Remember slacktivists? Does Kony 2012 or when Unicef asked people to give money, not likes, ring a bell?
In the late 2000s, more and more people gained access to the internet and observers noticed a gap between online activity and real-life action. Slacktivism, according to Evgeny Mozorov, “is an apt term to describe feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact.” It was, in short, a cynical and pessimist view on online behavior that assumes that online activism has little to no consequence for the offline world. And it has since then been mostly forgotten.
Then Brexit and Trump happened and journalists, academics, and policymakers were once again interested in what people like and retweet, how often this story or that meme got shared, how many people got exposed to it, and how to measure its impact. But where we were once dismissive, we’re now concerned, worried even: about “fake news,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “bots.” All those things that supposedly changed people’s minds. We talk about QAnon, anti-vaxxers, and Russia.
Indeed, there are probably few topics that have changed people’s perspective of what’s happening online so quickly and found their way into people’s lives and daily conversation than “fake news” — a label that rose quickly and fell sharply after everyone seemed to agree that better terminology was needed. And now, in 2019, about 75 percent of Americans believe that at least some of the news they consume consists of disinformation — i.e., deliberately placed false information.
And while it’s unclear just how many people were worried about disinformation pre-2016, it’s probable that we are partly responsible for why so many people are worried about it now (adding to the already existing mistrust in the media). Scrambling to understand what had happened, we were looking for answers, and misinformation was the prime suspect: It was as flashy as it was intuitive, as paternalistic as it was elitist, and it absolved us from responsibility, giving us a clear culprit. And so we focused on misinformation — and where once slacktivists were seen with disdain, as virtual do-gooders without real-life effect, they were now seen as direct perpetrators and/or victims of disinformation campaigns that contributed to society’s polarization.
It’s thus worth taking a step back and looking at what we know about slacktivists to make more sense of what I call “trolltivists.” While not many papers looked into slacktivism, those that did ended like this one from Rodolfo Leyva, who concluded that “frequent social media consumption is linked to a minimal and narrow mobilizing impact” (others: 1, 2, 3). In this sense, slacktivism has, at best, a mobilizing effect, although a small one, and might give exposure to a topic.
Adapting this logic to misinformation — where we know that, while people that have been exposed to misinformation may be more prone to believe it when confronted again, most people aren’t exposed to misinformation in the first place — means that, at worst, some people got mobilized and bought into some made-up stories. (Keep in mind, though, that these stories were mostly read by a small subset of people who were already very interested in politics to begin with and thus also read lots of “true” news.) At best, it was “just” that: exposure. Just another outrageous blip in the seemingly never-ending scroll of stories and memes that we’re all exposed to online.
Going into 2020, then, journalists should work to avoid the specter of misinformation and the tales of the easily manipulated users — and if they can’t help it, they should at least remember the slacktivists and how they were once seen as a cautionary tale. Today’s trolltivists aren’t fighting for the arrest of war criminal Joseph Kony — but they are embedded in a polarized political landscape in which political leaders and Fox News are more influential, problematic, and misinforming than Russian propaganda campaigns or 4chan trollstorms.
And while it’s likely that slacktivists have always been underrated, it’s important not to make the opposite mistake for today’s slacktivists. Too many online campaigns have failed and too many platforms have had enough of the trolltivist’s constant harassment and spread of disinformation. Journalists have also learned not to emphasize every outrageous claim, when to employ strategic silence, and when to shine a light on the hideous side of today’s slacktivism.
This isn’t to say that online communication can’t have a meaningful impact on the streets — but rather that we should be careful about asserting the direct impact of misinformation on people’s minds. Some people, after all, might just like trolling their Facebook friends.
Jonas Kaiser is an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and an associate researcher at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society.
Remember slacktivists? Does Kony 2012 or when Unicef asked people to give money, not likes, ring a bell?
In the late 2000s, more and more people gained access to the internet and observers noticed a gap between online activity and real-life action. Slacktivism, according to Evgeny Mozorov, “is an apt term to describe feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact.” It was, in short, a cynical and pessimist view on online behavior that assumes that online activism has little to no consequence for the offline world. And it has since then been mostly forgotten.
