There is no better tool for uniting people locally and globally than social
networking. The ability for like-minded activist to easily find each other and
create communities revolving around social change is one of the best things
that has come out of the 21st century so far. As Joni mentioned in
her post, things like the “Me Too” movement and “Black Lives Matter” would not
have been able to make the impact that we are seeing in our society today
without the use of social networking. Before social networking, voices were not
heard or simply ignored. But when thousands are saying the same message, things
tend to be put into motion much more quickly.
We saw that with huge figures such as Harvey Weinstein. He was able to get away with sexually abusing women for years because their stories were never heard. The silence made otherwise heinous acts normalized in the industry. Natalie Portman said in an interview that at the time, she just thought that was how Hollywood operated (https://www.clickondetroit.com/entertainment/natalie-portman-had-no-female-friends-in-hollywood-until-times-up)
This is only one example, but change groups are gathering and making their voices heard. Because of social networking, we can dismantle beliefs and normalized practices that are wrong and unjust. From gun violence to sexual abuse, social networking can set change into motion with a unified front that can not be silenced or ignored.
As Joni mentioned in her post, social networking also allows us to reach across vast distances to create communities with people that otherwise do not get heard in our own local networks. A big example that comes to mind right now are the protests happening in Hong Kong. China is extremely restrictive with what news gets out into the world about political and social matters. However, due to social networking, the world has been able to see the pro-democracy protestors and the violent response that have occurred for the last 15 weeks (cnn.com/asia/live-news/hong-kong-protests-sept-15-intl-hnk/index.html). As I’m typing this, news reports are coming in of police firing tear gas into crowds. I can watch videos of people being beaten and harassed. It’s not comfortable to see, but it does allow me to access a social issue in a more visceral way that otherwise would have been off my radar.
Of course, social networking also has been an issue for groups that are spreading messages of hate. Groups like the alt-right have used Twitter as a way to organize mass rallies to preach doctrines of racism and xenophobia. I’m sure we all remember the murder of a young woman who was struck by a car at a neo-Nazi rally in Virginia (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/07/neo-nazi-convicted-murder-charlottesville-car-assault-killed-heather-heyer/2243848002/).
As I mentioned in a previous post, I think it is important for social networking sites to have firm rules and expectations about the use of their platforms. Too many platforms like Twitter use the first amendment excuse. They won’t get involved in stopping messages of hate. But when those messages become organized groups that go out into the physical world and hurt people, the platform is partially to blame for not preventing these atrocities from happening in the first place.
We are in what I like to call the “wild-west” phase of the internet. It is a relatively new landscape that is just starting to be tapped for its full potential. The possibilities are endless, but the rules are also gray at best. The simple fact of the matter is that the rules and laws that govern countries can not be simply transferred to the internet. It’s its own beast that needs to be approached differently in order to promote positive networks and prevent potentially harmful organizations from gathering.
Easier said then done, I know, but we’re working toward that future.