The Internet loves animals. It seems pretty obvious that content about animals has dominated the online sphere, whether it be the number of Youtube channels dedicated to animals or the popularity of animal profiles on Instagram. Among the thousands of cute and funny profiles, videos and photos meant for entertainment, there are also profiles and channels that want to raise awareness about animal rights and improve animal welfare, such as animal rescue groups or educational Youtube channels run by individuals or animals. rights groups. It’s safe to say from the number of subscribers that these channels and profiles don’t go unnoticed or marginalized. For example, despite its controversial reputation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has nearly six million followers on Facebook.
However, it begs the question, how effective can social media be? Can social media improve animal welfare and rights? Currently, almost everyone has an account on one or two social media sites, and during the COVID-19 pandemic the number of social media users even increased; over 500 million people have joined social media sites in the past twelve months (Data Portal, 2021). It is estimated that there are over four billion social media users worldwide (Data Portal, 2021). Social media is used for a variety of purposes such as communication, entertainment, education, and so on. Recently, however, more and more users are choosing to use their platforms to raise awareness and get support on certain social issues and promote social change. The online sphere, along with the offline sphere, has become a place of activism and protest. However, there is also a growing debate about the effectiveness and sincerity of so-called online activism. Is online activism meaningful for social and political change, or is it just slactivism? Do online activists engage with social issues? Can they establish a collective identity or is it just a minor gesture? There are many valid doubts about the role of social media in political and social activism.
Some scholars have argued that activism and social movements, like other aspects of our lives, have moved into the online sphere, and it is simply part of modern society; thus, it should not be dismissed or seen as a minor part of social or political activity. Moreover, because of the nature of the Internet, certain social actions can reach a wider audience more quickly and should not rely on traditional media and their attention as much as in traditional methods that promote political decentralization (Aji, 2019; Downing, 2018).
On the other hand, some voices have argued that online activism, which skeptics often call slacktivism or clicktivism , has no real power or social effect, but people can feel good about themselves because they share or change their Facebook profile picture to support a certain movement. without much sacrifice (Morozov, 2009). In addition, animal scientists have noted that social media can contribute to increased animal cruelty because some users profit from the popularity of Youtube channels or Facebook profiles that promote animal cruelty or support illegal animal trafficking (Edes, 2019).
This article briefly analyzes the role of social media in animal protection. Social media raises awareness of animal issues and can be a supportive tool for animal activism, but awareness alone is not enough to improve animal welfare. At the same time, social media creates a hostile environment that promotes animal cruelty and animal trafficking, which users may unintentionally support.
Is the Internet a tool of liberalization or repression? A long-standing debate and the emergence of social media.
The debate about the effectiveness and role of the Internet in social environments and socio-political change is not new. According to van Dijk (2006), “when new media emerged in the 1980s, some people talked about ‘polluting’ our social environment with new media infiltrating our private lives” (p. 2). Some of the early voices harshly demonized the Internet, viewing it as a wonderland for “pornographers, terrorists, and political extremists” (Newey, 1999, p. 13). The tone somehow changed in the 1990s, and many of the dystopian views were replaced by a more optimistic view of the Internet (van Dijk, 2006). Early media researchers and Internet enthusiasts believed that the Internet would be an egalitarian space that would not reflect social norms and hierarchies (boyd, 2011; van Dijk, 2006; van Zoonen, 2001; Vickery and Everbach, 2018). It was also assumed that the Internet would strengthen democracy and provide visibility to marginalized groups and viewpoints; in other words, it was seen as a tool for liberalization (Newey, 1999). Thus, some early scholars believed that the Internet and technology could be tools for overcoming various inequalities and oppressions. This view represents what is known as the theory of technological determinism. Technological determinism assumes that technology strongly influences and changes our society. It also assumes that “technology can solve the problems created by larger social and cultural institutions of sexism, racism, and power” (Vickery, 2018, p. 34). However, as critical media practitioners have observed,
In short, to the extent that the online sphere can promote positive social change and give a voice to marginalized groups, it can also be used to create hostile environments and encourage offensive behavior. Currently, most scholars do not see digital technologies as inherently bad or good (Powell & Henry, 2017; van Dijk, 2006), but that these technologies should always be studied in their broader sociocultural and political contexts, as well as in their production and consumption contexts (Shaw, 2014).
