One of the common features of all social media platforms is the ability to propagate information from one corner of the world to another, reaching millions of people. Some platforms such as Twitter allow users to share information to a community of extended networks, allowing information propagation even for users with only a few connections or “friends”. This allows users to go beyond their curated feed and explore content that might be of interest. However, this comes at a cost. There are numerous reports that suggest how easy the current social media has made it to be vulnerable to misinformation and biased reporting.

The vulnerability of social media users makes them prone to bias in formulating their own opinions. One instance was described in a report published by Freedom House, which shows that an increasing number of governments are shifting from censoring social media content to conducting their own online activism with the goal of dissipating propaganda. Using bots and fake accounts, collectively termed as “cyber troops”, governments can very easily inject an idea into a social-network and make it mainstream enough and ultimately, take advantage of the obtained impression to influence policy making, budget spending, and even election results. Another research conducted at Oxford University shows that an alarming number of countries have used this tactic to discredit political foes and explicitly share pro-government ideologies. Released in 2019, the study reports that 47 governments have utilized state-sponsored cyber troops to launch campaigns against their direct political opponents, both locally and internationally. This was especially seen in effect in the 2016 US elections. The Oxford study stated that there was so much computational propaganda played out throughout the country, especially in key battleground states like Michigan where the proportion of real to fake news was incredibly high. The 2017 French and Kenyan elections had the same problem with fake news propagation. The dangers of online activism don’t rely on the dissipation of misinformation alone. Aided by trend analysis tools and techniques, governments and political groups use smart strategies to spread their propaganda. These propaganda campaigns are sometimes masked with patriotic or nationalist sentiments so that they can be easily digested by the target audience. 

A unique feature of social media is the speed with which ideas are spread. This has made it easy to amass a political or ideological following that reigns dominant over others with different values than their own. Combined with cyber troops and aided by anonymity, others’ ideas can be dismissed with ease, resulting in a lack of healthy discussions. This makes it hard to express an unpopular opinion, make criticisms, or simply have an opinion other than the group consensus. This form of groupthink reduces diversification of ideas or creates a false dichotomy of “us vs them” mentality that has become so prevalent in modern social media.

Moreover, social media activism opens the door to slacktivism. Slacktivism is a collective term to describe online activism that is based merely on liking and sharing posts. Slacktivism gives an illusion that we are just a click away from making an impact in the world. It gathers attention, creates a buzz, and makes hashtags trendy. However, these mostly don’t translate into effective political changes because retweeting or joining a Facebook group does not equate to proper organization and cohesion of movements. Online activism with proper leadership and a clear goal can achieve a lot, but the problem is that at the moment, many are content with slacktivism alone and that is not enough to bring about change. In fact, the presence of numerous hashtag movements at times has been shown to water down the momentum of other movements.

Social media activism is a double-edged sword and it is serving both at the moment: a tool for the voiceless to be heard and a weapon for some to gain more power. One of the best attributes of social media is its ability to give a platform for the voiceless. Anyone with a smart device and internet connection is free to roam around, explore ideas and express their own thoughts. In areas where there is little to no freedom of speech, it serves as a tool of expression without fear of danger or retribution — and strong democratic systems require this very transparency and access to unbiased information. After much discussion on countering the dangers of online activism, many platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have introduced fact-checking mechanisms, but the ethical, philosophical, and legal aspects of that debate are still ongoing. Unless decisive actions are taken against it, the ugly side of online activism is only expected to magnify.