Abstract:

This paper examines the paradox of Digital activism, while it offers unprecedented visibility, it often fails to translate online engagement into tangible change, as social media algorithms reward performative activism over substantive progress. This paper examines how profit driven platform logic, incentivize commodified dissent, through hashtag activism, corporate virtue signalling, and algorithmic suppression, while marginalizing movements that lack the resources to compete in the attention economy. Drawing on case studies such as the #MeToo, and #BlackLivesMatter, the analysis reveals a paradox: social media amplifies marginalized voices yet coerces activists into simplified, emotionally charged narratives that prioritize virality over systemic reform. To reclaim efficacy, movements must adopt hybrid tactics—anchoring digital campaigns in material action, decentralizing communication to resist censorship, and fostering “thick” communities that bridge online visibility with offline accountability. Ultimately, meaningful progress requires transcending the spectacle of algorithmic activism to sustain long-term resistance and structural change.

Online protest which attempts to achieve visibility does not make change, stronger social bonds and action does.

The digital age has transformed activism into a spectacle of visibility for the masses, where hashtags trend globally and viral posts command millions of eyeballs and thousands of dollars. Yet beneath this facade of empowerment and social progression lies a paradox: social media algorithms can amplify marginalized voices while simultaneously coercing activists into performative engagement that risks commodifying dissent, while also encouraging influences to piggyback on social movements to ride the wave of exposure, who provide nothing substantial to the cause. This paper highlights how algorithms are designed to maximize profit through user engagement, which reshape the strategies, ethics, and outcomes of digital activism, while offering exposure through virtue signalling. By looking at examples of how online activism has worked, where it could have been used, we can see its shot comings and its strengths.

While social media platforms democratize visibility, their profit-driven logics incentivize performative activism (e.g., hashtag campaigns) that often substitutes symbolic gestures for material progress. Right-wing movements exploit these logics through disinformation and platform migration, whereas marginalized groups struggle to sustain durable resistance under algorithmic suppression and surveillance, for speaking against the norm of those who administer the systems lead to deliberate and accidental suppression.

Historically

Downing (2018) Downing’s analysis of Tunisia’s Arab Spring illustrates a critical tension: regimes that embrace technological modernization to project progressiveness often inadvertently create tools for their own destabilization. Tunisia’s authoritarian government, eager to position itself as a regional tech hub, expanded internet access and social media adoption in the 2000s. However, these platforms became incubators for dissent although very few perhaps 0.25% of the entire Egyptian population used Twitter and slightly more used Facebook (Downing 2018, p. 25). As activists like those in the April 6 Youth Movement used Facebook to share evidence of state corruption and coordinate protests, it became a tool used to coordinate social change. Yet Downing cautions against framing this as a purely “digital” revolution (Downing 2018, p. 26). The regime’s collapse was not instantaneous; it was the culmination of decades of Labor activism, student organizing, and censorship resistance. Algorithmic platforms merely amplified preexisting grievances rooted in Tunisia’s history of economic inequality and political repression.

The “excitement of immediacy” (Downing 2018, p. 27) surrounding social media’s role risks overshadowing the slow, context-dependent process of change. For instance, Egypt’s 2011 uprising, though similarly reliant on digital tools, failed to achieve lasting reform due to the military’s entrenched power—a contrast underscoring how algorithmic affordances alone cannot override material power structures. Calhoun’s critique of virtual communities as “weak public spheres” (pp. 213–214) reinforces this: platforms like Twitter enable rapid mobilization but lack the infrastructure to sustain dialogue or accountability, Calhoun probably did not foresee the rise and popularity of social media, but social media is still a weak public sphere with low accountability. In Tunisia, offline networks (e.g., Labor unions) provided the durability that algorithmic virality could not, merging digital reach with grassroots legitimacy.

