-to-pay-respects-to-those-who-still-thinks-video-games-means-isolation/

  2. Hey Chris,

    Thank you for taking the time to read through my paper. I truly appreciate the constructive feedback and your compliment that my paper adds value to my stream of Web 2.0 and communities.

    I especially liked the point you made regarding the section ‘Communication and Collaboration’, where you suggested that what I was essentially arguing for, is the term participatory culture. Participatory culture is definitely a key concept that makes contributes to how communication and collaboration have changed since the introduction of Web 2.0 Including this key term would sum up my argument well, so thank you for that advice.

    In response to your questions:

    – Do you think that with Clicktivism, citizens are actually less afraid to speak of issues that concern them, to reveal more truths because of this new filter of them essentially, not intimidated by the physicality of face-to-face when voicing an opinion?

    I definitely agree that online activism has resulted in a more open and confident discussion by citizens about topics that concern them, particularly as behind a keyboard they could assume an anonymous online identity, and avoid physical or real life repercussions. I also think that being able to easily find and hear opinions similar to yours online through like-minded communities makes opening up much easier.

    – Where do you think the fine line is, in a sense of hashtag seriousness. If hashtags are as powerful as it may seem, is it possible to be afraid of it too? For e.g. some nation hashtags #PrepareforWar #Attackin1hour – what do we do with this information?

    I’m not sure if I fully understand this question, however – I think it is possible to be afraid, but not of the hashtags themselves. If there was really a war in the making and #PrepareforWar started to trend, this hashtag could essentially save lives by initiating an early response, evacuating citizens before anything in ‘real-life’ happened, getting inside point of views etc. Whilst this would be scary, it is the war we would be afraid of, not the hashtag.

    – Lastly, because Web 2.0 is prevalent today and rather effortless to disseminate information, how would one be able to control the spread of ‘false activism’, that is the virality and spamming of agenda to distort citizens beliefs and values?

    This question is a tricky one as we have seen many examples of this in the past, especially through slacktivism. I don’t think there is a specific way of controlling the spread of false information, but one of the perks of the internet is being able to shut down rumors using this same quick dissemination of information.

    Thanks again for reading my paper and giving insightful feedback Chris, I’ll definitely check out your paper and aim to do the same for you.

  3. Hey AMcAuliffe,
    What a great read, your paper is well-structured and includes some insightful references, which has helped me have a greater understanding on Web 2.0 and activism online.

    You make some points when talking about Hashtags and the importance they hold as they allow for communication, collaboration and they raise awareness. I could not agree more. Hashtags are such an important tool within online activism, I see them as a peaceful protest almost, a way for many to participate without violence. Looking at the #Metoo movement and the impact that had globally it is extremely hard to deny the usefulness of hashtags as an online activism tool.

    In relation to the organisation part of your paper, you talk about historical protest that were led by one person. Do you think that protests that were headed by one person in the past was a more effective way to engage in activism? Or do you think with the introduction of Web 2.0 the planning and organising of protest’s online has had a more significant impact on activism?

    I look forward to hearing from you.
    Thanks, BMaddison

    1. Hey there Bronte,

      Thanks for taking the time to read my paper, I’m glad it gave you a better understanding of the new forms that activism has taken since the introduction of Web 2.0. I just read your paper too, and I think we can both agree that Web 2.0 has brought about an array of changes that have affected society both online and offline too.

      I definitely think that protests lead by one person has its perks; a clear vision of what they want to achieve, one opinion on a time and place, one person to associate with a movement, etc. But having Web 2.0, and therefore having the whole internet be able to engage with a movement has meant that activism is democratic, and whilst it may lead to differing opinions this can be considered a good thing as everyone has the opportunity to be heard.

      Thanks again for the feedback Bronte, I appreciate it.

  4. Hi Alice,

    I found your paper very interesting and insightful, particularly the point you made about social media’s auto translate function. I use the auto translate on Instagram all the time and it never occured to me how huge that would be for spreading information and organising events, such as the protests you mentioned. I was wondering if your research led you to think about the recent marches of school children here in Australia, protesting inaction against climate change, and the role that web 2.0 communication technologies had to do with it?

    1. Hi there CSligh,

      Thanks so much for your kind words about my paper.

      My research was being conducted around about the time that the Perth march for climate change occurred, and it’s one of the things that inspired me to write about this topic. The Facebook page ‘School Strike 4 Climate Change’ is followed by 32,000 people. Through this Facebook page, they have a vast number of registered striking and marching events in which they protest against climate change. This number of reach they have speaks volumes about how Web 2.0 has allowed quick and simple dissemination of information and details of an event. These events can easily be shared, liked, and viewed. I think in the case of having children skip school to protest, being able to see that so many people are doing the same thing allows parents to be comfortable in letting their children become involved. What do you think?

