Do you actually believe your online outrage changes anything?

[Michael Jackson]

Whenever I see an article which starts with "xyz sparked outrage on TWITTER and social media" I just can't take that shit seriously.

Do you think that changing your facebook picture and hash tagging has any real impact on the world and the people suffering whatever it is you're soft-protesting?

I was actually impressed by the whole hippie movement that happened as an offshoot of the Free Shit Tim- I mean, black lives matter protests, where they took over a part of the city and tried to build their own state. I mean THAT was protesting at its finest, regardless of the outcome.
They had an idea, they had a point (more or less), they went out in the streets and enacted it, despite the dangers.

Meanwhile everyone online goes "I'M CHANGING MY FACEBOOK PICTURE TO A BLACK BACKGROUND, YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE HOW EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE NOW", like fucking really?

[God Save The King]

Sometimes it does. Usually it is the first step to something bigger.

Take the BLM movement/protests. A lot of that started online, sharing videos of police brutality, forming activist groups, organizing physical protests, supporting businesses that help, etc. The internet probably helps the LGBTQ+ movement a lot too. The percent of the population in that community is rather small, but they are able to share their stories online to many more people and have people care.

A lot of it is meaningless virtue signaling too. It needs to be followed up with something meaningful. The people with power have money and political influence. If you want legitimate change you need to impact business on a large scale or threaten politicians with voting them out. They don't care if people whine online, something more needs to happen.

Consider the Blitzchung controversy with Blizzard. That was almost all online and got mainstream media coverage and Congress sent a letter to the CEO of Acti-Blizzard. What happened there was people were cancelling pre-orders, subs, and generally protesting/boycotting Blizzard, along with several employee walkouts.

So, sometimes it does. But often it does not.

[Shadowferal]

You get something every blue moon.
More often than not however it's pretty much a punchline to a bad joke.
Only when people drop the anonymity does shit get real.

[Daedius]

Outrage culture is a thing, and businesses adhere to it... for some reason, even if it's not from their customer base.

[PC2]

Meanwhile everyone online goes "I'M CHANGING MY FACEBOOK PICTURE TO A BLACK BACKGROUND, YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE HOW EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE NOW", like fucking really?

Purely symbolic gestures like the black square have some small place in social interactions, but in general no, they don't have much of an effect on changing and improving the world.

[LilSaihah]

I don't really expect anything coming out of America to really influence anything. I think most people have already made up their mind one way or another on the race relations situation, or on Trump. I expect people just find it cathartic at this point to post about it.

If I post outrage about anything it's almost certainly going to be the situation in China, particularly in Hong Kong or Xinjiang. There are genuinely a lot of people who don't know about what's been happening in China for the last forever.

[rrayy]

Whenever I see an article which starts with "xyz sparked outrage on TWITTER and social media" I just can't take that shit seriously.

Do you think that changing your facebook picture and hash tagging has any real impact on the world and the people suffering whatever it is you're soft-protesting?

I was actually impressed by the whole hippie movement that happened as an offshoot of the Free Shit Tim- I mean, black lives matter protests, where they took over a part of the city and tried to build their own state. I mean THAT was protesting at its finest, regardless of the outcome.
They had an idea, they had a point (more or less), they went out in the streets and enacted it, despite the dangers.

Meanwhile everyone online goes "I'M CHANGING MY FACEBOOK PICTURE TO A BLACK BACKGROUND, YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE HOW EVERYTHING WILL CHANGE NOW", like fucking really?

Nope. The TV media/newsmeida exploit that for ratings and clicks. Nothing more.

[XangXu]

People have it on their head that peaceful protest works. It doesn’t.

If I pass a controversial law and I know that the only resistance i’ll face are a bunch of college kids on a Sunday yelling clever chants, why should I worry?

[Fencers]

I have never been outraged online, so to speak. Any fury I confess to online is largely for self amusement and worded in a rather hyperbolic or absurd manner. I'm pretty chill actually.

Real outrage expressed online is usually toxic, but i can imagine scenarios where it is positive.

[kail]

Depends on how many share that same outrage.

[PC2]

People have it on their head that peaceful protest works. It doesn’t.

