By now you've probably heard of Invisible Children's campaign to #StopKony.
Indicted for war crimes in 2005, Joseph Kony is the supposed leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a group that has left death, despair and broken families across Central Africa for decades now.
Invisible Children released their video, Kony 2012, just over a week ago to significant initial intrigue.
Millions clicked the 'share' or 'like' button, retweeted, reposted and showed the video to their friends and families. Almost overnight, one of the International Criminal Court's most desired heads on a stake became a household name.
If you've been living on the moon and haven't seen the video, the basic premise is this: make Kony famous. If the man's atrocities permeate mainstream culture, our governments will be forced to take action and finally bring the man to justice.
But as Kony 2012 exploded, so did the criticisms.
Invisible Children's motives in selling $30 packages of flyers and bracelets were questioned. The breakdown of their finances, the validity of their strategy, even the blisteringly racist "white man's burden" view of Africa was lumped onto them in an effort to bemoan the campaign.
But it went beyond that as people took to Facebook and Twitter to set their sights on those supporting the venture, describing them as "slacktivists" and accusing them of having no knowledge of Kony before the month of March.
I feel inclined to ask - is all this really necessary?
Folks have been trying to feed Kony to the dogs for years now. They've all failed. I recommend reading the April 2010 article "Get Kony" in Vanity Fair, where one man, a cross between an evangelical preacher and former biker gangster, tried to hunt Kony down himself.
Naturally his violent approach met great criticism. But that said, apart from coming up short, nobody would dare call the man who crossed the ocean to build a militia on his own dime and take on the LRA a "slacktivist."
But wait a minute - what did the slackers accomplish anyhow? Checking the Youtube iteration of the video right now, I see almost 80 million hits.
When was the last time anybody watched anything 80 million times in a week?
Sure, Invisible Children might be an opportunistic group of yuppies who used a cute infant to warm everybody's hearts to an overly simplified and misunderstood war in the heart of Africa.
And yes, clicking a few buttons and donating $30 to the cause to vanquish your guilt at doing nothing might not amount to any sort of traditional activism.
But again, are we missing the point here?
The Internet makes countless things easier. Communicating, doing your taxes, publishing your book of poems on the misunderstood feelings of seaweed - there really aren't many goals a few trillion transistors can't take to task.
It may not be enough to the most pure of activists out there, but if a few clicks of the mouse and a nicely produced video can be enough to put one of the world's most terrifying fugitives in chains and slam him on the steps of the ICC, I'll offer a resounding "Heck, yes."
Imagine a group like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International with the power to summon 80 million views in a week before you completely dismiss this new wave of powerful slackers.
