One of the greatest threats to meaningful activism today is the illusion that posting on social media is a substitute for taking action in the world. Online activism, in its current form, allows people to confuse momentary, low-effort engagement with genuine commitment.
At the center of this issue is a misalignment between one’s online posts and their actual conduct in the real world. How can one post furiously about the abuses of corporate power only to pursue work in companies whose practices violate those values? How can you declare solidarity with an oppressed community, yet refuse to show up physically or financially to support their organizing efforts? The hypocrisy is palpable when students condemn authoritarian surveillance tactics in class only to attend recruiting events or accept job offers from companies like Palantir, whose data-mining contracts with government agencies contribute to expanding.
If your online posts do not accurately reflect your actions and behaviors in real life, your activism becomes nothing more than a performance. Choosing to show support for movements through a graphic, repost, or profile picture requires minimal effort.
In today’s political landscape, not everyone may be able to risk their safety and take to the streets to support a cause publicly. It’s especially essential to remain vigilant about safety as Immigration and Customs Enforcement knocks on front doors. However, “showing up” isn’t limited to going to a protest. Educating family and friends, boycotting companies, writing letters, or calling representatives are all meaningful forms of activism. Reposting content should be a supplement to these activities, not a replacement for them.
Social media platforms themselves magnify this performative tendency. Algorithms are designed to maximize user engagement and profit, showing us content and information that confirms our existing beliefs. This system traps individuals in “echo chambers,” limiting their exposure to opposing or even slightly different viewpoints. This division of the public poses a direct threat to the broad, unified front needed for successful democratic organizing.
The rise of a digital oligarchy has consolidated our information ecosystem in the hands of a few powerful tech companies. At the inauguration of President Donald Trump in January, leading tech executives, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, were given priority seating ahead of incoming cabinet members. This arrangement underscored the close relationship these billionaires have with the Trump administration. Each of these executives can censor or deplatform entire online movements, effectively shutting down digital activism instantly.
An added danger to the overreliance on digital activism is President Trump’s long-standing characterization of the traditional press as the “enemy of the American people.” His statements mirror the language used by 20th-century dictators, such as Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, to delegitimize critical journalism and sow public distrust. These rhetorical attacks are reinforced by material action aimed at infringing on First Amendment rights, such as Trump’s lawsuit against CBS’s 60 Minutes. This attack on freedom of speech through real-world, non-digital avenues, such as courtrooms and regulations, further demonstrates that the Trump administration is willing to go to extreme lengths to suppress counter-narratives and dissenting speech. This willingness poses risks to the public’s ability to access objective reality online, making citizens more vulnerable to disinformation.
As global trends deepen a wave of autocratization, the authoritarian co-option of technology is no longer theoretical. Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa, a Filipino journalist, warned that social media has created an environment that allows for surveillance. These digital tools make it easier for authoritarian regimes to identify and punish dissidents. This is especially pertinent as a recent memorandum signed by Trump aims to label broad terms such as “anti-capitalist” and “anti-fascist” as terrorism. Ressa advised that as regimes wield digital tools, it is essential to understand that “you can’t do this alone.”
True resistance requires moving beyond the screen to confront power with your presence, your wallet, and your speech. Meaningful activism takes many forms. In-person events create shared spaces and mobilize financial support. There are examples on our campus from just this semester. The Worker Solidarity Concert hosted by the Georgetown Coalition for Workers’ Rights brought together campus and community artists in support of Georgetown University Transportation Shuttle drivers who face cuts from Georgetown’s administration. A Georgetown student’s recent fundraiser in support of the Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Hotline raised $2,600 to support grocery runs for migrants in D.C., exhibiting the impact one person’s idea and work can have on their community.
While we have technology that can contribute to change, our organizing efforts will never be successful if they are kept online. To be an effective advocate, you must know who you are and live a life that reflects those ideals. Get off your phone, stop posting for validation, and start reflecting your online activism in the real world.
The editorial board is the official opinion of The Georgetown Voice. The editorial board operates independently of the Voice’s newsroom and the General Board. The board’s editorials reflect the majority opinion of the board’s members, who are listed on the masthead. The editorial board strives to provide an independent view on issues pertinent to Georgetown University and the broader D.C. community, based on a set of progressive institutional values including anti-racism, trauma-informed reporting, and empathetic and considerate journalism.
