#DELETEUBER: INSTAGRAMMERS TAKE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
In the wake of the New York Taxi Alliance’s protest against President Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim Ban’ in January 2017, Uber blundered when it announced that it would temporarily suspend surge pricing for trips to JFK Airport during the strike. While the brand claimed it was a case of bad timing, the internet wasn’t convinced.
In a wave of public consciousness, people called Uber out on what they deemed to be an insensitive and opportunistic move. The movement became a real-life meme, which saw users sharing screenshots of themselves deleting the app on Instagram and Twitter, accompanied with the hashtag #DeleteUber. But does activism that takes place online have any long-standing impact on behaviour?
As we spend more time online, more of our behaviours are being digitised – and activism is no exception. “With Facebook and Twitter and the like, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns,” writes Malcolm Gladwell for the New Yorker. The numerous tools at people’s fingertips mean activism no longer involves leaving the sofa.
But with social media users often accused of slacktivism – a notion that Evgeny Morozov, author of Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, says is “an apt term to describe feel-good online activism that has zero political or social impact” – how much good are the contributors to the hashtag movement achieving in the real world? People are used to seeing ads on their timeline for brands, but #DeleteUber disrupted their feeds, forcing scrollers to question their own opinions on the taxi firm. It’s possible that seeing such posts might resonate with them enough to prompt them to get in on the action.
So should other brands incorporate their political leanings and beliefs into their products and marketing to win over the public? Reebok’s ‘Nevertheless, She Persisted’ t-shirts in support of US Senator Elizabeth Warren quickly sold out online, suggesting that taking a stance doesn’t always have to be a bad thing. People may buy into politically-vocal brands as a way of expressing their own beliefs – a tendency psychologist Jocelyn Brewer describes as ‘virtue signalling’. “It’s a key part of letting people know what our values are,” she explains. “People get positive reinforcement and secondary gain.”
This isn’t the first time Uber has been subject to public scrutiny; the company previously came under fire over the status of its workers and their lack of rights. Its misstep in January, however, reached a wider audience due to the media coverage surrounding Trump’s order. The subsequent #DeleteUber movement required minimal effort from people to display their values to their peers and the wider online community, and the fact that it was it wasn’t endorsed or created by any corporation or political leader made it seem like an authentic public expression of outrage at the brand’s act.
Ultimately, #DeleteUber proved to be a successful online campaign because it closed the gap between intention and behaviour. “Slacktivism is seen in a negative light when there's not actually a behaviour that you can link into what you're doing online,” says Brewer. “A lot of people can like or share or comment online, but it doesn't necessarily translate into something that impacts your behaviour – not only in that moment or for that day or while that's trending, but into a longer term behaviour change." With a study conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and New York University finding that people who share political slogans online really do help protesters spread their message, and can even double the reach of a real world demonstration, perhaps slacktivism has more to offer campaigns than the meaningless clicks they're often associated with.