Week 6: What is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism.

Every day, we spend hours online—scrolling through TikTok, sharing Instagram stories, commenting on posts, and joining trending conversations. But being online is more than simply consuming content. It also means becoming a digital citizen, someone who uses digital platforms responsibly, respectfully, and actively participates in online communities. Digital citizenship includes how we communicate, share information, protect others from harm, and contribute positively to society through digital spaces (Choi & Cristol, 2021). In short, our online actions reflect who we are as members of a digital society.

Social media has also changed how people engage with important issues through what scholars call hashtag publics. Hashtags such as #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #ClimateChange allow people around the world to connect, raise awareness, and organize discussions around social and political issues. These hashtags become digital gathering spaces where communities form around shared values and experiences. This shows how online platforms are no longer just spaces for entertainment—they are places for activism, public discussion, and collective action.

At the same time, digital citizenship is shaped by platformisation, where platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTubeinfluence what we see, what becomes viral, and how communities interact online. Algorithms, trending pages, and recommendation systems shape digital culture every day. Because of this, being a good digital citizen today means more than simply being active online—it means being critical, responsible, and aware of how digital platforms shape our choices and voices (Poell et al., 2019).

In the digital age, citizenship is no longer limited to the physical world. It now lives in our comments, shares, hashtags, and online communities. Every post, every interaction, and every digital voice contributes to the kind of online society we build.

References

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship for all: Empowering young people through digital participation. Educational Technology Research and Development.

Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1–13.

Week 6: What is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism.

In today’s digital world, being a citizen is no longer limited to offline participation. The concept of digital citizenship refers to how individuals use online platforms responsibly, ethically, and actively to engage with society. It includes activities such as sharing information, participating in discussions, and even engaging in political movements through social media.

One important idea linked to digital citizenship is hashtag publics, which describes how people gather online around shared topics using hashtags. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok allow users to participate in large-scale conversations simply by using a hashtag. These hashtag publics are powerful because they enable individuals to feel part of a collective voice, even if they are geographically distant.

A strong example of this is the #BlackLivesMatter movement, which gained global attention through social media. Hashtags helped spread awareness, organise protests, and encourage discussions about racial injustice. This shows how digital platforms can transform individual opinions into collective action. Research suggests that online communities play a significant role in shaping political engagement by encouraging participation and amplifying voices that might otherwise go unheard (Crawford et al., 2021).

Another key aspect of digital citizenship is political engagement and activism. Today, young people especially are more likely to express their political views online rather than through traditional methods like voting or attending physical events. Social media platforms provide accessible spaces for activism, allowing users to share petitions, create content, and mobilise support quickly. However, this also raises questions about “slacktivism,” where users engage only at a surface level, such as liking or sharing posts without taking further action.

At the same time, digital activism can have real-world impact. Studies show that online fandoms and communities can mobilise quickly for causes, raising funds or spreading awareness effectively (Johnson et al., 2024). This demonstrates that digital participation is not always superficial—it can lead to meaningful change when organised effectively.

However, digital citizenship also comes with responsibilities. The spread of misinformation, online harassment, and echo chambers are major concerns. Algorithms on social media platforms often reinforce existing beliefs, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. This can weaken constructive political discussion and increase polarisation (Li & Pang, 2024).

In my opinion, digital citizenship is about balance. While social media gives individuals the power to speak and act, it also requires critical thinking and ethical responsibility. Being a good digital citizen means not only participating but also ensuring that our actions contribute positively to online communities and society as a whole.

References

Crawford, G., Fenton, A., Chadwick, S., & Lawrence, S. (2021). ‘All Avatars Aren’t We’: Football and the experience of football-themed digital content during a global pandemic. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 57(4), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902211021529

Li, E. C., & Pang, K. (2024b). Fandom meets artificial intelligence: Rethinking participatory culture as human–community–machine interactions. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 27(4), 778–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494241236146

Hi, hello there, welcome. First of all, please don’t be taken aback by the title. Try reading it again.

It all started on a beautiful afternoon in March 10, 2026, when Heeseung, a member of the hit 7-member kpop group Enhypen, announces his departure from the group to pursue a solo career. It really happened out of the blue, and fans; or so we call them Engenes, are appalled, shocked, confused, and so it came the hashtag: #enhypenis7. It was a call for the fandom to come together and, well, try to convince the internet and the company behind Enhypen, HYBE, to bring Heeseung back to the group.

So what’s the correlation between Heeseung’s case and my actual topic: Digital Citizenship, Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism?

So it is a given that #enhypenis7 is a movement by kpop fans; Engenes, particularly, on X (formerly Twitter), and probably on Instagram. In other words, it's an act of protest, with the use of hashtags publics, by digital citizens, on a digital platform community.

