The culture of Internet use changed in the last decade from pure information retrieval to increased user participation in the generation and dissemination of content. Consequently, the possibilities to integrate the Internet in one's repertoire of contention have multiplied. More precisely, it has been argued that the Internet can shape collective actions by facilitating offline engagement and by constituting an infrastructure, a platform, for online collective actions (Van Laer &Van Aelst, 2010).
Social media platforms and Internet services provide, first of all, access to information at low costs—information about political, social, and civic issues as well as practical information relevant for the organization of collective actions. By using mobile devices, not only cause-related or advocacy groups can share important news and define a campaign’s discourse, also ordinary citizens are able to record and broadcast, for instance, the latest developments of protests or recent political events, often bypassing official media censorship. Previous research demonstrated that information retrieval online encourages offline collective actions such as the participation in demonstrations, volunteering, or voting in the United States, Egypt, and Chile (Boulianne, 2009; Gil de Zúñiga, Jung, & Valenzuela, 2012; Tufekci & Wilson, 2012).
“(I)nformation is most valuable when it can be put to use in voicing and discussing opinions” (Gordon, Baldwin-Philippi, & Balestra, 2013, p. 3). The communication mediation model (Sotirovic & McLeod, 2001) adopts this notion and states that gathering information online should prompt offline collective actions by encouraging users to reflect about the issues they read or heard about, motivating interactions in chat rooms, forums, or on social network sites. This mediated relationship has been extended to traditional media: Reading newspapers and watching television as well as searching for information on the Internet fostered online and offline discussions, which predicted in turn collective actions (Nah, Veenstra, & Shah, 2006; Shah, Cho, Eveland, & Kwak, 2005). Finally, online interactions affected offline collective actions by moderating the impact of group members’ sense of injustice, identification, perceived group efficacy, moral outrage, and anger (Alberici & Milesi, 2013). The discussions stimulated the politization of collective identities (Simon & Klandermans, 2001); as the interactions were publicly accessible, group members could raise awareness of their grievances and involve third parties easily. Voicing anger about the unjust situation of the ingroup online reduced the effect of this group-based emotion on offline collective actions; the influence of moral outrage and perceived group efficacy was enhanced (Alberici & Milesi, 2013).
Complementing these facilitating effects of online practices on offline engagement, the participatory Internet also enables online collective actions by reducing the costs and barriers of participation. As campaign efforts are integrated in social media platforms, cause-related and advocacy groups can “pick up“ supporters right where they spend the majority of their time online. For some forms of offline actions corresponding online acts exist—such as petitions and donation or endorsing comments on blogs that may be compared to holding up banners or wearing supportive buttons. Other expressions of online collective actions are more specific to the medium. The term hacktivism refers in this context to the—legal and potentially illegal—use of computer networks or systems to promote political or social goals (Gunkel, 2005).
Overall, it can be concluded that the Internet broadens the avenues to mobilize collective actions. Although scholars are only starting to elaborate on these effects and dynamics, it already can be highlighted that a purely technology-deterministic perspective is too limited—the Internet does not cause individuals' participation in collective actions. Rather, the Internet defines a context—sets boundaries and empowers—that individuals engage in; users motivations and aspiration interact with the static characteristics of the technology to shape collective actions (Döring, 2010).
Alberici, A. I., & Milesi, P. (2013). The Influence of the Internet on the Psychosocial Predictors of Collective Action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 373-388. DOI: 10.1002/casp.2131
Boulianne, S. (2009). Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis Research. Political Communication, 26, 193-211. DOI: 10.1080/10584600902854363
Cleaver, H. (1998). The Zapatista effect: The Internet and the rise of an alternative political fabric. Journal of International Affairs, 2, 621-640.
Döring, N. (2010). Sozialpsychologie des Internets [Social Psychology of the Internet]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Eissenstat, H. (2014, April 16). How much do you know about Turkey’s “Twitter Trial”? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blog.amnestyusa.org/europe/how-much-do-you-know-about-turkeys-twitter-trial/
Gardner, A. (2014, April 16). Turkey Twitter Trial [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://livewire.amnesty.org/2014/04/16/turkey-twitter-trial/
Gelsomino, M. (2010). The Zapatista effect: Information, communication, technology. Activism and marginalized communities. Faculty of Information Quarterly, 3, 1-9. Retrieved from http://fiq.ischool.utoronto.ca/index.php/fiq/article/view/15404
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., & Valenzuela, S. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals' social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 319-336. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
Gordon, E., Baldwin-Philippi, J., & Balestra, M. (2013). Why We Engage: How Theories of Human Behavior Contribute to Our Understanding of Civic Engagement in a Digital Era. The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Retrieved from: hhtp://ssrn.com/abstract=2343762
Gunkel, D. J. (2005). Editorial: introduction to hacking and hacktivism. New Media & Society, 7(5), 595-597.
Letsch, C. (2013, June 3). Social media and opposition to blame for protests, says Turkish PM. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/02/turkishprotesters-control-istanbul-square
E Morozov (2011, March 7). Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go.
The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/07/facebook-twitter-revolutionaries-cyber-utopians
Nah, S., Veenstra, A. S., & Shah, D. V. (2006). The Internet and Anti‐War Activism: A Case Study of Information, Expression, and Action. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12, 230-247. DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00323.x
Ronfeldt, D., Arquilla, J., Fuller, G. F., & Fuller, M. (1998). The Zapatista social netwar in Mexico. Santa Monica, USA: RAND.
Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32, 531-565. DOI: 10.1177/0093650205279209
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.56.4.319
Sotirovic, M., & McLeod, J. M. (2001). Values, communication behavior, and political participation. Political Communication, 18, 273-300. DOI: 10.1080/10584600152400347
Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest: Observations from Tahir Square. Journal of Communication, 2, 363-379. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01629.x
Van Dijk, J. (2012). The Network Society. London: Sage Publications.
Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Cyber-protest and civil society: The Internet and action repertoires in social movements. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook of Internet crime (pp. 230-254). Cullompto, U.K.: Willan Publishing.