Session 1, Week 1
Regarding articles with references to the role of social media, in terms of what motivated the recent tragedy and people's reactions to it, I found two I would like to discuss.
Gabrielle Giffords shooting: Social media's power, limits on display(by Bill Goodykoonstz)
Both articles point out the negative aspects of the 'role of Social media' and I tend to agree with these two articles' point. The shooting of Arizona Rep.Gabrielle Giffords and other people reflects many aspects of Social media, includes it's role.
First of all, I would like to point out the media's erroneous reporting, which said 'Giffords was killed.' Later then, they admitted their shameful mistake. I am not sure which one leads which, but it is certain that people deliver "news" - we can say here, 'posting', 're-posting' and 'tweeting' and 're-tweeting' - without checking the source's authority, and so this incorrect information spread out. Like Goddykoontz's writing, many people, including himself, followed the story on social media. This leads me to remember 'rhetoric of democratisation' in Beer and Burrows' 'Sociology and, of and in web 2.0: Some Initial Consideration'. Unlike traditional media, "people" take control of the contents of information, but are not able to control who might be their audience in social media. In this case, it seemed that it did not really matter to the posters if the "news" was true or false, the only thing that mattered was delivering 'hot' issues to their "friends" via social media. I liked the idea that blogs are defined as being like radio in 'Blogging as Social Activity, or Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?' Just as with radio, the blogger can 'broadcast' whatever they want to say, but without responsibility for their messages. This 'democratizaing' effects of social media runs into my next point.
Then, what about 'motivation' of this tragedy? Callari's article says, " radical rhetoric expressed on social networks can also cause hundreds or even thousands of followers to impulsively act out based on the belief that their actions are in alignment with a greater mission, condoned by political leaders." We saw Sarah Palin's infamous 'crosshairs' map posts all over the place - friends' facebook, blogs, and even major media. Obviously, we don't know what was the real trigger to make the shooter take action at this point. However, many social media users assigned political motive to this incident. It reminds me of Tenopir's article 'Online Databases - Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?', Keen warns about losing the accuracy that comes from reliance on experts.
I like the description of social media as "pushbutton publishing for the people". It is efficient, easy, and democratic in a way. While I was reading Boyd's 'Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship', I agreed that social network sites are unique because on not only they allow individuals to meet strangers, but also they enable user to make visible their social networks.
Although I don't agree 100 percent with Keen's "ignorance meets egoism meets bad taste meets mob rule", but deeply agree with his warning of traditional media's danger of being replaced by widespread social networking sites. Because still there is a good role of social media, which is rapid dispersion, and it's "democratization", ironically.
I often find myself posting articles on facebook not because I thought the article was accurate or well written but because I am curious about how my "friends" will dialogue with it. I can see how this can be dangerous. Of my total "friends" on facebook only about 10% ever comment back (the same 10% every time). It makes me wonder if the other 90% who are not just ignoring the post are reading the article but not looking into the information and fact checking.
ReplyDelete"Responsibility", yes, I think this is the key of spreading correct, accurate, and "true" news through SNSs. But weather this responsibility are rising from the users themselves, or should be regulated under some kind of supervision is a question? As a pessimist, I'm afraid the former situation seems just too ideal. But if news, or information is under strict supervision when spreading in the virtual world, will this world still be active as it is now? And what matters more, will privacy be violated?
ReplyDeleteI might be part of that 90% who reads my "friends" posts, but does not respond. I 'ignore' because the post is not interesting or I'm not sure how I should react.
ReplyDeleteWe can't expect all users(as delivers)to be responsible, and personally I oppose the idea that we have regulation or monitoring on SNSs. That's why it is important we should have more discretion as receivers.
I liked your point that we can't control our audience online. Even if we only post something to our friends, we have no idea what they are going to do with it (or their friends). The second article you linked is a great example... did those people on Facebook, Twitter, etc think that their comments might be captured as a screenshot, posted to a news article, and discussed in a graduate course blog? Doubtful - they likely took 5 seconds to type out their current thought and pushed a button.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is too ideal to expect everyone on SNSs to be responsible enough to fact-check their posts. In that case, readers do need to be wary. That isn't really a new thing though, because we have always had to do it with word-of-mouth news in the past. However, I think we have a right to expect news articles to be accurate and (as far as I know) they have only started getting sloppy lately, with the rise of lightning fast digital communication.
Social Network sites, especially those like Facebook or Twitter are often written in a casual manner, on the spur of the moment and without much deep thought or research- or at least the ones that I've read.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is my first exposure to blogging and it is interesting how some writers really are passionate about their topic and voicing their opinions and include links to articles for reference or further contemplation.
Your comments about a user's control of their postings brings in the question of the responsibility of information posted. Should a user be responsible for false information written on the internet? What if the information had some real-life implications? I'm not so sure that a user should be held liable, but I can very easily understand why someone would feel the other way. A simple example of this is tarnishing someones name by a message on Facebook. Should they be held responsible for spreading false information? Or even true information for that matter? But that is a different issue altogether.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading several blogs this week you were one of the many who commented on false information being posted online. While, we as graduate students, understand that you need to consult several sources and cannot "believe everything you read online" many people are quick to read one story as see as truth. With print media this was less likely to happen because print media usually has to go through some sort of review process to get published, also it takes time to print and time for more information to surface. I think people need to learn and understand how online media functions differently than print. Because online media is still new and as people find themselves reading news that they learn to be untrue several times, they will begin to understand how this new media envirnment works and how to treat it differently. I think most times those who publish the news incorrectly have good intentions - they are not trying to release false information, they just want to be the first ones to release the story.
ReplyDelete> I am a light user of Twitter. I don’t follow or allow someone to follow me other than my close friends (except for HawaiiNewsNow). I joined mostly because a few of my friends were using it and they asked me to join. I am not typically one to write about my daily happenings. My life just isn’t very exciting.
ReplyDeleteI believe most people's lives are not very “exciting”. It just some people choose to share their with online communities. I was never into any such activities, so it might no be fair for me to comment on this behavior, but I do agree with the point made in the Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism paper from last week. The author said “Celebrities don't need legions of MySpace friends to prove their importance. It's the rest of the population, seeking a form of parochial celebrity, that does.”