      1. It’s hard for me to imagine what this would have been like if it was happening when I was at school! I was thinking about it again recently because Dr Jane Goodall was asked about it in an interview and she said she wondered how many kids were really marching out of passion for the cause and how many just wanted to skip a day of school, I do see her point. But on the whole I think the media coverage of the events did serve the larger purpose of bringing attention to the cause, and keeping environmental issues in people’s minds ahead of the election, which to me is a good thing. I wonder if this will be just the start of many student protests now that we’ve seen what can be accomplished through a facebook page.

        Cass

  5. Hi Alice,

    Great work on writing such a well-structured, informed and engaging paper.

    I agree with your argument, that fighting for social justice matters has come a long way since the introduction of Web 2.0, but where do you see disadvantaged groups actually fitting into these movements? Lack of access to the web and discrimination continue to be prominent issues in our society, and despite the positive outcomes the internet may bring, these inequalities continue to prevail. Do you believe disadvantaged groups have an equal say in social activism and its outcomes? Many social justice campaigns involve disadvantaged peoples, so do you think they have a say in matters that concern them or are they simply reaping the benefits / dealing with the consequences with little say? My concern is that many social movements online may be controlled by dominant groups in society which could lead to unfavourable outcomes for underprivileged people despite good intentions.

    Thanks for your insights.

    Abbey

    1. Hi Abbey,

      Thanks for both the positive and constructive feedback.

      I, unfortunately, didn’t address how disadvantaged groups are fitting into these movements.
      As you mention lack of access to the web is still a problem that affects some disadvantaged users, which I think means that disadvantaged groups do not have an equal say online. This is due to the way that the web and social media have been developed, and I think this has resulted in disadvantaged groups not having an equal voice online. This should be changed not by the way that activism is evolving, but by changing the websites that activism is evolving on. I agree with your concern that social movements online may be controlled by dominant groups in society, but this is the same as what activism was like prior to Web 2.0 as well. Whilst online activism has allowed a range of positive outcomes, it hasn’t yet allowed complete equality. I definitely think that this needs to change, starting with government initiatives and web developers making the online world accessible to everyone no matter their position in society.

      Thanks again for your feedback Abbey.

  6. Hi, Alice
    I just finish reading your paper. It is a very insightful paper, I have the same feeling about what Web 2.0 and social media can do for social justice. Especially the point you write in your paper ‘participation in the fight for social justice can be noted in citizen journalism, the practice of ordinary people and not professional journalists, using Web 2.0 platforms to report about issues that currently matter to them’. There are also a lot of people using social media to fight for some issues that matter to them in China, especially in environmental problems, corruption in local government and the justice in education. The contents of social media currently play a very important role in newspaper and TV shows, they can also affects the reforms in government and raise people’s awareness for social problems.

    1. Hey Fei Zhao,

      Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I’m glad you liked it.
      Your insight into how people are using online activism in China is really insightful, do you know this information from first-hand experience, hearing about it from friends from China or the media?

  7. Hi Alice,
    I enjoyed reading your paper. You have highlighted many important details which has broadened my knowledge on Web 2.0 platforms and how it has helped to create many forms of activities online.
    You have also provided key points on to how the use of hashtags are crucial in the context of promoting activities online. Personally, I find this action very involving since there is a kind of participatory culture being promoted here whereby everyone can have access to the online activities through the hashtags.
    My paper is more about online daters projecting a fake identity of themselves via social media as you have seen. Thanks for checking my paper again : https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2019Curtin/2019/05/06/fake-identity-through-online-dating-applications/
    Kind regards,
    KRamdenee

    1. Hey there KRamdenee,

      Thanks for reading my paper. I appreciate your constructive feedback and kind words you have to say about my paper.

      I too find the action of using hashtags crucial, and glad that lot’s of people can agree so we can all engage with activism online in a simple way.

      I’ve already checked out your paper, it was awesome, but thanks again for the link.

  8. Hi Alice, Great topic choice! When we consider the effects of online activism in events such as #ArabSpring it’s easy to see the positives that come from Web 2.0 technologies and online communities that impact large amounts of people the world over.

    1. Hey CesarinaF,

      Thanks for your feedback! I agree #ArabSpring was a huge indicator of the range and extent of positives that could and would come out of Web 2.0 technologies and platforms. As you mention it impacts large communities of people all over the world. Have you ever used a hashtag for a form of activism?

