“1 like = 1 prayer; 1 retweet = 100 prayers”. Though phrases like these are often used sarcastically in recent years, they were more common when modern social media was taking off in popularity. The origin of their ironic use comes from their association with “slacktivism”. Slacktivism is when people perform low-cost and low-effort actions in support of a cause that require little to no commitment. When it was coined in 1995, it sported a positive connotation, describing small acts by young people that contributed to society, such as planting a tree; however, the presence of social media has transformed that perception into one of derision.
There are both positives and negatives about slacktivism, but it is up for discussion whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Done on social media, slacktivism can gain wide exposure to many groups of people. Its proponents believe that this exposure brings attention to causes, indirectly creating supporters. Additionally, the low amount of commitment required can incentivize participation. Out of many noncommittal actions, a few of them might inspire greater support for a cause.
These effects can be seen in the famous “Ice Bucket Challenge”, which “resulted in tons of social media interaction and millions of dollars for ALS research”. The ease of sharing videos and communicating with others on social media caused the challenge to blow up in popularity. Everyone won: money was raised for ALS research while participants had fun getting the spotlight on social media. However, critics believe that many got so caught up in the hype that they paid less attention to the cause that it supported.
On the other hand, slacktivism can discourage participation by providing a cheap substitute. Many slacktivist posts ask for likes and shares, which are much easier to do compared to donating money or participating in a movement. These types of posts also contribute very little to their respective causes. A study from the University of British Columbia described that if private actions (such as donating money) were performed first, they were likely to lead to public actions that gain visibility (like posting on social media). Inversely, public actions being done first would discourage private actions from the belief that they’ve already contributed enough. This is not true in all cases, but it explains the amount of publicity movements gain every year that end in little actual support.
Take the “Area 51 Raid” last month, for example. While it was started as a joke rather than for a societal cause, it amassed tens of thousands of promises by Facebook users to attend. In reality, less than 100 people went, to the relief of local law enforcement. The effect of a cause being hyped up can be observed throughout the months leading up to the event. When the feeling of being part of something big can be gained from a simple click, why put any more effort into it? Whether slacktivism works depends on the situation and audience, but its emergence exhibits the dangerous influence of social media on society.
Source: https://nonprofithub.org/social-media/what-is-slacktivism-does-it-help/