Recognizing the role-played by mainstream social media (i.e. Instagram, Facebook, etc.) in climate activism, this article focuses on how FridaysForFuture (FFF) Rome’s activists navigate and negotiate with digital platforms, unveiling strategies and beliefs related to platform-sustainability. Through multimethod qualitative research, we account for online and offline activist practices across multiple media platforms and explore the criteria guiding them. Results reveal two fundamental conflicts that imbue FFF-Rome’s practices but are relevant to all actors of social change involved in climate activism: (1) the tension between addressing the climate crisis via digital tools, which contribute to environmental harm, and (2) advocating for systemic change rooted in anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism while utilizing platforms whose logic aligns with these models. We argue that FFF-Rome’s media ecology, encompassing both backstage and frontstage, and mainstream and alternative social media, manages these conflicts by embracing an ecological (Treré, 2019) understanding of digital technology’s environmental footprint.
AngueraMTPortellMChacón-MoscosoS, et al. (2018) Indirect observation in everyday contexts: concepts and methodological guidelines within a mixed methods framework. Frontiers in Psychology9: 13.
2.
BarbasÁTreréE (2022) The rise of a new media ecosystem: exploring 15M’s educommunicative legacy for radical democracy. Social Movement Studies22(3): 381–401.
3.
BarnesSB (2008) Understanding social media from the media ecological perspective. In: KonijnEAUtzSTanisM, et al. (eds) Mediated Interpersonal Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 14–33.
4.
BelottiFBussolettiA (2022) FridaysForFuture. Rappresentazioni sociali del cambiamento climatico e pratiche d’uso dei social media. Franco Angeli.
5.
BelottiFDonatoSMBussolettiA, et al. (2022) Youth activism for climate change on and beyond social media: insights from FridaysForFuture-Rome. The International Journal of Press/Politics27(3): 718–737.
6.
BoaseJ (2008) Personal networks and the personal communication system: using multiple media to connect. Information, Communication and Society11(4): 490–508.
7.
BoniniTTreréE (2024) Algorithms of Resistance: The Everyday Fight against Platform Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BoulianneSLalancetteMIlkiwD (2020) “School strike 4 climate”: social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Media and Communication8(2): 208–218.
9.
BraunVClarkeV (2022) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Sage.
10.
BrünkerFDeitelhoffFMirbabaieM (2019) Collective identity formation on Instagram—investigating the social movement Fridays For Future. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/ARXIV.1912.05123.
11.
BusherHFoxA (2019) Implementing Ethics in Educational Ethnography: Regulation and Practice. New York: Routledge.
12.
BussolettiABelottiF (2024) Climate crisis and social media activism in FridaysForFuture-Rome. Comunicazione Politica3: 385–408.
CouldryNMejiasUA (2019) Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media20(4): 336–349.
15.
De CarloN (ed.) (2002) Teorie & strumenti per lo psicologo del lavoro: Storia, evoluzione e prospettive del settore, selezione, intervista, colloquio, test, assessment center, codice deontologico. Milano: Franco Angeli.
16.
DewaltKDewaltB (2011) Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. 2nd ed.Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
17.
Fargas-MaletMMcSherryDLarkinE, et al. (2010) Research with children: methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research8(2): 175–192.
18.
FoustCRHoytKD (2018) Social movement 2.0: integrating and assessing scholarship on social media and movement. Review of Communication18(1): 37–55.
19.
FuchsC (2022) Digital Capitalism. New York: Routledge.
20.
FuchsCSandovalM (2015) The political economy of capitalist and alternative social media. In: AttonC (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Alternative and Community Media. London: Routledge, pp. 165–175.
21.
GehlRW (2015) The case for alternative social media. Social Media + Society1(2). DOI: 10.1177/2056305115604338.
22.
GerbaudoP (2017) From cyber-autonomism to cyber-populism: an ideological history of digital activism. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique15(2): 477–489.
23.
GuestGNameyEEMitchelML (2013) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
HymesDH (2003) Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor & Francis.
25.
IPCC (2023) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2023: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (core Writing Team LeeHRomeroJ (eds)), pp. 1–34. Geneva: IPCC. DOI: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001.
26.