Visibility vs. Impact

The algorithmic demand for visibility forces activists into a Faustian bargain: conform to platform logics or risk obscurity. della Porta & Pavan (Porta & Pavan, 2018 p. 32) note that activists “curate” content to meet algorithmic preferences—e.g., using emotionally charged visuals or hashtags like #MeToo to trigger engagement. However, this performativity often reduces intersectional struggles to oversimplified, palatable, naive narratives. For example, Indigenous land rights movements, which require nuanced discussions of sovereignty and history, struggle to compete with viral, emotion-driven content. Downing’s critique of corporate monopolies (Downing 2018, p. 27) deepens this paradox: platforms like Instagram privilege aesthetics over substance, pushing activists to prioritize “Instagrammable” protests (e.g., colourful marches) over less visually striking but impactful tactics like legislative lobbying, informing and garnering widespread support for a cause is important, but the next step of action is often skipped to stay algorithmically centred.

The “digital divide” (pp. 217–218) exacerbates inequalities. Marginalized movements lacking resources to hire social media managers or buy ads are algorithmically suppressed. Meanwhile, well-funded companies or state actors co-opt hashtags like #ClimateAction to greenwash their reputations, turning activism into a commodified spectacle, which losses meaning and achieves nothing concrete. This creates a hierarchy of visibility where systemic critiques are drowned out by performative, depoliticized content.

Performative Advocacy & Marginalization

Algorithmic platforms incentivize “clicktivism” low-risk, high-reward actions like sharing hashtags or signing online petitions. While #BlackLivesMatter globalized awareness of police brutality, della Porta & Pavan (Porta & Pavan, 2018 p. 33) argue such connective logic often sidelines formal organizations like the Movement for Black Lives, which focus on policy changes like defunding police. Individualized participation fosters “slacktivism,” where users perceive a hashtag share as sufficient contribution, neglecting offline responsibilities like voting or community organizing. Downing (p. 25) warns that this creates a “mobilization trap”: movements gain visibility but lack the infrastructure to convert awareness into legislation, as seen in the minimal U.S. police reform post-2020.

Parsell’s “pernicious communities” (Delanty, 2018 p. 218) further illustrate how algorithms polarize support. For instance, feminist hashtags like #TimesUp are hijacked by anti-feminist trolls, fragmenting discourse into hostile echo chambers. Marginalized movements thus face a double bind: adapt messaging to algorithmic preferences (risking dilution) or retain complexity (risking invisibility).

Corporate Virtue Signalling: The Commodification of Dissent

Corporate virtue signalizes the peak of performative visibility and lack of substantial change in algorithmic activism. Companies increasingly co-opt social justice rhetoric—such as rainbow logos during Pride Month or #BlackLivesMatter solidarity statements—to enhance brand image while sidestepping material accountability, to garner public attention for little cost. These gestures, made only for algorithmic exposure, exploit the emotional resonance of movements to attempt to cultivate consumer loyalty, transforming activism into marketable content. As della Porta & Pavan (2018) note, platforms privilege simplistic, emotionally charged narratives, incentivizing corporations to reduce intersectional struggles to palatable slogans. For instance, fast-fashion brands touting “sustainability” campaigns via #ClimateAction often obscure exploitative labour practices, exemplifying how algorithmic logics enable “greenwashing” that prioritizes optics over systemic reform. Downing’s critique of corporate monopolies (2018, p. 27) underscores this dynamic: Instagram’s aesthetic demands push firms to prioritize visually striking, depoliticized activism—like sponsoring viral marches—while ignoring less glamorous but impactful measures, such as lobbying for equitable policies. This performativity creates a hierarchy of visibility, where corporations with resources to manipulate algorithms drown out grassroots movements lacking such access. Worse, such signalling risks diluting radical critiques; #MeToo’s focus on individual stories of harassment, amplified by corporate media, often overshadowed structural demands for workplace reform. The result is a paradox: platforms democratize visibility but entrench corporate power, as virtue signalling becomes a tool to neutralize dissent through commodification. Authentic progress, however, demands moving beyond algorithmic posturing. As with historical labour movements that paired media campaigns with strikes and unionization, modern activism must pressure corporations to convert symbolic gestures into tangible accountability—divesting from oppressive systems rather than merely branding them. Only then can visibility transcend virtue signalling to foster enduring change.

