Like it or not, we’ve all become tools in a system. Now, don’t worry I’m not going to get crazy conspiracy theory on you but rather take a critical look on how we are being used through social media to help political candidates win an election.
In this week’s reading, Shirky describes how politicians use social media to their advantage.
Shirky writes:
“The more promising way to think about social media is as long-term tools that can strengthen civil society and the public sphere. In contrast to the instrumental view of Internet freedom, this can be called the “environmental”view. According to this conception, positive changes in the life of a country, including pro-democratic regime change, follow, rather than precede, the development of a strong public sphere. This is not to say that popular movements will not successfully use these tools to discipline or even oust their governments, but rather that U.S. attempts to direct such uses are likely to do more harm than good. Considered in this light, Internet freedom is a long game, to be conceived of and supported not as a separate agenda but merely as an important input to the more fundamental political freedoms.” (Shirky, 2011)
By having a society that is allowed to speak it’s mind online, we open the doors to expressing what we find important and giving potentially, unintended feedback on events and what politicians are saying and doing.
Most in the general public consume political campaign messages ad nauseam as we get closer to an election cycle, but have they stopped to think campaign messages are geared a certain way? The answer is simple: Voters want someone they personally identify and connect with.
According to an article published by The Economistin 2012, the author explains a narrative for a political candidate “…is the emergent product of an informal consensus among journalists and commentators. If each journalist is disposed to tell the story a different way, no consensus will emerge and there will be no one dominant narrative.” Conversely, if they both look at the candidate through the same prism as they are trying to be portrayed, there is a dominant narrative.
During the 2012 United States presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and his campaign staff made sure they avoided the national press corps, who would follow him around wherever he went because they are trying to get some insight behind Romney. They did not want to play into the dominant narrative of Romney being stiff, unrelatable and having the propensity to give the wrong kind of soundbite. According to Loiaconi (2015), a well-crafted television advertisement can move public opinion, but not shift the narrative too much. In today’s world, we let a candidate’s narrative play out social media. Twitter is an effective social tool because of its brief 140-character messages, the public’s propensity to react to every soundbite and the power and influence of hashtags to spark discussions, debates and online communities, according to Shirky (2008).
Hamby (2013) illustrated that as the national press corps’ collective frustrations grew with each avoidance by Romney and his campaign staff, journalists turned to cynicism, thereby mocking the Romney campaign, producing their own hashtags and becoming a part of the narrative the national media was trying to portray about Romney. While countless journalists, including those who were on the campaign trail with Romney in 2012, admitted the might have went too far by essentially inserting themselves into the narrative, it marks a changing of the guard for how campaign narratives are constructed and managed. Loiaconi (2015) explains “[c]ampaign narratives are to some extent driven by the complicated relationship between journalists, their audiences, and the candidates they cover.”
As we look to the 2016 election cycle, every viable candidate and campaign staff are turning to social media to construct and bolster their dominant campaign narrative or narratives. To exemplify this, one only needs to look at presidential candidate Donald Trump. Billed as a political outsider and the vigor to “Make America Great Again”, Trump has been lauded by the left to become a viable candidate in the crowded Republican primary race. No matter what thinks about the legitimacy of his candidacy, campaign or tactics, he has used Twitter quite effectively to get his campaign narrative and platform out there for the world to see. Tobe Berkovitz, an advertising professor and former consultant in politics credits this to an oversimplification of political communication. Berkovitz explains “Trump tweets something and all of a sudden that’s the scroll bar on cable news for an hour…How pathetic is that? 140 characters and that’s your lead.” Twitter, by its nature, is geared towards producing soundbites in the soundbite culture we live in, as explained by Hamby (2013). It is also true because of the way people want to consume short blurbs of information online, rather than long paragraphs. Short blurbs of concise information are seen as valuable because they are informative and convenient.
Once a candidate’s projected narrative is out there, it is not up them how it is received or whether it takes hold as the dominant narrative. In this way, a candidate’s narrative is akin to a brand’s identity, where it is co-created by the company and the consumer because it is just as much a part of their lives than it is to the company. Nowadays, this is usually negated and mediated through consumer engagement with the brand on the website and on social media. In Trump’s case, this is where his campaign has fallen a bit short. Whether it was Trump’s Twitter fight with a Modern Family writer, Fox News Channel contributor Michelle Malkin or media mogul Arianna Huffington, the feuds and potshots, both directed at him and ones that he fires back, detracts from his campaign’s messages and trivializes his campaign narrative.
