Instead of functioning as an almighty tool to realize social equality and harmony, social media presents and reinforces the bare existing and entrenched social division. People who are raised in the same race and class are likely to share similar values, beliefs, tastes, and preferences. Admittedly, they tend to congregate together due to their similarities and the avoidance of the potential risk of communicating with people who is very different. Furthermore, attributing to the use of algorithms and models, social media companies tend to circulate information and posts within groups with the same mind. Therefore, when a teenager starts to navigate social life on the internet, he or she is influenced by their intrinsic ideas and beliefs, and these beliefs are, in return, consolidated by social media. And when teenagers perceive they are freely express their identities, perspectives, likes, and dislikes on the social network, they are indeed constrained and limited by social division. Just as Pierre Bourdieu (cited in Danah, 2014, p.169) points out that people’s education and class position shape their perceptions of taste, and distinctions of tastes are then utilized to reinforce class division in daily life.
Not surprisingly, social segregation permeates the whole social network as well as our real everyday life. Social media companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube barely embody the social division through circular posts that imply prejudice and debate between different social groups. In 2019’s summer, there was a heated debate about the cast of Disney movies. In July, Disney announced they cast Halle Bailey to play Ariel in their next live-action adaptation of little mermaid, which invoked numerous comments on Twitter. Some people blamed Disney’s overuse of political correctness by adapting stories with a specific intention.
The opponents argued that the story of little mermaid origins from Denmark, and they are so familiar and emotionally connected to the traditional version so that they cannot accept the cast of Ariel. Nevertheless, other people proposed the brand new adaptation embodies inclusiveness to minority groups, as most of the stories neglected people with African, Asian, Latino, and other disadvantaged descent. The comments and opinions produced by people with different partiality for one side overwhelmed the whole network. Within several hours, these comments circulated in different social domains and circles, which eventually made statements that include racism permeated the whole social media. There seemed to be a debate happening in the social network. However, if you give a closer look at the comment sections of the posts, you will find there are almost same-minded people agree with each other.
One reason is that though twitter is a so-called open social platform, people tactically flock together with people are similar to advocate their idea and strengthen surface validity. Another reason is that twitter and other platforms alike will select the target audience to feed posts and information might fit one’s values and taste by applying specific algorithms. (O’Neil, 2016). The core of expression, presenting, and justification of oneself is egoism to some degree. When trying to propose and legitimize their perspective, people are the protagonist who playing on the stage of a monodrama, where the spotlights only focus on a single person. Although some people struggle to show their tolerance to different ideas, they just conduct an action: hearing. They hear without listening, without empathy, and without understanding.
When the opinions given by people of the mainstream group overwhelm the whole social network, the voice from the minority group has vanished. There is a necessity to understand the devastation and problems that can be caused by a tone-deaf to the minority groups. Admittedly, outsiders and aliens, who come from a minority group but try to acculturate to the majority groups, always exist in society. However, if they hope to become a legitimate member of the majority group, they might suffer from plenties difficulties and challenges. Perhaps, if an Asian teenager wants to join the mainstream group in her high school, she needs to dress and behave like a stereotyped Asian, a model established and circulated by the mainstream group. Acculturation happens only after thoroughly communication and understanding. So the attempts to achieve Acculturation sometimes lead to a deeper inner alienation. Even adults might feel unsafe and anxious because of alienation, not mention teens. Therefore, when I went to the concert of One Ok Rock, a Japanese rock band, I was not surprised by their Asian fans' mantic behavior and screaming. Just as the lyric of one of their songs called Stand Out Fit says, " I am who I am, no matter what", which truly comforts and encourages teenagers and young adults of a minority group to insist their identity. A successful acculturation only happens when people truly understand each other's identity, values, and belief. Nevertheless, the invention and use of new technologies cannot contribute to the successful achievement of understanding, unless we try to make change happen in our everyday life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post!
ReplyDeleteI think you provide a very clear picture of what sometimes happens in social media in relation to societal ideologies held at large. It seems like at some point in our lives, we pick up or at times are forced to pick up certain “beliefs” that ultimately seem to influence many of the behaviors we have and things we do. For example, consciously or not, we create relationships with like-minded people, and just like in social media, we soon find ourselves being part of a feedback loop that instead of providing a space for a variety of voices, ideas, and people, as you point out, it reinforces division.