  9. Hi Alice,

    Great paper very well written and a very current topic, would love to hear where your interest in the topic came from and why you chose to write your paper on it and your personal experiences with social justice and activism. Activism is so important for change and itself is changing with technology.

    Look forward to hearing your reply.
    Steph

    1. Hey Steph,

      Thanks for taking the time to read my paper, I really appreciate your kind words and feedback. My interest in the area stemmed from the fact that, as I’m sure you know, have just been through the election process in Australia. At the time of writing this paper, there were advertisements for who you should vote for everywhere online, and pages of who to vote for, and trending tweets and hashtags. I used these online platforms to inform me that eventually decided my vote. I just found the whole process interesting, and from there I did research.

      Thanks again for reading and commenting!

  10. Hi Alice, I really enjoyed the paper.
    Web 2.0 was the turning point of the digital era and the tools introduced will be with us for many years to come. I agree with your sentiment that Web 2.0 allowed for the breaking down of geographical barriers to form communities without borders.
    I participate in many online communities, spanning from Australia, to England, to the United States. Without the implementation of Web 2.0, none of this would be possible.

    – EHanton

    1. Hi EHanton,

      Thanks for your contribution, and for taking the time to read my paper and give me feedback. You mention that you participate in many online communities. Which communities if you don’t mind me asking?

  11. Hi Alice,

    Great paper outlining how the different methods of which the affordances of Web 2.0 can drive more widespread and accessible social activism. You have highlighted many examples where this has occurred through hashtags, Facebook events etc. and how they can bring together various like-minded individuals from all around the globe. However, what I find with these hashtags and events, they seem to dissipate as quickly as they have popped up. In my opinion, this has adversely affected the effect of a number of these campaigns. For example, the Women’s March against Donald Trump’s Presidency seemed to do this after the protest day. In what was a march mainly regarding Trump’s misconduct against various women, this issue has become forgotten by the many from after that protest up until now.

    This is perhaps one minor problem with social activism. It can powerful and influential in the short-run, but eventually be sounded in the long-term due to various factors like the promotion of other Web 2.0 agendas and slacktivism. This can lead to a lack of change being achieved and pretty much putting the activists back at square one. Would be compelled to hear your thoughts on this.

    Kind regards,

    Stephen Yan

    1. Hi there Stephan,

      Thanks for your kind words about my paper. I appreciate the feedback.

      You say that hashtags seem to dissipate as quickly as they have popped up, but I beg to differ. Of course, different issues are going to be more prominent at different times, depending on what is happening in our culture and society at any given time, but this happens regardless of whether activism is online or offline. The benefit of having it online is the history accumulates. If, for example, Donald Trump said yet another offensive remark regarding women, the hashtags regarding this would resurface, and also show the entire history that this hashtag has been used.

      Do you still disagree?

      1. To a degree as Trump has a track record, although I feel it is harder to quantify hashtags on Twitter as we don’t see the number of times a hashtag has been used unlike Instagram. And regardless, I don’t any user would want to spend hours searching a hashtag relating Trump and women. I guess it is down to the instantaneous nature of social media. New issues are going to come and go quickly, as new perspectives, issues and agendas arise.

        1. As you mention in your first comment, we are comparing whether activism is more short-lived online versus offline. For this reason, I still believe online activism can far outlive offline activism. My point about the history of the hashtags was not to insinuate people would sit and read through the history, just that it is there forever, unlike offline activism.

          I do agree with your comment that new issues are going to come and go quickly, which again is why I think it’s great to have the hashtag, as more information and perspectives can be added to a thread.

          1. I do agree an advantage of online activism is that it can present an easier to find perpetual archive in comparison to offline activism. Maybe I’m thinking too much into the potential legacy a movement can gain. This I feel is much, much harder to measure in Web 2.0 era amid all the different campaigns and movements from all around the world. And it is almost null and void to compare say a #Metoo to the feminist movement of the 1970s, as elements of society, at the very least Western, has changed substantially regarding women’s rights.

            There were/are currently probably many offline movements that have also been short-lived and quickly forgotten too. It also depends on the purpose too, sometimes some forms of activism are designed to have an instant impact while a movement like #Metoo is perhaps more continuous and is designed to pop up whenever a major issue relates to this.

