Social media lobbyists within the EndIt movement and the same sex equality camp argue yes to all of the above. They envision a bright tomorrow in which the collective shout of social statuses whirl the gears of Congress to action. But do social campaigns hurt or help their parent cause? How should human rights activists inform an unfamiliar public or how should gay-rights supporters encourage their peers to relax their views on traditional marriage?
As social media allows everyday interpersonal and group dynamics to enter a huge stage, the choice for x-rights movements to take that huge new audience by storm and at little cost seems obvious. The councern is that the social space cheapens their meaning.When seventy five red equal signs pop up on a news feed within an hour, sure they get our attention but do they get our respect? And when our friends silence their online activity fro a day with a blacked out profile picture but still "like" a Spring Break album, do we really take their cause seriously? We don't because we assume that hey don't either.
As easy as it is or social movements to take well formulated and heartfelt stances upon new media, it is just as easy for the uniformed and minimally involved masses to adopt their slogan. These late-comers may not care about the issue enough to do more than change a profile puictue and post a status—while that does plenty for the campaign's reach, those individuals' personal brands and haphazard social advocacy could create negative sentiment for the previously respectable campaign.
So Dr. Seuss's old message is again made clear—"be who you are and say what you feel. Because the people that mind don't matter and the people that matter don't mind." As social movements ebb and flow through social media, we should resist the urge to "like" them or adopt their slogan unless we are real advocates. Those causes deserve informed support and if we instead give indifference, we cripple their brand.