Facing the #Future
Exploring the Impact of Digital
Platforms on Climate Activism
Alicja Kępka
Master of Science Thesis
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Alicja Kępka who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references
have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
FACING THE #FUTURE
Exploring the Impact of Digital
Platforms on Climate Activism
Master of Science Thesis
Amsterdam, July 2020
Alicja Kępka
University of Amsterdam
Conflict Resolution and Governance
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
Supervisor: Dr. Martijn Dekker
Second reader: Dr. David Laws
On August 20 , 2018, 15-year-old Greta Thunberg decided to skip school and strike outside of the Swedish parliament. During her protests, Thunberg actively used social media to attract attention to her actions. After her activity gained national and international recognition, strikers in other countries started to join in solidarity. Her resolution to strike every Friday during school hours as long as the government does not comply with the targets put forward by the Paris Agreement provided a ground for establishing the Fridays For Future (FFF) movement. Since her first solitary protest, the movement has grown exponentially. At this moment, over 100 national and thousands of local chapters are actively organizing and mobilizing millions of people to continue school strikes to demand climate action. Not surprisingly, a movement this size heavily relies on digital technologies to coordinate global, national, and regional networks. The usefulness of digital platforms has been recognized from the moment that Thunberg’s Instagram pictures spread widely on the internet.
The use of digital technology is not a new development, as it has already been established as a salient tool for a variety of political activities. With the proliferation of technology, social movements have been increasingly incorporating digital tools in their collective action and resource mobilization efforts. It has been able to facilitate the movements’ operations and to establish them in the first place. However, while digital platforms provide major opportunities, they can also undermine the efforts of many activists, creating gaps in online participation. Therefore, this research aims to provide an analytical comparison of a diverse group of activists and their experiences with technology, taking the FFF movement as its case study. The methods combine desk research and qualitative interviews with members and organizers of different FFF’s chapters, supported by insights from a representative of Extinction Rebellion Netherlands. The research bases the analysis on the theoretical framework of affordances, social movements, and collective action theory. Fourteen interviews and one questionnaire were conducted and analyzed between April and June 2020.
Digital platforms proved to afford a specific set of possibilities while excluding others. The case study shows that depending on the individual situation, activists and their peers cannot coordinate their actions and mobilize resources in the same way. Even if people have access to technology, they do not always have the necessary knowledge or skillset to use it effectively. Thus, online climate activism can be enhanced as well as undermined depending on the activists’ and their audience’s ability to act upon existing affordances. Although some of the barriers can be overcome, individual affordances shape the effectiveness of climate activism in the online setting.
Keywords: affordances, social movements, online activism, climate activism, digital platforms,
1. Research aim and objective ... 3
2. Outline of the research ... 4
II. Theoretical Framework ... 5
1. Affordances ... 5
2. Social movements ... 6
3. Collective action theory ... 9
III. Research Design ... 11
1. Research methods ... 11
2. Ethical considerations... 12
IV. Main Analysis ... 14
1. Case study: Fridays For Future ... 14
1.1 Background... 14
1.2 Strikers’ profile ... 16
1.3 Mobilization networks ... 17
1.4 The use of digital tools ... 19
2. Digital platforms ... 22
2.1 Opportunities ... 23
2.1.1 Internal organization and coordination... 23
2.1.2 Promotion and mobilization ... 25
2.1.3 Credibility ... 28 2.2 Limitations ... 29 2.2.1 Limited access ... 30 2.2.2 Costs... 31 2.2.3 Digital illiteracy... 32 2.2.4 Limited repertoire ... 33 2.2.5 Personal limitations ... 34 2.3 Overcoming barriers ... 36
2.3.1 The impact of COVID-19 ... 37
2.3.2 Physical actions versus online activism ... 40
V. Conclusion ... 43
VI. Reference List... 46
Appendix A ... 50
Figure 1. Strike statistics reported by FFF ... 15
Figure 2. “What We Do” section on the main page of the FFF’s website ... 19
Figure 3. Social media feed integrated into the main page of FFF ... 20
I would like to whole-heartedly thank Dr. Martijn Dekker for his invaluable support and supervision during this project, even when the pandemic was interrupting. I also extend my gratitude to Dr. David Laws for his vast expertise and inspiration throughout the year.
I thank Ina-Maria Shikongo, Nirere Sadrach, Christopher Swen, Lourdes Zair, Dominique Palmer, Kate Harty, Rose Guy, Kylen Glass, Iqbal Badruddin, Jonathan Dzebam, Armando van Vlastuin, Nejma Ali Mehidi, Vienna Sparks, and Leonarda Šmigmator. These fantastic people were kind enough to devote the time to share their knowledge and experiences with me. They gave me an opportunity to learn, share my ideas, and make new friendships. This research would not be possible without their input.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Iwona and Cezary, for their constant support and faith. They made everything possible and I could not do it without them. Dziękuję.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
On August 20th, 2018, following one of the hottest summers in Sweden, 15-year-old Greta
Thunberg decided to skip school and stand outside of the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament holding a wooden, hand-painted sign that read “Skolstrejk för klimatet” (“School strike for climate”). She remained there for three consecutive weeks, striking every day during the school hours before the general elections taking place on September 9th, 2018 (Gessen 2018). However,
two days before the elections, Thunberg announced that she extends her initial goal and continues to strike every Friday as long as Sweden does not align with the targets introduced in the Paris Agreement. “I urge all of you to do the same—sit outside your parliament or local government wherever you are,” urged Thunberg (2018) through her Instagram account.
During her daily protests, Thunberg actively used social media to publish pictures of her holding or sitting next to the handmade sign. She introduced the phrase Fridays For Future, along with the hashtag #FridaysForFuture to support her goal. After her protest gained international recognition, more strikers started to organize in other countries. By December 4th,
2018, more than 20,000 students around the world joined the strike, including at least 270 different cities and towns in countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Belgium (Carrington 2018). At this point, Thunberg also began to join strikes held around Europe.
In almost two years, the Fridays For Future (FFF) movement grew exponentially. In the largest mobilization in the movement’s history organized on September 20th, 2019, actions were
reported in more than 4,000 cities in 167 countries around the world, uniting over 4 million people (FFF 2020a). At the moment of writing this report, almost 100 active divisions (called “chapters” or “branches”) are presented on the FFF’s official website (FFF 2020b). They span across all continents, including even Antarctica.1 Not surprisingly, a movement this size
heavily relies on national and regional networks. It has also recognized the usefulness of digital platforms from the moment that Thunberg’s pictures on Instagram spread widely on the internet. As one FFF’s member has said, social media have been “very beneficial to the movement from the very beginning” (Harty 2020).
