Activism on social media and hate campaigns: something is not working

Serena Doe is in trouble. Or rather, she is receiving in these hours on Instagram some very serious allegations from others influencers. Serena Fonte and Carlotta Vagnoli tell of being targeted by Doe, who would even hold the bench in a Telegram group of 70 members, sharing private conversations, green stories and in general photos and sensitive materials for defamatory purposes, to speak ill of his "enemies". If these allegations prove true (and we, as a basic attitude, tend to believe the victims, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt) as well as very serious they would be potentially punishable by law and would put under the microscope a whole system: that of influencer activists in general, with all its flaws, its shortcomings, its partialities and its errors of modus operandi and ways of being.

It would dismantle even in part the activity of Serena Doe, which has become famous talking about sharenting, the habit of parents to share the life of their children on social networks, to earn on it, to become professional vloggers. All right and just, were it not that Serena Doe - in the battle against her enemies - would have violated the same principles of Privacy and consensus that she uses as her main arguments. Of course, Fonte and Vagnoli are of age, but the differences stop there. While agreeing with her instances (and not always with her ways), one wonders - in good faith and hoping for a positive response - to what extent these instances are sincere and heartfelt and how much, in fact, over time they have turned into a means to fame and glory. If not, we will be happy to be denied. In the meantime, however, the doubts seem to us lawful and proportionate to the revelations and testimonies of the last hours.

The modalities of the hate train, unfortunately, apply to everyone

The main things to know are these. Whatever our opinion on the characters involved (among which has been added also Selvaggia Lucarelli, with who Serena Doe shares instances and ways) and on what they believe, it must be admitted that something does not work. On social media, many users rushed to defend the accused, talking about media pillory (in this case, social pillory) and hate campaigns and trans. If the social pillory hurts and is to be condemned in full when it is addressed to whom we like and to whom we follow with pleasure, why when it's aized against those who are disliked then it becomes okay? And yet, the modes are the same. A social pillory is generally violent, impulsive, overwhelming, often has no burning evidence, rather it is based on a feeling of anger and hatred secretly hatched, glad and joyful to have finally found reason to be vented. When this mechanism is not seized, we may happen to suffer from it, and perhaps the fault is also ours for feeding it, even if in another direction. So why not change ways and invite people to stop and think always, not only when we are in the eye of the storm? Why not leave aside the aggressive, polemical at all costs, ninja debunker ways? Because it doesn't pay enough, maybe. Because it does not make us famous, because it is not effective enough on social networks. And here we go to the second point.

Social network activism does not exist

The other issue that this case can help us to highlight is that of social media activism. We have written on several occasions about how this concept was to be rethought, if not to completely eradicate, about how it risked emptying and removing strength from real and important instances, because it puts the person, the personality, the brand in front of everything. What does it mean to do activism today? To inquire, to fight for the things you believe in? Lots of things. Being part of groups and associations, sending letters and e-mails to our representatives, collecting signatures and promote petitions, donating to realities we trust that move in the territory, being there with the body and with our presence and time. All this seems to us incredibly old and retro, and the fault is perhaps also of the social media activists, or at least some of them, who have settled on their aesthetically satisfactory infographics, who have blurred in a way perhaps irreparable the boundaries between journalism and writing a copy, between magazines and Instagram profiles, who use causes as a means to popularity and not as an end. As users, we can only be careful, wary of aggressive ways, and ask ourselves if these people really believe in what they preach to us or not, make ourselves activists personally and become aware of our power as followers.