The author is a sophomore in Georgia.

For nearly twenty years, the internet has been a central place for young adults to raise awareness about a wide range of issues, from discrimination to  environmental threats. This activism has often been beneficial and can fuel a societal shift in the thoughts or actions of people who view posts, comments, or online campaigns. However, the majority of activism content contains incorrect data, according to the BBC, which reported an estimated 70% rate of misinformation. Social media doesn’t just raise awareness; it has the ability to reshape what people believe, prioritize, and act on, for better or worse.

The term “slacktivism” was coined by Fred Clark and Dwight Ozard, and although it originally carried a positive connotation, modernly, it implies the action of sharing, liking, or posting about issues, rather than actually acting on them. This is especially common regarding environmental content, where online activism replaces genuine behavior change and policy engagement. One prominent example of this is the international water crisis. A popular topic on social media and in political debates, the water crisis is acknowledged by nearly two-thirds of the world, but actual conservation efforts have been limited. Slacktivism is one central problem with online activism, and it perpetuates issues rather than solving them by creating the illusion of action through awareness.

Another issue that has arisen in online environmental activism is the lack of transparency corporations display. Many companies use social media to appear more sustainable than they actually are, hiding their destructive behaviors behind minimal manufacturing regulations and vague goals. One major example of this is Coca-Cola, which is widely considered the world’s largest producer of plastic waste. The company released a statement in 2022 announcing its goal of transitioning a significant percentage of their packaging to reusable bottles by the year 2030, but renounced this ambition upon moving to recyclable bottles. The strategy of marketing sustainability and shifting responsibility onto consumers rather than taking meaningful action to manage their waste output is often seen within large corporations, a process known as “greenwashing.” This represents a form of corporate slacktivism; companies appear environmentally responsible online while hiding their true intentions. Enforcing real systemic change to reduce waste costs companies time and money, whereas marketing themselves as eco-friendly and leaving sustainability up to consumers is far more cost-effective.

One ironic aspect of online environmental activism is the pollution that is created through the posting process, an effect that the creators of these posts aim to prevent. The largest social media platforms require substantial data facilities to support their operation. Globally, data centers in 2025 deposited as much as 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide gas into Earth’s atmosphere. Oftentimes, these facilities boast their usage of renewable energy, when truly, the consumption of potable water and high energy costs are damaging to the environment, a telling example of corporate greenwashing. As social media is the most common and accessible way to protest, activism posts contribute to the troublesome effects of data facilities. This contradiction is yet another example of slacktivism, leaving commentators feeling accomplished, when realistically, the product of these posts is unquestionably harmful.

Arguably, the most problematic aspect of online activism is how virality can greatly affect the accuracy of information. When a perceived flaw is presented and demonized on social media, harsh criticism is guaranteed to quickly follow. As a result of this criticism, another problem can arise: presentation of inaccurate information gathered from unreliable sources. Commentators may also use exaggerated verbiage or visuals to create a greater emotional response. This becomes problematic because the internet allows millions of people to view these critiques and accept the information without questioning its accuracy. A common misconception that represents this is how wind turbines, a strong form of renewable energy, have been presented as detrimental to birds and wildlife on social media. While this is partially true, greater numbers are killed by natural predators, hunters, and even by the use of harmful fossil fuels that these wind farms aim to replace. Despite the clear evidence, it’s still widely believed to be a major problem resulting from wind farms. This situation is a prime example of how online activism can sometimes prioritize emotional reactions and virality over factual accuracy.

However, many argue that social media does more good than harm when raising awareness because it widely spreads information and gives a global platform to scientists, activists, and marginalized voices alike. Through platforms like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and X, environmental issues such as climate change, plastic pollution, and wildlife protection can reach anywhere from thousands to millions of people in a short amount of time. In the past, these conversations were almost exclusively found on news stations, but social media allows a larger demographic to engage with important environmental discussions. Because of this accessibility, supporters believe social media democratizes knowledge and can help inspire people to make fundamental, environmentally positive changes in their lifestyle.

The widespread sharing of information also allows non-experts to share information that may be incorrect or biased, significantly contributing to the high rate of misinformation. These influencers frequently only cover topical issues and restate popular opinions, forming what is known as a popularity bias, where people take on the ideas of the majority, believing that “popular” is equivalent to “better.” As a result, this may create a hostile environment for accurate information or new ideas to present themselves, limiting the growth of solutions for prominent issues. Such issues are perpetuated by what’s known as the algorithmic echo chambers, where people are recommended content that identifies with their beliefs, reinforcing ideals or information that may be incorrect. This discourages critical thinking, with the sole objective being repetitive engagement. When misinformation about environmental issues becomes popular, algorithms may continue to promote it because it generates a greater amount of views and discussions. Subsequently, misleading information spreads faster than carefully researched scientific explanations.

Social media has become one of the most powerful tools for spreading information in the modern world. While platforms may bring attention to significant issues and give many people a voice, it can also spread misinformation just as quickly. When inaccurate information is repeated and amplified online, it can shape public opinion in misleading ways. Ultimately, social media is not just a platform for awareness but a powerful force that influences what people believe, which issues they choose to prioritize, and how they respond to the world around them.

Trending Over Truth: The Illusion of Online Activism © 2026 by Youth Environmental Press Team is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/