Social media activism makes a difference, but not as much as one would like. Take for example ‘Save the Arctic’ — a Facebook group that has put a major spotlight on Shell Company’s drilling in the Arctic Circle. Over six million people have signed their petition to keep Shell, and other such companies, from drilling in Arctic waters or otherwise, despoiling the ecosystem for corporate interests.
There have been gains, in that more people are aware of this issue than they would have been otherwise, and are choosing to act. However, Shell is still drilling and activists like these will still court arrest.
The main problem lies in the idea that simply spreading information with acts like these are the answer. That is half-right. It is one thing to spread awareness, it is quite another to get people engaged in the first place. We are bombarded with a multitude of information on a daily basis, but choosing what to focus on comes down to what draws our eye most.
The answer, in my opinion, is to complement the passion of the zealot with the creative insidiousness of the ad-man. To quote Leo Burnett: “Good advertising does not just circulate information. It penetrates the public mind with desires and belief.”
The effects of social media activism when compared to social media advertising is stark. Due to the ingenious pervasion of advertising in our lives, we are more mobilised to buy the latest iPhone than to preserving the Arctic. To download the latest dating app as opposed to protecting Antarctica. A new handbag over the Amazon rainforest. Instagram followers over political protest and so on. That’s not to say that I believe that no one cares, the contrary is true. However, if the revolution is to be broadcasted, we need to make sure people watch.
— The reader is an Irish journalism graduate based in Dublin