The use of digital technology is not a new development, as it has already been established as a salient tool for a variety of political activities (Schradie 2018: 51). Nowadays, an organization or a public figure without a website or a social media profile is deemed as almost
2
invisible or inaccessible. Moreover, with the current pace of technological advancement, technology becomes cheaper and more available. Computers and other devices are not only faster and more powerful but also handier and more portable. The use of digital media is so evident that, as Taylor and Kent (2009: 207) stated, “[t]he question today is not so much a question of “if” but “how” to use social media in public relations.”
Social movements and grassroots initiatives also “increasingly integrate social media with claims making and mobilization efforts” (Dumitricia and Felt 2019: 14). Social media have been repeatedly praised as a solution for the advancement of democratic participation and empowerment of individuals—at least in comparison to societies from the pre-digital era (Schradie 2018: 51; Dumitricia and Felt 2019: 1). Brimacombe et al. (2018: 509; 511) suggest that activists can use social media in order to pressure authorities and policymakers from both the public and the media, as well as include the voices of marginalized social groups. Activists and practitioners have also used digital tools for resistance and shifting the power balance (Ciszek 2016: 315). Finally, social movements, activist groups, and non-governmental organizations incorporate digital tools for information and communication purposes (Jun 2011: 246). They use online communication channels to propagate their causes, maintain the relationship with current members and donors, and attract new ones (ibid.).
Despite the opportunities, digital technology has numerous limitations. The assumption that activism greatly benefits from digital platforms remains a contested subject. One argument is that digital technologies used to increase participation can also create barriers and strengthen inequalities (Schradie 2018: 54). Considering examples from the existing academic literature, Dumitricia and Felt (2019: 6) indicate that there are physical barriers revolving around decentralization and a subsequent loss of control over the message in a vast network. Filter bubbles and algorithms can also shape the campaign’s reach and audience (ibid.). The scope and quality of online involvement are also debatable, as “slacktivism” or “armchair activism” remain a significant impediment for social movements and their mobilization efforts (Dumitricia and Felt 2019: 9; Brimacombe et al. 2018: 511). There are also more socially-oriented drawbacks of digital activism, such as personal costs of a blurring distinction between private and personal spaces, lack of necessary knowledge or skills, or even burnouts due to tasks’ intensity (Bimber et al. 2005: 367; Dumitricia and Felt 2019: 10). Finally, researchers also question the effectiveness and the impact of online activism as compared to physical one (e.g., Van Laer 2010; Uldam 2013; McLean and Fuller 2016).
A different discussion revolves around the contention whether technology truly enables people to participate and be more involved, or it deepens existing and creates new socioeconomic inequalities (e.g., Rye 2008; Schradie 2011; Schradie 2018). Schradie (2018: 69)
3
argues that digital activism does not ensure equal online participation but rather introduces new divisions between actors due to personal costs and technological limitations. Rye (2008: 171) focuses on how the lack of proper Internet infrastructure has further implications for the level of education among students. He further argues that students in remote areas where the infrastructure is poorly developed do not experience the same benefits of technology as students living in central areas (idem: 182).
The discussion about the implications of digital technology—and its potential opportunities and challenges in a broader geographical, cultural, and socioeconomic context—remains scarce. With the proliferation of social media and other digital technologies, social movements often deem them as crucial tools for their daily operations. Digital technology not only allows to facilitate communication between members of local, national, and international groups but also helps to increase awareness among a broader audience. It is also utilized to facilitate grassroots activities—an important aspect of social movements (Van Til et al. 2008: 359; Carty 2010: 15)—by reaching people from the “bottom-up.” However, depending on the individual situation, members of social movements do not have the same resources. Even if they have access to the devices, they do not always have the same knowledge or skillset on how to make use of them successfully. In this sense, the technology affords them a specific set of possibilities, while excluding others. The concept of affordances is of importance as it pertains to objects’ properties or features that allow actors to act accordingly (Gibson 1979: 127). Even though Gibson initially applies the concept to a physical environment, it can also be applied to digital platforms. After all, they can enable and limit people from pursuing different types of actions. In line with this reasoning, it is interesting to explore the differences in affordances of technology used by members of a social movement in different contexts. Therefore, this research aims to provide an analytical comparison of the use of digital technologies by a diverse group of activists, taking the FFF movement as its case study. The following research question can be asked: How do the affordances of digital platforms impact the members of the Fridays For
Future movement? Moreover, a number of sub-questions can be added to support the main
research question: (1) What kind of digital technologies are utilized in the operations of Fridays
For Future’s chapters?; (2) What are the opportunities of digital technology associated with this form of climate activism?; and (3) What are the challenges, risks, and limitations of digital technology associated with this form of climate activism?
1. Research aim and objective
The main aim of the research is to explore the use of digital platforms among activists and members of different chapters of Fridays For Future. Digital technologies in question may vary,
4
but the examples might include the internet, social media, streaming services, conference calls, online communicators, and other online platforms. Furthermore, the research aims to analyze the affordances—with possible opportunities and limitations—of technology available to every member included in this research.
The research considers the social movement Fridays For Future as its primary case study for two reasons. Firstly, the FFF movement is represented in many countries around the world by smaller, local chapters. As mentioned above, there are almost 100 FFF chapters on the national levels, supported by countless local groups in regions, counties, cities, towns, and even specific schools. This structure provides a good overview of similarities and differences in the functioning of different fractions of the same movement. Secondly, digital platforms have played an essential role in the growth of FFF. From facilitating the internal organization of the movement, through promoting the strikes on social media, to creating fully digital campaigns, FFF’s members engage with technology to a great extent.
The research’s objective is to provide a detailed analysis between different perspectives of the interviewed FFF’s members. The interviews have been analyzed and grouped into several chapters to provide enough clarity in every aspect of the research. This way, the analytical comparison of different activist groups around the world might bring interesting insights into the differences in possibilities for action.
2. Outline of the research
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the next chapter, the theoretical framework provides an overview of relevant theories and concepts used in the research. It focuses on the notions of social movements, affordances, as well as collective action theory. All concepts provide a theoretical basis for the analysis. In the third chapter, the research methods are provided and explained, along with ethical considerations for this research. The fourth chapter is the central part of the research, focusing on the case study as well as analysis of the interviewees. The interview analysis is divided into several sections focusing on different aspects of digital platforms and activists’ experiences. Finally, the report ends with a conclusion, limitations, and considerations for further research. The reference list and appendices can be found on the last pages of the paper.
