Social networking sites are now the medium of choice for many social justice groups and individuals who want to harness the tides of social change. Capitalizing on the networks around us is an effective way to get things done, whether it be recruiting volunteers or raising awareness on an important cause. Yet the relationship between social networking online and social change in the real world deserves to be more closely observed.

The popularity of social networking apparatuses such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs simply reflects a need in modern society. Within our often fractured, disparate society we retain a need for connection and community. But just how well do social networking sites work as vehicles for social change?

In many ways, social networking sites are very well designed tools to help social justice organizations achieve their goals on the Internet. These sites can be a great platform in which to connect people, exchange ideas and share resources. What’s more, they are constantly evolving and adapting to their users. It comes as no surprise that social networking is already very popular among organizations trying to raise money, increase membership or promote their activities.

Yet for all that social networking can do to help bring about social change, it may be less a science and more an art. Although anybody can start a social networking site, it’s only as effective as how he/she uses it. The most successful websites have a distinct identity that distinguishes them from the pack and a clear set of principles behind their operations.

Controlling their brand and message can be a challenge, as websites can’t always control how people may appropriate their content, or if user-generated material runs counter to the site’s policies. Managing its message and image is crucial for any networking site because building a well-defined identity is the key to attracting a wide membership base.

On the security end, social networking sites are often inadequately defended against cyber attacks by individuals and groups with their own agendas. Twitter and Facebook were both disrupted in early August after a hacker targeted the accounts of a Georgian blogger who posted criticism of Russia’s conduct during its conflict with Georgia over South Ossetia in 2008.

Ironically, even though social justice groups can use networking sites to advance human rights causes and international ideals, the Internet is not a domain where many of those principles (such as freedom of expression) can be enforced. Servers can shut down a social networking site if they feel its content damages their ability to attract revenue from advertisers.

Users of social networking sites should also remember that these sites are not neutral platforms, but businesses with vested interests in the transfer of information. Just this July, Facebook was found by Canada’s Privacy Commissioner to have violated privacy laws in collecting users’ information for advertising purposes and disclosing that information to third parties.

In an age in which a constant bombardment of ads fighting for a plethora of causes is ever present, how do we clarify the difference between a moral cause and an unethical one?  With a variety of social networking sites available, any average Joe or Jane can share their opinion with the world.  Any individual can express their passion for fighting against child labor in a third world country, or the need for more gay rights. However, while these causes may all be just, there are others who may believe that fighting for these causes is unethical and flat out wrong.

But who are they to question what is right or wrong?  If one is passionately defending a cause, who has the right to stifle that freedom of speech?  Should there be ethical considerations when expressing a raw and emotional point of view?  These are the big questions that must be asked.

Undoubtedly, everyone has the absolute right to voice their opinions.  With social networking sites available such as Facebook and Twitter, millions of users can share their values and opinions, regardless of class, race, gender or status.   A person from Toronto can share their cause with a diverse scope of people throughout the world from Paris to Hong Kong.

Social networking has given people the opportunity to fight for social change themselves, despite not belonging to famous worldwide organizations such as World Vision or Free the Children.   These websites become an open forum for people to discuss current world issues and make plans for social change.  Even issues that may not command authority in international headlines have an opportunity to be exposed to the world.

However surprisingly, there are those who may oppose this open forum of activism. It becomes confusing when others begin to say that it is unethical to share these issues with the world.  It would be understandable if these issues were to demonstrate hate or prejudice, but if these expressions do not offend others, why should they be suppressed?  If one does not agree with a cause that another is defending, there is no obligation to believe in that same cause.  An activist should not have to suppress his or herself in order to cater to the needs of others who may not agree with a given point of view.

Furthermore, activism is defined by the English Oxford Dictionary as “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change”.  It says nothing of altering your point of view for others.  If in everyday speech we were required to censor our thoughts, our world would lack creativity that brings about radical changes.  Our way of life would be stale and unchanging.  For example, what kind of world would we live in if activist leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. who fought for civil rights and Harvey Milk who fought for gay rights were suppressed before they even had a say?  What if they gave up their fight because other people believed that their theories were wrong and unethical?  What kind of world would we be living in today?

Our world would certainly not be as liberal.  The truth is, not everyone is going to agree with your opinion as an activist.  Some may believe that what you are fighting for is wrong and unethical; they may believe that you should stop campaigning for your cause in order to please them.  The power of you, the activist, is to prove these people wrong. You have the ability to show the world an issue and rally people for social change.  You have the tenacity and the strength to change those once doubtful minds.   Don’t be afraid to express yourself. If it is a valid issue and you are passionate, no one can stop you in the pursuit of your cause.  You, the activist, must perform and protest, and in turn, bring radical change to an irrational world.