Then Brexit and Trump happened and journalists, academics, and policymakers were once again interested in what people like and retweet, how often this story or that meme got shared, how many people got exposed to it, and how to measure its impact. But where we were once dismissive, we’re now concerned, worried even: about “fake news,” “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “bots.” All those things that supposedly changed people’s minds. We talk about QAnon, anti-vaxxers, and Russia.
Indeed, there are probably few topics that have changed people’s perspective of what’s happening online so quickly and found their way into people’s lives and daily conversation than “fake news” — a label that rose quickly and fell sharply after everyone seemed to agree that better terminology was needed. And now, in 2019, about 75 percent of Americans believe that at least some of the news they consume consists of disinformation — i.e., deliberately placed false information.
And while it’s unclear just how many people were worried about disinformation pre-2016, it’s probable that we are partly responsible for why so many people are worried about it now (adding to the already existing mistrust in the media). Scrambling to understand what had happened, we were looking for answers, and misinformation was the prime suspect: It was as flashy as it was intuitive, as paternalistic as it was elitist, and it absolved us from responsibility, giving us a clear culprit. And so we focused on misinformation — and where once slacktivists were seen with disdain, as virtual do-gooders without real-life effect, they were now seen as direct perpetrators and/or victims of disinformation campaigns that contributed to society’s polarization.
It’s thus worth taking a step back and looking at what we know about slacktivists to make more sense of what I call “trolltivists.” While not many papers looked into slacktivism, those that did ended like this one from Rodolfo Leyva, who concluded that “frequent social media consumption is linked to a minimal and narrow mobilizing impact” (others: 1, 2, 3). In this sense, slacktivism has, at best, a mobilizing effect, although a small one, and might give exposure to a topic.
Adapting this logic to misinformation — where we know that, while people that have been exposed to misinformation may be more prone to believe it when confronted again, most people aren’t exposed to misinformation in the first place — means that, at worst, some people got mobilized and bought into some made-up stories. (Keep in mind, though, that these stories were mostly read by a small subset of people who were already very interested in politics to begin with and thus also read lots of “true” news.) At best, it was “just” that: exposure. Just another outrageous blip in the seemingly never-ending scroll of stories and memes that we’re all exposed to online.
Going into 2020, then, journalists should work to avoid the specter of misinformation and the tales of the easily manipulated users — and if they can’t help it, they should at least remember the slacktivists and how they were once seen as a cautionary tale. Today’s trolltivists aren’t fighting for the arrest of war criminal Joseph Kony — but they are embedded in a polarized political landscape in which political leaders and Fox News are more influential, problematic, and misinforming than Russian propaganda campaigns or 4chan trollstorms.
And while it’s likely that slacktivists have always been underrated, it’s important not to make the opposite mistake for today’s slacktivists. Too many online campaigns have failed and too many platforms have had enough of the trolltivist’s constant harassment and spread of disinformation. Journalists have also learned not to emphasize every outrageous claim, when to employ strategic silence, and when to shine a light on the hideous side of today’s slacktivism.
This isn’t to say that online communication can’t have a meaningful impact on the streets — but rather that we should be careful about asserting the direct impact of misinformation on people’s minds. Some people, after all, might just like trolling their Facebook friends.
Jonas Kaiser is an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and an associate researcher at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society.
Emily Withrow The year we kill the news article
Tom Glaisyer Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful
Tonya Mosley The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends
Bill Adair A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song
Ståle Grut OSINT journalism goes mainstream
Jeff Kofman Speed through technology
Beena Raghavendran The year of the local engagement reporter
Rachel Davis Mersey The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide
Irving Washington Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job
Victor Pickard We reclaim a public good
Joanne McNeil A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)
Jasmine McNealy A call for context
Monique Judge The year to organize, unionize, and fight
Sonali Prasad Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional
Cory Haik We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it
Sarah Schmalbach Journalist, quantify thyself
Kristen Muller The year we operationalize community engagement
Steve Henn The dawning audio web
Rick Berke Incoming fire from both left and right
Craig Newmark Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation
Errin Haines Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story
Anthony Nadler Clash of Clans: Election Edition
Don Day Respect the non-paying audience
Jennifer Brandel A love letter from the year 2073
Helen Havlak Platforms shine a light on original reporting
Elizabeth Dunbar Frank talk, and then action
Ernie Smith The death of the industry fad
Meredith Artley Stronger solidarity among news organizations
Mario García Think small (screen)
Margarita Noriega The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms
Monica Drake A renewed focus on misinformation
Matt DeRienzo Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers
Eric Nuzum Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show
Nushin Rashidian Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?
