The internet does definitely change things. But I don't think it has really lessened these big movements. Occupy Wall Street, and the revolt in Egypt being the most obvious examples I can think of. In fact the Egypt case is often argued that it wouldn't have been as big as it was without the internet. I will agree that these might be hindered by the fact that back then you would bring more of the on the fence people to a physical movement, but people are going to act based off the intensity they feel for the subject. Such as in the above cancer example. I don't care enough about cancer to go into any physical activism about it, but I would still gladly press a like button over it. It might not be much, but it is better than the absolutely nothing I would have given before.
SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA should show that the internet is indeed a very powerful front, one that is dangerous enough to the state to need several concerted efforts to be silenced in one year alone. That said, the kind of activism that they fear is networking below the radar, organizing protests and spreading ideas. It is almost guaranteed that liking something on Facebook will change absolutely nothing because you could just as easily speak up and say "I support this" in reality and it would change just as much as liking it on Facebook would. It is does not qualify as activism to like a cause. By definition you must contribute to the movement itself and give the actual actors momentum to even be considered a supportive party. Putting your money where your mouth is, for example. In point of fact, the vast majority of the human race care more about their own individual lives than anyone who is being killed overseas, or being beaten down on the other side of town, or for people dying from an illness. They might agree with the idea of something changing in a situation, but they would rather think about whether they will ever find true love than contribute. The term slacktivism implies that anything is being done, but it is the same as doing nothing. A majority of people who would otherwise be doing nothing would probably sign a paper in support of something. Everyone likes signatures and petitions. But this does not change the fact that had the paper not been put in front of them, they would have given absolutely nothing for it. They did not search the petition out; they did not campaign for it. They had it placed in front of them and decided to sign it because, "Why not?" They like to think that their opinions alone mean something, because it absolves them of the responsibility of actually doing anything. Which explains a hell of a lot about voting, to be honest.
it's not always a bad thing. sometimes you'll reach a much larger audience by using a computer + the internet than you could've by going outside and holding up signs. and spreading awareness on the internet also has the added benefit to being easier to ignore stuff i don't care which beats having to walk around protestors or having to feign interest when they surround you :) and yes, i also agree with the point that Liking something on Facebook doesn't make a difference in most cases. the same goes for that whole change your profile picture to a cartoon character to raise awareness about pedophiles. or that stupid thing that girls did last year where they made weird status posts which supposedly to raise awareness about something (i don't even remember what it was for). i feel if you're trying to make a difference, you should make sure that what you're doing has some effect on what you're trying to change.