It is true that maybe social media cannot resolve the many problems that we have as a society, and that at times it amplifies ideas and voices that differ from ours. But maybe that is precisely its function: to provide a space where we contest critically different opinions.
Maybe, it is because I am a rather optimistic person, but I think that what Boyd (2014) proposes is useful. Digital literacy and technical skills are two things that we all should know to be more critical participants and citizens of the digital world.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post! I agree with you and Isra that finding the like-minded people form a sort of feedback loop that is constantly positioning and repositioning the same ideals with out positive outcome. I believe that in these loops and spaces you are correct in that they tend to be with people who are of the same race, background, culture, etc.. This reminds me about what we talked about last week in that it is in those spaces that a person can be "attacked" when they go against the norms of the invisibly established group. Inevitably leaving one wary of wanting to "talk back" or put forth their other opinions on a topic.
Your title also reminds me about how people are so quick in how they judge and comment on something. In person, people might withhold judgement in a face to face conversation. Online, however, it seems as though people feel the need to just "respond" in some way ( like , dislike, retweet, etc.) without gaining perspective or viewing the whole picture. As in what O'Neil (2016) states about the anti-abortion group slamming Planned Parenthood in "ads" that said they were "selling baby parts for research" which was actually completely 100% false as explained that Planned Parenthood does not sell any fetal tissue of any kind. Why are people so eager to jump on the bandwagon of hate? It is so scary that social media has control over us this way. I believe that that people need to be more mature about how they conduct themselves online even if the information upsets them. They need to take a step back, think, ask questions, fact check, THEN possibly respond. Maybe if more people did this we would have less hate on the internet and be able to use it for more good as O'Neil suggests as well.
Gaby,
DeleteYour comment "This reminds me about what we talked about last week in that it is in those spaces that a person can be "attacked" when they go against the norms of the invisibly established group. Inevitably leaving one wary of wanting to "talk back" or put forth their other opinions on a topic." really had me thinking about the catch 22 that we seem to be in with social media. How do we disrupt established feedback loops? How can we allow for different perspectives if people don't feel comfortable to talk about them? I feel that way when I see debates on FB. I would love to engage and offer my perspective, but I am almost certain that the audience will attack me and my character and not debate the points in the post itself. The drawbacks to these algorithms and echo chambers is that if one posts a disagreement, some people seem less equipped to engage. It begs the question: is it worth entering these debates on social media? If so, how should one proceed?
This post reminds me of this video to which I was alluding last week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryjpu-NWYm8
ReplyDeleteI love showing my students this video concerning digital literacy and the consequences of not fact-checking. They may feel that what they are reposting is harmless, but in fact their post could help set off a/or be a part of an already established a wild fire of misinformation that is difficult to contain.
In thinking about our youth, I am wondering how Language Art curriculum across the country are handling digital literacy or if they even are. Boyd brings up a great point that just because teenagers are consumers and creators of social media, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are critical of this content. He brings up a great point in how students should grapple and question the media in front of them and do the work instead of just focusing on pre-filtered, already vetted for products. He brings up an example of a student who thought that just by using Google, she might have a better chance at finding reliable information. Boyd reminds us that Google does not "verify information or assess content's quality" (p.184). This example hits close to home because I remember my HS teachers speaking of Google with such reverence back in 2001. It appears that not much has changed.
I think you brought up a very good point about how social media can rather reinforce social division and assimilation of thoughts and beliefs among homogeneous groups rather than opening up spaces for interaction between diverse groups of people. Especially with the ease of unfollowing/blocking someone or absent-mindedly swiping through content on social media, people can easily shut down your gate on people who disagree with you and selectively engage in communication with like-minded people. Although I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with wanting to flock with people who share similar interests with you, the social media may give you the wrong impression that what you are engaging in is a cross-border communication and that you are 'listening to' the opinions of a variety of groups of people. In that sense, I agree with Boyd's suggestion that "educators have an important role in helping youth navigate networked publics and the information-rich environments that the internet supports" (p. 180).
ReplyDelete