Peaceful protest works fine, you just need specific and reasonable demands.

[Cosmic Janitor]

It doesn't change things for the better, but it can ruin people's life.

[Saucexorzski]

Its just a way for folks to try to find allies in their hatred. Sometimes they find those allies, sometimes they find enemies.

[Zuben]

It's about the age-old question of influence and how much you have it. When activism is done with soft means you need a mass of people. Masses are formed of individuals, but taken out of it they don't have influence themselves; they can opt in or opt out and it won't change the outcome. An individual would have to have a following to be able to have actual impact by themselves, which is why you see demands for celebrities and companies to take a stand for something they're not affiliated with, going even so far we're seeing people condemned for being silent.

A normal person of no consequence putting a black image on Instagram or altering their Facebook picture makes no difference. Perhaps it inspires their own social circle a bit, but without influence the act is really more about themselves than the cause. It's not like they shouldn't do it, since, like said, masses require individuals. It's just that there is no pressure to get in on it, because by itself it's of no consequence, requiring mass-action to be seen.

If an individual with no influence wants to truly get shit done they'll have to go above and beyond mere social media ceremonies. Greta Thunberg is a minor with no expert-level knowledge on the subjects she pushes for, but managed to make herself a symbol (or a mascot, depending who you ask) for climate activism by creating a boycott event for school that somehow caught on. It's tough to get visibility for a normal person, Greta was certainly aided (or handled) by her influential family, but that's still the route you should go if you want to make an actual difference.

[PC2]

It's about the age-old question of influence and how much you have it. When activism is done with soft means you need a mass of people. Masses are formed of individuals, but taken out of it they don't have influence themselves; they can opt in or opt out and it won't change the outcome. An individual would have to have a following to be able to have actual impact by themselves, which is why you see demands for celebrities and companies to take a stand for something they're not affiliated with, going even so far we're seeing people condemned for being silent.

A normal person of no consequence putting a black image on Instagram or altering their Facebook picture makes no difference. Perhaps it inspires their own social circle a bit, but without influence the act is really more about themselves than the cause. It's not like they shouldn't do it, since, like said, masses require individuals. It's just that there is no pressure to get in on it, because by itself it's of no consequence, requiring mass-action to be seen.

If an individual with no influence wants to truly get shit done they'll have to go above and beyond mere social media ceremonies. Greta Thunberg is a minor with no expert-level knowledge on the subjects she pushes for, but managed to make herself a symbol (or a mascot, depending who you ask) for climate activism by creating a boycott event for school that somehow caught on. It's tough to get visibility for a normal person, Greta was certainly aided (or handled) by her influential family, but that's still the route you should go if you want to make an actual difference.

Almost everybody of "influence" has already posted a black square and it still made no difference. It's just a circle jerk that has no real impact on anything.

[Yriel]

For small people, yes. You can destroy someones life with an online outrage.
In the big scale (companies, governments, rich people), no.

[Gaidax]

Depends on case to case basis.

[Zuben]

Almost everybody of "influence" has already posted a black square and it still made no difference. It's just a circle jerk that has no real impact on anything.

The impact can be measured later once the campaign is over, this particular one is still on-going. Though you're not wrong, BLM pushes for a systemic change and it's not really clear what that means, so other than more sensitivity training for cops I don't know what we could expect as the end result. There's been talk of defunding the police even on state official level, but that feels too utopian to pass. For preventing climate change the goal is clearer, cutting down pollution. If the activism affects anything in that topic maybe green technology research gets more funding and the mass-support incentives companies to look into green products like electric vehicles and more environmentally considerate means of production. We do need massive advances to have a real effect, but this is a long-term thing in any case.

EDIT: I don't think online outrage is graceful or even a morally defensible method to push for progress, it has certainly demonstrated how normal people are prone to demonise anyone and anything for even the smallest of slights. I was just focused in my view on its effectiveness as the topic asked.

[Felya]

Absolutely... I’m sure being able to let your frustrations out online, has kept a few people from having to explain to their coworkers, that they are so clumsy... they keep getting a black eye by falling down the stairs...

[Shadowferal]

People have it on their head that peaceful protest works. It doesn’t.

Civil Rights Era...the violent protests were from southern whites