gabriellaferrari-blog1 - Tumblr blog

[gabriellaferrari-blog1]

Slacktivsm to activism. The Grenfell Tower fire 2017

We define ‘slacktivism’ as low-risk, low-cost activity via social media, whose purpose is to raise awareness or produce change.

 We define ‘practical activism’ as the use of direct, proactive and often confrontation action towards attaining a societal change.

 The Grenfell Tower tragedy 

In June 2017, a large fire broke out on the fourth floor of Grenfell Tower in Kensington, London. The fire left a total of 72 people dead, and everybody who lived in the tower homeless. It was later reported that the flammable cladding that was installed on the exterior of the building in a recent renovation contributed to the rapid spread of the fire.

Photo credit: India news

What happened next?

Broadcast stations from around the world instantly turned there attention to the horrific scenes in London. Locally, communities came together in attempt to help those affected by the fire, providing support and supplies to the many who had lost their homes and families in the fire.

Photo credit: Red Cross

In tragic events, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter introduce the opportunity for ‘wide-scale, online social participation’. Within 24 hours of the tragedy, there were numerous social media campaigns on Twitter and Facebook, started by citizens who wanted to help those affected by the Grenfell fire, offering to contribute the search of those missing, raise funds and offer support where needed. However, many demanded answers as to why such a horrific tragedy happened in the first place. 

While a number of online petitions urging for justice for Grenfell have reached over 100,000 signatures, their efficiency has been questioned when there has been no evident change. This leads us to ask, do online campaigns really help?

The Grenfell inquiry

An inquiry to the fire was officially launched in September 2017.  Sir Martin Moore-Bick was appointed to lead the inquiry, however many were left angry by the government’s choice of judge, demanding that another was appointed. Labour party questioned why a "white, upper-middle class man" who has "never" visited a tower block” was put in the position to judge the Grenfell disaster, that affected such a ethically diverse group of people. 

Online protests spread rapidly, gaining support from celebrities nationally, all of whom demanded a change. 

By definition however, online petitions such as these can be considered as slacktivsm. Little is often done, even once a petition has reached the required number of signatures. 

When slacktivsm turns to activism 

In February 2018, Justice4Grenfell took campaigns to the streets of London in a  powerful message displayed across three billboards. Utilising the main motif of the award winning film Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, J4G highlighted their anger at the lack of progress made in the investigation. 

Photo credit: The Guardian 

This encouraged conversations online from many who were shocked (and impressed) by the billboards.

Yo Theresa May, where’s that money for Grenfell?

Just a number of days after, Stormzy recharged the conversation surrounding Grenfell Tower and the lack of action from Theresa May in a chilling performance at the Brit Awards. 

Stacey Dooley responding to Stormzy’s performance as new age activism. Photo credit: Twitter

A combination of slacktivsm and activism could generate a change

It cannot be denied that slacktivsm has its benefits. Through the use of social media, a cause or plight is able to reach a mass number of people. However, as we know with the petitions started for Grenfell Tower, there is often little action.

While activism may not be able to change how the Grenfell inquiry is carried out, the widespread broadcast media attention that is attracted as a result has the ability to raise the necessary questions in the consciousness of the mass. Evidence into the Grenfell Tower disaster is still being reviewed, but with continued momentum both actively and across social media platforms, justice may be brought to the victims of the tragedy. 

[gabriellaferrari-blog1]

Can social media facilitate social change?

Reframing sexual violence- from #MeToo to Time’s Up

On October 5th 2017, a report released by the New York Times revealed a number of allegations of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein. The report inspired women in all industries across the world to speak up about their story of sexual assault and sexual harassment, united in force by the hashtag #MeToo. Not long after, the USA Gymnastics and the US Olympic Committee were accused of a cover up on decades’ worth of abuse. It was revealed that Larry Nassar, the female gymnastics team doctor, had molested athletes such as Simon Biles and Aly Raisman when he was the Olympic team doctor. More than 150 more women came forward to accuse Nassar.

The Me Too Movement

However, it was long before the allegations against Weinstein and Nassar were brought to light that the Me Too movement was founded. The phrase ‘Me Too’ was first used over 10 years ago by grass roots activist Tarana Burke, in a campaign to reach underprivileged girls dealing with sexual abuse. In 2017, the campaign gained momentum in response to Weinstein’s actions and further a tweet made by actress Alyssa Milano, asking victims of sexual harassment and assault to make their voices heard.

