Muslim World Report

Why Social Media Fails Activism and How to Reclaim Change

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 20, 2025 11:00 AM | 15 min read | 3075 words

TL;DR: Social media, while useful for mobilization, often stifles authentic activism due to its alignment with corporate interests and algorithmic biases. This post explores the limitations of social media for creating meaningful change and presents alternative avenues for grassroots engagement.

The Limits of Social Media: A Critical Examination of Change

In recent years, social media has emerged as a potent tool for mobilization and activism, celebrated for its ability to connect individuals and facilitate grassroots movements. However, a closer analysis reveals that its utility in fostering meaningful change is often overstated. Much like a double-edged sword, social media has the power to inspire collective action but also to dilute the voices of those it purports to empower. The dominance of billionaire-owned platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok exposes fundamental limitations that can stifle authentic discourse and reinforce the status quo.

Historically, platforms have been instrumental in movements—think of the printing press, which ignited the Reformation, or radio broadcasts that galvanized the Civil Rights Movement. Yet, today’s social media landscape is dominated by corporate interests that primarily serve the affluent 1%, shaping information dissemination to align with corporate agendas and propagating a narrow range of narratives. This selective amplification often overlooks the complexities of marginalized experiences (Kapoor et al., 2017; Binks et al., 2023). In this light, one must ponder: can a platform truly champion social change when its very structure is designed to prioritize profit over people?

Engagement Metrics vs. Substantive Discourse

The architecture of social media platforms inherently prioritizes engagement metrics—likes, shares, and comments—over substantive discourse. This results in an algorithmic bias favoring:

  • Sensationalism
  • Outrage
  • Superficial discussions

Consequently, this trend further entrench harmful stereotypes and narrative control dictated by those in power (McCracken, 2001; Syvertsen & Enli, 2019).

Consider the historical context of the penny press in the 19th century, which prioritized sensational news to attract readers, often at the expense of in-depth journalism. Just as the penny press gave rise to tabloid-style reporting that shaped public opinion, today’s social media platforms amplify sensational content at the cost of informed discourse. For instance, while platforms like Reddit may offer a more favorable space for dialogue, they are not immune to manipulation. The emergence of extremist subreddits highlights that even ostensibly democratized spaces can harbor toxic ideas, reflecting a broader trend where the left often appeals to intellect over emotion, leaving the emotional resonance of populist narratives largely unchallenged (Howard, 2000; Tatarchevskiy, 2010). How can we expect meaningful conversations when the platforms designed for discourse are influenced by the same sensationalism that once characterized 19th-century tabloids?

Implications for Marginalized Communities

The implications of this systemic issue are profound. For marginalized communities—including Muslim populations and others facing discrimination—social media can be a double-edged sword. It provides a platform to voice grievances while simultaneously reinforcing harmful stereotypes and narratives serving the interests of the ruling class.

Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s, where leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. harnessed platforms like radio and television to amplify their message, yet also faced counter-narratives that sought to demonize their efforts. Similarly, today’s marginalized groups must navigate a landscape where their voices can be drowned out by misinformation and bias.

True change necessitates the exploration of alternative avenues for advocacy and discourse that challenge the dominant paradigms shaping our understanding of social movements and resistance. What if these communities could reclaim the narrative, not just by broadcasting their message but by fostering deeper engagement and education within broader society?

The Role of Information in Geopolitical Contexts

As geopolitical tensions rise and the quest for justice becomes increasingly complex, the role of information as a tool of power becomes critically important. The narratives we choose to amplify shape our collective response to crises, much like a compass guiding a ship through turbulent waters. For instance, during the war in Ukraine, different media portrayals influenced global support and intervention strategies, just as the portrayal of the Vietnam War shifted public opinion and policy in the United States (Benkler, 2002; Papazoglou & van den Heuvel, 2007). Similarly, the ongoing struggles faced by Palestinians often depend on the framing of their plight in international media, reflecting the profound impact of narrative control in shaping geopolitical landscapes.

The role of misinformation in the Covid-19 pandemic underscores the need for responsible information dissemination and the dangers posed by unregulated social media platforms (López et al., 2020; Heinonen & Medberg, 2018). The spread of false information has not only hindered public health responses but has also illuminated the fragility of our trust in institutions. Understanding the limitations of social media is not merely an academic exercise; it is crucial for developing effective strategies to promote social justice and combat imperialism in all its forms. How can we ensure that our narratives empower rather than deceive? What responsibility do we bear in the age of information warfare? These questions are vital as we navigate the complexities of modern governance and society.