Zizi Papacharissi A president leads, the press follows, reality fades
Carrie Brown-Smith Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening
Stefanie Murray Charitable giving goes collaborative
Talia Stroud The work of reconnecting starts November 4
Knight Foundation Five generations of journalists, learning from each other
Nicholas Jackson What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support
Kevin D. Grant The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth
Joshua P. Darr All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse
Nathalie Malinarich Betting on loyalty
Lauren Duca The rise of the journalistic influencer
Felix Salmon Spotify launches a news channel
Brian Moritz The end of “stick to sports”
Imaeyen Ibanga Let’s take it slow
Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech
Peter Bale Lies get further normalized
S. Mitra Kalita The race to 2021
Greg Emerson News apps fall further behind
Dan Shanoff Sports media enters the Bronny era
Francesco Zaffarano TikTok without generational prejudice
Sara K. Baranowski A big year for little newspapers
Colleen Shalby Journalists become media literacy teachers
Sue Robinson Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments
Simon Galperin Journalism becomes more democratic
Heidi Tworek The year of positive pushback
Jonas Kaiser Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists
Logan Jaffe You don’t need fancy tools to listen
John Keefe Journalism gets hacked
Fiona Spruill The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves
Kourtney Bitterly Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation
Mike Caulfield Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd
Doris Truong The year of radical salary transparency
Bill Grueskin Our ethics codes get an overhaul
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks
Meg Marco Everything happens somewhere
Catalina Albeanu Rebuilding journalism, together
Joe Amditis Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table
Hossein Derakhshan AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris
Lucas Graves A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters
Geneva Overholser Death to bothsidesism
Pablo Boczkowski The day after November 4
Sarah Alvarez I’m ready for post-news
Candis Callison Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change
M. Scott Havens First-party data becomes media’s most important currency
Seth C. Lewis 20 questions for 2020
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Power to the people (on your audience team)
Barbara Gray Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement
Cindy Royal Prepare media students for skills, not job titles
J. Siguru Wahutu Western journalists, learn from your African peers
Christa Scharfenberg It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen The business we want, not the business we had
Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor Think twice before turning to Twitter
An Xiao Mina The Forum we wanted, the forum we got
Annie Rudd The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph
Raney Aronson-Rath News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions
Tamar Charney From broadcast to bespoke
Nico Gendron Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z
Laura E. Davis Know the context your journalism is operating within
Rachel Schallom The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates
Michael W. Wagner Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative
Ben Werdmuller Use the tools of journalism to save it
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline
Cristina Kim Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”
Matthew Pressman News consumers divide into haves and have-nots
Julia B. Chan We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏
Kathleen Searles Pay more attention to attention
Josh Schwartz Publishers move beyond the metered paywall
Kerri Hoffman Opening closed systems
Alexandra Borchardt Get out of the office and talk to people
Sarah Stonbely More people start caring about news inequality
Mira Lowe The year of student-powered journalism
Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young The promise of nonprofit journalism
Dannagal G. Young Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart
Mariana Moura Santos The future of journalism is collaborative
Joni Deutsch Podcasting unsilences the silent
Linda Solomon Wood Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal
Sarah Marshall The year to learn about news moments
Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage
Brenda P. Salinas Treating MP3 files like text
Alana Levinson Brand-backed media gets another look
Jake Shapiro Podcasting gets listener relationship management
John Garrett It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization
Gordon Crovitz Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms
Jeremy Olshan All journalism should be service journalism
Alice Antheaume Trade “politics” for “power”
A.J. Bauer A fork in the road for conservative media
Masuma Ahuja Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful
Jakob Moll A slow-moving tech backlash among young people
Jim Brady We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own
Richard Tofel A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges
Heather Bryant Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving
Tanya Cordrey Saying no to more good ideas
Whitney Phillips A time to question core beliefs
Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz News coverage gets geo-fragmented
Juleyka Lantigua A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions