Debating Slactivism

In his article “Slactivism: Why Snopes got it Wrong About Internet Petitions,” Randy Paynter – founder of thePetitionSite.com – takes issue with a well-linked-to post on Snopes.com that argues (quite cynically) that online petitions are essentially worthless. Snopes, as Paynter points out, relies on two assumptions: 1) that “online activism assuages guilt and makes people feel that they don’t need to do more;” and 2) that “simple steps like online petitions don’t effect real change in the world.” Paynter asserts, of course, that these are misconceptions and claims that a) low-engagement hurdles drive further engagement, and b) an abundance of evidence suggests that petitions do affect change.

As much as I would love to believe Paynter (as I am very much a fan of Web-based petitioning), his arguments aren’t very strong. Paynter begins the piece by asserting that “lower hurdles lead to more widespread involvement,” and maybe that is true, but Paynter just states that it is without providing evidence to support the claim. He then claims that “a recent study showed individuals who first signed an online petition associated with a nonprofit were 7 times more likely to subsequently donate to that organization than those who had not signed.” My question, of course, concerns the causal claim that Paynter makes. How can we be certain that there is a directional relationship, or that there are not exogenous variables at play?

Lastly, Paynter spends a great deal of the article outlining various social and political campaigns that have used online petitioning as a basis to build exposure, assert pressure, and accomplish advocacy goals. Paynter’s litany of examples, however, falls ill to the same causal uncertainties. How can anyone know that these petitions mattered? I want to believe that they do, and maybe I’m too cynical, but I think there needs to be more developed research concerning this issue.

Methodology Matters

As skeptical as always, I decided to in fact to Google “can online advertising move polls” a few days ago after hearing our guest speaker praise how effective Facebook and Google ads can be. I found the study that he cited, entitled “Findings From a Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a PR Campaign About Embryo Donation DC: Post Campaign Results,” and went through it myself. Google, of course, is using the case study to promote itself to potential advertisers, but does little to explain how the study was conducted and what the results may mean. Reading through the 88-page file of the complete study, I had one major concern about how it was conducted—which calls into question the legitimacy of its findings.

First and foremost, I was surprised to discover that the research firm conducting the study decided to sample an online audience and then use those findings to generalize about the broader population. Moreover, when I learned that the firm compared the effects of a public service announcement (via offline media) to the effects of a Web-based Google Adwords campaign, I was shocked that the firm would deem it reasonable to use an online sample to measure effects. I do not want to reductively discount the research that was conducted or minimize their findings, but I think it may be entirely possible that people who are likely to participate in an online survey are more likely than those who are not to use Google on a regular basis. And if that is the case, then we’re comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps I am overlooking something significant, and perhaps the polling firm accounted for this issue (somehow?). But if they did not, if their methodology is this egregiously sloppy, then their findings are of little use.

The Technology Arms Race

When reading the book Millennial Makeover, I found the section on “Winning the Technology Arms Race” of particular interest, as it speaks to my recurrent question about whether technology inherently benefits the Left. While the authors, Winograd and Hais, don’t explicitly address my perennial question, they do say that 21^st century candidates must “combine the newest in online campaign technology with a message that attracts Millennial voters” (p. 188). I think that in this context the latter component is particularly useful to unpack.

In my view, much of the success of the Democratic Party’s ability to build online movements and Web-based fundraising platforms over recent years has been because the Party’s ability to retain the loyalty and channel the intellect of younger, open-minded, tech-savvy Americans. The Democratic Party, I contend, holds more intellectual capital (at least in terms of technological literacy) than the Republican Party. Because the Democrats are more willing to innovate (and perhaps, intrinsically, because liberal ideologies welcome progressive ideas), the Party is better equipped to deploy new platforms for engagement and implement them to their advantage. This sort of hypothesis, I think, aligns with the argument that that Gregory Ferenstein makes in a recent CNN opinion piece about the Web benefitting liberals. Ferenstein argues in “Opinion: Why the web benefits liberals more than conservatives” that progressives are more open to community activism and the kind of technologies that the social media revolution provides for. He argues that because conservatives are more authoritative in their leadership style, they are less equipped to respond to technological change.

So, maybe as technology changes, progressives stand to benefit? In a recent discussion I had with the political director of ActBlue, that was a possible conclusion. But, by that same token, when technology stagnates, if liberals don’t stay ahead of the curve, so to speak, Republicans are going to have a huge advantage down the road.