Receive posts by Email
Entries (RSS)
The Green Meme: is Switching your Twitter Icon Activism?
Written by Alexandra Frizzell on July 10, 2009 – 6:53 pm -
Background: Does turning your twitter avatar green make you into an activist? Does it constitute an effective protest against the suppression of rights of civilians in Iran? On June 17th, 2009 many Twitter users began turning their avatars green. This was their way of showing solidarity with those Iranians protesting the questionable election results which returned the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. Some Twitter users uploaded solid green squares in place of their avatars; another 230,000 used the website (http://helpiranelection.com/) created by @arikfr to tweet their support and either turn their icons a shade of green or to add a green ribbon to their picture. This trend spread like wildfire and soon most of my followers were riding this wave.
Tools: Twitter, external web site
How These Tools are Used: After seeing pictures of protestors in Iran wearing green, many Twitter users began to manually change their Twitter pictures. This individual process was then streamlined by the self proclaimed “creative geek” Arik (@arikfr ) in creating his website. He had seen what people were doing, liked it and so “decided to simplify the process to allow it to reach [a] wider audience.” This worked, as my twitter stream was soon filled with the simple message “Show support for #iranelection add green overlay to your Twitter avatar with 1-click – http://helpiranelection.com/”. From twitter juggernauts like @garyvee to smaller scale users; the green icon fad had permeated twitter.
Analysis: Recently there has been much discussion around the phenomenon of average people participating, or attempting to participate in online activism. Mary Joyce, cofounder of this web site, was recently quoted in the Washington Post article stating that the ease of creating or joining a cause online sadly resulted in only “a maximum of 5 percent [who] are going to take action”. This problem is mirrored on Twitter as members can feel as though they’ve done their moral duty by expressing their anger at the situation by turning their icons green. To many, they feel like that is enough, they are spreading the word and showing solidarity. But how many of them donated even $1 to help organizations in Iran? Now THAT would have helped. Other skeptics of this movement, such as Martin Bryant, made their frustration with these activities clear as well.
The real question stems from the implications of digital activism. Digital activism is a progressive way of tackling the injustices in the world, but is the internet making it too easy for the average person to feel like he/she has sufficiently participated and so relieving them from any feeling that they should do more? Were people using the green meme to try and convey what humane and politically active people they were whether or not there was any truth to it? The last thing we need as a culture is another easy way out of hard work. I would have preferred to see a system where to turn your icon green a $20 donation was required. While it is not a lot, it would have resulted in only the truly concerned tweeters participating.
During the protests in Iran Twitter was very useful as a communication device with the western world. The concept of the “citizen journalist” was extremely important as all information coming out of Iran came from the people. The New York Times writer Noam Cohen noted that “Twitter is a tool and thus difficult to censor”. Retweeted updates and pictures from Iran became my main news source on the situation and I know that I wasn’t alone. There were many inaccuracies, but social tools gave the American people the coverage that wasn’t available anywhere else.
In the past month, Twitter has proven that it is far more than a narcissistic platform. As seen when the hashtag #CNNfail was used to criticize CNN for their coverage of the election in Iran. The trending topic gained so much support that it provoked a written and spoken apology from the network. When the New York Times profiled Twitter as a company they acknowledged its ability to “disseminate information in the face of a press crackdown” during the Iranian election.
I contacted some Twitter users who still had green avatars to pose the question: “Why did you change your avatar green?”
Daniel @dwplanit
“A few reasons: I am strongly for populist democratic uprisings; it was easy; there isn’t much more I can do to support democracy in Iran…Another effect the avatar changes might have is simply encouraging Iranians to continue to fight for democracy. And that could be a positive side effect.”
Alejandro @successfool
“Because I want to use my twitter id/following to attract attention to the cause.”
Jimmy @loyaleagle
“I figured it would show solidarity among tweeps and might even help in some small way (though now I’m a little sick of it).”
