Ckicktivism is the term used to describe the type of pseudo-activism that consists in clicking the ‘Like’ button (Facebook mainly) and feel that you are done with your contributions. It is usually an unkind (pejorative, vs activism) term that describes how easy is to ‘click’ and forget about doing something concrete as real support. It’s a known fact that many societal cause websites, which, for example, are also fund-raising, can get ‘Like(s)’ in the hundred of thousands but sometimes manage to raise very little money. Clicking is fast and easy, donating is another matter.
‘To save everything, click here’’ is the title of a book by Evgeny Morozov, a fierce critic of the ‘internet-centrism’ and author of other books such as ‘The Net Delusion’. The book is a brilliant, polemical and passionate, critical account of ‘dangers’ such as the above mentioned clicktivism.
With my organizational architect hat, I see parallels inside the organization. We don’t have the equivalent of the ‘Like’ button for engagement, ideas, projects etc. Just as well! But we have equivalents of clicktivism in the occasional internal epidemic of over-inclusiveness: ‘I agree’ and ‘Fine with me’, are email ‘contributions’ that we could do without. ‘Fine with me’ is particularly pervasive. It often means, that’s my contribution, done, I don’t really have to do anything else. It’s the ‘Like’ Facebook button in the company’s information flow.
I don’t need to say that there are many instances when this is legitimate. We all have used this before. But I always suspect ‘internal clicktivism’ when I see reams of my clients’ emails with lots of well-intentioned people replying ‘Fine with me’ (or equivalent) to a colossal distribution list.
To agree with everything, send the email. Yestivism?
As you say, “clicks” and the equivalent are a very shallow and worthless form of commitment, but I think there’s a bigger problem: Almost always, they boil a big complex problem down into a binary decision, hiding all the sub-issues under a yes/no, like/don’t-like, click/don’t-click, or whatever. It’s not really much better if you are offered a sliding scale, where you can indicate whether you strongly-agree, agree, neutral, etc. The right answer is almost always “It depends…”
So, someone online passionately argues that we should save our streams and rivers by eliminating pollution. They are going to get a lot of “likes” for that. Who could disagree?
But at what cost, and who is going to pay the cost? Are they talking about industrial pollution, agricultural chemical runoff, or poorly designed sewage systems that overflow human waste into the water when it rains hard? These are three different problems with very different solutions, costs, and benefits. And what does “eliminate pollution” mean? Are you prepared to pay a billion dollars to fix the last 0.1% ? And so on… So all those “likes” are not only useless — they are most likely misleading.