5
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1. Affordances
James J. Gibson introduced the concept of affordances in 1979 in his book The Ecological
Approach to Visual Perception. The theoretical construct was developed in the field of ecological
psychology to account for what animals and humans can perceive and afford in relation to their environment (Gibson 1979: 127). His initial aim was to develop a theory on visual perception based on the ways that animals and humans live in and interact with their environment (Bucher and Helmond 2018: 236). However, the usefulness of the concept was recognized and applied in other fields, including sociology (e.g., Hutchby 2001), computer science and human-computer interaction (e.g., Preece et al. 1994, Steedman 2002, Şahin et al. 2007), (product) design (e.g., Norman 1988, Gaver 1991), or communication, media, and software studies (e.g., Fuller 2008, Stanfill 2015, Hopkins 2016, Weltevrede and Borra 2016, Bucher and Helmond 2018).
According to Gibson (1979: 127), “[t]he affordances of the environment are what it offers the animals, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill.” In other words, an affordance refers to actions that are enabled by objects or environments to their end-users (ibid.). These actions are not only limited by the way an actor interacts with the physical properties of an object but also social and cultural norms (ibid.; Meredith 2017: 43).
On the one hand, the notion of affordances implies a certain complementarity or reciprocity between the user and the environment (ibid.). The higher capacity of the actors to engage with their environment, the broader range of action exists in the same context, and vice versa. On the other hand, even though the environment can be artificially manipulated, it usually does not change or adjust according to the needs of the user (idem: 129; 138–139). Quite the opposite, the environment often determines the way the actor acts. In other words, “[t]he organism depends on its environments (…), but the environment does not depend on the organism for its existence” (idem: 129).
Moreover, regardless of the observers’ needs, the environment remains the same for everyone. The turning point for action depends on the way individuals make use of this environment and whether they are capable of perceiving and attending to an affordance (idem: 139). As Gibson (idem: 138) states, “[t]here is only one environment, although it contains many observers with limitless opportunities for them to live in it.” The affordances are relative to the actor’s capacity for engagement (idem: 127; Evans et al. 2017: 37). They are unique for every individual, as not everyone can engage with the environment in the same way. For example, children’s ability to reach or grasp an object is, most of the time, different than the ability of adults to do the same. Similarly, understanding what the environment can provide to its users
6
is also relative to the individual capacity of perceiving which affordances are available and whether they are beneficial and injurious to the user (idem: 135; 137).
The notion of perceived affordances was further developed by Donald Norman and first introduced in his book The Psychology of Everyday Things in 1988, later renamed to The Design
of Everyday Things. According to Norman (1988: 9), “affordance refers to the perceived and
actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used.” However, affordances are not properties of the object, but rather a relationship that emerges from the interaction between an agent and an object (idem: 11). Depending on the agent’s capabilities and the object’s qualities, affordances may or may not be discovered and put into use (ibid.). However, once affordances are perceived, they “help people figure out what actions are possible without the need for labels or instructions” (idem: 13).
Therefore, the possibilities for action emerge from the relation “between an object/ technology and the user that enables or constraints potential behavior outcomes in a particular context” (Evans et al. 2017: 37). As mentioned, this concept has been applied to various objects and environments, including digital technology. The digital environment provides its users with a certain set of affordances as well. However, making use of these affordances depends on the availability of resources and the individual capability of overcoming existing barriers. For example, digital media may potentially help activists to maintain campaigns and mobilize others regardless of their geographical location (Van Haperen et al. 2018: 411). However, not every activist has the same resources available to them. In other words, more resourceful or skilled actors can make better use of technology and appropriate it for their purposes, whereas others might need to invest more time and effort to achieve the same effect (Dumitricia and Felt 2019: 13). This, in turn, creates a discrepancy in the activists’ possibilities for action.
Even though the concept of affordances is not a theory in itself, it is still essential for the theoretical consideration of the relationship between digital technologies and opportunities for action in different contexts. Thus, it can be successfully applied when determining and analyzing the opportunities and limitations of technologies utilized in the everyday activities of activists and social movements’ members.
2. Social movements
In general terms, a social movement (SM) can be defined as “a set of opinions and beliefs in a population” (McCarthy and Zald 1977: 1217). However, social movements are never completely mobilized, as they lack organized forms of acting upon these beliefs. This is where a social movement organization (SMO) comes into play (idem: 1218). SMO is a formal entity that
7
can recognize existing beliefs and, in that sense, represent respective SMs (ibid.). It can further define and pursue collective claims, leading the social change (ibid.). Furthermore, different SMOs can represent the same SMs fully or in parts, thus constituting a social movement industry (SMI) (idem: 1219). McCarthy and Zald (idem: 1221) also provide a distinction between actors involved with the movement. Parties that follow the collective claims of the movement are called adherents, whereas those who directly contribute resources are the constituents (ibid.). There is also a general bystander public which is not directly involved but also does not oppose the SM or the SMO (ibid.).
Every SMO can make claims by setting and working towards established goals (idem: 1220). They further need to rely on certain resources, which need to “controlled and mobilized before action is possible” (idem: 1221). Resources might include but are not limited to “legitimacy, money, facilities, and labor” (idem: 1220). Tilly (2008) also argues that SMOs are dependent on personal connections between involved actors linked through “interpersonal networks, shared previous experiences, and formal organizations” (idem: 119). In other words, the movement is dependent on its members for maintaining and evolving its collective claims. Therefore, on the one hand, resource mobilization within the SMO might be focused on “converting adherents into constituents and maintaining constituent involvement” (McCarthy and Zald 1977: 1221). On the other hand, its strategy might focus on convincing
non-adherents to join and contribute to the movement (idem.). In any case, without personal
resources, achieving the common goals might prove challenging, if not impossible.
