It all started innocently enough.

Your friend has joined a group “Canadians Against the Prorogation of Parliament.”

One-by-one my friends on Facebook were joining the group.

Soon enough an avalanche of media attention (the CBC National and the Toronto Star front page specifically) had contributed to over 60,000 Canadians signing up by this morning.

Yesterday saw another avalanche: of opinions on political blogs (and twitter) about the Star article, the CBC piece and “impact” of this Facebook group about the efficacy of online activism overall. This post is my attempt at bring at capturing some of the ideas and highlight a few interesting contributions to the debate surrounding “social media activism.”

The Opinions

In classic National Post style the editorial, titled “The Toronto Star and the Interweb” they mock.

Of course, the National Post isn’t alone in thinking the Canadians Against Prorogation of Parliament is just online hot air. Maclean’s columnist Andrew Coyne wrote:

“Certainly there’s no evidence the public is up in arms about it, notwithstanding the Star’s typically tendentious headline. Smug Tory types whose response to every principled objection is “nobody cares” are, unfortunately, right: the 35,000 plus who have subscribed to that facebook page are indicative of very little: most, I would bet, are opposition partisans. Were their situations reversed, they would be saying the same things the Tories are. I wish it were otherwise, but that is what politics has become in this country.”

And, as to be expected even Conservatives who understand online actions like blogger Stephen Taylor spent much of yesterday reminding people on his blog and Twitter that:

“…the anti-coalition Facebook group soared to over 125,000 in a week. To be fair, this week has been slow while last year’s coalition story was the busiest week we’ve had in Ottawa in years and there were many other non-Facebook stories to report!”

A side note; Aaron Wherry of Maclean’s cleverly replied;

“@stephen_taylor So if this one gets to 127,000 members will you accept its legitimacy?”

http://twitter.com/aaronwherry/status/7414083435

While I obviously don’t agree with all of the points these mainly Conservative voices raise. Similar notes of caution are being sounded by more moderate voices as well.

For instance, yesterday AM as the Twitter conversation heated up; Joe Boughner – well-known social media smartie in Ottawa -  was quick to get a blog post out explaining his views on situation that was unfolding.

“While the growth of this group in such a short time is impressive, I’m kind of left wondering what’s next. As my brilliant wife noted on Twitter, maybe the fact that the group itself is a story makes this a success. In the biz that’d be considered earned media, the ultimate goal of any outreach strategy.

But, as I’ve blogged before, how much traction does a protest have when it’s so easy to be part of it? Is joining the group the end of the action taken by those 25k? What percentage of them will actually take the next step and write to their MP or attend a rally?”

National columnist Paul Wells put forward his post “Money (or action?) where your mouth is” and referenced Joe’s post; he made the interesting point that if the hoard joining Facebook groups donated even a little money to the Liberals or New Democrats – say even half of them – this might be worth something.

Ryerson University professor and political pundit Greg Elmer suggests an entirely different approach and tactics, “a selective boycott”, as he explains:

“Much of the banter has debated the merits of joining groups as a form of political action or public opinion. I would suggest, however, that a much more meaningful protest (apart from collecting $ to fund events and campaigns against such acts and politicians) would be to “de-friend” or otherwise remove oneself en masse from existing pages on Facebook.

The must read post on this subject belongs to Jesse Hirsh, freelance CBC technology correspondent and long-time tech user and thinker.  He suggests:

“A crisis like this presents an opportunity to expand the democratic process and include more people in politics as a whole. However, it’s hard not to snicker at the fact that joining a Facebook group to show opposition to something has become the ultimate cliche. While such a group does raise awareness and cross over into mainstream media with front page headlines, I am not alone in wondering whether it actually accomplishes anything.”

The reason I like Jesse is that he gives actionable advice. In particular he talks about how the framing of the prorogation is playing into the perception of democracy in Canada and how comedy should be employed.

As Hirsh points out;

“The key is to avoid the media’s perpetual attempt to frame these political actions as protest, and instead transcend all boundaries until the power to set the agenda is achieved. At that point you are no longer protesting, but much closer to governing.”

Jesse is pleading with people to take the action off the social networking site Facebook and speak out not in protest or opposition – but from a place of knowledge and contribute to the debate. He writes:

“From all sorts of voices saying all sorts of things, that together unite into a single message, that we are the people, we will not go away, and we demand a government by the people for the people.”

Media fundamentals at play here:

1. Media is self-perpetuating: that is to say that with every story on the National; every front page of the Toronto Star the creators of the group will be exposed to more journalists – naturally making them sought out for interviews; the group will continue to grow
2. Media likes to measure things. Some think numbers and polls are notoriously misinterpreted and oddly reported. Get a few people in a room with a pile of polling data and watch how readings of the information come out. So it’s no wonder that there would be debate on what social media metrics mean to public policy/political reporting.
3. Media need to report. Nothing is going to make the Prime Minister recall Parliament; but in the mean time reporters on Parliament Hill need to report on something – and in the early stages of there being little Parlaimentary activty – it’s natural to look for opposition. They found it on Facebook. where will they find it next?

What does this mean for people who want to take Jesse’s advice? Well, the above fundamentals clearly signal a Parliamentary Press Gallery willing to give people an opportunity for people who oppose prorogation to create, collaborate and demonstrate why this undemocratic move by Harper should be remembered during the next election.

But, as Jesse points out: we do not need to do this from a position of protest in the traditional way. We can’t yell and scream Parliament back open, but we can reason and argue Harper out of his job.

My contribution

So, what is my contribution to all this going to be? I’m not entirely sure just yet but I’m going to engage in some open-source research on the role of online activism, Facebook and social networks. I don’t think we are anywhere near fully understanding how Facebook groups (and more broadly online activism) fit into the Canadian political context. I do believe that people need an entry to the political process. Four in every ten Canadians are non voters. So, if your sister asking you to join a group opposing prorogation leads a non-voter to vote, or the disengaged to re-engage – isn’t that worth something?

In the next few days I’m going to start this research project into the question of political activity on Facebook – I’m happily taking contributors, co-researchers and partner to help me look at the questions and reality of “Slacktivism vs. First Step to Action.”

So, what do you think? Please leave a comment – or if you have a contribution to make to the project let me know.