  12. Hi Alice,
    I enjoyed reading your paper and found your title pretty interesting. I like how you explore the features of Web 2.0 in relation to activism. The participatory culture (sharing, commenting, liking, retweeting) are the starting point of how activists can now take over the web and reach out to more people.
    The Hashtags like #Blacklivesmatter, #Jesuischarlie, #MeToo or even #lovewins has connected many people and has gone viral online only by people clicking onto the share/like button. Do you think that online activists are less impactful than offline?

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

    1. Hi there MThomas,

      Thanks for reading my paper. I appreciate both your positive and constructive feedback. I personally think that online activism itself is not any less valuable then activism that takes place offline, especially since a vast amount of online activism transfers to offline action or results. What do you think?

      Cheers

      1. Hello, thank you for replying!
        I think that both should be merged for a real changed.
        For example, for global warming, if there are only hashtags created and people voicing out on the web but no movement offline there will be no real improvement.

        1. Hi again MThomas,

          Thanks for your reply.

          You say there will be no real improvement if there is no offline activism, but for me, this is simply not true. Thinking about it, I recently saw a video about global warming and saving the environment, which highlighted the things we can do to help our planet, such as using a keep cup. I think many people have seen information about keep cups online and then gone and bought one. I didn’t need to have people protest in the streets for me to make this effective change, I saw the online activism and made a change.

          Have you made any changes due to activism you saw online?

          1. Thank you for sharing that perception of things, I did not say it in that angle.
            I did not have any physical change, but I can say that it changes my perception, for example on feminism or any related topics that have had the audience having a construct general idea but then some of them resort to be false.
            As you said, by seeing this video you changed something but how about the pollution already made?
            For example chimneys of industries? Do you really think that by seeing a little video online, they will shut down the factories or turn to environmental ways?
            I don’t think so, people must protest, boycott or even have hunger strike to be able to move big things.
            For sure small details count but in the meantime, who is doing something the big?

            Looking forward to your comment.

          2. Hey again MThomas,

            You ask “by seeing this video you changed something but how about the pollution already made?”. I don’t think this is relevant to my paper, as no matter whether activism is online or offline we still can’t change the past.

            In regards to your comment “Do you really think that by seeing a little video online, they will shut down the factories or turn to environmental ways?”. I agree, no I don’t think they will shit down entire factories, but I don’t believe protest, whether in person or online will change this fact. These offline protests are often organized online too, without the organizing aspect of online activism, these protests, boycotts, and hunger strikes you speak of may not end up having many people participating.

            I do agree that small details won’t make big changes in the short run, but in the long run, I believe the small details do add up. I also don’t see why the big changes can’t be initiated online?

  13. Hi Alice,

    Your paper was a fantastic read! I find it so interesting that we both explored similar topics and as a result, I am rather grateful as reading your paper has allowed me to reflect and build on my own argument! Alongside CSligh, I too really admire your point about the use of online automatic translation in fueling connections between users and encouraging the development of communities.

    Do you think that these online fights for social justice do not necessarily need to be complemented with offline or traditional methods to be successful? or are they powerful enough on their own? Through my own research, I know that the argument of slacktivism states that online forms of activism rarely develop offline. However, do you think it necessary that they do? Is this the only way activists can achieve real results from their fight for social justice?

    Looking forward to your reply!!
    Thanks again for a great read,
    Devyn 🙂

    1. Hey Devyn,

      Cheers for the feedback. I appreciate you took the time and effort to read and respond to my arguments.

      In response to your question, I definitely think that the online fights for social justice do not necessarily need to be complemented with offline or traditional methods to be successful, as they are powerful enough on their own. But having the ability to move between the online and offline is definitely a positive aspect, and will only add to the fight.

      What do you think?

      1. Hi Alice,
        I couldn’t agree more!
        While I personally believe that online forms of activism are powerful enough on their own, I think the older generation or people who have not yet been exposed to this power still think that, in order to become legitimate, activist movements must happen offline. However, with the case of Fraser Anning that I discussed within my paper, it is evident that online forms of activism do achieve results without being conducted offline. I would also argue that a combination of both will only make fights for social justice stronger and more recognisable as a legitimate form of initiating change.

  14. Hi Alice
    It’s true that Web 2.0 and the participatory culture has made activism easier and more effective. The internet enables us to reach a far more bigger audience and people who can contribute.
    I like how you focused on the aspect of communication, collaboration, and organization as it’s true that Web 2.0 has made these three aspects more simple and effective. Everything can now be done on a webpage or on social media. Passing a message, capturing the attention of people and signing petitions for a cause can be done both traditionally and digitally but I think doing it digitally on the internet is more effective nowadays.

    Do you think that the traditional method of activism, such as passing flyers and protesting on the streets has become obsolete? Or is traditional activism still relevant today?

