Introduction

by Rory Clark

Social media, the major social networks and platforms as we know them today, were originally conceived with much more humble and basic functionality in mind. The word “social”, in social media, originally referred to socialization, not society. Originally, they were simply intended to digitize connection, communication, and community. They were not envisioned to facilitate the sway of elections, to incite policy change, to topple regimes, or even the planning and execution of a say a food drive, or say, foster discourse surrounding male entitlement, not even to facilitate a group of friends meeting up for coffee. That’s what poster boards in university hallways were for, a phone call or text message, maybe a mass email. It was not imagined the online world would spill into the offline world to such extreme extents, these were supposed to two relatively distinct realms of existence.

Seems quite naïve in retrospect, how did we not all realize that these worlds were destined to collide in such spectacular a way, to become so entangled? Well, a select few did, but how did the rest of us not heed these prophecies? Information, communication and media scholars like Henry Jenkins. Manuel Castells, and Ethan Zuckerman, the helmed by Mimi Itō with help from the likes of danah boyd, foresaw this convergence of the offline and online, of new and old media. But the rest of us, architects of the platforms seemingly included, either ignored or in most cases just weren’t aware of these premonitions.

Something to take into consideration, but perhaps not the one of the most pertinent issues at hand now. The social media revolution is now in full swing, how prepared we were for it is less important a topic of discussion than how we are currently navigating its disruptions.

*  *  *

What are some of these disruptions? The common trope now of blaming Millennials for has morphed from curious click-bait to comical sensationalism. Our first batch of student-scholars, Anna Hum, Frejya Wilson and Megan Harvey, explore how this generation’s online existence has been noted and condemned as being hyper narcissistic, being socially conscious and compassionate but perhaps only narcissistically and conditionally so, and for plaguing the online public sphere with trolling, shaming, ‘alternative facts’ or borderline conspiracy fodder type content.

It isn’t lost on Millennials that much of the popular discourse surrounding digitally networked youth culture and society seems to emanate from the outside looking in, relying on whatever recent mean world syndrome-esque study or line of thinking is in vogue, whatever ‘facts’ fit the narrative they are trying to push.

For example, perhaps you’ve heard that social media and smartphones are as addictive and harmful as heroin and cocaine (, ). That’s right, last year a flurry of articles from reputable (and less so) outlets were reporting that some health professionals and were comparing our devices and social media to illicit drugs that even a few milligrams worth of can kill a healthy adult in a matter of minutes.

This would make us a society of incredibly high functioning hard-core drug addicts if it were true. Considering the life decimating effects of traditional hard-core drug addiction, we seem to be handling it pretty well. The real story is that similar reward areas of the brain are activated when one, say, notices they’ve gotten a handful of likes, as well as when one consumes drugs. That is to say they both release some amount of dopamine.

Well, guess what? So does eating . Has there been a cheddar moral panic? Perhaps because everyone likes cheese; it’s not just some new-fangled innovation that ‘the kids’ have come up with? For the record, even exercise activates reward centres of the brain. Maybe that’s why Richard Simmons always seemed tweaked.

The point is, we need to be diligent and responsible in our dissemination and consumption of info concerning this new phenomenon and its disruptions. Social media and the emergence of mobile devices has led to those – with the means – to be connected literally 24/7/365 (even in the ! Even during … ?), and this is a huge paradigm shift, and there are going to be aspects of it that take time adjusting to. Some of these disruptions will be troublesome and genuine cause for concern, but more often these narratives may be akin to an old man yelling at a cloud.

Loading…

No people posts are available.

Rory Clark

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Issue 1: Kids these days and their Social Media appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Freyja Wilson

Advancements in technology have led to remarkable innovations in the ways we interact with information, commerce, and the people around us and around the world. However, a significant problem is that the online interactions we have concerning activism are often insincere and self-serving.

Clicktivism/slacktivism and social media activism often fail to mobilize for the right purpose. People often participate in online activism for the sake of following a trend and being a part of the popular movement at the time. Online activism is fad based, quickly coming and going, similar to the way people consume other online content. Social media is a hub for fast-paced content exchange, and people are quick to consume the most novel content, just as quickly discarding what is old and uninteresting.

Online narcissism and FOMO (fear of missing out) are frequently the main motivating factors for social media users to participate in online activism. Social media is an incredible tool, with the ability to reach and mobilize millions of people, but users are too often more focused on themselves. While digital media, and more specifically social media, has the potential to kick-start revolutions and to bring people with similar views or interests together, it is more often used for the superficial than political or prosocial.

I can attest, as a former avid user of social media myself, I, alongside many of my friends, participated in an online activism campaign for shallow purposes. There was no concern for the issues at hand, as it was just a low-effort opportunity to signal compassion and popularity.