How important do you think dominant narratives are to the 2016 presidential candidates?
On a daily basis, people spend a large majority of their free time checking Facebook, posting on Twitter, or updating their blog. But it’s not just being used for sharing a funny photo or reviewing the latest film. Social media is being utilized more and more as a way to spread the knowledge of politics and social issues. The question is: Does it really matter what people are saying about these issues on their social media accounts?
According to Shirky (2011) “There are, broadly speaking, two arguments against the idea that social media will make a difference in national politics. The first is that the tools are themselves ineffective, and the second is that they produce as much harm to democratization as good, because repressive governments are becoming better at using these tools to suppress dissent” (p. 9).
Shirky discusses the idea of “slacktivism,” a term used to describe people attempt to create social change through low-key activities, such as following a page on Facebook. The idea of slacktivism implies that people want to do the bare minimum to support causes, and that actual change will never really be made through social media.
According to Shirky (2011) “The critique is correct but not central to the question of social media’s power; the fact that barely committed actors cannot click their way to a better world does not mean that committed actors cannot use social media effectively. Recent protest movements—including a movement against fundamentalist vigilantes in India in 2009, the beef protests in South Korea in 2008, and protests against education laws in Chile in 2006—have used social media not as a replacement for real-world action but as a way to coordinate it” (p. 9).
While just clicking a button isn’t going to do much to support a cause, it does help spread awareness. I know that I have personally come across a lot of social issues and political information just from being on Tumblr and Facebook. I’m not an active follower of the news, and I rely heavily on social media to get my information. I think that’s the first step. Bringing more awareness to something always helps build a cause.
A perfect example of this would be the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. The idea behind it was that you would make a video of yourself, dumping a bucket of ice on yourself, and then challenge others to do the same, posting the videos on social media. The point was to either donate a small amount of money and make the video, or skip doing the challenge and donating a larger sum of money.
I think slacktivism is a valid point when it comes to social media. It’s very simple to click a button and say you support a cause, without really doing anything to push that cause forward. However, I also believe that social media can do a lot of good. There are so many cases of social media creating awareness and actually making a difference in social and political cases. Are there any specific instances that stand out to you? What worked and what didn’t?
Revolutions such as the Arabic Spring place Social Media in the role of a revolution catalyzer. Clay Shirky (2011), who describes the internet especially as an open source, agrees with the positive effect of social media towards political revolutions. Moreover, he also argues that social media helps fosters revolutionary trends especially at those places, where revolutionary trends already exist. “The safest characterization of recent quantitative attempts to answer the question, Do digital tools enhance democracy? (such as those by Jacob Groshek and Philip Howard) is that these tools probably do not hurt in the short run and might help in the long run — and that they have the most dramatic effects in states where a public sphere already constrains the actions of the government. The potential of social media lies mainly in their support of civil society and the public sphere.” (Shirky, 2011, p.2)
Additionally, communication theorist Kevin Kelly (2010) describes that the internet can be seen as a technology that is an extension of the human brain. This underlines in the light of Shirky’s (2011) arguments the thought, that social media is mostly platform for revolutions. Therefore it can be useful, when there are already political opposing options existing.
“Social media tools are not a replacement for real-world action but a way to coordinate it”, concludes Shirky (2011, p.8) as well. Given that social media is a coordination platform for political movements leads to the comparison to early organization and coordination forms of media such as the press. However, those medias have also always been a powerful way for influencing others opinion and raising their awareness towards a topic (agendas). Thinking about how important propaganda in the past centuries was, we have to ask how and if social media is a new form of propaganda. It is very interesting that supporters of the ISIS published a manual on how to use twitter for propaganda. The manual named “Oh Media Correspondent, You Are The Mujahid and your tweets are your weapons” include an video on how to use tweets to spread with a step by step explanation. (Chastain, 2015)
On the one hand social media is supposed to weaken the borders of information. Additionally is supposed to enable people to avoid censorship in countries. On the other hand, this also makes sense: Similar to personal reviews to products online, tweets or posts are credible and an apparently an authentic direct information source. The question, which we have to ask if we will fight future wars with information, followers and therefore social media. Is this the propaganda of the future? What roles will the companies itself play? Since we personalized algorithms are used to show us contents, will people be able to get outside of a one sided information providing (echo chamber)?
