In PARTs 1 and 2 of my series on social media I
examined the entertainment value as well as the potential consequences of an
unchecked digital neural network that mirrors our own reality. In PART 3 I want
to evaluate social medias role as our external processing agent.
I have always been fascinated by statuses and
updates that appear to be nothing more than a person's thoughts put to a
digital byline. From updates on what we are eating to a random thought such as
"I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson" for some reason we feel that is a
valuable exercise to put our thoughts onto digital paper. Why?
To examine this phenomenon I think we have to
back up a bit and examine why we write anything down at all. The complex
transmission of ideas in language is something that is far beyond my reach and
is more of a subject for a philosophy student than a blog poster, but I figured
why the hell not take a crack at it.
Written communication is a relatively new thing
(as far as we know). Even going back thousands of years to the emergence of
cave paintings, hieroglyphs, and the proto-sinaitic alphabet we are still
dealing with very rudimentary (and theoretical) forms of communication. Trying
to convey an idea from one person to another varies in degrees of difficulty
based on the complexity of an idea. If I am trying to convey to you "I am
here" then I can simply point to myself and then point to the ground. You
may misinterpret what I am intended to convey; you may think that I am pointing
to my shirt, my chest, or my heart, but you understand that I have a signifier
(me who is trying to do the communicating) and a signified (that which I am
trying to convey to you). However, the more complex the idea gets the harder it
is to communicate.
If I tried to explain to you what I mean by the
word "art" we would do well to pour two glasses of scotch, sit down
by a fire, and prepare for a long conversation. Mental constructs that do not
have tangible points of reference require a great amount of information about
the signified from the signifier just to begin to convey what it is
someone is talking about. For many this will all seem to be basic information,
but I think that it is important at the outset to define what I mean by
"communication" before I attempt to figure out what we are trying
to communicate when we post our thoughts on social media and why.
If we assume that that brain works by firing
patterns in our neurons and synapses as we explored in PART 1 then it should be
safe to assume that whether the idea is simple like sharing a location or
complex like "art" a person seems to be attempting to get patterns to
repeat in the synapses of another person's brain. In short, we are trying to
get someone else to think like us. Otherwise, what would be the point of
communicating? We want each other to understand each other. The only way we can
do this is with empathy. If we simply observe what someone is saying with no
brain activity of our own then we are not interacting with that information and
therefore not communication. If we understand an idea that someone is telling
us then we are mimicking their brain pattern by caring about what they are
trying to communicate. In short, we are trying to get others to mirror our
own thoughts because we are trying to connect with them for good or ill.
This is where social media comes in. It
functions as a utilitarian connection tool. Instead of getting one person to
mirror our synapses we can throw our ideas out to tens, hundreds, thousands,
and even millions of people at a time. Why? In the hopes that they will mirror
our thoughts and empathize with us. Now, why do we need and/or want so many
people to mirror us?
At some level I think we have to admit to the
"look at me" factor. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if we
don't count the posting of news, PSAs, or entertainment (since we covered those
in PART 2) and only focus on what would normally be either internal or external
thoughts (depending on your personality type) then I think you have to ask
yourself: why do I feel the need to tell people this? I think, again, its for the validation. If I post what I
made for dinner, what I think of a politician, or a question I have about the
sky being blue and I get a lot of "likes" then I can feel legitimized
in my opinion because people have empathized with me. They have felt enjoyment,
puzzlement, or wonder the same way I have. I have succeeded in connecting with
them.
The "likes", hearts, +1s and all the
other designations of validation and approval are also interesting because they
seem to function as the great democratizer of content in the Network.
Traditionally (in the post-industrial west at least), popularity has been based
on how much money an idea or product could generate. Whether it be newspapers,
books, songs, elections, or even ideas themselves they were propagated based on
their ability to generate revenue. Outlandish products and ideas such as x-ray
vision spectacles or the idea that dinosaurs were human pets have been lost to obscurity
because they were irrelevant to people's lives and therefore people had no
reason to buy the glasses or the books espousing the theories. With the advent
of social media this changed for better or for worse.
No longer does a product or idea need to be
bought in order to be culturally relevant. Things can go viral these days based
on the number of interactions they generate. Social media companies know
this and have tailored their algorithms to post more prominently those things
that get more attention. Case in point: trending topics.
There are positive and negative repercussions
to the great democratization of information. In election years social media is
fantastic for pointing out what issues or politicians people are talking about
(let me for the sake of this particular conversation set aside the fact that
the digital space these politicians are occupying was bought by the corporate
interest). However, it also makes it possible for ridiculous and irrelevant
stories such as Justin Bieber's DUI arrest to become national news at the
expense of real news. The fact that I (your author) even know about that
story when I couldn't give two shits about Bieber is a testament to the power
of the great democratization.
Externalizing thoughts can be powerful because
social media can reach far many more people with an idea or a product for
free than a person could manage on their own, but it also allows for the
great dilution of content because the popular becomes the meaningful. Also,
with the advent of ads on the pages of "free" social media sites (for
you younger folks: this was not always the case) those who have the money can
pay for their content to be sponsored and prioritized. Whoever has the gold
makes the rules, even in a digital democracy.
At the end of the day I think we post our
ideas, work, products, and any other personal information because we want it
(or us) to get noticed. We (signifier) ball up big piles of information and
complex ideas (signified) and toss it out into the vast Network in the hopes
that folks will gravitate toward it, like it, and democratically make it
relevant (or trending or viral). The problem is that when you remove the
personal touch (or nonverbal communication signs) then some of the complexity
of certain ideas can be lost. Sure, "I had Grandma's Best Apple Pie and it
was the best" isn't going to lose a lot in translation, but "Abortion
is wrong! Outlaw it!" is definitely going to be misheard, misinterpreted,
and misappropriated. Instead of creating the potential for democratizing the
idea the POSTer of the latter will have guaranteed nothing but the coddling
affirmation of those whom agree with them and have instantly destroyed the
potential for dialogue before it has begun. Throw on top of that paid-for
algorithms and social media creates more clubs than conversations.
Is this process inherently good or bad? No, but
it—like everything—comes at a cost. The great democratization of external thoughts
comes with the price tag of the private. For those with the gold it is an easy
process: capitalize on the fame and no matter the value of your content it will
be shared, democratized, popularized, and made relevant. For the rest of us we
end up sharing far more of our private thoughts than we may otherwise be inclined
to do in the search for validation. POSTs do not exist in a void. Each one is a
point in a timeline of POSTs that is aimed at maximum exposure. If a person
POSTs once every six months their audience will not be inclined to pay
attention. Therefore, the avid Node will POST far more often in order to
develop a regular audience so that their content will be more likely to be
democratically raised in relevance and therefore their ideas more validated and
therefore they themselves more connected and empathized with.
We externalize on social media because we want to be heard and since
all the parks are being paved into parking lots it seems like our only avenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment