The term “Activism” may sound new to many, but it’s simply when people express their political views online while “Slacktivism” refers to those who have an opinion on a certain topic, but chooses to remain somewhat silent. With the availability of social media platforms, a space for individuals to openly reveal their thoughts and opinions to perhaps form discussions, a question arises: is Social media helping or hurting the cause?

Firstly, social media platforms can be used to raise awareness. It is essentially a free-for-all platform to let individuals voice their own opinions regarding personal, public, or even political matters. The rise of social media allows movements, especially movements that are viewed as a sensitive thrive as it is a way to share the same experiences each individual has gone through. This allows a sense of reconnection, a communal/collective space, which can make people feel like they belong to a collective group, and think that they’re not alone – the thought of  “you have a group of people who will back you up”.

On the other hand, there are also individuals who do not want to express their opinions – slacktivists – and that is also their right. Some people are scared of other people’s point of view, thus they choose not to express themselves. What this could mean is that they do not want to be ousted, social media is filled with strong headed individuals, who are incapable of accepting ideologies that differs from what they believe in. If an individual disagrees, instantly the entire clan of social media jocks will bash them. Social media is a platform for users to express themselves. If used wisely and thoughtfully, it will not harm others. There are of course activists who use such platforms to advocate for a cause such as the “Black Lives Matters”.

“Social media platforms have served as venues for political engagement and social activism for many years, especially for Black Americans. This was evident again in 2020, when the killing of an unarmed Black man, George Floyd, by a White Minneapolis police officer resulted in widespread protests that demonstrated the reach and power of these platforms.”

This is evident that social media has played a role in helping a cause, in which users from all over the world can participate. It was a movement that helped and impacted many people to become increasingly aware of what was going on in the world, especially with Black Americans and are advocating for what has to be done to make it right.

However, social media can also be a platform for the spread of false or fake news, which is not for a good cause. In this case, it is not the time for activists to do their part. An example is when Donald Trump was speaking incorrect information, which could spark hysteria. 

“Trump’s primary use of Twitter has been to spread propaganda and manipulate public opinion,” said Sam Woolley, director for propaganda research at the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Media Engagement. “He used Twitter to delegitimize information or to delegitimize the positions of his opponents.”

This shows that at times, social media can do harm to society and hurt the cause. Here an individual with huge influence on society is abusing the power he has on his hands through social media platforms, which could be considered as unethical, whether it’s intentional or not.

Despite individuals having a point of view that is different from one another, if people remain open-minded and are willing to listen to other’s ideas that may not be completely the same as what’s on their mind, it could possibly expand on their knowledge and understanding on a particular topic. When one is strongly passionate in advocating for a cause, it does not necessarily mean that the opposing side is wrong. What this means is that although social media is a free platform that enables each person to express their identity and opinions, it is not necessary for conflicts to arise. Such platforms can be a peaceful, shared space for people to form thoughtful discussions that empowers one another. In order for this to happen, users of social media should always have respect for others’ opinions, even if it doesn’t align with theirs – this is to enable users to happily make use of the platforms and also to avoid a clash. 

Today, people use social media for many purposes: some for work, some for school, and some for socialising. It is undeniable that social media are now consuming a huge portion of our daily lives, especially in this COVID-19 era – we interact and keep up with current world events happening around us mainly through these platforms. Surely there are always two sides to a coin. On social media, there are both positive and negative, appropriate and inappropriate contents no matter how closely it is monitored. So what are the possible consequences that may occur from this? This brings up an ongoing argument: Does social media lead to violent behaviours?

Violence does not necessarily have to come in forms of physical actions, it could be verbal and psychological as well. Actions intending to cause harm are considered violence.

“In June 2014, numerous news outlets told the chilling story of 2 Wisconsin preteens who had lured their best friend into the woods and stabbed her 19 times. When asked why, these girls reported that the internet meme “Slenderman” drove them to do it.”

A case demonstrating a violent action influenced by an internet meme. Although social media may not be the sole reason behind such violence, but it does play a role and contributes in triggering offensive behaviors. Users may simply imitate actions they see on social media such as in shooting/killing video games or violence in movies. 

To add,  “ABC News  covered a story where they interviewed a Chicago resident that showed correspondents how sites were used by gang members to promote violence. It showed how gangs used social media sites to make threats, “call out” rival gangs, promote violence and recruit members. This activity led to real “Stomp-Outs”, real shootings, and real deaths.”

Social media, on the very surface may appear as harmless; however, individuals tend to over look the distress it could instigate. Therefore, it then links back to the idea of whether it should be regulated or not. Children are prone to adopting the actions they see, which can have a long term psychological effect and potentially result in violence in real life. What this means is that exposing the users, especially the younger generation to violence without close monitoring may be equivalent to slowing generating an increasingly violent society in the near future.

“Studies reveal that violent images make teenagers less sensitive to violence, which in turn promotes aggressive attitudes and behaviour…It’s been established that the media has a psychological impact on children’s minds, shaping attitudes and affecting long-term behaviour.”

This demonstrates the profound significance that a simple image could craft such a fundamental impact in an individual’s state of mind, dictating and hearing their thoughts towards a more negative light. Though some may argue that social media does not have any effects on their behaviors as they consume violent media content just for leisure and fun, but they are unaware that their minds are unconsciously already accustomed to the violence portrayed in what they consume daily!

Moreover, as social media platforms are opened for users to connect and communicate, it opens up opportunities for cruel individuals to cyber bully as well. According to a study from the University of Georgia,  “too much time on social media can increase your child’s risk of being bullied online and becoming a cyberbully.” It is much easier for the attacker to bully the victims online as they do not have to come in contact with each other face to face, which allows them to anonymously harm others.

Without careful moderation and regulations, more and more users are at risk of becoming victims of those who abuse the social media platforms.

In conclusion, social media does play a crucial role in forming violent behaviours, whether it is through physical or verbal actions. There are several ways to limit the level of damage that violence – triggered by social media – can have on society. Implementations of regulations and restricting access for individuals with different age to certain contents regarding the level of violence is extremely vital. Parents and teachers should also contribute in educating the younger generation about what is right or wrong, and perhaps monitor the social media usage of the younger ones who are yet mature enough to critically digest and analyse information consumed from social media.

Have you ever counted the hours you’ve spent on the media daily? Have you ever measured how much of an impact the media has on your thoughts and emotions, especially in the midst of a pandemic? Perhaps you might realize that the media does more to you than you think – it influences you to take actions. This brings up the question: Should the media, including social media, be regulated during a national crisis?

To a particular extent, media should not be regulated, as it is the main source, essentially the medium, where information is conveyed to the general public. The media should be transparent in giving the public factual information, where it is not controlled by a third party, for instance, a big private company, the government, etc. Being controlled by a corrupt system, and letting some authority control the information being given out is akin to lying to the public, keeping them from the truth, promoting a rather pretty picture than the dark factual truth. 

Yet, the media should be regulated in terms of trying to moderate the credibility of the source and information that is going to be published. It is vital that the news that is going to be conveyed to the general public is not from a point of view but that it is an authentic fact where it is justified unbiasedly.

On the contrary, social media should be regulated. Social media is prone to spreading misinformation, as invidious people on each platform could come up with some sort of fake news and spread it online. Thus, corrupting the whole system, instigating fear and all sorts of emotions in the users.

“These platforms are not neutral environments. Algorithms make decisions about what people see or do not see. Nothing in this report restricts your ability to say what you want. What we’re talking about is the platform’s function of artificially amplifying false and manipulative information on a wide scale”.

Specifically in regards to the ongoing pandemic, which is seen as a  national crisis: it has caused severe damage to the lives of many, both physically and psychologically. The majority of the global citizens were required to stay isolated at home and rely on the media as their main source of information. As they can’t go out of their homes, they are unable to see what’s going on in the outside world with their own eyes. Thus, it is the media’s job to inform and portray truthful and factual information to the public for their safety and well-being. It is extremely important to put the public’s well being first, as spreading false and hindered information could cause collateral damage to a country’s current economy, political, and social state.

“There was a significant increase in the average time U.S. users spent on social media in 2020: 65 minutes daily, compared to 54 minutes and 56 minutes the years before,” this emphasised how social media must be regulated as more and more users are using these platforms to receive information that could or could not be authentic. People’s daily media consumption has significantly risen and that means if the media fails to do its job, it may lead people to misinterpret events and could result in an even more chaotic situation. What this means is that the media should be regulated and filtered so that only authentic information is presented in a way that is helpful to the public and wouldn’t cause panic – for example, allowing sources that provide genuine details of what is going on and prevention methods through rather than those who focuses on clickbait and over exaggerate contents to gain more views and likes.

“In his 2008 presidential run, Barack Obama promised to run a transparent White House. Yet once in office, he found that transparency makes it difficult to get work done, and so he limited access and questions”. This proves how the government still plays a big role in trying to regulate national level information. So, what does this tell us? It hints that in almost every situation that the public pays attention to, there will always be many unfaithful media sources out there that require regulations.

Ultimately, it is crucial that during a national crisis, where the public’s mental state is at the forefront of being vulnerable, the media must present useful information that is solely focused on conveying factual truth and events that will prevent a surge of national hysteria regarding fake news. If the media fails to do so in an appropriate manner, then it should be regulated in order to provide clear and concise information.

My name is Gigi. I am a sophomore student at the faculty of Communication Arts in Chulalongkorng University, currently studying in the Communication Management program. I have a family of 6 people – Mom, Dad, my bigger brother, me, and my two smaller sisters. We have 2 pet dogs. My family loves eating so heres a collection of what we