Advocacy and Representation Claims in Social Media Campaigns

Social media has become a central arena for civic activism, yet relatively little attention has been paid to the specific claims activists make to justify their actions and legitimize their public role. This study distinguishes between two complementary forms of claim-making in digital activism: advocacy claims, which seek to persuade and mobilize support for a cause, and representation claims, through which activists position themselves as speaking or acting on behalf of others. Using the Justice for Roman Zadorov movement as a case study, the article examines how these claims are constructed through both textual and visual communication. The study employs a netnographic approach based on seven years of online observation (2015–2022), systematic content analysis of posts published in fifteen Facebook groups dedicated to the campaign, and ongoing interactions with group administrators and leading activists. The analysis focuses on recurring rhetorical and visual patterns used to construct legitimacy, mobilize participation, and challenge institutional narratives. The findings demonstrate that activists simultaneously advanced multiple advocacy claims, including support for Roman Zadorov, justice for Tair Rada and her family, and broader criticism of the Israeli criminal justice system. At the same time, representation claims emerged from a diverse range of actors, including family members, legal professionals, experts, acquaintances, and ordinary citizens, each claiming authority to speak on behalf of different individuals, communities, or principles of justice. By distinguishing analytically between advocacy and representation claims, the study contributes to scholarship on digital activism and social movement communication, offering a framework for understanding how activists construct legitimacy, authority, and collective identity through multimodal communication in social media campaigns.