Tee @TeeMonster
“When I found out about the “elected” government shutting down Social Media outlets, I was outraged. I turned the avatar green to show my support for the opposition and also as a statement for freedom of information. If Iran wants to be taken seriously as a nation, they need to realize that information cannot be blocked. Not in this age.”
Gina @gminks
“To me it was more about getting the word out, drawing attention. I don’t really think that is activism. But then again, I knew there was nothing I could do to change things in Iran.”
Arik @arikfr
“The idea of the campaign was to make it easy for people to show support and to raise awareness to the issue. To date over 230,000 people used the application to add green overlay/ribbon to their avatar, which means that most of Twitter users (if not all of them) have noticed it.”
Impact: I have mixed feelings about how quickly the fad of green avatars spread. It can be interpreted as honorable how fast Twitter became a seemingly outraged activist community or disheartening that our culture is happy to click a link to change their picture but nothing more. How can we modify what is expected of would-be online activists to engage them in making a concrete difference?
Tags: Iran, twitter activism
Posted in Microblogging, Mid-East & N. Africa, Mobile Phones, Skepticism, Tactics | 18 Comments »
By Shava Nerad on Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
MoveOn struck me as the same idea, early in their existence. They’ve gotten better! But early on, they were basically sending people email to sign online petitions (which are of little impact) on a landing page with not much more than a pitch to give moveon more money.
Digital activism is too often ungrounded in real-life influence.
I remember in the late 90’s, NYTimes published an article that said that one letter had the influence of ten faxes or a hundred emails on the tally sheets of members of Congress. As their aides tally up responses, email counted as 1% of a constituent response — because it was too easy, and it more probably represented people who don’t contribute and don’t vote.
This would be a great study for digiactive to follow up!
By Mary Joyce on Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
Hi Shava,
I think that 1% anecdote is true. Our institutions are offline so our online activism must also focus activists offline.
Mary
By dan mcquillan on Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
Good article.
I was sceptical about the tactic because of the political naivity of supporting Mousavi.
Insurrectionary movements are a complex mix. The danger is that popular movements will get hijacked by the next twit who wants to be supreme leader.
On the other hand, some of the conversations on Twitter showed people becoming aware of political realities like deliberate disinformation by state agents.
So for me the pluses & minuses are not mainly digital. The question is whether the digital space will amplify political naivity or, through peer education, accelerate activist savvy.
dan
By Kipp Efinger on Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
I like the idea of a required donation for creating a green avatar. I think a lot of people would donate and perhaps the reason they don’t is because they don’t know where to donate. Having a green avatar appeals to the social networking phenomenon of maintaining a public persona. In this case, the green avatar means you are an activist that puts his/her money where his/her mouth is, and a lot of people want to be seen as that kind of activist.
By Shava Nerad on Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
Dan, I didn’t turn my icon green, and used that as a way to point people to the idea that green was Moussavi’s campaign color, and I couldn’t promote him.
But everyone came back and said, “This is *bigger* than that now.” Gosh, I’m an old stuck-in-the-mud!
And I am afraid that very few of them know anything about Iran’s history or current events, or the players involved.
By Emily Jacobi on Jul 10, 2009 | Reply
Great questions are raised in this post. I think it would be even stronger if you defined digital activism more clearly in order to determine an answer to your question.
I’m not so sure about “Digital activism is a progressive way of tackling the injustices in the world” … it can be a progressive way, but it can be repressive too.
I think to fully understand the impact of the greening avatars, it’s important to ask:
- What were the goals of the campaign?
- Did it meet these goals?
Arik said the goals were to:
1. make it easy for people to show support
2. raise awareness of the issue
It certainly achieved the first goal – it was easy for people to show support. Perhaps the next question is whether this particular show of support meant anything to the people who mattered – those risking their lives in the streets of Tehran. That is less easy to judge.