As Ribble (2008) notes, Digital Citizenship refers to the norms of appropriate, responsible behavior online. It goes beyond just using technology—it includes digital rights, responsibilities, and the ability to engage thoughtfully in online communities. In today’s world, being a good digital citizen means understanding how your posts, shares, and hashtags contribute to (or harm) broader conversations. While Hashtag Publics (Rambukkana, 2015) describe the fluid, ad-hoc publics that form around specific hashtags. These are not traditional audiences but dynamic discursive networks where people assemble around shared issues, emotions, or identities. Hashtags enable visibility, collective action, and the blending of personal and political expression.

#enhypenis7 exemplifies hashtag publics in action. On X and Instagram, kpop netizens, not even those who are particularly fans of Enhypen, mobilized through coordinated trends, petitions, emotional storytelling, fan art, and calls for solidarity. What began as fandom grief quickly turned into a form of protest and collective advocacy. Couldry (2011) argues in Why Voice Matters that in a neoliberal context, having a voice—being able to speak and be heard—is a fundamental cultural and political value. Digital platforms can amplify voice but also risk undermining it through unequal structures and algorithmic control.

This is digital citizenship at work: fans exercising their voices as engaged participants in a platform-mediated community, using available tools to challenge corporate decisions (Couldry, 2011).

I will not argue that Heeseung’s case is anything comparable to actual social or political protests (like the #MeToo movement), but I feel like it’s an event that’s deeply relatable to me as a chronically online kpop fan. If you ask me, I feel as though these movements share the same spirit. As a digital citizen, joining these movements makes you feel part of something bigger, almost like practicing democracy in miniature. You learn to navigate algorithms, counter opposing voices, and build temporary alliances.

Yet, as Couldry has noted (and I’ve experienced), there are limits: hashtags can fade quickly, emotional burnout is real, and not all engagement leads to tangible change. So really, are we actually contributing responsibly… or just adding noise to a discursive network?

References:

Couldry, N. (2011). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Sage Publications.

Rambukkana, N. (Ed.). (2015). Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks. Peter Lang.

Ribble, M. (2008). Passport to digital citizenship. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(4), 14–17.

Hi everyone 👋 welcome back to my blog!

In this week’s reflection, I will be discussing digital citizenship and conflict, with a focus on social media governance. As social media platforms continue to grow, they have become important spaces for communication, discussion, and debate. However, these platforms also face increasing challenges related to misinformation, online conflict, and harmful content.

Digital citizenship refers to the responsible and ethical use of digital technologies. In online environments, this includes how users communicate with others, respond to conflict, and engage with information. A key aspect of digital citizenship is understanding that online behaviour has real-world consequences, especially when content spreads quickly across platforms (Choi, 2020).

Social media governance refers to the rules, policies, and systems that platforms use to manage user behaviour and content. Platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube use a combination of community guidelines, algorithmic systems, and human moderation to regulate content and reduce harm. However, these systems are not always consistent or transparent, which can lead to ongoing debates about fairness and accountability (Gillespie, 2020).

Online conflict can take many forms, including disagreements in comment sections, political debates, and harassment between users. Research shows that platform design and algorithmic recommendation systems can intensify conflict by promoting highly engaging or emotionally charged content (Jhaver et al., 2021).

From a digital citizenship perspective, users also play an important role in managing online conflict. Responsible participation includes respectful communication, fact-checking information before sharing, and avoiding harmful interactions. Users should also be aware that algorithms influence what content they see and interact with online.

However, social media governance raises ongoing debates about freedom of expression versus content moderation. While stricter moderation can reduce harmful content, it may also raise concerns about censorship and bias. This creates a complex challenge for platforms, governments, and users alike.

Overall, digital citizenship and social media governance are closely connected. Understanding how platforms manage conflict helps users become more responsible digital citizens and encourages healthier online environments.

Reference

Choi, M. (2020). Digital citizenship for democratic citizenship: A challenge for transformative learning. Adult Learning, 31(4), 141–148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306930360_A_Concept_Analysis_of_Digital_Citizenship_for_Democratic_Citizenship_Education_in_the_Internet_Age

Gillespie, T. (2020). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327186182_Custodians_of_the_internet_Platforms_content_moderation_and_the_hidden_decisions_that_shape_social_media

Week 6: What Is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement, and the Attention Economy

Say what you want about Donald Trump — his online presence fundamentally broke how political communication works.

Instead of polished speeches and scripted PR, he ran his social media like a chaotic group chat. Direct. Unfiltered. Reactive. Some call this "authenticity." Critics call it impulsive and unprofessional. The question no one wants to answer: should a world leader tweet like a drunk uncle at 3 AM?

What makes this especially interesting is how the same post can produce completely different interpretations. Some read it as confidence and directness, others as provocation. That split reaction isn’t accidental; it reflects how digital platforms reward content that generates engagement, whether positive or negative.

As Zhang, Lukito, Suk, and McGrady (2025) note, Trump strategically used both mainstream and alternative platforms such as X and Truth Social to drive media attention and bypass traditional gatekeepers. This highlights a key shift: platforms are no longer just spaces where politics is discussed; they actively shape how political visibility is produced.

In this sense, political communication becomes tied to the attention economy, where visibility, speed, and emotional reaction often matter more than depth or accuracy.

And then there's

#MAGA

What started as a campaign slogan became a digital identity marker, a hashtag for supporters to find each other and build community. In that sense? Brilliant branding.

But here's the controversial part: #MAGA did what #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo did; it built a public hashtag. It connected people. The difference? The political content.

But here’s the uncomfortable part: the same mechanics that build community can also intensify division.

As Törnberg and Törnberg (2024) argue, digital spaces can amplify polarization by creating echo chambers, where users are primarily exposed to similar viewpoints. These environments don’t just reflect existing beliefs; they can strengthen and radicalize them over time.

This is where digital citizenship becomes complicated.

It's not just about participating online, but about understanding how platforms shape what we see, how we react, and how communities form. Hashtag activism can raise awareness and connect people, but it can also reinforce boundaries between groups and limit meaningful dialogue.

So maybe the real issue isn’t whether hashtags are “good” or "bad."

It's that they are powerful tools operating in a system driven by attention.

and in that system, visibility often wins over nuance. 🌐

Reference

Törnberg, P., & Törnberg, A. (2024). Inside a White Power echo chamber: Why fringe digital spaces are polarizing politics. New Media & Society, *26*(8), 4511-4533. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14614448221122915

 Week 12: Crowd sourcing in times of crisis

🌪️📱 What if your next tweet could save a life?

Imagine scrolling through social media during a natural disaster and coming across a plea for help from someone trapped by floodwaters. With just a few taps, you could share vital information, connect emergency responders, and support relief efforts. In today's digital world, ordinary citizens are no longer just spectators during crises—they can become active contributors to disaster response through the power of crowdsourcing.

Imagine witnessing a flood, earthquake, or wildfire unfold in real time and being able to help simply by sharing information online. In today's connected world, social media has become more than just a platform for entertainment and communication—it has evolved into a powerful tool for crisis response. During emergencies, ordinary people can contribute updates, report affected areas, offer support, and spread critical information to those in need. This collective effort, known as crowdsourcing, demonstrates how digital citizens can work together to assist communities during times of crisis.

Crowdsourcing research is the practice of outsourcing data collection, problem-solving, or analysis to a large, diverse online public. It accelerates studies, provides access to broad demographics, and is highly effective for qualitative data and health research. However, it requires careful attention to data quality and participant compensation (Sood et al., 2020).

Our last blog will explore how social media crowdsourcing has transformed crisis communication, highlighting both its opportunities and challenges. By examining real-world examples and the role of digital citizens, we can better understand how collective online action can make a meaningful difference when disasters strike.

🤝 The Power of Collective Action

Research shows that crowdsourcing can significantly support disaster response by connecting communities, volunteers, and emergency responders through digital platforms. During the Haiti earthquake and Colorado wildfires, social media helped coordinate aid, share critical information, and improve communication. However, the effectiveness of crowdsourcing depends on proper verification, control, and responsible use of information.

One notable example was the 2010 Haiti earthquake, where volunteers from around the world participated in Mission 4636. Victims sent text messages requesting assistance, and volunteers translated, categorised, and forwarded these messages to emergency responders. This allowed help to reach affected individuals more efficiently despite limited local resources(Riccardi, 2018).

📲 Social Media as a Crisis Communication Tool

Social media platforms have transformed the way people receive and share information during emergencies. Unlike traditional media, communication on social media is often multi-directional, allowing users to simultaneously consume, create, and distribute content. This enables information to spread rapidly and facilitates immediate interaction between the public, emergency responders, and organisations.

Research by Noor et al. (2024) highlights that organisations increasingly rely on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook to disseminate emergency updates, manage public concerns, and communicate with affected communities in real time. The study describes social media as a double-edged sword: while it promotes transparency, timely information sharing, and public engagement, it also creates opportunities for misinformation to spread quickly, potentially increasing panic and confusion during crises.

