The images spread like a colorful tidal wave: pink and red equal signs flooded Facebook as the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on gay marriage. Millions of people changed their profile photos in a show of support — a move quickly countered by users posting plus signs as a mark of opposition.
From the Twitter-aided Arab Spring to the local Occupy movement organizing on Facebook, activists are turning to social media to broadcast their messages. With 39 percent of American adults using those networks to follow or promote political views, the Internet is a tempting soapbox.
In the digital age, rallying for a political cause sometimes means trading in the bullhorn for a computer mouse.
But amid the myriad postings, there's a swirling debate about whether such electronic chatter spurs real-world change or encourages nothing more than a surrogate for activism. It even has a name: "clicktivism."
"For a lot of people, the mere act of posting relieves that need or feeling for them to be involved. They feel like they did their part," said Heather LaMarre, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota who studies strategic communication. "There's sort of a social expectation that somebody else is going to show up for the rally."
The latest online outcry during the gay marriage hearing was so loud that Facebook said it exemplified the way social media can illustrate support for a political and social idea. But how helpful can a tweet or status update be in effecting real change?
Get online, or go outside?
Nick Espinosa, an organizer with Occupy Homes MN, was initially drawn to the national Occupy movement after seeing posts about it on Twitter and Facebook.
Now he uses social media, text messages and e-mail blasts to summon people to attend protests at homes in foreclosure, occupying the properties to prevent banks from boarding them up. But even well deployed social media have limits.