Digital Activism (W9) and Content Moderation and Free Speech (w4)
In my poster, I decided to illustrate the metaphor that first comes to my mind when I think of creating any kind of social change by means of social media. It's a double-edged sword. There is a major positive of every aspect of it, and a negative part of it as well. For example, we used digital activism this summer to bring attention to the Black Lives Matter movement, police reform, and mass incarceration. In response, millions of eyes watched the movement, and bills were enacted, and many of us have altered the way we think. On the exact opposite side of this, Facebook was used to incite a genocide in Myanmar. (Mozur, 2018) Members of the Myanmar posted propaganda on Facebook target against a minority Muslim group. This resulted in murder, rape, and "the largest forced human migration in recent history" (Mozur, 2018) This is a prime example of a double-edged sword. I used Procreate to make my poster.
Digital Activism
The best part of social media is that it connects people no matter where they are, or what time zone they're in. That means if social justice is happening in an isolated part of the country, it's not hard to inform the entire world about it. For example, the Black Lives Matter Movement now has "spread across the US and around the globe, with massive protests in the UK, Europe, and Canada." (Maqbool, 2020) Activism on social media works well because it's malleable. Social media is quick, digestible, and attention grabbing, which makes it easy for digital activism to adapt, and grab your attention. Instagram graphics took over our stories this summer, making it easy to not only share information, but market hard-to-swallow topics to teens. They're "strategy and content packaging are similar to brands that speak to corporate-minded, girl-boss feminists" (Nguyen, 2020)
CONTENT MODERATION AND FREE SPEECH
I'm not focusing on content moderation or free speech, but rather the issues discussed in the "Content Moderation and Free Speech" episode of Patriot Act. While social media can connect people, and unite them together to accomplish great things, it can also give a space for people to come together and destroy, with hate behind their motivation. Misinformation can be easily spread, fueling hate, creating groups of individuals ready to cause violence and destruction. Social media is fun and games, but when people bring their conspiracy theories to the real world, it becomes dangerous. A conspiracy theory spread on social media influenced a man to bring an assault rifle to a restaurant and open fire. (Kang, 2020) In 2017, far-right protesters united on Discord, using it to discuss how they would use a car to ram counter protestors. A woman was killed in Charlottesville because of this. (Gardner, 2018) Obviously, social media sites started to ban far-right extremists from organizing violence on their sites. In response, "Members of the far-right are calling it an “act of war” on their free speech rights – an unjustified censoring of conservative viewpoints." (Gardner, 2018)
This begs the question, when is censorship and moderation ok on social media? Should organizing to incite violence on social media be protected by free speech?
This begs the question, when is censorship and moderation ok on social media? Should organizing to incite violence on social media be protected by free speech?