On the second goal of raising awareness, I’m not sure the green icons alone accomplished much, but it was very hard for most Twitter users to miss this. I personally was thrilled to see so many non-Iranians showing their interest. Does it count as activism? In my opinion, not so much. But it’s a demonstration of solidarity, and it’s a starting place for people to feel like they can do something.
So, while asking whether changing an icon counts as activism is very valid, the questions that matter most to me are:
1. Does changing icons to green count as an act of solidarity that means something to protesters?
2. Does taking this initial step help people to feel less powerless, and therefore serves as a stepping stone to doing something more meaningful?
3. Is something better than nothing? Did the twitter users who changed their icon and do nothing else do so at the expense of more meaningful action? If so, that is to be criticized. If not, it’s a different issue.
Finally, in the case of outsiders expressing support for protesters in Iran, what does count as activism that can make “a concrete difference”?
By Arik Fraimovich on Jul 11, 2009 | Reply
I think that Emily’s third question is what I had in mind:
Is something better than nothing? Did the twitter users who changed their icon and do nothing else do so at the expense of more meaningful action? If so, that is to be criticized. If not, it’s a different issue.
I think that anyone who would have done something more than just changing his avatar would have done so, but those who wouldn’t do a thing, changing their avatar was a great option for them.
I would love to hear if someone believes that wasn’t the case, to learn how it can be improved for next time.
Also, next time I do such a campaign I will add clearer pointers at what people can do more to help.
By Chris on Jul 11, 2009 | Reply
Green icons are like ‘yellow ribbons’. They keep the situation in the news. RTing info on #iranelections kept it, and keeps it, as a trending topic. Every night I sign out with a message of support to the people of Iran. They are in this for the long run. So am I.
Donations can be a problem if you are not sure where the $ is going to. How many requests were scams or govt agents posing as protestors. In the digitalage we need fast ways to screen requests for money.
I felt comfortable in looking up and givng first aid advice WHEN ASKED – like shower with tepid or cold water; do not bathe because warm/hot water will open pores and increase effect of tear gas. Bathing will move the chemicals to places where you truly don’t want them. Actions like the above and donating bandwith,respecting radio silence, DM people who may be unintentionally exposing information to govt agents — all of this falls under ‘digital activism’. I am proud I am a very small part of activism in the digital age.
By Bruce Trachtenberg on Jul 12, 2009 | Reply
Bigger question to me is why some folks who still have their green avatars haven’t said a peep — I mean tweet — about Iranian protests in weeks.
I also watched in amazement how quickly Honduras became the next cause du jour on Twitter. But I think that’s passed, now, too.
I worry less about the color of an avatar but the ability of Twitter to sustain a conversation. Sometimes the pace at which things come and go make the 24 hour news cycle seem such an outdated concept.
(Oops..apologies, I think we’re still talking about Michael Jackson.)
By Lissa on Jul 12, 2009 | Reply
This is an interesting set of questions, but I think the most important response came from one of the Twitter users with green icons who was contacted for statement. Within his answer, Daniel (@dwplanit) said, “there isn’t much more I can do to support democracy in Iran.”
If Daniel, and others who chose this point of digital activism to get involved, did so because it’s the only thing they knew how to do or the only option they trusted to make a difference, there’s room for web activity to be a springboard for greater action that may yield positive change, but only if real concerted efforts are made to educate those with an interest.
I’m also firmly of the opinion that giving money to a cause is not the be-all/end-all of working for change — particularly in a situation where it’s difficult to determine which parties are trustworthy. Convince me that the work I can do makes a difference and I’ll put forth 40 hours of volunteerism before I’ll send a dime of “aid” money, unless those funds are being collected by a reputable organization.
By Jim on Jul 12, 2009 | Reply
I find the premise here frustrating and a little asinine– that there are “small measures” that “don’t count”.
The truth is– nothing matters, and everything does. Strategy is important, but the type of pseudo-strategic thinking of the author is overdone.