Photo credit: Twitter 

67,000 people replied to Milano’s tweet, some simply replying Me Too, while others shared their personal stories. Looking across further social media platforms, Facebook has said that within 24 hours, 4.7 million people around the world engaged in the #metoo conversation, with over 12m posts, comments, and reactions.

The movement is all about giving people a voice and “encouraging millions to speak out about sexual violence and harassment”. The aim is to disrupt all systems that allow sexual violence to flourish. As a result of the campaigns success, Time picked it as campaign of the year in 2017, giving rise to women around the globe and making their voices heard.

Photo credit: Time

The next step: Time’s Up. 

Time’s Up can be thought of as a solution-based, action-orientated next stop in the #MeToo movement. The movement came to light when Hollywood’s leading women published an open letter in the New York Times .While #MeToo gave many people voices, women were still struggling to be heard. Time’s Up is attempting to reach those people. The signatories of the open letter recognised that their privilege enables them to have platforms to amplify their voices, but they want ‘all survivors of sexual harassment, everywhere, to be heard, to be believed and to know that accountability is possible’. 

Photo credit: Twitter

Using their privilege to utilise movement, many attendees of the Golden Globes used the opportunity to show their solidarity with others around the world by wearing black. Eva Longoria said that ‘this is not a fashion moment…. This time the industry can’t expect us to go up and twirl around. That is not what this moment is about’.

What now?

Celebrities have a platform that enables their messages to be reached by the mass. Therefore, it can be stated that movements that are endorsed by celebrities are likely to gain some form of momentum through their outreach. We have seen women from every walk of life come together in solidarity against sexual abuse and assault, all of whom are able to be united together by experience and movement on social media. We can argue that for many, justice has been served as Weinstein faces rape charges. But for many victims of sexual assault or abuse, the fight will still go on.

[gabriellaferrari-blog1]

Donald Trump perpetuates state-sponsored Islamophobia

‘He has empowered and mainstreamed white supremacy and bigotry’

The word Islamophobia has been coined because there is a new reality that needs naming: anti-Muslim prejudice has grown so considerably and so rapidly in recent years that a new item in the vocabulary is needed so that it can be identified and acted against’. (The Runnymede Trust,1997)

President Donald Trump has repeatedly issued announcements and proposals over social media, predominantly Twitter, during both his presidential election and his time in office. However, for a number of reasons, the POTUS’ Tweets have been deemed problematic. The presidents tweets and retweets have led many to ask a deeper question: whether social media might be corrosive to the very fabric of democracy itself.  

On Monday 4th December 2017, the United States Supreme Court allowed the third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban to take immediate effect as the appeal proceeds. The ban, often referred to as the Muslin ban, means that the United States would refuse entry visas to prospective travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen (plus North Korea and Venezuela). It can be argued that allowing such a ban, the Supreme Court has aided the rise of Islamophobia in the United States.

In typical Trump style, the POTUS has utilised social media to communicate his messages of the ban to his following of 52million people. Furthermore, Trump used an attack in London to promote his proposal, calling the terrorists ‘sick’ and ‘demented’ people, whilst stating that the travel ban should be larger in America.

Photo credit: Twitter

To add insult to injury, Donald Trump retweeted videos from the right-wing extremist group Britain First, which purported to show Muslims engaging in violence. The far-right group are notorious for perpetuating Islamophobic discourse in Britain. Arguably, the POTUS’ decision to retweet such videos gives legitimacy to the voice of the group.

Photo credit: EDL

Despite being problematic, the videos were misleading, inflammatory and deeply irresponsible. Understandably, many were left angry by Trumps retweets and took to Twitter to voice their own opinions.

Photo credit: Twitter

Trumps discourse surrounding the travel ban, terrorist attacks and his retweeting of far-right groups arguably creates a divide between non-Muslim Americans and Muslim Americans. This leaves us to question what this means for Muslim’s globally.  Since 9/11, the problem of Islamophobia in Western countries has been intensified. FBI data show that in 2015 there were 257 hate crimes against Muslims – the highest level since 2001 and a surge of 67 percent over the previous year.

Donald Trump should be attempting to combat the problem of Islamophobia, rather he is adding fuel to the fire by proposing bans to stop Muslims entering the United States. Should we be questioning whether a president of the United States who openly perpetuates Islamophobia should be allowed to tweet to his mass following? The democratic answer would be yes. If Trump’s social media was to be taken away, it would be considered as a serious erosion of freedom in any liberal democracy.  But we must continue to understand that such discourse is damaging to the wider Muslim society and that we, as citizens, should not create a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims, despite what Trump may project on social media. 