During emergencies, digital citizens can contribute in various ways:

🚨 Report incidents and affected locations.

📍 Share evacuation routes and safety updates.

❤️ Offer emotional support and resources.

🔄 Amplify official emergency announcements.

🗺️ Contribute to collaborative mapping efforts.

These actions demonstrate how online communities can mobilise quickly to support those in need.

⚠️ Challenges of Crowdsourcing

Although crowdsourcing can greatly assist disaster response efforts, it is not without limitations. During emergencies, the rapid flow of information on social media can create challenges for both emergency responders and the public. According to Bhatti et al. (2020), issues related to information quality, coordination, and trust can reduce the effectiveness of crowdsourced initiatives if they are not managed properly.

Some of the major challenges include:

🔍 Difficulty verifying information – It can be challenging to distinguish accurate updates from rumours or false reports shared by users.

📢 Spread of misinformation – Inaccurate information may cause panic, confusion, or divert emergency resources away from those who need them most.

📱 Information overload – The massive amount of user-generated content during disasters can overwhelm authorities and make it harder to identify critical updates.

🤝 Lack of coordination – Without clear communication and collaboration between volunteers, organisations, and emergency agencies, crowdsourced efforts may become fragmented or duplicated.

⚠️ Trust and credibility issues – Emergency responders may hesitate to rely on information from unknown sources if its reliability cannot be confirmed.

💡 Need for responsible participation – Digital citizens have a responsibility to verify information before sharing it and to prioritise content from official and trusted sources.

These challenges highlight that while crowdsourcing has the potential to strengthen disaster response, its effectiveness depends on accurate information, proper coordination, and responsible digital citizenship. By thinking critically before posting and supporting credible sources, online communities can help ensure that crowdsourcing remains a valuable tool during times of crisis.

💭 Final Thoughts

Social media has transformed disaster response by enabling digital citizens to participate actively through crowdsourcing. By sharing information, supporting relief efforts, and amplifying important updates, online communities can help improve communication and recovery during crises. However, this collective power must be exercised responsibly, as accuracy, empathy, and critical thinking are essential to prevent the spread of misinformation. Ultimately, the impact of social media in times of disaster depends not only on the technology itself but also on how individuals choose to use it to support and protect others.

References

Sood, E., Wysocki, T., Alderfer, M. A., Aroian, K., Christofferson, J., Karpyn, A., Kazak, A. E., & Pierce, J. (2020). Topical Review: Crowdsourcing as a Novel Approach to Qualitative research. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 46(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsaa096

Riccardi, M. T. (2018). The power of crowdsourcing in disaster response operations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.001

Noor, N., Okhai, R., Jamal, T. B., Kapucu, N., Ge, Y. G., & Hasan, S. (2024). Social-media-based crisis communication: Assessing the engagement of local agencies in Twitter during Hurricane Irma. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(2), 100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100236

#JusticeForZara is the hottest activism and news in Malaysia in last year.

⚠️ Overview of the Situation

On 16 July 2025, a 13-year-old Malaysian Malay student, Zara Qairina Mahathir study at a boarding student in Papar, Sabah. She was experienced on bullying in school and was believed to have fallen from the third floor of her dormitory. Her body was unconscious found in a drain at 3:00a.m. The next day, she died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital due to severe brain injuries 💔.

Why it is Matter ❗

In past cases, Malaysia is very neglect on child abuse cases, Zara’s death captured a strong attention like few others. It exposes the failure of student safety in school 🏫.

🌐 The Community Feedback & Online Activism

The activism been organized with the slogan JusticeForZara on road street to protest in Malaysia. This rally is to demand for justice, express their feelings, and key message, such as:

🪧 “We Reject Bullying”

🪧 “Justice For Zara Qairina”

🪧 “Justice Is Not To Be Silenced”.

In online, the hashtag #️⃣JusticeForZara went viral. The community created video, photo, and music to relate the incident and participate this online activism. This hashtag has dominated in social media 📲with over 114000 posts within weeks of this incident.

The hashtag #️⃣JusticeForZara not just trending in Malaysia, it also spread across international like Thailand, Japan, Indonesia and other country. To protest, demand and express for Zara in their own countries.

🏛️⚖️Political Sides

This activism has also drawn some political leaders, including our Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, vowed a transparent and uncompromising probe, while the Minister of Education, Fadhlina Sidek, faced significant pressure and tell him to resign this profession. Moreover, other political party include PKR and Warisan, deliver impassioned speeches calling for truth, justice, and an end to violence against children. The political leaders in Sabah is largely focused on balancing public demand for justice with institutional stability.