The worldwide outcry over coups in Honduras and Iran are part of a slow (did you catch that word- slow?) gradual move towards a global consensus towards human rights and constitutions.
And towards delegitimizing dictatorship. The question here isn’t whether sanctions are more effective- it is to realize that there can’t be sanctions without demonstrated political will, and that green icons demonstrate political will.
There is very little any one ordinary person in Denmark, the US, India, the Philipines can do; but people from all these places have created green icons; and the Green Wave begins to be a global powerful force.
By Carlos on Jul 12, 2009 | Reply
“Impact: I have mixed feelings about how quickly the fad of green avatars spread. It can be interpreted as honorable how fast Twitter became a seemingly outraged activist community or disheartening that our culture is happy to click a link to change their picture but nothing more. How can we modify what is expected of would-be online activists to engage them in making a concrete difference?”
I will say that this is precisely the question that online activists ask themselves all the time.
However, is this truly a conundrum?
A small step in the right direction is, well, a small step in the right direction. Social movements are based on critical masses, and these are never the majority.
There is ample evidence from academic studies that attachment to online avatars, be them simple profile pictures to MMPOG 3-D avatars, have real consequences for the users. This is cross-cultural, cross-gender, and cross-any-other-category. In other words, it seems that there is a human projection of personality to our virtual presence.
For example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/262271178076gw2h/
http://tinyurl.com/l226ku
And:
Avatars in social media: Balancing accuracy, playfulness and embodied messages
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGR-4T708F2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=955127971&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2acd52a0fb5bddb6814d73ea7540e5f9
http://tinyurl.com/nojlvr
This suggests that the changing of an avatar to involve yourself in a virtual protests is not a decision taken lightly, and that psychologically, the involvement might seem as a major one on the part of the person partaking in them. Certainly from the outside there is no comparison between presence in a protests in real life and the changing of the avatar, but from the inside they are seen by the person as equivalent.
One probably wants to escalate the involvement, but a possible pitfall is to do it in a way that alienates the participant by denying their contribution, which they psychologically perceive as a major one, is significant and wanted.
If 10,000 changed avatars translated to 1,000 people in a protests, I see no reason to worry.
By Chris on Jul 12, 2009 | Reply
I was reluctant to change my avatar to green for exactly the reasons mentioned — it seemed like a very easy, meaningless bandwagon way of feeling “involved”. My change of heart came when I realized that the green avatars had contributed to my own understanding of the situation in Iran. I had been quite happily unaware of the depth of the issues until the green started invading my little online world, and I started following various authentic sources for information when I realized just how sanitized my news had been. It was not a decision I made lightly, even though it was a simple statement to make. There may not be much I can do to affect change in a part of the world so far removed from my own, but if I can show my support and awareness in a small way, one that may help to bring awareness to others, then at least I am able to do that.
By Robert on Jul 13, 2009 | Reply
Charging people to change their Twitter colors is unhelpful and strategically foolish. The result would be vastly fewer changes made, and at a cost the author hasn’t accounted for. True, changing the color of one’s personal web-space doesn’t accomplish much, particularly on behalf of a struggle and a people half a world away–but simply doing so means one is thinking about the issue, which is a meaningful first step.
I became interested in Iran’s struggle not just because it was an issue that previously appealed to me, but because I could see other people were interested too. Youtube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter–information was being exchanged between truly massive amounts of people in an attempt to create a change, or at least to show solidarity with those who were actively involved in that change. Green Twitter accounts prove that interest, and inspire people to think, talk, and share ideas. I would of course love for talking and thinking to be shortly followed by “concrete” activism (donations, protests, letter-writing, and so on) but to say Twitter doesn’t mean much because there wasn’t a dollar figure being transferred somewhere is narrow-minded.
Activism is a process that can rarely be measured so quantitatively, though we prefer for the results of activism to be. Let’s build off of a very evident interest, not denounce such an interest as meaningless.