[gabriellaferrari-blog1]

Brexit: the effect of social media on politics

In June 2016, Britain shocked the world by voting to leave the European Union.  Prior to the election, debates were happening up and down the country via traditional formats of media, but arguably, the liveliest debate was taking place online. Once the vote was in, many were left confused as to how to leave campaign managed to achieve what so many considered the impossible.

What did the data suggest?

Online campaigners took to social media to voice their opinions, whether they were supporting #VoteLeave or #StrongerIn. The power that digital media holds is its ability to reach thousands of voters instantly, directly and constantly, something which traditional methods simply cannot compete with. For several months prior to the vote, the Leave camp had been building their online presence, setting the tone of the debate ‘across all major social networking platforms’. Polanski, a network scientist at the University of Oxford and his team captured 30 weeks of data across social networking sites to analyse the coverage and support of both of the parties. They found that on Twitter alone, that the Leave camp outnumbered the Remain camp 7 to 1. Research conducted across Instagram found audience engaged more with the Leave camp than the Remain, receiving 26% more likes and 20% more comments across their posts.

Why did Leave have a stronger online presence?

Arguably, there are a number of contributing factors as to why Leave had a stronger online presence than the Remain party. The messages of Leave were more intuitive and straightforward, which Polonski states is fundamental for social media campaigning. During the Brexit campaign, many suggested that they did not understand the messages communicated from either party. Leave simplified their messages, making them audience friendly. Secondly, their messages were more emotionally charged than their opposition.

Photo credit: Twitter

A (later revealed as false) claim was made by the party stating that the £350 million pound that is paid to the European Union weekly would go back into the NHS if voters chose leave went viral across digital platforms. It is believed that this claim influenced nearly 50% of the voters.

Photo credit: Twitter

 How it ended

The voice of the Leave party remained undeniably consistent. However, this was greatly overlooked by the Remain side who did not up their social media presence in the months, weeks and days that led up to the vote. The results, 52% to leave and 48% to remain, shocked the internet public and generated a mixture of responses. Social media has become fundamental to the nature of political campaigning and will continue to play a key role in shaping the public agenda and drive for social change.

[gabriellaferrari-blog1]

“Our thoughts and prayers are not enough – it’s time to take action”.

How social media movements are disrupting gun politics.

Photo credit: Twitter

For decades, the discussion of gun violence in America has been a topic of unprecedented concern. Yet within those same decades, it can be argued that nothing much has changed. Mass shootings in America are happening more and more frequently, with an average of 16.4 reported to have been carried out annually between 2007 and 2013. It is evident to see that a change is needed.

On February 14th 2018, Nikolas Cruz walked into Majory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida and opened fired at students and staff, killing a total of 17 people. Students, teachers and the nation understandably upset and angry were left to question why? Why do shootings keep happening? Why can a teenager buy a gun, but not buy alcohol? And why has nothing been done to prevent this since the last shooting? Many people are urging for a change. Angered by politician’s responses, or their lack of, students decided to spring to action.

Photo credit: Twitter

They took immediate action- the Never Again movement.

The movement #NeverAgain has emerged from the tragedy by survivors of the shooting to call bull sh*t on the country’s broken dialogue surrounding gun control. This movement intends to protest against American politicians who said no law could have prevented the massacre. Social media has since become a tool for grass root activists to spread their message. In the weeks following the attack, 290,000 people were using the hashtag #NeverAgain. The wide spread activity on social media has in turn attracted journalistic attention globally, promoting their rallying cry further.

A march was announced

Support poured in from every corner of the globe as their digital following increased, but more needed to be done, and as such, March for our Lives was founded. Their mission statement reads; ‘March for our Lives is created by, inspired by and led by students across the country who will no longer risk their lives waiting for someone else to stop the epidemic of mass school shootings that has become all too familiar’. Their plea for a more comprehensive gun legislation resonated with many. Through the use of social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram, students organised a march that was due to take place on the 24th March 2018 in Washington. Endorsed by journalists, celebrities and citizens alike, approximately 3.6 million people tweeted with the hashtag #MarchForOurLives, bringing a reported turnout on the day of half a million people.  

Social media has changed the debate

While the narrative following a mass shooting is all too similar, it can be argued that this time it may different. Voices are being heard and movements are being made. Described as ‘articulate, witty and digitally native’, the survivors of the shooting have utilised social media in attempt to make a change. Twitter has given many of the activists their own blue tick to verify their account and status. In a sense, it can be argued that this adds credit to their arguments. We are yet to see whether legislation surrounding gun control is to change, but these students understand ‘that this is a marathon that they’ll be fighting for years’.