This discussion becomes even more prominent with the increasing popularity of social media. Social media has impacted society and influenced sociocultural and political change. The question is to what extent.
There is a lot of research on whether the Internet, especially social media, promotes participation and engagement in political and social change. According to Fuchs (2018), “social media is a kind of mirror of what is happening in society” (p. 385). Thus, people’s social and political engagement can be seen through social media, but the degree of this engagement is difficult to gauge.
Some scholars have argued that the Internet is detrimental to people’s social movements and political activism. For example, the connections and relationships among members of social and political movements are weak, and there is also a lack of the emotional involvement and hierarchical organization that is necessary in risky activism that challenges the status quo (Gladwell, 2010). Social media increases participation and awareness, but as Morozov (2009) argued, even if the online sphere raises awareness, it is still not enough to solve problems. Awareness must turn into action, and the online sphere complicates this process and reduces motivation to take action (Gladwell, 2010).
Other scholars, on the other hand, were more positive about online participation. They argued that the Internet can positively affect participation in social and political issues because it helps mobilize people, for example, by lowering the cost of participation and requiring participants to pay less (Cammaerts, 2015). It also allows for faster and more equitable dissemination as more voices and opinions have a platform to share opinions and information (Downing, 2018; Newey, 1999).
Nevertheless, online actions must be accompanied by offline activities. Social media can be an effective tool to support collective efforts because of its ability to reach a wider audience in a shorter time. It also gives ordinary citizens and groups the opportunity to increase their visibility without relying on mainstream media (Cammaerts, 2015). Social media also allows people to act globally and advocate for different issues around the world (Cammaerts, 2015), although global action is usually less effective than local action (Morozov, 2009).
Animal Rights/Welfare and Social Media: Does Social Media Raise Awareness of Animal Rights or Promote Cruelty to Animals?
The beginning of the animal rights movement is often attributed to Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” action in 1975, but the movement originated in the early 19th century when some began to promote policies to reduce torture and exploitation of animals (Aji, 2019; Munro, 2012). Early animal welfare organizations and activists focused primarily on developing policies to eradicate various forms of animal abuse (Aji, 2019). The debate and purpose changed in the 1970s as the philosophical framework based on the concepts of Peter Singer and Tom Regan focused on the human and non-human relationships and emotional feelings of animals (Aji, 2019). Currently, animal advocates are striving to improve animal welfare and protection, as well as eradicate animal cruelty through a variety of methods.
It is important to note that animal movements are heterogeneous; different groups have different agendas, goals, and philosophies regarding animal rights and welfare. Socio-cultural and political backgrounds play an important role in the development of animal rights organizations and activism, so the difference between these groups has several sources. According to Munro (2012), there are three main strands among animal advocates, such as animal welfare, animal liberation, and animal rights, but they are all “united on the principle that animals are sentient beings, not ‘things’ that can be turned into commodities. into food, research tools, or sports trophies” (p. 169).
Over the past few years, the Internet has become an important tool for animal rights advocates, activists, and organizations. Given the popularity of animal videos and images online, it is not surprising that activists and organizations would try to raise awareness of animal issues among social media users. As Ajie (2019) noted, “social media appears to have a significant impact on the collective identity formation process of animal advocates” (p. 395).
Animal shelters and rescue organizations often advertise their animals and events, which increases adoption. Almost all shelters rely on social media as a fundraising tool to allow virtual adoption or general donation.