Clay Shirky give a detailed summary on the beginnings of Twitter and about the founder Evan Williams who is described by Shirky as a “natural inventor of social tools” (p182). How he invented a short message that can be sent via your cellular device called a Twitter. “To use Twitter, you create an account for yourself, and you send a Twitter a message, via the Web, by instant message, or from your phone. A message on Twitter, called a tweet, is a short snippets of text, usually an update about what you are doing; sending a tweet is twittering.”(182)
According to an article published in The Blog, the question was asked could you really say something important in 140 characters? Is this really productive? Yes, Twitter can be and is used for a number of beneficial functions. Life of a follower: The many Benefits of Twitter, highlights key points that show the benefits. The first beneficial aspect of twittering is networking, it allows people to communicate with others in their field and also to advertise their personal interest or business with others. Twitter allows you to communicate with your followers about your business endeavors. It’s free advertising. Twitter is seen by over 20 million active users daily, great for business or personal growth. Twitter allows you to stay connected and up to date with what’s going on personally or professionally in their lives and lives of others. On a personal or fun level twitter allows many benefits also. Friends have reconnected and stay connected because of Twitter. It’s also an emotional outlet for some to complain about long lines at the supermarket or annoying coworkers. Celebrity stocking is one of the number one reasons people have a Twitter account. You feel a close relationship with the celebrities on Twitter because you’re reading thoughts, feelings about their day, their children and events are happening right now. Of course with any type of social media you have the advantages of networking, finding the new recipes or learning how to carve a pumpkin, it’s a massive social media outlet and it’s easy to use. And also the disadvantages are its busy, you’re limited to 140 characters, it’s to active for some, spam problems and also cyber bullying is very prominent especially in high school.
Can you really say something important or meaningful in 140 characters?
Shirky, Clay. (2010). Here Comes Everybody. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Kollman, Diane. Life of a Follower: The Many Benefits of Twitter. The Blog. Print
When we think of some of the biggest technology industries that are, crucially affecting our everyday lives, immediately what comes to mind is smartphones. Now almost everyone able to read this blog will possess their own smartphone, probably from one of the main manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung, LG or even Motorola. These are all top-tier companies we are all very familiar with and they make some of the top flagship phones that consumers demand. Now many of you reading this blog have them but something that is happening in the smartphone market is we are becoming aware of the real price of the phones we have. Just look at the newest iPhone 6S by Apple, it retails at a whopping $650, much more than the paltry $200 someone probably paid through their carrier on contract not long ago. With the realization of such high-prices a new wave of companies hailing from China are beginning to make a splash in the marketplace and one such company, OnePlus, is leading the charge.
The story of OnePlus is a very new one, as the company started up operations only in winter of 2013 they have already launched two successful products and as of today announced their third. What makes them so unique is how they mimic the similarities of Linus Torvalds and the creation of the Linux operating system. As Clay Shirky says it, “The number of people who are willing to start something is smaller, much smaller, than the number of people who are willing to contribute once someone else starts something” (p. 239, 2008). A collective group decided to launch their own smartphone company in the desire to make a simple, better phone at an affordable price, therefore created OnePlus.
What makes OnePlus unique in the same sense of what makes Linux a unique platform is in the way it relies on a much wider community to influence those that make the dedicated changes within the company. Once the company formed the few individuals who would put most the effort into creating a product, now that it has been created an influx of users began to go to the forums of OnePlus and contribute their thoughts and ideas into what would make a great smartphone. Taking regards of interest in mind they launched their first smartphone, the OnePlus One, in April of 2014 using an invite only system to help lessen costs that come with overproduction. Luckily, for OnePlus, their initial product took off as the media was raving about the product and consumers were flooding their website and social media accounts wanting the One Plus One that led to sales that far exceed their expectations.
With a recent announcement today of their new OnePlus X, the third product entry from the company many major manufacturers are taking notice on what is making this small Chinese startup so successful. The use of community engagement and the creation of the company from a like-minded group allow them to lead the charge in the new trend in smartphones. As consumers can see the full price of their smartphones they are wanting a similar product at a lesser price, this is where companies like OnePlus are making strides and we are sure to see many other companies follow suit in entering the American and global markets. Do you know of any other companies or products that operate like OnePlus and Linux? If so what are they doing that is similar or different?