By David on Jul 13, 2009 | Reply
I cannot help but point out the inherent self-righteousness of this post. While you are busy pointing out what is “concrete” activism and what is not (by what authority by the way?) thousands of people around the world are doing what they can to help by changing their picture to green and spreading the message or by taking bullets on the streets of tehrran. Who said that people in Iran needed money, attention and interest in their cause can be just as valuable if not more, how is that less concrete. You say that “disheartening that our culture is happy to click a link to change their picture but nothing more.” what have YOU done to help and make a difference?
You also mention that “a maximum of 5 percent [who] are going to take action”. Could you please point us to the research or source of that figure, because it seems to me that it’s highly likely it’s just a number pulled out of that pundit’s ass. I’ve been a gay-rights activist for almost 22 years now doing work on the ground, what you call “concrete” activism and also some work on the internet lately, and we’re finding tons of volunteers now with the internet who would never have otherwise been involved. I cannot stand when people preach from their pulpits especially when they obviously and clearly don’t understand the business of activism whether on the ground or on the internet.
By Carlos on Jul 13, 2009 | Reply
@Robert -
I think you misunderstand the argument. The interest was not denounced as “meaningless” (nor can I see construed as such), but rather I think it was an opportunity to examine how can that virtual involvement can result in offline involvement. Sadly most critical comments only defend twitivism, rather than accepting its limitations (I am guilty of this in my previous post).
I do agree, as you can see above, that there is value in online protest, even ones considered symbolic. But this agreement cannot be seen as not seeing the primacy of actual bodies in the ground in political activism. You can digg all you want, and change avatars 100 times, but you wont have an impact until you either move yourself into the front line, or provide concrete support to those who are actually on the ground.
One of the issues of “Twitter Revolutions” is that they aren’t: ultimately the success or failure of these movements is not determined by avatar colors or number of followers, but by people smelling of vinegar and CS gas refusing to obey that which is illegitimate…
Alexandra does fail in this post to consider the strategic significance inherent on online support, but this is quite far from considering online protests “meaningless”.
And perhaps this was not the intent nor the scope of the article.
By Shava Nerad on Jul 13, 2009 | Reply
One last thought on this. My original background (which may or may not surprise folks who know me as a computer geek) is in anthropology. For a while, I was VP of Marketing/Bizdev for a dotcom in the Inc5000 (fastest growing companies — we were 285th the year we were rated) that dealt with licensed entertainment merchandise. Bear with me here…:)
One of the things that I found, as a professional working *with* fandom and marketing to fandom is that fandom is just as fashion conscious as any group, but the fashion signals are just different from mainstream. What fans want is the ungodly cool overall graphic Spiderman dark-colored shirt, not the 8×12 graphic postage stamped on a cheap white tee.
Politics, for most people, is also fandom — you can be a Democrat, or a Progressive, or a Christian Conservative, in very much the same way as being a fan of the Red Sox. You collect stats and personalities, key players, pithy celebrity sayings, strategy tips. But you don’t play, yourself. You don’t coach a local team, so to speak. You are prepared with minimal facts to have a conversation in a bar about your team, but you don’t really spend time worrying about anything but how good the next game is going to be. Rah rah!
This is, for the most part, the common view of politics. Everyone hates taxes and the opposite team, and blames all the ills of the world on the opposite party, immigrants, furriners, welfare moms — whoever they can put on the other side of an identity from who they are.
And that’s the thing. The point of this sort of politics is to fence in your own little ghetto of like-mindeds, so you can all have a beer and no major arguments and bond. You are fencing the rest of the world out, and finding the people you want to identify with, and anything bad that happens, you don’t have to blame on YOUR people.
In that way, politics is like fandom, sports fandom, fashion. It exists to create silos. So, when everyone turns green on Twitter, are they really supporting Iran, or are they creating a style-tribe of folks to feel in solidarity with — on Twitter?
