Using social media to advocate political positions has taken hold in the past few years. A recent high-profile example of social-media advocacy has been people posting images of the equality sign with a red background in support of marriage equality. The Supreme Court’s tackling of gay marriage’s constitutionality has invigorated equality advocates nationwide — and on Facebook.
The Supreme Court is considering two cases dealing with gay marriage. The first case involves California’s Proposition 8, with the plaintiffs arguing that the legislation, which bans gay marriage in California, violates the federal constitution. The second case involves Defense of Marriage Act from 1996 (DOMA), signed under former President Bill Clinton. DOMA denies gay married couples the federal benefits heterosexual couples receive. It also formally defines marriage as an institution between a man and woman.
Scrolling Facebook, looking at the many marriage-equality images, I question how many people posted the picture because they were aware of the Supreme Court cases and how many posted it because of peer influence. On a superficial level, yes, the picture reflects support for marriage equality. But on deeper level, it is important not to assume that everyone who posted the picture necessarily understands the issues behind the image. While one can advocate for a cause without being informed about the issue, such advocacy lacks any value. To a certain extent, social issues on Facebook are along party lines, but they also turn into fads. Such fads are not limited only to gay rights.
Early last year, Facebook and other social media sites became embroiled in the fight against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect the IP Act (PIPA). The legislations were meant to protect copyrights, prevent piracy and prevent the trafficking of goods online. Yet most people on Facebook believed the legislation was about was about censorship and First Amendment rights. The legislation was about protecting ideas and expression rather than preventing knowledge, though the line between the two may have become hazy. That haziness caused misunderstandings. The legislation was meant to prevent the piracy of music and movies, but did not necessarily mean that people were going to be restricted from exercising freedom of expression. The disparity between the legislation’s purpose and the general reception of the legislation on Facebook reflected the possibility that people may not fully understand the issues they support through online activism. This misunderstanding is often a consequence of jumping to conclusions because of peer influence rather than investigating the topic and forming an educated opinion. Social media, which allows peers to broadcast their opinions, may heighten the danger that online political actions are examples of conformity more than advocacy.
This trend is not limited to Facebook. It extends to online activism more broadly. Online activism is a fantastic way to publicize issues and help such issues gain prominence. And activism via online media is very common now. But it is important to take into account that support for an issue — especially online support — does not mean people are informed about the issue. It is thus important to not overestimate the powers of online activism. For example, social causes such as alleviating poverty in Africa are fairly common on Facebook. However, reading the small description on that page and then liking the page is not indicative that the person understands the complexity of the issue. They have only obtained a superficial understanding of it. Moreover, having ill-informed supporters behind a cause devalues the cause and its significance. How can someone rally support for an issue if he or she does not understand it? Ignorance results in other people having misconceptions about the cause, which may reduce support rather than increase it.
My intention in this article was not to promote the issue of gay rights or SOPA one way or another but rather to increase awareness of the limitations of advocating different issues on Facebook. I myself have not put up the equality sign as my profile picture, not because I do not support the issue — for I most certainly do — but because I found out about the Supreme Court case rather belatedly. Putting up that profile picture when one fully understands the issue will go further toward making a difference than will blind support.
Fariha Kabir is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 6 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 11 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