JerolmackCKhanSR (eds) (2018) Approaches to Ethnography: Analysis and Representation in Participant Observation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
KuntsmanARattleI (2019) Towards a paradigmatic shift in sustainability studies: a systematic review of peer reviewed literature and future agenda setting to consider environmental (un)sustainability of digital communication. Environmental Communication13(5): 567–581.
28.
LiPYangJIslamMA, et al. (2023) Making AI less “thirsty”: uncovering and addressing the secret water footprint of AI models. arXiv. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.03271
29.
LiuJ (2021) Technology for activism: toward a relational framework. Computer Supported Cooperative Work30: 627–650.
30.
Lozano-DíazAFernández-PradosJS (2022) Young digital citizenship in #FridaysForFuture. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies44(5): 447–468.
31.
McIntoshMJMorseJM (2015) Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research2: 233339361559767.
32.
MadianouMMillerD (2012) Polymedia: towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies16(2): 169–187.
33.
MahoneyC (2022) Is this what a feminist looks like? Curating the feminist self in the neoliberal visual economy of Instagram. Feminist Media Studies22(3): 519–535.
34.
MalmodinJLövehagenNBergmarkP, et al. (2023) ICT sector electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions—2020 outcome. Telecommunications Policy48(3): 102701.
35.
MarksLU (2023) Collapse informatics and the environmental impact of information and communication technologies. In: AntonioLIvakhivARustSTolaMChangAYChuK (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecomedia Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 119–128.
36.
MattoniA (2017) A situated understanding of digital technologies in social movements. Media ecology and media practice approaches. Social Movement Studies16(4): 494–505.
37.
NairnKShowdenCRSligoJ, et al. (2020) Consent requires a relationship: rethinking group consent and its timing in ethnographic research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology23(6): 719–731.
38.
ParikkaJ (2015) A Geology of Media. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
PickardSBowmanBAryaD (2022) Youth and environmental activism. In: GrassoMGiugniM (eds) Routledge Handbook of Environmental Movements. London: Routledge, pp. 512–551.
40.
PinkSHorstHPostillJ, et al. (2016) Digital Ethnography. Principles and Practice. London: Sage.
41.
PlantinJCPunathambekarA (2019) Digital media infrastructures: pipes, platforms, and politics. Media, Culture & Society41(2): 163–174.
42.
PlantinJCLagozeCEdwardsPN, et al. (2018) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society20(1): 293–310.
43.
PollnerMEmersonRM (1983) The dynamics of inclusion and distance in fieldwork relations. In: EmersonRM (ed.) Contemporary Field Research. Boston, MA: Little Brown, pp. 235–252.
44.
Rivas-de-RocaR (2020) La configuración del fenómeno ecologista #FridaysForFuture como proceso de opinión pública digital en España. Dígitos. Revista de Comunicación Digital1(6): 79–100.
45.
RoneJ (2022) The politics of data infrastructures contestation: perspectives for future research. Journal of Environmental Media3(2): 207–214.
46.
ScharffC (2023) Feminist activists discuss practices of monetisation: digital feminist activism, neoliberalism and subjectivity. European Journal of Cultural Studies27(3): 408–423.
47.
SchillerD (1999) Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
48.
ScholzT (2014) Platform cooperativism vs. the sharing economy. Big data & Civic Engagement47: 47–52.
49.
ShapkaJDDomeneJFKhanS, et al. (2016) Online versus in-person interviews with adolescents: an exploration of data equivalence. Computers in Human Behavior58: 361–367.
ThorneS (1997) The art (and science) of critiquing qualitative research. In: MorseJM (ed.) Completing a Qualitative Project: Details and Dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 117–132.
52.
TreréE (2019) Hybrid Media Activism: Ecologies, Imaginaries, Algorithms. New York: Routledge.
53.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2024) Digital Economy Report 2024: Shaping an Environmentally Sustainable and Inclusive Digital Future (UNCTAD/DER/2024. United Nations’ Digital library. Available at: https://unctad.org/publication/digital-economy-report-2024
54.
Van DijckJPoellTDe WaalM (2018) The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford: Oxford university press.
55.
Van DoornN (2017) Platform labor: on the gendered and racialized exploitation of low-income service work in the “on-demand” economy. Information, Communication & Society20(6): 898–914.
