The Rules of Engagement: Comparing Two Social Protest Movements on YouTube

Social media Web sites such as YouTube offer activists unique opportunities to reach out to new audiences through a variety of diverse appeals. Yet the rules of engagement on social media should depend on the structures, goals, and characteristics of the movements engaging in this outreach. To explore how differences in social movements translate into online activism, we employ a paired case study approach, comparing YouTube artifacts for two political mobilizations: the Occupy Movement and California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative concerning same sex marriage. Across movements, we examine the popularity of videos and their characteristics, and whether the type of video consistently predicts video engagement. We find that "social media activism" is not a unitary phenomenon; the two mobilizations produced unique YouTube ecologies. Occupy Wall Street videos tended on average to produce less engagement and focused on filmed live events and amateur content. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 videos usually produced more engagement and bridged more diverse formats: from professionalized and scripted content to live event footage and unscripted monologues to the camera. Therefore, our study suggests that social activism in online spaces such as YouTube is not easily defined, but is adapted to suit movement needs-which makes social media a popular and flexible venue for activism but also highlights the challenges for scholars studying such venues.

[1]  Jonathan Bishop,et al.  Networked: The New Social Operating System , 2013, Int. J. E Politics.

[2]  Kevin Driscoll,et al.  YOUTUBE, TWITTER AND THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT , 2013 .

[3]  Juliann Cortese,et al.  Looking Back as We Prepare to Move Forward: US Presidential Candidates' Adoption of YouTube , 2012, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[4]  Timothy Macafee,et al.  Killing the Bill Online? Pathways to Young People's Protest Engagement via Social Media , 2012, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[5]  Jonathan A. Obar,et al.  Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action , 2011, Journal of Information Policy.

[6]  Magdalena Wojcieszak,et al.  Correlates of Party, Ideology and Issue Based Extremity in an era of Egocentric Publics , 2011 .

[7]  Clay Shirky,et al.  Digital power: social media and political change , 2011 .

[8]  Paul M. Haridakis,et al.  Differing Uses of YouTube During the 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Election , 2011 .

[9]  Emiliano Treré.  Studying media practices in social movements , 2011 .

[10]  Clay Shirky.  The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change , 2011 .

[11]  Jennifer Suzanne Earl,et al.  Changing the world one webpage at a time: Conceptualizing and explaining Internet activism , 2010 .

[12]  J. V. Laer,et al.  INTERNET AND SOCIAL MOVEMENT ACTION REPERTOIRES: Opportunities and limitations , 2010 .

[13]  Dhavan V. Shah,et al.  Agenda Setting in a Digital Age: Tracking Attention to California Proposition 8 in Social Media, Online News and Conventional News , 2010 .

[14]  Christine B. Williams,et al.  Congressional Candidates' Use of YouTube in 2008: Its Frequency and Rationale , 2010 .

[15]  D. Karpf.  Macaca Moments Reconsidered: Electoral Panopticon or Netroots Mobilization? , 2010 .

[16]  Jennifer Suzanne Earl,et al.  THE DYNAMICS OF PROTEST-RELATED DIFFUSION ON THE WEB , 2010 .

[17]  Chirag Shah,et al.  ContextMiner: Supporting the Mining of Contextual Information for Ephemeral Digital Video Preservation , 2009, Int. J. Digit. Curation.

[18]  Tom Carlson,et al.  Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections , 2008 .

[19]  Zizi Papacharissi,et al.  The virtual sphere 2.0: The internet, the public sphere, and beyond , 2008 .

[20]  Christian Breunig,et al.  Communication and Political Mobilization: Digital Media and the Organization of Anti-Iraq War Demonstrations in the U.S. , 2008 .

[21]  J. Reynolds.  The Single Woman: A Discursive Investigation , 2008 .

[22]  Chirag Shah.  Tubekit: a query-based youtube crawling toolkit , 2008, JCDL '08.

[23]  Patricia G. Lange.  Publicly Private and Privately Public: Social Networking on YouTube , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[24]  Jock Given,et al.  The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom , 2007, Inf. Econ. Policy.

[25]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the Contemporary Media Environment , 2005 .

[26]  Ulrich Beck,et al.  World Risk Society , 1999 .

[27]  W. Lance Bennett,et al.  The UnCivic Culture: Communication, Identity, and the Rise of Lifestyle Politics , 1998, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[28]  Louis C. Midgley,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups , 1969 .

[29]  M. Olson,et al.  The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups , 1969 .