The Potential Pitfalls of Increased Content Regulation

Proposals for stricter content regulation on social media platforms raise significant implications for free speech and activism. While increased scrutiny on misinformation and hate speech could create safer spaces for marginalized voices, it also raises concerns about:

  • Censorship
  • The potential silencing of dissent (Bergmann & Ossewaarde, 2020).

The mechanisms for regulating content are often opaque and can be manipulated by those in power to suppress criticism. Just as the infamous Sedition Act of 1798 was used to silence political opposition in the early days of the United States, today’s content moderation practices may disproportionately target progressive voices while allowing harmful right-wing narratives to flourish. This not only questions the integrity of the platforms themselves but also entrench existing power dynamics, echoing historical patterns of control and suppression seen throughout history (Haas, 1992; Stiff & van Vugt, 2008). How can we ensure that the tools designed to protect us from harmful speech do not become instruments of oppression?

Considerations for Stricter Regulations

What if the regulation of content became more stringent? Would this foster a climate of safety or suppress dissenting voices? While tighter regulations could prevent harmful misinformation, they could also inadvertently marginalize those advocating for social justice. Consider the Prohibition era in the United States during the 1920s; an attempt to ban alcohol led to a surge in illegal production and distribution, as well as the empowerment of organized crime. Similarly, as organizations like Facebook and Twitter adjust their policies, it’s essential to examine how these changes impact the communities they claim to protect.

Moreover, the enforcement of stricter regulations could provoke backlash from users who perceive such measures as an infringement on their rights. This polarization might drive users toward alternative platforms harboring more extreme ideologies. Ironically, attempts to create safer online environments may empower far-right movements that thrive on the fringes, undermining the original intention of fostering constructive dialogue (Gómez–Carmona et al., 2023).

Consequently, while tighter regulations may offer a pathway to a more responsible digital landscape, they also raise critical questions about the balance between safety and free expression. Who, then, gets to decide what is deemed “harmful”? The outcomes depend heavily on who designs and implements these regulations, underscoring the need for vigilance and advocacy to ensure that the voices of marginalized communities are not lost in the shuffle (Workman, 2013; Juergens, 2020).

The Possibility of Decentralization: A New Era of Digital Engagement

Imagine a scenario where billionaire-owned social media platforms lose their relevance, much like the transition from the era of monolithic broadcasting networks to the rise of cable television in the 1980s. In that time, viewers began to seek niche channels that catered to their specific interests, fundamentally altering the entertainment landscape. Now, as users migrate to decentralized, community-driven alternatives, we could witness a similar transformation in digital engagement. This shift would not only democratize content creation but also empower individuals to reclaim narrative control over their experiences (Lé, 2023). How might our online interactions change if each person had a stake in shaping the platforms they use?

Benefits of Decentralized Platforms

This transition might catalyze new forms of activism that are less reliant on centralized control, allowing grassroots movements to thrive in less commercialized spaces. Just as the decentralized structures of the early internet facilitated the rise of social movements like the Arab Spring, the absence of algorithm-driven engagement metrics would encourage:

  • In-depth discussions
  • A richer dialectic around social justice issues (Marabelli & Galliers, 2016; Calzada, 2023).

However, the emergence of alternative platforms does not guarantee immunity from manipulation or exploitation. Without sufficient oversight, communities may be vulnerable to new forms of misinformation or extremist ideologies—much like how the rise of propaganda in the early 20th century sought to fracture solidarity movements. Are we prepared to safeguard these new spaces, or will we witness a resurgence of old challenges in a novel guise? (Cope & Rainey, 1992).

Challenges in Transitioning

The transition to decentralized platforms could face resistance from users deeply entrenched in existing systems, much like the struggle to shift from horses to automobiles in the early 20th century. Just as many were hesitant to abandon the familiar rhythm of horse-drawn carriages despite the promise of speed and efficiency, today’s activists may cling to established networks that, although flawed, offer a certain comfort. This resistance creates friction that may hinder cohesion among activist circles. While the potential marginalization of billionaire-owned platforms presents an exciting opportunity for reconfiguration within activist communities, it necessitates a critical approach to building new spaces for advocacy that are truly inclusive and protective against manipulation. How can we ensure that these new platforms not only attract users but also foster a genuine sense of belonging and trust, unlike the superficial connections that often characterize conventional social media?

Reclaiming Activism: Shifting Tactics Away from Online Spaces

What if activist movements decided to pivot away from online platforms altogether? This could signify a monumental transformation in the landscape of advocacy and resistance.

By returning to more traditional forms of activism—such as in-person organizing, community mobilization, and direct action—movements might regain a level of authenticity and personal connection that digital platforms often dilute (Doldi, 2009). Consider the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which thrived on face-to-face interactions, sit-ins, and marches, demonstrating how communal gathering can galvanize change and foster solidarity among diverse groups. Similarly, a shift towards offline tactics today could strengthen local networks and foster deeper engagement with communities, challenging the superficial nature of online activism, where users express solidarity with a cause through a mere click without real commitment to transformative action (Lampel & Bhalla, 2007; Duh et al., 2019). Are we perhaps losing the essence of collective action by retreating into digital silos, trading authentic connections for fleeting ’likes’ and shares?

Obstacles to Offline Activism

However, this approach is not without significant obstacles. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a massive shift towards virtual engagement, leading many activists to rely heavily on online platforms. Just as the invention of the printing press transformed the spread of ideas during the Renaissance, digital platforms have revolutionized modern activism. The practicality of organizing without these tools can be daunting, particularly for under-resourced communities (Howard, 2000; Rahimi, 2011).

Moreover, the return to offline activism may limit the reach of movements, especially in a globalized world where physical boundaries have become more pronounced. Abandoning online platforms entirely could risk disconnecting movements from broader audiences. In a time when information travels at the speed of light, can we afford to confine our voices to the shadows of local streets?

Balancing Visibility and Engagement

Movements that thrive on visibility and public engagement often resemble ships sailing in turbulent waters; without the wind of social media to fill their sails, their messages may drift unnoticed. For instance, the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s effectively utilized media coverage to amplify its message, illustrating how visibility can drive engagement and inspire action. However, a tactical shift away from online platforms could enable stronger local connections. Much like a tree spreading its roots to stabilize in a storm, these local ties can foster resilience—yet this must be approached carefully to maintain momentum and visibility on pressing issues. How can movements recalibrate their strategies to ensure that they do not lose sight of their broader mission while strengthening local engagement?

Strategic Maneuvers: Embracing Alternative Avenues for Change

Given the limitations of billionaire-owned social media platforms, it is crucial for activists and movements to explore alternative strategies that prioritize community engagement and grassroots organizing. Just as the civil rights movement of the 1960s utilized local community centers and face-to-face gatherings to mobilize support and spread its message, contemporary movements can leverage similar approaches to create authentic connections. In an age where digital interactions frequently overshadow personal relationships, could the revival of these grassroots efforts be the key to reinvigorating democratic participation? Through town hall meetings, local workshops, and community forums, activists can foster a sense of belonging and ownership among participants, transforming passive observers into active contributors. By returning to the roots of mobilization, movements can build resilient networks that withstand the pressures of media monopolies, echoing the way community-driven initiatives once catalyzed significant social change.

Key Strategies to Consider

  • Investing in local media outlets and independent journalism is essential for portraying marginalized communities’ struggles accurately, much like how the Free Press movement in the early 20th century sought to uplift the voices of the disenfranchised against the dominant narratives of their time.
  • Engaging in coalition-building among various social movements can create a unified front against systemic oppression, similar to the way the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s united diverse groups to challenge racial injustice, demonstrating the strength found in solidarity.
  • Embracing decentralized communication tools such as encrypted messaging apps and community forums allows for organizing without constraints, akin to underground networks used during various historical uprisings, where secure channels of communication were paramount to success.
  • Establishing community centers for organizing facilitates face-to-face interactions that build trust and solidarity. These centers can serve as modern-day town halls, reminiscent of the grassroots organizing spaces that powered movements like the labor strikes of the early 1900s (Benkler, 2002; Pagani et al., 1986).
  • Investing in educational programs that equip individuals with critical media literacy skills helps people discern credible information from propaganda. Consider the statistic that in a recent study, only 30% of participants could accurately identify misinformation on social media (Duh et al., 2019; Heinonen & Medberg, 2018). How many more will fall victim to false narratives if we do not take action?

