Youth Activism Will Not Take Place

How social media can help and hurt Generation Z

Previous generations can only imagine what Watergate, the moon landing or the JFK assassination would have been like if experienced in the digital age, where information can be shared with the swipe of a thumb. Why would anyone have turned to morning newspapers when they could have instantly scrolled through X (formerly known as Twitter), TikTok or Reddit and found immediate videos and pictures of a live event?

According to a recent survey of U.S. adults, 63 per cent of Gen Z turn to social media at least once a week for their news, which is double those who turn to broadcast news or cable news. Now, a person no longer needs to own a printer and street corner to spread information, just a phone and email account. But on the same digital platform, in the same amount of time and just as easily, misinformation can spread. 

In 1991, philosopher Jean Baudrillard published a set of essays titled The Gulf War Did Not Take Place on the subject of media’s role in the conflict. He wrote, “The media promote the war, the war promotes the media, and advertising competes with the war.”

Baudrillard discussed how media coverage of events painted a false picture of the Gulf War in the viewer’s eye, and how those who watched it on television weren’t able to truly experience the gravity of it.

Even as the news becomes more self-directed through social media, selective messaging and voices continue to prevail. This underlying principle is pervasive in all generations of media. For Generation Z, that go-to format has been social media. Where Generation X and Millennials had CNN’s 24-hour news cycle, Generation Z and, soon Generation Alpha, are actively participating in making and sharing news online.

A prime example of this is 24-year-old TikTok star Dylan Page having amassed 10 million followers in just over three years and getting millions of views per video primarily by talking about current events, from political news to celebrity drama. 

The materialistic consequences of this have been seen on all ends of the political spectrum. On apps like TikTok, activism in support of Palestine led to mass charitable efforts and social awareness, with global boycotts causing a massive brand like Starbucks to lose billions. On the other hand, X has seen a rise in hateful rhetoric coinciding with its ownership being transferred over to Elon Musk, a polarizing businessman and personality.

A shift in awareness

Christine De Vuono, a spokesperson for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada and an activist since the 1990s, sees a difference in the awareness of cultural issues between generations.

“In the ‘90s, the immediate concern was HIV/AIDS and other STIs,” she says. “Health promotion, harm reduction and challenging stigmas regarding orientation and sex were paramount in limiting new cases as we didn’t have the protections or treatments we have now.” 

We also didn’t have the language or level of acceptance of the queer community that we do today. As De Vuono adds, “The nuances and breadth of experiences held in the 2SLGBTQIA+ community had not reached the mainstream consciousness, not then.”

She also noted that political discourse in the U.S. makes talking about Canadian politics difficult.

“The states are so big, not only population-wise but also in our Canadian psyche, that trying to talk about Canadian issues sometimes takes a backseat.” Christine De Vuono

Are the kids alright? Someone call Pete Townshend

Nathan Maure is a youth activist and co-founder of Disability Action Now T.O. and is very socially active on social media. He often attends protests in Toronto, even having skipped college classes to chant in rallies at Queen’s Park.

“Social media helps to see what’s out there; different people’s perspectives,” they say. “It also helps with finding protests that are happening and being able to collect online and then form a plan [for] which folks show up. It just makes it so easy to get organized.”

Historically, grassroots communities have worked together to incite social justice movements. For example, the 1969 Stonewall Riots were essential to the transformation of gay liberation.

Student protesters showing up outside the Albany club in Toronto, Ontario. The Protest was organized on social media in less than 24 hours after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith was scheduled to make an appearance at the club

“You’ll show up to a protest and they all have intersecting groups of people, so some people won’t be at some protests, but there is a lot of overlap between people who show up.” -Nathan Maure 

Those present at multiple protests start to recognize each other and connect on social media, creating a space for organizing information to be spread. Maure adds that this also allowed disabled people who may not be able to attend events in person to still be part of a movement and get their voices heard.

The internet also allows for “phone zaps,” which is a protest term taken from early queer activism when a boisterous and harsh demonstration was held to bring attention to certain issues. A “phone zap” is a call-in campaign in which a mass of people calls or emails an organization or governmental body with a script to protest a decision or action being taken. This can range from getting a person removed from solitary confinement in prison to getting a person rehired after an unjust firing.

As helpful as social media has been for organizing, the threat of misinformation hovers. Maure explains, “A lot of the stuff I have seen seems to be said without fact-checking, and once you do some basic fact-checking, it makes you say ‘whoa.’ It’s completely different from what you’ve just been told. … It seems legitimate, especially when you’re a kid on social media and don’t know how it works and don’t have the skills to check. I’ve learnt since then.”

The intellectual approach

Jack Z. Bratich, a professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, says it’s harder today to simply get on the same page with people when it comes to basic information and views.

“It used to be the case that we could all say ‘Joe Biden is president,’” he says. “Now, we can’t even make that agreement. I do think something has changed around the divisiveness around what’s even the common ground people can agree on.” 

One study on misinformation on social media in 2022 found that social media algorithms create a snowball effect called an echo chamber. The study reads, “In the case of Facebook or Twitter, user feed is based on their existing belief or preferences. User feeds provide users with similar content that matches their existing beliefs, thus contributing to the echo chamber effect.”

Identifying who is saying what and where is important, says Bratich, who adds, “When we’re talking about social media, are we talking about our uncle circulating a meme in a WhatsApp group or somebody like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson who has certain types of influence?”

Bratich attributes a large part of the echo chamber effect to a social model called “The Theory of Intellectuals,” developed by Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci. According to Gramscri, intellectuals produce culture and ideology through mediums like education and media. He notes two types of intellectuals: The organic and the traditional.

The organic comes from a specific social class and advocates for that class’s productive activity. The traditional, who has social prestige but doesn’t serve a social class. They play a role in society only because of their title.

Even within these two sets, there is a wide variety of social influences.

“There’s a range of intellectual in [a Gramscian] sense,” explains Bratich. “There are intellectuals that don’t speak very much who might be shaping the form of the discourse or what’s allowable. That’s more of a [Mark] Zuckerberg.”  

Then there are those who are more hands-on, like Musk, who currently owns X. As Bratich says, “Musk thinks of himself not just as an owner but as one who can contribute to public opinion, not just shape what does and does not get said.”

“For You” page? From who?

In 2011, the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) hired Dr Robert Finkelstein to research how “meme warfare” or “mematics” operate, and how the government could build a branch to control this aspect of information online.

Finkelstein presented how such a branch could operate by repackaging organically created memes on social media to allegedly spread the government’s messages, whatever they may be. It’s unclear if any government in the world has an agency like this operating, but in 2017, WikiLeaks released documents from the CIA showing folders of endless memes in various formats.

Elsewhere on the internet, Wikipedia’s co-founder and libertarian Larry Sanger has spoken at length about how modern-day Wikipedia pushes “left-wing” and “establishment narratives” that he does not believe in. 

Shortly after Wikipedia launched in 2001 and became a primary source for many people to get information about various subjects, CIA and FBI computers were detected editing articles, like the 2003 Iraq invasion and Guantanamo Bay. This tactic has also been used by countless companies, such as SeaWorld and PepsiCo, for public relations purposes. After all, anyone can post anything online.

Although it has its risks and limits, there is no mistaking how essential social media and the internet have become as tools for organizing and protesting for today’s young activists. But in order to paint the most accurate picture – for better or worse – fact-checking and media literacy have never been more important. The real world is in a black box in our pockets, and it’s never been easier to fake.

Originally Published in scribe magazine