Most will recall the ALS ice bucket challenge of 2014, a movement that went viral for its interactive and exciting method of spreading its message. Social media users (myself included) would pour a bucket of ice water on their head and nominate several of their friends to do the same.

(, ALS Association New York Chapter)

The original intent of the campaign was to increase awareness of ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) or Lou Gehrig’s disease, a disease that gradually paralyzes its victims as it kills off neurons that control voluntary muscle movement. The intent behind the ice bucket challenge was not to give people a reason to post content of themselves on their social media feeds (content sure to elicit interaction from their networks), but to allow people to temporarily experience what it’s like for a victim of ALS by shocking your body with cold water, to raise awareness, and to raise money for ALS research.

Social media users wanted to partake because it was funny, exciting and because it was trending. It was not so much genuine sympathy and concern that mobilized those who participated, but their interest in being included in a popular event. The most pertinent part of the movement was that members of the public gain awareness and hopefully raise money for the cause, however most people involved did not take the time to learn about the cause and certainly did not donate money.

What was really important to the participants was that they were popular enough to have been nominated for a video that they could then parlay that into further attention. Ultimately, the intended point of the movement was lost on so many social media users.

Social media is used to promote a culture of popularity. People use sites like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn to carefully construct their online persona. Much of the activist initiatives that are supported by social media users directly relate to the way that they have curated their profiles and link to their cultural and social capital.

Social networks are a means to simply communicate and connect people, and messages disseminated through social media can be decoded and interpreted in subjective and self-serving ways that will not necessarily result in change or significant action. Social media are ultimately a poor conduit for political and prosocial change

We are in the midst of challenging times, dishonest or outright corrupt politics, war, violence and oppression—these things require a response in the form of social and civic activism and there are sincere people looking to social media to start a revolution. To better mobilize online activism, we must appeal to users’ online presence as well as their beliefs, gratifications, and desires.

The ALS ice bucket challenge went viral by appealing to a desire for inclusion and attention. In order to replicate this virality, we need to tap into and appeal to the narcissistic nature of social media users, find a way that spreading the word and taking action rewards this narcissistic nature. Social media is a valuable tool for social mobilization, but is also just that, a tool. Like any tool, it needs to be used properly – effectively and strategically – in order to produce affect that actually mobiles the public.

Loading…

No people posts are available.

Freyja Wilson

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Social Media, Activism, and a Generation of Narcissists appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Megan Harvey

You’ve just made a Facebook account and are trying to add your friends. Except you can’t find one friend’s account when you search her name. The next day she tells you that she has a fake name on Facebook so that when she posts something online it isn’t connected back to her. This allows her to be anonymous and void of the responsibility inherent of having her online actions affect her offline self. She can post things online without worrying if some find it offensive as her false online identity protects her offline identify.

The Internet has evolved drastically, allowing us to interact through vast online social platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which often come with evolved forms of repercussions. By providing someone a space where they can hide behind a screen, they may feel more compelled to harass or offend, and assume a fake identity.

For example, in person Timmy might be shy and lonely, often cast out by his classmates, but when Timmy explores social media, he discovers that he can be whoever he wants. Timmy decides to use this to his advantage by tormenting his bullies online. This is known as the online disinhibition effect, and in this example, it can be seen how social media and the Web 2.0 the potential have to damage the public sphere through this anonymity.

In his article for the and a , Jon Ronson explores the idea of public shaming, a rampant issue on social media. He tells the story of Justine Sacco, the senior director of corporate communications at IAC, who at the time had a modest 170 Twitter followers. She would often post witty or sarcastic tweets, as people do, knowing that it was just for her own amusement and the few people who followed her. Then one day during the 2013 holiday season as she was boarding a flight to Africa to visit family she tweeted, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”.

Without knowing the context or intentions of the Tweet, it reads as objectively racist, and by the time Justine landed in Africa 11 hours later and turned her phone back on, she was the #1 worldwide Twitter trend. She had received death threats, rape threats, and had even been fired from her job, all because social media demanded it. What was maybe meant to be a critique on white privilege, turned into a Twitter spectacle, and Sacco was deemed by the social media mentality of judge, jury and executioner to be a racist. Twitter users were tearing her life apart, not knowing or caring whether the punishment fit the crime.

Ronson explains that social media has evolved into a public shaming sphere. People are more willing than ever before to ruin someone’s life, without even knowing them. It is examples such as these that push me to believe that social media damages public spheres.

I also feel as though there are many other ways that social media damages the public sphere. It can be used to distribute false information, like sensational tabloid media, which ends up with people confusing fact, fiction, opinion and conjecture.

