After an in-depth look at a community of Twitter users in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, exploring aspects of community-building and civic engagement in the city, it is clear that Twitter is a powerful tool that some civically engaged citizens in Hamilton have embraced and learned to use to their benefit, despite the fact that it clearly has its limitations. Both the cases of the Dialogue Partners fiasco and the Yes We Cannon movement demonstrate that a small group of engaged citizens can indeed have a big impact on city hall and create change. These same people have shown that Twitter can also help strengthen and foster community, both online and offline, ultimately building a better city in which to live. This change, however, is left in the hands of a group that is largely white and upper-middle class, with an agenda that does not necessarily align with that of the rest of the city's population. No data was collected to indicate that this is the case in Hamilton, but it is important that both the activists and the politicians remain cognizant of the fact that there is an online and offline gap in political participation, which is rooted in broader social inequalities
Some may be alarmed at the very thought that a privileged group of individuals on Twitter has such influence in the city, but other factors also account for their influence. Yes We Cannon was a successful movement because as co-organizer Justin Jones points out, "we just put better information in front of them." [1] Jones and team pointed out the benefits to the city as a whole, not just the privileged few on Twitter. They showed council that bike lanes are inclusive, allowing everyone access to safe and cost-effective transportation; people who cannot afford the high costs of a car, or who legally can't drive (adolescents and seniors) are all given access to a safe method of travel. They also highlighted several health benefits that protected bike lanes bring with them. The downtown casino, too, focused on community issues, citing the negative financial and social impacts for those living closest to the gambling facility, an area of Hamilton that is recognized as having a large contingent of low-income housing, higher crime rates, and joblessness. Even the Dialogue Partners fiasco arose out of frustration that the city was spending taxpayer money outside city limits rather than investing with local businesses and supporting local jobs. All of these issues gained support through Twitter and they all focused on the common good for the city—not on maintaining the privilege of the elites.
This group of well educated, high-income earning white Hamiltonians that make up most of Hamilton’s Twitter community may be privileged, but they are also engaged. They invest their time to become better educated on the topics being debated on Twitter and strive to make things better for everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status. Perhaps it is their privilege that affords them the time to invest in these debates, while other less fortunate citizens struggle to earn a living wage. The Twitter population studied may sit higher on the socioeconomic ladder, but they fight for a better city for everyone.
Researcher Jan van Djyk believes that there is some confusion about the digital divide, suggesting that the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is difficult to bridge, and that the divide is about "absolute inequalities" between those individuals on each side of the divide. The digital divide involves more than just access to a computer and the Internet; social, psychological and cultural factors also contribute to the divide. This research did not have a scope large enough to include all such facets, which may contribute to a better understanding of the digital divide within the city of Hamilton—and how to overcome it so that less privileged voices can also be heard.
One question that was not considered for the survey was how many years respondents have lived in the city. During my research, there was a lot of anecdotal discussion about Twitter's use in facilitating community for newcomers to the city. Several people, myself included, had stories about using Twitter to learn about events, politics, and people in the their new city. As a 10-year resident of Hamilton, I began using Twitter in 2009 to help learn about the city, and as a result became civically engaged in the current political issues that affect the people of Hamilton. More information on the respondents, such as how long they have lived in the city may help to better explain the motives behind how and why they use Twitter for civic engagement and community building.
Slacktivism, in the case studies presented, has proven to be an effective method of activism, but its effectiveness was not compared to other forms of online civic engagement and activism. Studying slacktivism against other such methods such as hacktivism, online petitions, etc., would provide a better analysis of its true usefulness for change via the Internet.
Asking respondents about their political behaviour on Twitter in regard to a particular movement, rather than the general questions they were given, would have provided a clearer picture of slacktivsm in terms of Hamilton activism. For example, asking "Do you ever retweet material related to political or social issues on Twitter?" on a movement-by-movement basis would have provided a more macro-level discussion of slacktivism compared with the chosen method of asking the question as an overarching theme.
While this paper addresses some of the key themes affecting political discourse and community in Hamilton, an in-depth understanding of the individuals involved would further substantiate the findings of this research.