Tilly (2008: 120) indicates three main elements of a SMO: “campaigns, a repertoire, and WUNC displays (public enactments of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment).” The first element is characterized by coordinated collective action, often repeated in order to address a particular issue or concern or to achieve an identified target (idem: 120). Unlike one-time events and meetings, campaigns fulfill a broader role of defining and reinforcing identities, stances, and claims propagated by the movement (idem: 120–121). There are always at least three parties included in the campaign: claimants, claims’ recipients, and some sort of a public (idem: 120). Claimants are the members of the SMO propagating specific changes and values. Recipients are often authorities and government representatives, politicians, entrepreneurs, religious figures, “and other whose actions (or failures to act) significantly affect the welfare of many people” (idem: 120). The public is often defined as bystanders and observers, but also “potential participants in future campaigns, citizens whose interests the campaign’s outcome will affect, and spectators who learn something about the politics (…) even if they do not participate” (idem: 120). Only the interaction between those three parties can constitute a functional social movement campaign.
8
A repertoire, on the other hand, is a set of actions and performances used to embrace the movement’s claims. Every SMO can choose the most suitable approach to make their claims visible to other relevant actors. Their tactics can include such practices as forming of like-minded associations and coalitions; organizing public meetings or making public statements, demonstrating and protesting; participating in vigils and rallies; encouraging to sign petitions or letters; or lobbying (idem: 121–122). SMOs can also employ their repertoire in order to mobilize various resources or approach potential enablers, such as “authorities and the delegated agents of social control (e.g., police)” (McCarthy and Zald 1977: 1222).
Finally, WUNC displays are connected to these sets of collective performances. WUNC stands for “collective enactments of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment” (idem: 121). These displays are not only expressed by a mere presence of the group in public spaces, but also by “acting out of collective value” and engaging in such actions as collective marching, signing, and chanting (idem: 122). This, in turn, impacts individuals and their actions, resulting in the feeling of belonging or identification with the movement. Worthiness is displayed by a certain level of dignity and decorum of the group, for example, by involving figures that evoke certain emotions, such as mothers with children, military veterans, or youth (idem: 121). Unity is communicated by people showing their belonging and support for the movement through sharing similar elements, such as colors, symbols, badges, or clothing. Numbers can undoubtedly strengthen the movement’s claims and legitimacy by showing large numbers of, for example, the movement’s supporters, campaign’s participants, or signatures on petitions (idem: 121). Lastly, commitment is expressed by actions and behaviors which prove that social movement’s members are serious about their claim-making. An example of such commitment could be “resistance to repression and opposition, ostentatious sacrifice, subscription, and/or benefaction” (idem: 121).
WUNC displays are essential for SMOs as they allow for a certain level of power and flexibility. All adherents of WUNC accumulate but also compensate for each other to some extent—social movements can become stronger and more effective by maximizing each of their displays, but a lack of one can be replaced by another (idem: 122). For example, smaller numbers of participants can be balanced with a strong feeling of commitment, whereas very large groups can justify the lack of perfect unity (idem: 122). However, some displays are more important than others for the SMO to maintain its impact, as high levels of worthiness, unity, and commitment have a more significant impact on the social movement’s functioning rather than its numbers. Even with substantial numbers of people, and unworthy, disagreeing and/or uncommitted group becomes “no more than a crowd” (idem: 122).
9
Such an understanding of SMs and SMOs can be used to explain and support the interesting character of these groups. According to Tilly (idem: 123), “activists sacrifice the advantages of direct action in favor of making statements to larger audiences and asserting a continued presence on the public scene.” This coordinated and nonviolent action is of importance, as social movements still have the capacity to exert influence on public figures, authorities, government officials, companies, or any other targeted figure without engaging with them directly.
Moreover, many SMOs are closely connected with grassroots initiatives as they encourage and assert “the right of ordinary people to public voice” (idem: 123). In other words, SMOs show that people support a shared cause, and they can act together in an organized and sustained manner (idem: 123). On the other hand, sustaining a social movement is not an effortless task. It requires broader, long-term coordination between the SMO’s constituents towards achieving their goals. It is rather uncommon to conclude the movement’s actions after only a few outings (idem: 123). Therefore, SMOs require involvement and active support of political entrepreneurs and organizers that are skilled and experienced in managing such groups. McCarthy and Zald (1977: 1227) also emphasize the organizational character of SMOs and differences in roles and levels of engagement. According to the authors, some members attend to many internal aspects, devoting most of their time and energy, while others might contribute only for a specific task and for a short period of time. In each case, they dedicate different resources to the SMOs.
To conclude, adopting this approach in research is useful to explore and identify different elements of a social movement and its organization. It can also be used to analyze the role of digital technology in the SMO’s activity and to what extent it influences or facilitates its campaigns, repertoire, and WUNC displays.
3. Collective action theory
The theory of collective action is integral to explain human behaviors and mobilization efforts (Bimber et al. 2005: 365). Here, collective actions are understood as actions “taken by two or more people in pursuit of the same collective good” (Marwell & Oliver 1993: 4). It aims to explain human behavior in a broader social context, including (and not limited to) participation in social movements (e.g., Tarrow 1998) and interest groups (e.g., Berry and Wilcox 1984), voting behavior (e.g., Downs 1957, Ojtes et al. 2020), or formation of inter-organizational alliances (Bimber et al. 2005).
In his influential book, Mancur Olson (1965: 1) challenged the popular belief that “groups of individuals with common interests usually attempt to further those common interests.” Quite the opposite, the author argued that unless the group in question is rather small or there is some sort of coercion forcing individuals to act differently, “rational, self-interested individuals
10
will not act to achieve their common or group interests” (idem: 2). The reason behind this behavior is that groups with specific interests usually trade in public goods, which are common benefits shared collectively by a group (idem: 14). The idea of public goods is that they are provided to every member of the group and everyone is allowed to benefit from them (idem: 14–15; Udéhn 1993: 239). However, people can enjoy the benefits provided through public goods “irrespective of whether they have participated in the effort” (Klandermans and van Stekelenburg 2013: 774). These premises potentially encourage rational and self-interested actors to free ride, making use of the common goods and their benefits without providing anything in return (ibid.; Udéhn 1993: 240). Furthermore, free riding undermines the possibility of cooperation. As a result, larger groups are pressured to involve other incentives, such as rewards, insurances, or even coercion if they wish to maintain the support from their constituents (ibid.). In this sense, a formal organization has a crucial role in managing, coordinating, and motivating potential participants is crucial (Bimber et al. 2005: 365).
Since the introduction of the collective action theory, there has been an ongoing discussion around its applicability, especially when taking into consideration the technological advancement. Several contemporary scholars (e.g., Bimber et al. 2005, Bennett and Segerberg 2013; Klandermans and van Stekelenburg 2013) have argued that the introduction of online means of communication and action renders the issues of collective action no longer relevant. Klandermans and van Stekelenburg (2013: 775) argue that the model developed by Olson does not take into consideration the sense of accountability based on interpersonal relations. They emphasize the important role of social media and interactions with peers, where people can create a feeling of solidarity and community. This sense of belonging, in turn, leads to accountability, driving the actors’ interests and motivation for participation (ibid). Moreover, digital technology reduces the costs of participation and resource mobilization. At the same time, Schradie (2018: 69) points out that technological advancement does not ensure even distribution of resources, thus prolonging the theory’s relevancy for digital activism. The socioeconomic divide in digital activism impact the access to available resources, creating additional costs for participation (idem: 52–53).
As long as these perspectives remain essential for the understanding of social movements, the theory of collective action can still prove useful when analyzing opportunities and limitations of organized groups. Furthermore, the analysis of different activist groups might contribute to the discussion and indicate whether the theory holds true in the context of decentralized, online movements.
11
III. RESEARCH DESIGN
1. Research methods
As mentioned, the primary objective of the research is to compare and analyze different uses of technology in the chapters of Fridays For Future. Moreover, it aims to determine possible opportunities and limitations of the technology available to the movement’s members in different countries. Fridays For Future has been chosen as the case study for the research, as it is an ideal example for its context. It is a social movement organization that has been supported by technology from the beginning of its functioning. Besides, various digital platforms have been essential for the growth of the movement. Finally, at the moment, the movement has been established in more than 90 countries from all over the world. Such range allows conducting research on a more diverse scale, focusing not only on the local and regional perspectives but also taking into consideration a broader perspective of a global movement. Finally, similar to Schradie’s (2019: 56) research, this case study offers an ideal setting to evaluate differences in online activism because it is a global movement promoting the same target and pursuing similar goals through a range of local groups in different countries. Therefore, the form and degree of activists’ engagement might vary depending on the technology’s affordances available to every group.
The research methods include an interplay between desk research and fieldwork research in the form of qualitative interviews. The first part of the research methods is used to retrieve and evaluate secondary literature—both academic and popular—using available online and offline resources. Desk research is used in order to identify relevant key concepts and support the fieldwork from the theoretical side. Data gathered may origin from but not limited to academic articles, books, news articles, websites, official documents, reports, presentations, and other records of the FFF movement. Desk research was also used to develop relevant questions and guide the interviews. Moreover, the introduction of a case study aims to provide a detailed and in-depth analysis of a phenomenon within a specific context. In this case, the research is centered around the climate movement, Fridays for Future (FFF), supported by insights from the perspective of an Extinction Rebellion’s (XR) member. Available sources on the movement have been used, supported by an in-depth analysis of its online outlets and activity.
The second part of the research is based on qualitative semi-structured interviews. Over 90 regional chapters were contacted using the contact information provided on the official FFF’s website (FFF 2020b). Due to limited time for this research’s part, the interviewees were selected based on their immediate interest and availability. As a result, 12 interviews and one questionnaire with representatives of different FFF national and regional chapters were
12
conducted through online communicators from April to June 2020. Besides these interviews, there was also an interview conducted with a representative of XR Netherlands. Even though the respondent does not directly fit the research case study, his insights were partially included in the research report as they still provided an interesting perspective on the use of digital technology by a climate-focused social movement. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed at a later stage in order to provide focal points for the discussion around the affordances of digital technology in social movements.
The interviews had a few goals. First of all, they were aimed at reaching active members from different chapters of the movement, willing to share their opinions and experiences. Secondly, the interviews also allowed to get a better understanding of the characteristics, composition, and organization of groups in different countries—including not only the size and scale of the movement but also its brief history, demographics, and reach. Thirdly, the interviews helped with determining what role digital technology plays in the organization and the functioning of the movement. Lastly, this method allowed to explore the experiences with digital technology, its opportunities, and challenges from both personal and organizational perspectives. The interviews were concluded with different visions for the future of the movement and broader activism, especially when it comes to the use of technology. A detailed overview of the interviewees can be found in Appendix A (see page 49).
2. Ethical considerations
The research design takes into consideration various ethical matters. First of all, every chapter that published their email contact on the FFF’s website (FFF 2020b) were contacted in order to avoid a biased selection based on the personal preferences of the researcher. The individuals that expressed their initial interest in the research were presented with a more detailed description of the project, including its aims, setting, duration, and goals of the interviews. This information was provided without the need for consent to an interview. The final selection of interviewees was based on their immediate availability and interest in providing an interview. No financial compensation was provided to the respondents as a reward for participation in any parts of the research.
At the beginning of the interviews, their consent for the recording and transcribing the conversation was requested. They were also informed that direct quotes from the interview might be included in the research paper. The transcripts, as well as emphasized direct quotes, were shared with all the interviewees prior to the publication, again asking for their consent. They were informed on the intent to include the abovementioned quotes along with their name, function(s), organization(s), and date of the interview. When a respondent did not feel
13
comfortable with a part of the interview, it was either omitted or rephrased. They were also presented with the option of using a pseudonym if they prefer not to reveal their identity.
The information provided during the interviews has been framed in such a way to not do any harm to the respondents, Fridays For Future, its chapters, or other mentioned individuals and organizations. The interviewees could have addressed any discrepancies or factual errors in the reviewing phase. Moreover, participation in the study did not anticipate any high risks. Potential negative consequences were reduced by maintaining communication with respondents throughout the research process and providing them with an opportunity to voice their concerns and discomforts. No risks and negative consequences were experienced by the researcher throughout the process.
Lastly, all data has been stored in a secure, password-protected way. Only trusted software has been used to process and analyze it. The transcripts and personal communication with the interviewees—except for the abovementioned direct quotes—have not been shared with any third parties. The right for publication and distribution has been provided only to the University of Amsterdam. For personal archival purposes, the data will remain stored on an encrypted external drive and will not be distributed.