Hybrid Tactics & Material Agency

Platforms materially shape activism through design. Twitter’s character limit privileges slogans like #NoDAPL over detailed explanations of Indigenous sovereignty, while TikTok’s algorithm favours short, dramatic clips of protests over educational content. della Porta & Pavan (p. 34) stress that activists must adapt tactics to these constraints e.g., using Twitter threads to add nuance or leveraging Instagram Stories for real-time protest updates. However, Downing’s case study of Deep Dish TV (p. 24) offers a blueprint for resisting platform dependency: by combining satellite broadcasts with local grassroots workshops, the 1980s media collective balanced mass reach with deep community engagement, avoiding the algorithmic “filter bubble.”

Castells’ “ephemeral communities” (p. 210) highlight the fragility of purely digital networks. The 2019 Hong Kong protests exemplify hybrid resistance: protesters used encrypted apps like Telegram to coordinate while maintaining physical “Lennon Walls” for communal expression. Such models merge the immediacy of digital tools with the material resilience of offline spaces. Leading out of the digital space into physical actions which demand more commitment from its participants.

Identity & Authenticity

Algorithmic platforms enable fluid identities—e.g., LGBTQ+ users safely exploring queerness via TikTok subcultures. However, della Porta & Pavan (Porta & Pavan, 2018 p. 33) note this fluidity complicates collective action; the 2017 Women’s March faced criticism for failing to centrally address trans rights or racial justice, as fragmented online discourse hindered unified messaging. Downing contrasts this with historical movements like the anti-apartheid struggle, where print media fostered a “highly conscious readership” (Porta & Pavan, 2018 p. 22) united around clear demands. Today’s “thin communities” (Delanty, 2018 p. 205), built on transient hashtags, struggle to sustain such cohesion.

The “weakening of commitment” in virtual communities (Delanty, 2018 p. 220) reflects this paradox: algorithmic platforms privilege personal expression over collective responsibility. For example, the #StopAsianHate hashtag during the 2019 covid pandemic raised awareness but struggled to translate online outrage into sustained policy advocacy, as users moved on to the next viral issue, which is another example of visibility not leading to change.

Resistance & Surveillance

Algorithmic tools empower dissent but also expose activists to surveillance. Downing (p. 27) notes authoritarian regimes use AI to track dissidents, while even democracies employ facial recognition at protests. Marginalized groups face disproportionate risks: Palestinian activists report Instagram shadow banning content flagged by pro-Israel algorithms. della Porta & Pavan (p. 35) advocate “reclaiming” technologies, e.g., Indigenous groups using blockchain to document land rights immutably, or activists adopting Signal for encrypted communication.

The commodification critique (Delanty 2018, pp. 217–218) is pivotal: corporate platforms profit from user data, including activist content. Decentralized alternatives like Mastodon or community-owned mesh networks offer autonomy but require technical literacy, which marginalized movements often lack, and even when digital literacy is met, being in a silo of communication can hamstring new users to the cause.

Reclaiming online activism

The paradox of algorithmic activism lies in its dual role as amplifier and silencer. To navigate this, movements must: Anchor their digital into offline spaces and communities, either as Lennon boards, or though clubs and universities. Remove platform dependence, Twitter, Facebook and most social media platforms have shown that they will bend the knee to censoring in specific countries, activist groups need to make redundances in communication lines and be prepared for platforms to turn their backs on them. Work with not only simplified hyper visible content, but also with more nuanced educational content which can lead to change instead of greenwashing and virtue signalling. Use social media to facilitate and maintain a thick community, social media is not necessarily enough to foster one, but it can help to maintain and coordinate one.  As Downing and della Porta & Pavan assert, authenticity in activism requires resisting the lure of algorithmic immediacy and reclaiming material agency—not just trending but enduring. Activists need to achieve something, if they do not go about, it in ways which will lead to change, is it even worth bringing attention to a topic.

References

Delanty, G. (2018). Community. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315158259

Downing, J. D. H. (2018). Looking back, looking ahead. In G. Meikle (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (pp. 19–27). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315475059

Freelon, D., Marwick, A., & Kreiss, D. (2020). False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right. Science, 369(6508), 1197–1201. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2428

Porta, D. della, & Pavan, E. (2018). The nexus between media, communication and social movements Looking back and the way forward. In G. Meikle (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (pp. 29–37). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315475059