Another dose of alarmism is now in vogue: decrying activist posts, hashtags and other Internet activist campaigns. Labeling such participation as “slacktivism” or “clicktivism” and claiming they are not only ineffective but also detrimental to their causes ignores the Internet’s potential as a tool for social and political change. Skillfully executed Internet campaigns, spread by likes, shares and hashtags, are the Paul Reveres of today, sparking action as well as debate.

Examine last summer’s ALS Ice Bucket Challenge or the #supportgaza campaign. Both were online forms of activism criticized for shallowness, and, after a year, we can step back and evaluate both objectively. Whether you agree or disagree with either is irrelevant: The issue here is efficacy. Although the Ice Bucket Challenge may have promoted self-satisfaction and donating for attention, it still raised more than $220 million for the ALS Association. This summer, Johns Hopkins ALS researchers attributed a major breakthrough to the additional funding, explaining, “Without it, we wouldn’t have been able to come out with the studies as quickly as we did.” Although posting “I’m an American and I #supportgaza” may seem shallow, scroll down to the comments. Certainly, some of them are “I support too” or “You hate Israel,” but many are paragraphs of detailed arguments, to which others respond with nuanced rebuttals. When the war of public opinion is often fought on social media, a viral hashtag helps shift the balance in favor of a cause. Posting emboldens users with a sense of pride and ownership in the movement, strengthening their allegiance to it. And because traditional news outlets often document trending campaigns, spreading news through social media can become synonymous with making news. From this perspective, the #supportgaza campaign succeeded, arousing not only awareness but also legitimate debate.

The topics which garner politicians’ attention and action are, to some extent, a function of discussion on “Main Street.” Because online posts, hashtags and videos provide concrete evidence about which issues matter to people and which positions they take, Internet activism gives ordinary people an opportunity to influence the political process and create dialogue on an international level. For instance, all four presidential debates this year have included questions users posted on social media sites.

Criticizing Internet activism or efforts to simply inform is not the solution to low youth-voter turnout and low levels of volunteerism. The solution is to participate in such activism, refine it, add more depth and then take action outside the online realm. Raising awareness and taking action are both worthy goals in and of themselves, but together they are more powerful. Volunteering at a soup kitchen helps provide food for today, and publicizing ways to donate to a food bank helps provide food for tomorrow. The danger that lurks beneath online activism is the same as that beneath many forms of volunteerism: congratulatory self-satisfaction. In both cases, an instance of activism should not make us pleased with ourselves, but rather foster a desire to do more.

A year of the college application process, in which we realize that tens of thousands of Internet-savvy applicants have nearly perfect grades and SAT scores and have founded a service or political organization, should contribute to our optimism about activism’s future. If each year of college applicants has accomplished this much, America has significant raw talent and dedication that can improve the society of the future. For all its faults, the American college application process provides an important, and sometimes needed, perspective for high school seniors: What you have accomplished is not enough, and you can always do better. This attitude is crucial to making a lasting contribution to any cause.

If we denounce Internet activism, we surrender the Internet to be a realm of simple social exchanges, advertising and games, ignoring its vast potential as an architect of change. To be sure, crafting a successful Internet campaign is both a science and an art, and many campaigns, just like their letter-writing counterparts, will fail. It is clear that some Internet activism works remarkably well. Now, the question should be how to best create such campaigns. Instead of descending to the alarmism which seldom creates constructive change, we must channel both optimism and an unrelenting motivation to increase activism’s effectiveness.

Megan Angell is a Weinberg freshman. She can be reached at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected].

The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.