14
IV. MAIN ANALYSIS
1. Case study: Fridays For Future
1.1 Background
The day that Greta Thunberg decided not to attend school and instead start a protest in front of the Swedish parliament can be marked as the beginning of the Fridays For Future movement. Although Thunberg first learned about climate change when she was around eight years old, it was not until 2018 when she started thinking about activism (Thunberg 2019: 10). As Thunberg shared during her speech in February 2019, she was “one of the winners in a writing competition about the environment held by Svenska Dagbladet, a Swedish newspaper” (idem: 30). After her article was published in May 2018, she was contacted by people with a similar interest in climate change. Together with other youths, Thunberg started to work on “new projects that would bring attention to the climate crisis” (ibid.). It was also when the idea of school strikes was first introduced. According to the young activist, it was inspired by students in Parkland, Florida, who refused to attend school and organized a march in response to a tragic school shooting in February 2018 (ibid.; Grinberg and Muaddi 2018). The march led to further mobilization efforts among students in the United States and other countries around the world, resulting in an organization of The March for Our Lives, a sizeable student-led demonstration in March 2018 (Grinberg and Muaddi 2018). However, in the case of Thunberg, the strikes were not as successful at first. Even though she tried to develop the idea of organizing a school strike, other young people were not interested in participating (Thunberg 2019: 30). This, in turn, influenced her decision to proceed with realizing the idea independently (idem: 30–31).
Even though Thunberg did not initially receive any support, not even from her parents, she still recognized the importance of getting wider recognition (idem: 31). “The first thing I did was to post on Twitter and Instagram what I was doing and it soon went viral,” young activist shares (ibid.). The use of social media played a crucial role in drawing media attention to her actions from the very beginning. Soon after her first protest, she started incorporating hashtags associated with her activities on a regular basis: first #klimatstrejk and later adding
#climatestrike and #FridaysForFuture. The last hashtag, in particular, was introduced in relation
to Thunberg’s decision to continue striking every Friday as long as the government does not comply with the targets put forward by the Paris Agreement. Her resolution provided a ground
15
for establishing a social movement with the same name.2 Soon enough, both the protest and
the movement—supported by Thunberg’s strong presence on social media—gained national and international media attention. Other students also began to organize similar actions in their own countries. By December 2018—only three months apart from the original solitary protest in Stockholm—more than 20,000 students joined the strikes organized around the world (Carrington 2018).
In less than two years, the FFF movement has expanded to all continents. At this moment, its website presents a list of chapters active in 97 countries, excluding regional divisions and chapters that are not yet reported or added (FFF 2020b; see Appendix B). Moreover, FFF continuously updates the statistics on the strikes organized around the world (FFF 2020a). The numbers are impressive as they have been steadily increasing every Friday, with small fluctuations. For example, on Friday, November 30th, 2018, only 294 events in 17 countries were
reported. In contrast, on Friday, November 29th, 2019, this number increased to 3,856 events
reported in 156 countries around the world (ibid.; see figure 1). To date, FFF coordinated four Global Climate Strikes on a large, international scale on March 15th, May 24th, September
20th–27th, and November 29th, 2019.
Figure 1. Strike statistics reported by FFF (FFF 2020a).
The FFF movement tries to compel governments to take political action and address climate change (Fisher 2019: 430). Its collective claims are stated in the so-called Lausanne
Climate Declaration. This joint statement is a result of a series of meetings between 400 FFF
members from 38 countries during an international summit in Lausanne, Switzerland, in August 2019. According to the document, the movement’s goals is to “overcome the climate crisis and to create a society that lives in harmony with its fellow beings and its environment” (FFF 2019: 4). In order to achieve that, FFF demands the following:
1. Keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 °C compared to pre-industrial levels. 2. Ensure climate justice and equity.
3. Listen to the best united science currently available. (idem: 3)
2 Now also known as the Fridays4Future, School strike for climate, Youth For Climate, Climate Strike, Youth Strike for Climate, etc.
16
Moreover, the movement declares its support for plurality and freedom of the local and national branches (idem: 4). These branches are “autonomous and self-managed,” yet encouraged to follow the values and common goal put forward by the Declaration (ibid.). FFF further emphasizes its independence from “any political or business based influence” and endorses transparency (ibid.).
Building on a broad method “to reach out to everyone through education and other kinds of ways,” the movement incorporates a repertoire for action (idem: 5). National and local groups are encouraged to develop the most appropriate tactics for achieving the shared goals, as long as they align with the movement’s general values (ibid.). FFF also strives for displaying unity by creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for anyone willing to participate (ibid.). Finally, it supports building non-hierarchical internal structures and decentralized decision-making (ibid.).
Through a repertoire of such actions as “sit-ins, walkouts, strikes, and die-ins,” the social movement organization resembles its predecessors (Fisher 2019: 430). It also builds upon a broader tradition of climate movements and the momentum of coordinated climate activism since “the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was drafted at the so-called Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992” (ibid.). However, FFF can be described as a phenomenon as it provides several novelties. First of all, there is a significant involvement of school students, not only participating but also actively organizing demonstrations and mobilizing others (De Moor et al. 2020: 7). Here, school students are defined as “people under the age of 20 with an ongoing education not higher than upper secondary” (Wahlström et al. 2019: 9–10). FFF also successfully employs the frames of “school strikes” as a tactic to motivate students in pressuring politicians, governments, and companies. According to Wahlström et al. (2019: 6), FFF constitutes a truly unique social movement organization, marking “a historical turn in climate activism” because no other social movement has managed to mobilize such a high number of young people to demand climate action.
1.2 Strikers’ profile
As the movement is relatively new, only a handful of research and academic literature explicitly focusing on FFF is available. For example, Wahlström et al. (2019) surveyed 1,905 participants of the FFF’s Global Climate Strike organized on March 15th, 2019. The researchers focused
on nine European countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, England, Austria, and Poland. Similarly, De Moor et al. (2020) analyzed 3,154 responses provided during the strikes taking place between September 20th and 27th, 2019
17
Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Norway, the United States, Mexico, and Australia. Both reports by no means aim to represent the movement as a whole, but they still provide interesting insights into demographics and motivations of individual protesters, as well as their mobilization patterns and sources of information.
The Global Climate Strike in March attracted 1.6 million people around the world, while the series of strikes (also known as the Global Week for Future) in September was estimated to gather around 6 million people, thus making it the largest climate protest coordinated on a global scale to date (Wahlström et al.: 6; De Moor et al. 2020: 6). Besides, the movement has been receiving substantial public attention through an extensive media coverage of the protests and general interest in Thunberg’s participation in “high-level national and international political meetings” (Wahlström et al.: 6).
In line with the movement’s framing of “school strikes,” the survey’s results demonstrated that the audience in the March strike consisted of mostly youths, with an average of 45% of people between 14 and 19 years old and the overall median of 21 years (idem: 9). Moreover, “the protests were strongly dominated by women—particularly among school students,” comprising of around 63% of all participants (ibid.). Most of the participants were also well-educated or came from a well-well-educated family, as 71.3% of school students had at least one parent with a finished university degree (idem: 10). Most adult respondents also completed or were in the process of completing their higher education, leading to as high as 85% and 91% in some cities (ibid.).
De Moor et al. (2020) present generally similar results, with a few slight differences. Although young people still constituted a substantial part of the protesters, the cohort of people aged between 14 and 19 decreased to an average of 31%, with the overall median of 28 years (idem: 11). Moreover, female strikers continued to be the most prevalent in the audience, as 59% of all respondents identified as women (idem: 12). Especially under the age of 19 years, women constituted around 71% (ibid.). There were also similarities in the level of education of participants, as a large portion of the respondents attending the strikes in September either obtained a university degree or had “at least one parent who had studied at university level” (idem: 14). Therefore, it can be concluded that the profile of FFF protesters—at least in the researched context—continues to be mostly female and well-educated, with a slightly higher average age, as more adults decided to join the strikes.
1.3 Mobilization networks
The mobilization patterns determined by Wahlström et al. (2019: 11) provide interesting insights. The survey results support the principle of homophily in social networks,
18
characterized by the tendency to establish and maintain homogenous personal circles (McPherson et al. 2001: 415). Homophily may appear in relation to sociodemographic, intrapersonal, and behavioral traits of an individual. However, it can also lead to limitations of “people’s social worlds in a way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions they experience” (ibid.). Wahlström et al. (2019: 11–12) argue that homophily is one of the reasons for the increased mobilization of youths, especially in the context of school strikes framed by FFF. The research shows that young strikers predominantly focused on mobilizing their similarly young peers, such as friends and schoolmates. In addition, an exceptional number of participants joined the demonstrations in March for the first time, with an average of around 38.1% in all country cases (idem: 11). Furthermore, the authors indicate that as many as 32.9% of school students were invited to the strike personally, and 72.4% also invited others (idem: 12). They conclude that FFF mobilizes a lot of young people because the recruitment processes take place “in the context of schools and shared classes” where young activists and their peers can interact with each other (idem: 13). This context, in turn, “creates a structural environment where social pressure is successfully employed” (ibid.).
De Moor et al. (2020: 16) indicate similar patterns. Interpersonal recruitment among youths was also particularly high, as 36.2% of respondents were asked to participate in the strike, and 67.8% also invited other people. In the case of youth, for 67%, the invitation came from a friend, and for 47%, from a schoolmate (idem: 17). Therefore, these two groups of close peers remain a vital source for mobilization.
Furthermore, both reports indicate the influence of Greta Thunberg’s figure as an essential factor in motivating young people (Wahlström et al. 2019: 14; De Moor et al. 2020: 23). The latter report even introduces the term “Greta effect” to describe the iconic role of the Swedish activist in raising awareness about climate change and the strikes organized by her movement (De Moor et al. 2020: 23). 44.9% of school students agreed that they were inspired by Thunberg to join the Global Strike in March, and around 40% admitted the same in September (Wahlström et al. 2019: 14; De Moor et al. 2020: 25). However, this influence is somewhat weaker among adults, as confirmed in both reports.
Finally, De Moor et al. (2020: 18) emphasize that interpersonal relationships are an important factor for motivation and collective action among individuals, but it is their communication networks that affect “how people learn about movements and protest events in the first place.” The results from the Global Climate Strike in March support this line of reasoning, as interpersonal contacts were an essential source of information (Wahlström et al. 2019: 13). 54.7% of school students learned about the protest through direct interactions
19
with their peers, such as friends and schoolmates (ibid.). Moreover, there is a rather firm reliance on digital platforms as at least 34.4% of young respondents learned about the protest through social media platforms, such as Instagram, Twitter, or Facebook, and less than 11% learned through other impersonal channels, such as newspapers, advertisement, television, or radio (ibid.). In comparison, 45% of adult respondents were influenced by direct social contacts, 31.6% by social media, and 23.4% by other impersonal channels (ibid.). On the other hand, in the case of the strikes in September, De Moor et al. (2020: 18) identify social media as “the most important information channel.” In comparison to the earlier research, the reliance on social media platforms increased to 44.7% among youths (maximum 25 years old) and 39.1% among adults (over 26 years old) (ibid.). Interpersonal interactions still constituted an essential source of information, as around 44% of youths and around 33% of adults learned about the strikes through direct social contacts (ibid.). In the case of impersonal channels, nearly 28% of adults “cited this type of source for learning about the event, whereas only 11% among youths did so” (ibid.). Therefore, it can be concluded that both direct interactions and social media are essential for the functioning of the movement. The movement itself also recognizes the importance of technology, which is addressed in the next section.
1.4 The use of digital tools
As already explained, the role of digital platforms for organizing and mobilizing within the movement is apparent. Already on the main page of the FFF’s website, the name of the SMO is stylized as #FridaysForFuture, implying its digital connotation as hashtags (#) are used predominantly in the digital environment (FFF 2020c; see figure 2). In the same section, it is stated that the movement began with Thunberg’s solitary protests and that “[s]he posted what she was doing on Instagram and Twitter” (ibid.). Finally, there are social media feeds integrated with the page showcasing the newest posts published by various FFF chapters. The caption above the overview is particularly interesting as it directly nudges the viewer to become a part of a larger faction (ibid.; see figure 3).
20
Figure 3. Social media feed integrated into the main page of FFF (FFF 2020c).
Figure 4. Interactive map of striking and actions (FFF 2020e).
Furthermore, the movement incorporates several interactive functions in order to demonstrate its activity in an amicable way. One can access an interactive map in order to search for planned strikes in different parts of the world (FFF 2020d) or to check the percent of FFF protesters in relation to their national population (FFF 2020e). Especially the first map is an abundant source of information about organized strikes and other associated events (see figure 4). One can immediately learn about the event’s exact location, date, time, type, and contact information of respective organizers. Such a feature informs and potentially encourage people to join the strikes in their neighborhoods. It also presents the immensity of the SMO by showcasing the number of actions planned at the same time—one of the social movement’s WUNC displays.
FFF is not limited to only physical events. It continuously organizes and promotes other forms of action, including online events and meetings. For example, at the beginning of the global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), the SMO started organizing
21
a series of weekly webinars called Talks For Future in which young activists talk to researchers, scientists, authors, activists, and other relevant figures (FFF 2020f). Moreover, there are numerous online training, discussion groups, talks, and working groups available for interested people through FFF’s digital tools (Action Network 2020). There are also possibilities to ask technical or organizing questions during weekly Zoom calls. Lastly, besides joining meetings, one can also download useful materials for organizing and training, sign multiple online petitions, as well as become a trainer, speaker, or signature-gatherer trained in using the digital tools (ibid.).