    1. Hi LCadet,

      Thanks for the kind words about my paper. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to read and reflect on my paper.

      I definitely don’t think the traditional method of activism is dead. Some people react to the traditional method in a more positive way, which then gains momentum in the movement being pushed. Think of grandparents for example. Their political voice definitely still counts, and so I think it is still really important to capture their attention in the way that they understand. What do you think? 🙂

  15. Hello Alice,

    Very insightful paper and original argument. Web 2.0 altogether with participatory culture simplified communication, collaboration, organization and participation by reuniting people sharing the same interests or causes around an online community.

    Plus what amazed me is the online translation tools on social networks, this enable practically an international and non-barrier communication to peers!

    The traditional method of communication in any form of activism, I suppose, was oral or visual (pamphlets, posters) before advent of Web 2.0, but don’t you think that now that everything is online, the governments, especially the suppressive ones, tend to have access to information prior to, for example, manifestations against government policies or actions and counteract or even switch off these gatherings for their own good?

    Regards,
    Keshav

  16. Hi Alice,
    I found your conference paper title quite catchy and interesting i would saying ‘Web 2.0 Effect on Society’s Engagement with Activism’. One of my favorite concept is partcipatory culture, fascinating how anyone can become a producer having the voice to express our opinions freely for example i participated in #Iamcharlie after the incident that happen in France.
    I would certainly like to know if you ever engaged yourself to fight for a cause in this online sphere?

    1. Hey DRamen,

      Thanks for the positive words. I had never heard of #IamCharlie but after a quick Google search, I was amazed. Don’t you think it’s awesome that a hashtag can keep the history of a movement available for anyone at the click of a few buttons?
      I myself keep pretty quiet on social media, but I have definitely engaged with online activism through simple likes, donations, comments, etc.

      What prompted you to initiate int eh #IamCharlie movement in particular?

      1. Hey AMcAuliffe,
        I consider myself as someone really active in activism.Well after the attack of Charlie Hebdo , my friends and i had this activism vision in my i would be saying .What we did was create posters with #iamcharlie to show that we support the families who have lost their close ones but also to sympathises with the country who had undergo this attack. We used online social media platforms as a form of propaganda to show our support.

        -Devanee

  17. Hello AMcAuliffe,
    I have gone through your paper and I found it really interesting.I like how you investigate the highlights of Web 2.0 in connection to activism. I agree with you on several points but mostly with what you with what you mentioned at the very beginning, like what , “community has and always will be an essential component in how society fights for social justice”, in this way through networks, a person’s frames of mind about social equity issues and activism is impacted. For sure, the participatory culture , is the beginning stage of how activists would now be able to assume control over the web and at the same time contact more individuals.

    Thanks for sharing your perspective of the topic with us.
    Tracy.

    1. Hey Tracy,

      Thanks for reading my paper, I am really grateful you took the time to read it and also leave some positive feedback!

      Cheers

  18. A good read!
    I realised during reading your paper that when you discuss participatory cultures impact on activism on web 2.0, that is has helped me become a part of it. For example climate change. I have viewed posts on Instagram which highlight the issue of climate change and have participated by sharing these posts or videos to spread the message. It is true that web 2.0 helps society enagage more with activism as they more likely to view the movements. I want to ask if you think social media plays a role in convincing people to join movements and spread the message because they see their peers, family or friends doing it and that is more of a reason to? To somewhat feel as though they are fitting in with society by joining in, hence as social media allows us to view what society is doing or supporting more than ever.

    1. Hi Sophia,

      Thanks for taking the time to read my paper and for your feedback and kind words. In regards to your question, I definitely think SNS and the communities you surround yourself with on those sites affect the overall impact they make on your own fight for social justice. I’ve definitely experienced this myself and began following certain movements because my friends and family had shared them. How about you?

  19. Hi Alice,

    Your paper is well structured and thought provoking on the subject of the effect of web 2.0 services on activism and the new modern forms it can take because of the development in technology.

    I find it fascinating how initially hashtags were initially simply for sorting data into user defined categories but they are also now somewhat used as a banner for many people to unite under and congregate their message and support in a single word or phrase.

    Web 2.0 services certainly have been helpful in the aspect of being a tool for social justice and giving a voice / platform for those to air their grievances who didn’t previously.

    1. Hi JPetch,

      Thanks for reading my paper, and taking the time to let me know what you liked about my paper. Thanks for also sharing your opinion and personal experience on the matter.
      Have you ever used a Web 2.0 platform to show support for online activism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *