DIGITAL ACTIVISM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT IN THE POST-TRUTH ERA: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (2015–2025)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31947/aiccon2025.v1i1.47721Keywords:
digital activism, public support, post-truth, algorithmic governance, emotional narratives, disconnective action, platform affordancesAbstract
Digital activism has emerged as a prominent mode of political engagement in the post-truth era, where misinformation, emotionally charged discourse, and declining trust in institutions complicate democratic participation. This study examines how digital activism gain public support under such conditions by conducting a mixed-methods systematic review that combines bibliometric analysis with thematic synthesis. Drawing on 1,311 peer-reviewed articles published between 2015 and 2025, retrieved from the Scopus database, the analysis focuses on studies published in English that address both digital activism and public support. The data were examined through bibliometric visualization using VOSviewer and thematic coding to extract core qualitative insights. The findings reveal that digital activism is shaped by affective narratives, identity politics, and algorithmic governance. Emotional storytelling and credibility cues mediate how public support is cultivated, while the affordances of specific platforms influence modes of civic engagement. Notably, the concept of disconnective action has emerged, where activists intentionally withdraw from co-opted digital spaces as a form of resistance. Furthermore, the analysis highlights significant asymmetries between Global North and Global South contexts. While the former tends to emphasize issues of governance and ethics, the latter focuses on resilience and resistance within repressive regimes. These findings suggest that digital activism in the post-truth era is increasingly driven by emotional engagement and mediated by algorithmic infrastructures rather than factual consensus. This dynamic underscores the need for interdisciplinary approaches and globally inclusive perspectives to navigate the complexities of trust, visibility, and sustainability in digital political participation.
References
Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139198752
Boulianne, S. (2020). Twenty Years of Digital Media Effects on Civic and Political Participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
Chukunzira, A. (2025). Communication in the coronavirus crisis: A case study of communication practices of activists in Johannesburg in the COVID-19 pandemic. In Citizsh. Utopias in the Global South: The Emergent Forms of Activism in an Era of Disillusionment (pp. 53–67). Taylor and Francis; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003378891-5
Dean, J. (2019). Comrade: An essay on political belonging. Verso Books.
Fatima, I., Pehrson, S., & Jogdand, Y. (2025). Dalit Activists Promote Social Change Differently: Challenges and Opportunities of Digital Activism and Social Change in Indian Society. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 35(2). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.70079
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Just, S. N., Christensen, J. F., & Schwarzkopf, S. (2025). Disconnective action: Online activism against a corporate sponsorship at WorldPride 2021. New Media and Society, 27(1), 502–521. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231178775
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. New York: Data & Society Research Institute, 359, 1146–1151.
Milan, S. (2015). From social movements to cloud protesting: The evolution of collective identity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(8), 887–900.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. In Algorithms of oppression. New York university press.
Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.001.0001
Pariser. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin group.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Small-change-malcolm-gladwell. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28, 2025, from https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
Sunstein, Cass R. (2018). Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
Suwana, F. (2020). What motivates digital activism? The case of the Save KPK movement in Indonesia. Information, Communication & Society, 23(9), 1295–1310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1563205
Tsandzana, D. (2023). Cabo Delgado Também é Moçambique: The Paths of Youth Digital Activism in a Restrictive Context. In Communication Rights in Africa: Emerg. Discourses and Perspectives (pp. 91–109). Taylor and Francis; Scopus. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003388289-8
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
Van Raemdonck, N., Picone, I., & Pierson, J. (2025). Affordances-in-Practice: How Social Norm Dynamics in Climate Change Publics Are Shaped on Instagram and Twitter. Social Media and Society, 11(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051251319066
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Vol. 27). Council of Europe Strasbourg.
