Digital Activism —Who is behind it and who does it actually benefit?

In my first post, I looked into the evolution of the internet and its impact on social movements and digital activities. I focused on two key concepts: affordance and affordability. Today, I am going to expand on that by looking at different research that examines how these inequalities manifest and who is positively and negatively impacted by them. 

Affordability and Access

As I previously mentioned, differences in affordability refer to differences in purchasing power. This means that wealthier people might be able to afford the latest, most expensive and most efficient technology, while others cannot. This disparity also affects digital activism, where costs are higher for lower-income groups (Schradie 2019: 17).

But in the context of the digital activism gap, class is not just about buying the latest iPhone. Access to education and skills are also crucial. In her book The Revolution that Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives, Schradie (2019: 30) notes that ‘all of the working-class groups lacked a dedicated person, either staff or volunteer, who knew how to maintain and update their online presence.’

Digital organisations –an obsolete entity?

Another of Schradie’s findings (2019: 18) is that the success of digital activism depends on the strength of organisations. After analysing several working-class organisations in the US, the groups that ranked highest on the digital activism index were effective because they operated within a well-structured organisation. 

Her findings align with Pierri’s (2022: 2-7), who examined a digital campaigning organisation associated with the OPEN Movement in Europe. The author finds that, far from being obsolete, digital campaigning organisations have grown more professional over time and have become important mediators between activists and formal political institutions. The current landscape is crowded and very competitive, which means that organisations with greater resources tend to thrive. In contrast, smaller, less formal groups often struggle and may need to merge with larger entities to stay afloat.

The significance of organisation and hierarchy challenges the common and academic view that the internet inherently democratises society. Access to investment, resources, and money remains unequal, meaning that not everyone can fully benefit from the opportunities the digital world offers (Schradie 2019: 19).

The Question of Affordances 

During her ethnographic research, Pierri (2022: 12–13, 18) found that affordances play a key role in the internal dynamics of digital campaigning organisations. Tensions arose between Campaign and Tech Teams, with campaigners feeling restricted by data-driven decisions and a lack of tailored solutions. The Tech Team’s focus on data was seen as limiting the campaign’s flexibility. Additionally, while women are well-represented in staff and leadership, they are notably underrepresented in technical roles, highlighting a gender gap in tech positions.

But another important, yet often overlooked, aspect of digital affordances is the accessibility of the internet for people with disabilities. To them, the Internet is inherently unfriendly. People with visual impairments might face issues like incompatible screen readers and missing image descriptions. Mobility-impaired individuals may face challenges with small buttons and non-responsive designs. Individuals with hearing impairments are affected by the lack of text alternatives for audio content. Cognitive and learning disabilities are exacerbated by poor site design, while flashing elements can trigger seizures for those with epilepsy (Jaeger 2012: 2).

Beyond affordances and affordability: Providing safe spaces

Something that might not often be considered when discussing access to digital activism is  how physical spaces might be the only safe spaces for some communities (Schradie 2019: 46–47). Besides fears of hacking, phishing and security breaches, the internet can be an incredibly hostile space for women,  people of colour, LGBT+ people, or people with disabilities, among other minorities. It might discourage them from participating in the digital space, sharing their thoughts, ideas and experiences. 

Oftentimes, social media community rules are set by a small group and may not fully address users’ safety needs. Furthermore, these rules can shift when circumstances change. For instance, when Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion on April 14, 2022. This acquisition not only came with a complete rebranding—the platform is now called ‘X’—, but with the dissolution of its Trust and Safety Council. This advisory body, established by the company in 2016, was composed of 100 independent organisations focused on civil and human rights and other social issues to address hate speech, child exploitation, suicide, self-harm, and other potentially harmful content on the platform. Musk’s controversial update to the block feature, allowing blocked users to view posts from those who blocked them, is presented as increasing transparency but may leave some users feeling more vulnerable to harassment.

So, who is currently benefiting from digital activism and an active digital presence? 

Schradie (2019:  28–29) found that working-class organisations faced important challenges with digital activism. Their overall online engagement was two to three times lower than that of middle- and upper-class groups. Even when these working-class groups managed to establish an online presence, their community interaction—measured through likes, comments, retweets, and followers—remained limited. 

The digitisation of news, along with a growing conservative media ecosystem of right-wing outlets (see Dori’s post for a different take on this issue) favours conservative activists (Schradie 2019: 20-21). In her analysis, Schradie (2019: 146–147) found that right-wing groups consistently outperform their left-wing counterparts in digital activism. Conservative groups were more hierarchical in their decision-making, more active online, and had more sophisticated websites that were updated more frequently and a stronger presence on platforms like Twitter. They not only had higher engagement, but also a larger share of social media activity overall. 

Men, able-bodied, and neurotypical individuals typically face fewer barriers to digital access, allowing them to engage in online spaces more easily. In contrast, women, people with disabilities, people of colour (PoC) and LGBT+ communities encounter additional challenges, including harassment and discrimination. To this, it is important to add that the design of the internet is not always inclusive. Inaccessible websites, incompatible screen readers, and poor navigation create significant obstacles for people with disabilities. All these barriers can limit or discourage their participation in digital activism.

 

References: 

Jaeger, T. P. (2012) Disability and the Internet: Confronting a Digital Divide. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Pierri, P. (2022) ‘Who Can Still Afford to Do Digital Activism? Exploring the material conditions of online mobilisation’ Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society 2, (2) 1–23.

Schradie, J. (2019) The Revolution That Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/technology/elon-musk-twitter-deal-complete.html 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/12/twitter-safety-council-dissolved-before-meeting 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/10/17/x-will-soon-let-users-see-tweets-from-people-who-block-them-the-controversial-change-explained/#:~:text=Musk%20has%20stopped%20short%20of,receiving%20further%20criticism%20from%20users.