Surprised at how split the answers are on this. I’d generally choose the first answer. For most tough problems, I expect there are a handful of “hardcore contributors” who do most of the work, and some “wannabes”/“cheerleaders” who don’t help or hurt much.https://twitter.com/s_r_constantin/status/1194708253537521664 …
-
Show this thread
-
In social activism, I sometimes see claims that performative, passive support is actively good (“raising awareness”, “shifting the Overton window”) and sometimes that it’s net harmful (“greenwashing”, “corporate PR”, “slacktivism”).
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Managing this passive energy is an active management skill. Whether shallow commitments lead to greenwashing or useful-in-aggregate contributions depends largely on how the core deep commitment people learn to hack and manage the crowd.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr @s_r_constantin
The real danger is not the passive slacktivists, but the deep ones being too weak to resist takeover by sociopaths driving towards entirely different agendas. Think billionaire metal straw maker who wants to take over the ill-informed anti-plastic-straw movement for own ends.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
What’s your biggest example of someone guiding slactivists in a constructive (by their own standards) direction?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I have a couple I can't share from consulting gigs, but the open-source movement probably qualifies. The top leaders have successfully organized varying tiers of participation energy and resisted complete corporate takeover.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.