ABSTRACT. Employing recent research results covering the relationship between mass protests, social mobilization, and civic engagement, and building my argument by drawing on data collected from Pew Research Center, I performed analyses and made estimates regarding the percentage of social media users who say their political discussions are more or less respectful/likely to come to a resolution/civil/focused on policy debates/politically correct/informative/angry compared with other places people might discuss politics; the percentage of social media users in each group (lower/higher political engagement) who follow candidates for office or other political figures/usually respond when someone posts something about politics that they disagree with/have blocked or unfriended someone because of politics/have changed settings to receive fewer posts from someone because of politics; the percentage of social media users who have changed views about a political or social issue/a particular political candidate; and the percentage of U.S. adults who say they have taken part in a group that shares an interest in an issue or cause/encouraged others to take action on issues important to them/looked up information on local protest or rallies/ changed profile picture to show support for a cause/used hashtags related to a political or social issue. Social media sites help bring new voices into the political discussion and help people get involved with issues that matter to them. Empirical and secondary data are used to support the claim that information that is indispensable to the harmonization of protest operations is disseminated swiftly and adequately via social media channels that convey emotional and motivational content both backing and against campaign activity.

Keywords: digital media; political activism; mass protest; social mobilization

How to cite: Brennan, Glyn (2018). “How Digital Media Reshapes Political Activism: Mass Protests, Social Mobilization, and Civic Engagement,” Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 10(2): 76–81.

Received 22 March 2018 • Received in revised form 1 June 2018
Accepted 2 June 2018 • Available online 3 July 2018

doi:10.22381/GHIR102201810