✨ Conclusion

The #️⃣JusticeForZara movement came to the conclusion that Malaysian families can no longer choose to remain silent. Now, the country has already moved toward a zero-tolerance mentality for institutional negligence and bullying 🤝.

📚 Reference

Kumaran, R. (2025). Justice for Zara: Tragedy, outrage, and the movement shaking Sabah – MalaysiaScoop. https://malaysiascoop.com/2025/08/18/justice-for-zara-tragedy-outrage-and-the-movement-shaking-sabah/ 

Times, N. S. (2025). Netizens worldwide rally for justice for Zara Qairina. NST Online. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2025/08/1259767/netizens-worldwide-rally-justice-zara-qairina 

Mail, M. (2025). ‘Justice for Zara’ gains momentum in Labuan as thousands in black demand truth and end to bullying (VIDEO). Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/08/10/justice-for-zara-gains-momentum-in-labuan-as-thousands-in-black-demand-truth-and-end-to-bullying-video/187132 

Online, S. (2025). Shouts of “Justice for Zara” echo as crowds rally in KL, Ipoh. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/08/16/shouts-of-039justice-for-zara039-echo-as-crowds-rally-in-kl-ipoh 

✊🏾 The Power of #BlackLivesMatter: Digital Citizenship & Political Engagement 

Social media has transformed activism. With the rise of platformisation - where digital platforms shape how we communicate and engage (Chia et al., 2020) - political participation now happens online as much as in the streets. This shift has fueled digital citizenship, where people use online spaces to advocate for change (Theocharis et al., 2023).

But does online activism actually make a difference? Let’s take a look at one of the most influential movements of the digital age: #BlackLivesMatter.

How #BlackLivesMatter Took Over Social Media

The hashtag first appeared in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin. But it truly exploded in May 2020, with over 1.2 million tweets per day following the murder of George Floyd (Hatfield, 2023).

The movement became a rallying cry, especially for Gen Z and Millennials. While 64% of adults aged 18–29 support BLM, that number drops to 41% among those 65+ (Figure 1). This generational divide highlights the role of social media in shaping awareness and activism.

Figure 1 (Hatfield, 2023)

A large majority of U.S. social media users (77%) have encountered Black Lives Matter content, and 34% have posted or shared something about the topic (Figure 2). This shows that social media is not just a passive space - it is where conversations, debates, and mobilization happen.

Figure 2 (Hatfield, 2023)

Social Media: A Tool for Engagement or Just a Hashtag?

Between 2013 and 2023, about 72% of tweets using #BlackLivesMatter were supportive, while 17% were neutral and 11% were negative (Figure 3).

Figure 3 (Hatfield, 2023)

The hashtag was not just words - it sparked action (Rauschnabel et al., 2019). People used it to: ✔️ Share petitions ✍🏾 ✔️ Contact public officials 📢 ✔️ Amplify political news 📰 ✔️ Mobilize protests and donations 💰

Even political figures took notice. Former President Donald Trump often criticized the movement. In July 2020, he referred to a planned Black Lives Matter mural in New York City as a "symbol of hate" (Liptak & Holmes, 2020). His comments reflected ongoing political tensions over the movement’s goals and methods.

Does Digital Activism Create Real Change?

Many argue that online activism fuels real-world action (Maratea, 2013). The BLM movement led to: 🔥 Mass protests worldwide  📢 Policy discussions on police reform  💰 Millions in donations to racial justice organizations 

What do you think? 🤔 Is hashtag activism enough, or does real change require more? Drop your thoughts below! 👇🏾

#MDA20009#BlackLivesMatter #DigitalActivism #SocialJustice #GenZ #Millennials #RacialJustice #SocialMedia #Politics #BLM #OnlineActivism #Protest #2020Election #DigitalCitizenship

References

Chia, A., Keogh, B., Leorke, D., & Nicoll, B. (2020). Platformisation in game development. Internet Policy Review, 9(4), 1–28. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/205727/

Hatfield, J. (2023, July 12). 8 facts about Black Lives Matter. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/12/8-facts-about-black-lives-matter/

Liptak, K., & Holmes, K. (2020, July). Trump calls Black Lives Matter a “symbol of hate” as he digs in on race. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/01/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-confederate-race/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Maratea, R. J. (2013). The Politics of the Internet. Google Books. https://books.google.com.vn/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VZnQAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Many+argue+that%C2%A0online+activism+fuels+real-world+action&ots=3aHYtvEhVF&sig=nd1fOkgkkDMhIcjzCCdJ1R39dpE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rauschnabel, P. A., Sheldon, P., & Herzfeldt, E. (2019). What motivates users to hashtag on social media? Psychology & Marketing, 36(5), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21191