Conclusion

Ultimately, the need to reclaim activism from the clutches of billionaire social media platforms is more pressing than ever. Just as the civil rights movement of the 1960s sought to bring attention to systemic injustices through grassroots organizing and community involvement, today’s activists must prioritize genuine community engagement and innovative strategies. By doing so, they can forge a path toward meaningful change that transcends the limitations of digital spaces. Can we envision a future where movements are powered not by algorithms but by the collective voice of the people, much like the iconic marches that once filled the streets?

References

  • Benkler, Y. R. (2002). Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and “The Nature of the Firm”. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 368-446. https://doi.org/10.2307/1562247
  • Bergmann, Z. V., & Ossewaarde, M. (2020). Youth climate activists meet environmental governance: ageist depictions of the FFF movement and Greta Thunberg in German newspaper coverage. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 15(3), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2020.1745211
  • Binks, L., Borsley, S., Gingrich, T. R., Leigh, D. A., Penocchio, E., & Roberts, B. M. W. (2023). The role of kinetic asymmetry and power strokes in an information ratchet. Chemistry, 8(1), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chempr.2023.05.035
  • Cope, B. A., & Rainey, H. G. (1992). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 15(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/3380636
  • Doldi, L. (2009). Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Online Information Review, 33(5), 991-993. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520910969998
  • Duh, M. C., Droftina, U., & Tatarchevskiy, T. (2019). The ‘popular’ culture of internet activism. New Media & Society, 21(6), 1458-1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810372785
  • Gómez–Carmona, O., Buján, D., López–de–Ipiña, D., Cano-Benito, J., & Tzovaras, D. (2023). Mind the gap: The AURORAL ecosystem for the digital transformation of smart communities and rural areas. Technology in Society, 79, 102304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102304
  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300001442
  • Heinonen, K., & Medberg, G. (2018). Netnography as a tool for understanding customers: implications for service research and practice. Journal of Services Marketing, 32(7), 877-889. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-08-2017-0294
  • Howard, J. A. (2000). Social Psychology of Identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 367-393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.367
  • Juergens, M. (2020). The Role of Status Seeking in Online Communities: Giving the Gift of Experience. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(1), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00332.x
  • Kaplan, M. M. (2018). The Role of Information in Power Management Tasks. E3S Web of Conferences, 139, 01080. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201913901080
  • Kaur Kapoor, K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P. P., Dwivedi, Y., & Nerur, S. (2017). Advances in Social Media Research: Past, Present and Future. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 509-524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9810-y
  • La Cava, L., Greco, S., & Tagarelli, A. (2021). Understanding the growth of the Fediverse through the lens of Mastodon. Applied Network Science, 6(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-021-00392-5
  • Lé, X. C. (2023). Disruptive Technologies for e-Diasporas: Blockchain, DAOs, Data Cooperatives, Metaverse, and ChatGPT. Futures, 149, 103258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103258
  • López, P., Montresor, A., Epema, D., Iamnitchi, A., & Datta, A. (2020). Spreading (Dis)Trust: Covid-19 misinformation and government intervention in Italy. Media and Communication, 8(2), 33-42. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3219
  • McCracken, A. (2001). School Library Media Specialists’ Perceptions of Practice and Importance of Roles Described in Information Power. School library media research, 4.
  • Papazoglou, M., & van den Heuvel, W.-J. (2007). Service oriented architectures: approaches, technologies and research issues. The VLDB Journal, 16(1), 37-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-007-0044-3
  • Rahimi, B. (2011). The Agonistic Social Media: Cyberspace in the Formation of Dissent and Consolidation of State Power in Postelection Iran. The Communication Review, 14(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597240
  • Stiff, C., & van Vugt, M. (2008). The power of reputations: The role of third party information in the admission of new group members. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(2), 155-166. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.12.2.155
  • Syvertsen, T., & Enli, G. (2019). Digital detox: Media resistance and the promise of authenticity. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 25(3), 463-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856519847325
  • Tatarchevskiy, T. (2010). The ‘popular’ culture of internet activism. New Media & Society, 12(5), 849-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810372785
  • Williams, J. P., & Copes, H. (2005). “How Edge Are You?” Constructing Authentic Identities and Subcultural Boundaries in a Straightedge Internet Forum. Symbolic Interaction, 28(1), 67-89. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2005.28.1.67
← Prev Next →