Heidi Schlumpf makes it clear in her essay, “Slacktivism” Makes the World a Better Place from the Couch, that social media does have the opportunity to create improvements that last through the interactions of its users. She argues that slacktivism doesn’t provide immediate change, yet it is a great way for people to get involved in a particular cause. After exposure to a topic, it creates interactions and sharing among users that has the power to overcome topics our society faces because of social media’s reachability, ability to unite, and accessibility. One of social media's greatest assets is that social media can reach many in a short amount of time. A post can be viewed by at least a 100 hundred people that a user personally knows.
…show more content…
Schlumpf explains the power of social media’s ability to unite is similar to gathering people to do activism in real life. She then asked, what's the difference between uniting people online versus in person? Schlumpf continues by debating, “If the purpose is to bring together like-minded folks, demonstrate power in numbers and get the attention of decision-makers… ‘slacktivism’ can make a difference” (596). In fact slacktivist acts have caught the eye of “decision-makers” or better phrased as lawmakers. Back in 2011, Australia had a bit of a crisis with their cattle industry. Sharon Schoenmaker and Donald Alexander wrote an essay about the media’s impact on Australian cattle that were being exported live to Indonesia. The Indonesian slaughterhouses did not follow Australia’s guidelines causing the cattle to undergo unnecessary suffering. ABC’s Four Corners created a documentary about the Indonesian slaughtering. The video exploded onto Facebook creating different pages wanting to end the live export of cattle to Indonesia (Schoenmaker et. al 17). Getup! was one of the Facebook pages created after the documentary was released. In a short time Getup! received almost 600,000 likes. The Getup! page created the fastest growing petition that received more than 35,000 signatures in the first five hours of being released. These social media accounts created …show more content…
Change can happen because people can do it with a click of a button. Not everyone can participate in “true activistism” because they have certain obligations in their life; such as work, family, or lack of physical ability. Schlumpf can personally relate to this scenario. Activism played a different role in her life, “When I was unmarried and child-free, I used to protest at the School of the Americas, even risking arrest. My sister, home with three children, baked me cookies for the trip. Now that I have two toddlers, I bake cookies, write checks and click ‘like’” (Schlumpf 596). Slacktivism is available for anyone with a social media account and internet. These two components are becoming more and more common. In fact, the Australia’s cattle trade created first time social media activists, the cattle farmers (Schoenmaker et. al 19). Farmers become well aware of the situation that their livestock was facing in the slaughterhouses. Yet, it would be unreasonable for the cattle owners to fly to Indonesia to then proceeded in holding up signs outside of these slaughterhouses in a fashion of “old activism”. That would be ridiculous! Most farmers could not afford to take away from raising their livestock back home. Plus the personal commitments on these farmers would also prevent them from going on this holy crusade. Let’s say, hypothetically, a few farmers were able to take the trip- a
Schlumpf explains the power of social media’s ability to unite is similar to gathering people to do activism in real life. She then asked, what's the difference between uniting people online versus in person? Schlumpf continues by debating, “If the purpose is to bring together like-minded folks, demonstrate power in numbers and get the attention of decision-makers… ‘slacktivism’ can make a difference” (596). In fact slacktivist acts have caught the eye of “decision-makers” or better phrased as lawmakers. Back in 2011, Australia had a bit of a crisis with their cattle industry. Sharon Schoenmaker and Donald Alexander wrote an essay about the media’s impact on Australian cattle that were being exported live to Indonesia. The Indonesian slaughterhouses did not follow Australia’s guidelines causing the cattle to undergo unnecessary suffering. ABC’s Four Corners created a documentary about the Indonesian slaughtering. The video exploded onto Facebook creating different pages wanting to end the live export of cattle to Indonesia (Schoenmaker et. al 17). Getup! was one of the Facebook pages created after the documentary was released. In a short time Getup! received almost 600,000 likes. The Getup! page created the fastest growing petition that received more than 35,000 signatures in the first five hours of being released. These social media accounts created …show more content…
Change can happen because people can do it with a click of a button. Not everyone can participate in “true activistism” because they have certain obligations in their life; such as work, family, or lack of physical ability. Schlumpf can personally relate to this scenario. Activism played a different role in her life, “When I was unmarried and child-free, I used to protest at the School of the Americas, even risking arrest. My sister, home with three children, baked me cookies for the trip. Now that I have two toddlers, I bake cookies, write checks and click ‘like’” (Schlumpf 596). Slacktivism is available for anyone with a social media account and internet. These two components are becoming more and more common. In fact, the Australia’s cattle trade created first time social media activists, the cattle farmers (Schoenmaker et. al 19). Farmers become well aware of the situation that their livestock was facing in the slaughterhouses. Yet, it would be unreasonable for the cattle owners to fly to Indonesia to then proceeded in holding up signs outside of these slaughterhouses in a fashion of “old activism”. That would be ridiculous! Most farmers could not afford to take away from raising their livestock back home. Plus the personal commitments on these farmers would also prevent them from going on this holy crusade. Let’s say, hypothetically, a few farmers were able to take the trip- a