Slacktivism

There is one thing that I have noticed about March of Dimes that is different from other organizations that advertise over the internet: They use social network sites really, really well. Upon reading the articles by Gladwell and Mirani, I was actually leaning toward Gladwell. I firmly believed that social network sites were great for spreading information, but terrible for encouraging active participation. “Slacktivism” seemed a perfectly appropriate term to me because it always seemed that social network sites created a sense of participation in the user, without them having to actually participate. But March of Dimes has proven my original assumption wrong in several ways.

March of Dimes uses Facebook and Twitter for the same reason, to spread information about how to become involved in their most recent events. Right now, they are promoting their “March of Babies” event which is their biggest and most well-known. Instead of using status updates as a way to simply talk about the march, March of Dimes’ latest status update states, “Interested in forming a March for Babies Family Team but not sure how? Contact familyteams (at) marchofdimes (dot) com for more information!” This seems effective because it doesn’t give any information away except for the instructions for making a team and becoming involved. I also noticed that those communicating over the page are asking valuable questions about how to be involved and how to join other supporters’ teams. It is clear that those who use the site are also those who are involved with the cause in a more hands-on way.

Twitter is used in the exact same fashion. The March of Dimes Twitter account features the March of Dimes logo (as does the Facebook page) and lists information on how to form a team for the “March of Babies” event. Just like the status updates on Facebook, those who are responding to the feed are asking questions about making teams. Again, it is obvious that there is more than “slacktivism” happening here.

After looking closely at how March of Dimes uses social network sites, I would have to say that I now agree more with Mirani. It is true that there are those out there who believe that their online participation is enough, but there are some organizations, like March of Dimes, that encourage more active support. It would be much more difficult to spread information about the organization if they did not use social network sites for communicating with participants. Online slacktivism does matter, but only if one is able to turn it into something more. It is a great place to start learning about a cause, and more organizations should follow the example that March of Dimes has set for encouraging participants to go from “slacktivists” to activists.

Key Concepts So Far

I feel that the most important concepts we have covered thus far revolve around participatory culture and convergence, crowd-sourcing, and new methods of organizing information. Participatory culture has become a pivotal part of the digital age, because it has shaped the way that we interact on the web. As Henry Jenkins and Clay Shirkey describe, the web now relies hugely on the participation of its users, and not just individually. Rather, the web is now so successful because users are able to “participate” with each other in order to create new material and socialize on the internet. This is very similar to convergence, which is the coming together of people and ideas across vast media platforms to create new material. Henry Jenkins states, “Convergence does not occur through media appliances, however sophisticated they may become. Convergence occurs within the brains of individual consumers and through their social interactions with others” (“Introduction: ‘Worship at the Altar of Convergence’”, p. 3) I believe that this is one of the most, if not THE most, important concept we have covered thus far, because it can relate to so many different aspects of digital technology.

Another important takeaway from the material we have discussed so far is the idea of “crowd-sourcing.” I believe that crowd-sourcing is so important because again, it is happening everywhere today. I also find it to be an interesting topic because it is not a perfect science; there are many individuals (including the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales) who rely on crowd-sourcing to be successful, but who do not believe that it is fail-proof. Mr. Wales states, “The problem with the term is the notion of a crowd - this amorphous crowd has no individual perspective. There's value in mass participation but where possible the people need some expertise. We just call it collaboration frankly” (via Tom de Castella, “Should We Trust The Wisdom of Crowds?”). I think that this notion of “collaboration” is a better way to view crowd-sourcing. Yes, it makes sense that taking ideas from a whole mass of people, rather than just a few, is a wonderful way to get a wider breadth of information. But there really are inherent problems with this. If you think of it in terms of a conversation, imagine a crowded room full of hundreds, maybe thousands, of people. If everyone in this room tries to talk at once, no one will actually be heard. By allowing the “average person” to give their input in collaboration with that of an “expert,” then a better result can be achieved. From this perspective, I think that crowd-sourcing will swiftly become the fundamental way that large corporations communicate and do business, which is why it is so important.

The last concept that I feel is most important is the idea that we are now able to organize information in a way that has fewer boundaries and restrictions than ever before. I believe that David Weinberger’s idea that the “digital order” has transformed the way that we store information is becoming more and more prevalent within our society. Songs, documents, photos, media files, almost anything can be stored digitally with little or no physical space restrictions. It can also be catalogued in such a way that there can be multiple tags or key words associated with just one item. This makes searching for this item, along with any other items, much more simple. What is also important to note is that this new way of cataloguing digital information has allowed items to be shared more easily, too. Of course, this has led to a rise in piracy and copyright theft, but it has also allowed information to spread globally in a matter of seconds, something that would have seemed impossible before the digital age. David Wienberger states, “The third order (the digital order) removes the limitations we’ve assumed were inevitable in how we organize information” (“Everything is Miscellaneous” p. 8). This new method of organizing has indeed created some problems, but I believe that the benefits outweigh the complications. This has changed the way that we find almost all of our information today, and that is why it, as well as the other concepts I discussed, plays a fundamental role in digital technology today.