Yes, I'm a 'cyber activist', but I'm also an 'activist' because I do things offline, too.
I make this point, because to some there is a difference and they label you a 'keyboard warrior'.To me, there is no difference, actually, because both are equal.
Any activism is better than none at all.
There are some campaigners who make differences between the two, and label you all sorts because you don't, or can't, go to protests.
This is hurtful and divisive, because for many there simply isn't another option. They may find it difficult to get to protests, (that's me), suffer anxiety, (that's me, too). They could have difficulty communicating, or not feel comfortable putting themselves in the 'firing line'.
Whatever reason you have, for not attending protests, is valid. We should not feel that we need to justify ourselves to anyone else.
When I started campaigning twenty six years ago, there was no internet. I wrote letters, made phone calls and I talked to people. All of which I still do.
To me, 'cyber-activism' is an extension of that,- it makes it easier.
If you were going to be picky about it, you could argue that cyber activism is more effective, than marches and physical protests, because (particularly as there are often media blackouts), you can reach a bigger audience.
In short, don't label anyone 'just' anything, because often you have no idea, a) what they do offline, or b)how long they've been doing it, and it's very unfair to think you know, when you don't.
I think everyone plays their part, no matter how big or small it may be, and being judged by other campaigners (or people that don't know), as somehow less is damaging, and it belittles people's efforts.I think that's wrong.
We are individuals with different needs, different fears, and different lives, and we are doing the best we can, in difficult circumstances. That is the most important thing, isn't it?