Animal advocacy groups also use their Web sites to raise awareness about animal cruelty and generally inform people about animal welfare. For example, the Polish animal rights organization Otwarte Klatki (Open Cages) uses Facebook and Twitter to document animal cruelty and educate about animal welfare, mainly the protection of farm animals. The organization seeks to bring social and legal changes to the breeding and treatment of farm animals through their actions. Their social media profiles promote online petitions and campaigns; however, to increase their impact on social and political change, online actions are organized alongside offline actions.
As Morozov (2009) observed, raising awareness is not enough to solve all problems. The same is true for issues related to animal rights and welfare. Social media raises awareness of animal cruelty, but it does not mean that more people are taking direct action to prevent it. Animal organizations may have thousands of followers, but one click on their pages and it’s clear that they still need volunteers and activists to take offline actions, such as documenting animal cruelty, organizing protests, or meeting with politicians.
Social media can help raise awareness about animal welfare; however, it can also be used to glorify animal cruelty and support illegal trade, especially in the case of wild animals. Most social media users are likely to have seen videos and photos of animals, whether they are companions, farms, or wild animals performing tricks or acting like humans, such as swiping smartphones or wearing clothes. Facebook, Instagram and Youtube are full of such videos and images. Many of them seem harmless, even cute and funny, but in fact some of them promote animal cruelty, and viewers may unintentionally support harmful and illegal actions.
Edes (2019), a primatologist, observed that social media videos of primates can be harmful and dangerous to animals and their environment. This is especially important for wildlife because social media influences the perception of wild animals, such as slow loris or chimpanzees, as suitable pets and reduces the belief that these animals are endangered (Edes, 2019; Leighty et al. ., 2015 Nekaris et al., 2013).
Social media posts may not seem to have a real impact on the environment or the well-being of animals; however, they can impact animal conservation because the response to these videos and posts is noticed by exotic animal traders and increases the wildlife trade (Edes, 2019). Researchers argued that these videos and photos affect the public perception of wild animals, leading to an endorsement of animal cruelty. Primatologists agreed that posting and sharing videos and photos that show wild animals as pets promotes the exotic animal trade (Cole & Emerson, 2019).
It is also very easy to find videos glorifying animal cruelty on social media. Lady Freethinker, a non-profit organization, published a report on Youtube about animal cruelty. A search for keywords such as dog fighting, eating animals alive, etc. shows tons of videos that violate Youtube rules (violent and graphic content and animal cruelty are prohibited) and animal welfare laws in some countries (Lady Freethinker, 2019). Videos showing animal cruelty gain thousands of views, which means that some people are profiting from animal cruelty; many activists and scholars have called social media platforms ineffective in tracking and banning such videos and profiles.
Conclusion
In recent years there has been an ongoing debate about the role and impact of the Internet, especially social media, on the social movement and society. It is hard to deny that social media is often used to advocate for animal rights and welfare. Animal welfare organizations and activists turn to social media to raise awareness of animal issues and garner support. Of course, social media can be useful, and its impact on the animal movement is obvious, but its impact should not be overstated; online animal activism cannot replace street actions and campaigns.
In addition, researchers also agree that animal cruelty and illegal trade, especially in the case of wild animals, are increased because of social media. Social media users may unintentionally support harmful and illegal actions. Edes (2019) mentioned five freedoms to help social media users assess animal welfare through videos or images. The five freedoms were introduced in 1979 by the British Farm Animal Welfare Council and are recognized as basic standards for animal welfare. These five freedoms are as follows: 1) Freedom from hunger and thirst 2) Freedom from discomfort 3) Freedom from pain, injury or disease 4) Freedom to express normal behavior 5) Freedom from fear and suffering
If any of these freedoms are violated, the video or image should be reported, not shared. However, even if it is reported, it may not be enough. As many have pointed out, social media platforms themselves do not do enough to prevent and monitor posts that violate their own rules and national laws. Allowing these kinds of posts and videos on platforms contributes to animal cruelty and the escalation of harmful and illegal actions.