The other day I watched a video on the production of the movie, and I found out later that none of the “facts” were actually true. I have become a lot more suspicious about the news going around and often find myself having a hard time believing news platforms. As a society, how will we stay educated and informed if we are constantly being fed false and misleading information, just so a media outlet can get pull in a larger audience or get more likes on social media.

Although there are many negative aspects of social media platforms, it is important to know that there are obvious benefits and opportunities for society. It allows us to instantaneously connect with people all around the world, and with that connection spread ideas and knowledge. Additionally, there are many people who don’t have access to broadcast television or radio news but can find this content often shared on social media platforms.

When used positively and responsibly, social media can band together and provide incredible amounts of support, activism, and awareness. It is important to always remember not to believe everything we read or see, but to be critical, ask questions and actively seek answers. With all of this in mind, I believe that overall social media is beneficial, but only when used positively. So, next time you’re scrolling through social media, remember that if used properly and responsibly, it can be used for progress.

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Social Media and the Public Sphere Vs. Misinformation and the Public Smear appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.

by Anna Hum

Obviously, something must have gone wrong to cause an entire generation to become as lazy and unmotivated, but oh so entitled, as we are.

Perhaps it was the amount of participation trophies we received when we were growing up, or maybe the root of all our waywardness is caused by our social media use. Whatever it was, somewhere along the line, our generation has collectively become a group of narcissistic jerks lacking any ounce of human empathy. At least, that’s what the news would have us believe.

According to a bevy of news outlets, our generation has become so painstakingly unbearable because of our collective embracement of digital technology. Instead of churning butter or twiddling our thumbs, we’re now spending too much of our time on our devices. This has single-handedly caused us to become excellent, but distracted, multi-taskers.

One consequence of growing up with these technologies, as described in this , is that we essentially no longer care about our studies. Why get an education when we now have the ability to spend all of our time talking to our friends on Facebook, right? As our entire lives evidently revolve around our social media feeds, there is obviously no time for schoolwork, thus leading to poor grades. This notion is echoed in other highlighting that this issue is pervasive — we’re now able to see the same effects in lower income families and other demographics, it’s not just a white, middle-class issue.

Now, I’m not going to argue against technology being a distraction: this argument has merit. However, I am curious to know why the framing of this issue constantly seems like an endless stream of condemnation for using social media to stay connected to our peers () while simultaneously forgetting that distractions, and procrastination in general, aren’t new phenomena.

If our method of procrastination isn’t texting our friends on our phones or scrolling through social media, it might be watching television. Not watching television? Maybe we suddenly have a very strong urge to clean our entire houses instead of doing our readings. Regardless of the activity, it’s pretty short-sighted to me that these critiques are going to correlate Millennials’ use of digital technologies as the main determinant of low test scores. If you’re going to discuss our poor grades, are you seriously not going to even include a more fulsome discussion on procrastination and distraction, or perhaps even suggest ways to improve study habits?

Plus, as a side note, shouldn’t we foster a positive environment that encourages us to build and maintain relationships, rather than blame us for taking advantage of technology that augments our experiences as the social creatures we are? As psychologists have noted, at this age, , amongst other things.

My question for preceding generations: haven’t your values and priorities evolved as you’ve aged? I imagine they have. Even for me, what I valued and prioritized in middle school isn’t necessarily the same to what I value now while in university. So why are all teens and young adults expected to have the same priorities and maturity as older adults?

Honestly, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s far too often that millennials are described as . We’re just a bunch of whining kids who expect greatness but get too distracted by digital technologies and our friends to do anything. Baby Boomers and Generation X have been quick to characterize and vastly overgeneralize the entirety of Generation Y by a set of simple definitions that aren’t completely valid, using evidence from few individuals to speak on behalf of the entire generation. Before you begin to diagnose millions of people with serious personality disorders, because they can’t get off their phones for a minute to read a book, I strongly urge you to actually think about what you are saying. When you’re discussing such a large population of people, the only thing that remains constant for every single millennial is that we were . The only true explanation you can give, or definition you can stamp on millennials, is that we’re still fairly young.

It is time the narrative about Millennials changes. The countless studies and commentaries using few voices to speak for many, are not generalizable. The vilification of Millennials by prior generations, just because we’re young and have different priorities, perhaps exacerbated by the exponential advancements in technology, needs to stop.

Seriously, give us the benefit of a doubt. We’re not all heartless monsters.

Loading…

No people posts are available.

Anna Hum

The post [Millennials’ Voices] Millennials Are Awful appeared first on ALiGN: Alternative Global Network Media Lab.