Finally, in its guide on starting individual actions, FFF focuses primarily on physical strikes, but it does incorporate the use of technology in several aspects of the organization (FFF 2020h). For example, already in the first step, amateur organizers are told to “start small” by striking alone or with a couple of friends. Under this point, they are also advised to register their strike through an online form. After creating the signs and preparing the speeches, young activists are encouraged to inform local media about the strike as well as share the information on social media, both personal and “friends with many followers” (ibid.). FFF stresses the importance of amplifying the message through different information channels and sharing one’s “achievements on social media by hashtagging #FridaysForFuture and #ClimateStrike” (ibid.). It also lists suggestions for alternatives to physical striking, such as “[s]triking indoors with a sign and hashtag on social media (like #FridaysForFuture; #Climatestrikeonline, #Digitalstrike)” (ibid.). Another way of contributing to the movement is by signing online petitions mentioned above and propagating them on social media.
Following the theoretical framework, FFF can be characterized as a social movement because it unites millions of people in the fight against climate change. With declared collective claims, members create networks on international, national, and local levels. They mobilize resources and use them to organize various campaigns, thematic events, and, most of all, recurring and sustained schools strikes. These protests can take different forms, indicating that the SMO employs various actions and performances to propagate its causes. Its repertoire includes demonstrations, sit-ins, die-ins, (online) petitions, and social media posts—to name a few examples. Moreover, FFF shows WUNC displays, as it strongly encourages all members to act accordingly with its values and principles. Worthiness is displayed through its primary framing of school strikes organized by youths. Displays of unity and numbers are backed by the numerous national and even more local chapters, all operating under the same name and banners. The crowds participating in the weekly and global climate strikes also support the movement’s enactments of numbers. Finally, commitment is embedded in the sole resolution
22
of protesting every single Friday until the shared goals are not achieved. Students consciously miss school weekly to make a statement and to prove that they are to be taken seriously.
FFF’s claims-making and resource mobilization are supported and facilitated digital platforms and their features—sharing options or hashtags, among others. They enhance campaigns and introduce new sets of actions. They also help the movement with maintaining their WUNC displays, as individuals from all over the world can contribute to the image of united school students by posting and sharing information about their actions. Finally, digital platforms constitute an important communication channel and a source of information on the movement’s activity for individual members. Therefore, the following section delves into the details of these practices and explores individual experiences with technology.
2. Digital platforms
As already argued, extensive use of social media and external media coverage have played a crucial role in the growth of the movement. The movement started in 2018 when Thunberg and other activists started protesting by sitting in front of the Swedish parliament. Many individuals around the world have acknowledged her actions. For example, Rose Guy (2020), one of the interviewees and member of FFF in Ireland, states that “very few people would’ve known about Greta’s original strikes if it wasn’t for technology.” Similarly, Nirere Sadrach (2020), coordinator and founding member of FFF Uganda, also admits that the movement in his country owes its beginning to digital platforms:
digital platforms helped us to exist because we wouldn’t have been known otherwise. We were green campaigners taking actions like planting trees, but we didn’t know what Greta was doing until she made it viral on social media.
Digital platforms have also helped to grasp the size of the movement globally without the need to be physically present at every strike. As Guy (2020) adds, “it would be very hard to gauge the actual extent of this movement cause it’s (...) hard to understand if you don’t actually see [it].”
The importance of digital technology is recognized by every interviewee that participated in the research. For example, Iqbal Badruddin (2020), founder and president of FFF Pakistan, shares that “the backbone of this movement is actually the media and the internet. Without it, the FFF movement would not be possible.” Technology also plays a role on smaller, national and local levels, where digital tools enable the movement to function. Kylen Glass (2020), member of Climate Strike Canada and FFF Calgary, admits that “most of us [members of Climate Strike Canada] haven’t met each other, so we depend on [digital tools] for the very essence
23
of our organization.” Similarly, Jonathan Dzebam (2020), founder of FFF Cameroon, shares that due to an unstable political situation in his region, all of the movement’s activity is now done online and “the online platform is really one of those engines that keep the movement or the group going.”
Digital tools also enable increasing the movement’s reach, as it “depends intrinsically on social media and getting reach there because people spend so much time on social media” (Glass 2020). When it comes to local outreach, Dominique Palmer (2020), one of the student activists in the UK, confirms that social media and other digital tools help to reach “a lot of people who weren’t necessarily involved in the climate movement before.” In addition, digital technology also helps to establish and facilitate connections with people from different FFF chapters and other external organizations. Sadrach (2020) admits that “digital platforms (…) have been providing us [FFF Uganda] with this platform and a digital reach to many people across the entire world.” Similar opportunities are also recognized by Lourdes Zair (2020), member of FFF Argentina and the International team, Leonarda Šmigmator (2020), coordinator of FFF Croatia, and Dzebam (2020). Both Zair (2020) and Dzebam (2020) admit that having a platform where members from different FFF groups can communicate, exchange opinions and help each other is of the essence for the functioning of the movement.
2.1 Opportunities
All of the interviewees use digital platforms in their work to a greater or lesser extent. Most of them also recognize its usefulness for the general functioning of their national and local chapters. During the interviews, numerous opportunities offered by digital platforms were emphasized. These were grouped into three recurring affordances of digital tools, namely, (1) internal organization and coordination, (2) promotion and mobilization, and (3) credibility.
2.1.1 Internal organization and coordination
Digital tools have made numerous aspects of social movement’s functioning much easier and more efficient to organize. Interviewees addressed several specific affordances, indicating that digital platforms allow them to facilitate internal and inter-group communication, organize new forms of campaigns and actions, and ensure the security of the group’s members.
For internal communication, different platforms are in use. Interviewees mentioned that their movements communicate and organize through platforms like WhatsApp (Sadrach 2020; Guy 2020; Badruddin 2020; Van Vlastuin 2020; Harty 2020; Shikongo 2020; Dzebam 2020), Telegram (Palmer 2020; Van Vlastuin 2020; Harty 2020; Ali Mehidi 2020; Zair 2020), Slack (Palmer 2020; Badruddin 2020; Glass 2020), Zoom (Palmer 2020; Badruddin 2020; Harty 2020;