Not everyone, I know. But probably most of them.
By Alexandra Frizzell on Jul 26, 2009 | Reply
Thank you all for your thoughts, criticisms and suggestions, I have read and re-read them. Before I respond to some comments in particular I feel it is necessary to give a brief summary of who I am and where this post was coming from.
I am a 19 year old college student studying government and international relations. I have JUST began my life as an activist and know that I have a long way to go. I look up to those members of our community (on and off line) who have been involved for many years and want to learn from them. I did not intend for this article to sound like I was preaching from a high pulpit of experience (because I do have that) but rather as a starting point for a conversation. I was not in any way trying to denounce those people who showed their support for Iran through Twitter, but to ask for more from them.
I completely agree with Lissa in that “there’s room for web activity to be a springboard for greater action”. However how many people will actually take that leap and move from the digital world into the tangible one? That was the main inspiration for my idea of a suggested/required donation.
In response to Jim, who said: “The question here isn’t whether sanctions are more effective- it is to realize that there can’t be sanctions without demonstrated political will, and that green icons demonstrate political will. There is very little any one ordinary person in Denmark, the US, India, the Philipines can do; but people from all these places have created green icons; and the Green Wave begins to be a global powerful force.” I understand what Jim means but what has this “global powerful force” achieved, apart from keeping the issue in the media? Maybe it simply comes down to personal opinion. I’m an optimist who would rather see physical aid and support provided but maybe the spotlight on the issue caused by twitter was enough?
Carlos stated that: “One probably wants to escalate the involvement, but a possible pitfall is to do it in a way that alienates the participant by denying their contribution, which they psychologically perceive as a major one, is significant and wanted. If 10,000 changed avatars translated to 1,000 people in a protests, I see no reason to worry.” In response, I want to reiterate that I was not in any way trying to alienate or discourage those who felt that turning their avatars green was a good contribution. I am merely calling for those 10,000 tweeters to ALL go out in support or protest versus only the 10% Carlos suggested might.
Robert said that:”I would of course love for talking and thinking to be shortly followed by “concrete” activism (donations, protests, letter-writing, and so on) but to say Twitter doesn’t mean much because there wasn’t a dollar figure being transferred somewhere is narrow-minded. Activism is a process that can rarely be measured so quantitatively, though we prefer for the results of activism to be. Let’s build off of a very evident interest, not denounce such an interest as meaningless.” The dollar figure association was merely an example of how interest on Twitter could be transformed into tangible activism. Please don’t misunderstand my frustration with tweeple who change their avatars just to appear interested yet don’t act on their apparent interest, as denouncing those who are interested and actually participating whether it is through online discussion or front line support.
Last but not least to David who said “I’ve been a gay-rights activist for almost 22 years now doing work on the ground, what you call “concrete” activism and also some work on the internet lately, and we’re finding tons of volunteers now with the internet who would never have otherwise been involved. I cannot stand when people preach from their pulpits especially when they obviously and clearly don’t understand the business of activism whether on the ground or on the internet.” I applaud you for the work that you have done and are doing, and hope to one day stand where you are now and look back on my work. However I believe we are talking about two different cases of the internet and activism can work. From my understanding you are using the internet as a resource to connect with those who would not have necessarily volunteered because they did not know where or how to. That is fantastic and is one way the internet can aid activism. I, on the other hand, was referring to a fake form of activism, seen in those people who turned their avatars green but then did nothing else. Maybe the benefit of green icons can be seen as a way for organizations to identify those individuals who want to help so that they can be recruited.
As a young woman living in a world where problems are abundant I write from a place of wanting to push and be one to push others to do whatever they can to bring change. The first step IS to discuss and bring attention to an issue (like Twitter has) but it is the next step of turning that interest into something more that I want to encourage. That was the underlying message of this post, not a desire to undermine the contribution of those who changed their avatar.