Shirky (2008) described a story where two robbers stole, crashed it a half mile down the road and were subsequently arrested by the police. At the police station, both robbers are sticking to the same story, so when the police officer interviews them individually, he offers each robber a first-come, first-serve deal. The first robber to cooperate with police will get a significant reduced sentence or none at all, while the robber gets charged, but if both robbers stick to their stories, they will be held overnight and release because the police do not have an evidence of who committed the crime. Shirky (2008) detailed the simplified payoff matrix to the situation with the four possible outcomes as follows:
1. We each stick to our stories, they’ve got no evidence, and they keep us both overnight. 2. I stick to the bystander story and you turn me in. You get a reward, while I get charged. 3. I turn you in while you stick to the story. I get a reward, while you get charged. 4. We turn each the other in. We both get charged (p. 189).
This is an example of the Prisoner’s dilemma, a thought experiment first conceived by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950, where the prisoners may not make the most rational decision of both sticking to their stories and getting released the next morning because they cannot communicate with each other and coordinate their strategy.
The Prisoner’s dilemma is considered a social dilemma. According to Hittleman (2012) on the WordPress blog Tech for Social Change, “Social dilemmas occur when individuals put their interests ahead of group interests or make decisions that can be detrimental to the group as a whole.” Hittleman (2012) continued by saying “…Individuals often make choices that negatively affect group members because they do not see how everyone can benefit or they do not want to put in the effort of contribution.”
One place one would not typically associate with having any of them would be the doctor’s office. According to Johnson (2015), the doctor-patient relationship has mirrored the Prisoner’s dilemma in recent years. Johnson (2015) explains the following situation:
A patient seeking opioids for pain may have real pain or may be faking. If he has real pain, the rational choice for the doctor is to treat him. If he has fake pain, it is still in the doctor’s best interest to treat the patient. Otherwise, the patient will give him a low satisfaction score — resulting in loss of reputation and reduced income.
This leads to the doctor prescribing the antibiotics anyway, which is in this case are opioids, against their medical advice because they either know the patient will become so insistent on prescribing the antibiotics that they will go seek another medical opinion until they get the treatment they desire or the doctor does not want to argue with the patient any longer because they have other patients wanting to see them.
The quick solution to a social dilemma leads to bigger societal complications.
This especially comes into play today in the modern view of the health system in the United States. Previously, the patient’s symptoms were assessed and they were provided with the best available treatment, but in today’s marketplace, the health system is trying to cut costs from rigorous medical testing of treatments, while still trying to improve health (Johnson, 2015). The patients want antibiotics cheaper of what they think will be the treatment, but doctors want more thorough testing done to prove it is safe before antibiotics hit the market, which creates The Prisoner’s dilemma.
To compound this issue, the over prescribing of antibiotics is causing the evolution of “superbugs,” which include “E. coli, salmonella, MRSA, supergonorrhea” (Newsday Editorial Board, 2015). Superbugs are antibiotic-resistant because bacteria has to find ways to repel the proliferation of antibiotics, which creates stronger, more complex bacteria.
Shirky (2008) argues we can gear for and reduce social dilemmas, but we can never solve them completely. Social tools make it easier for society to prepare for the various social dilemmas created because it is easier to amplify the message for collective action. Much like Shirky’s (2008) discussion of the power of hashtags to inspire calls for collective action, the same can be done to curb our addiction to antibiotics.
Will the power and the amplification of social tools be enough to curb this trend of superbugs or will superbugs, which are increasingly growing in this technological age take hold?
The cost of sharing and coordinating has dropped substantially in the last decade, allowing unorganized groups to work together quickly and effectively through shared awareness. New social tools and methods of communication help ordinary people organize groups and events with little effort or planning. Shirky (2008) argues that the documentation of information is directly connected with the rate of group organizing. He explains that social tools (like blogs) allow people to produce permanent, public documentation by publishing information online at relatively no cost. Shirky elaborates on this point, explaining that to “speak online is to publish, and to publish online is to connect with others. With the arrival of globally accessible publishing, freedom of speech is now freedom of the press, and freedom of the press is freedom of assembly” (p. 171).
In addition to promoting social awareness, public documentation also creates new possibilities for action and change: “Whenever you improve a group’s ability to communicate internally, you change the things it is capable of” (Shirky, 2011, p. 171). As a result, groups can have both a positive and negative social effect. Shirky explains that the distinction between real and online life is becoming increasingly blurred, changing how we exchange information and interact with one another. The internet provides a space for people to meet other like-minded individuals and form groups without the need for social approval. On the other hand, this freedom also extends to criminal and terrorist groups, making it easier for them communicate and organize. Shirky explains that social tools only amplify our existing capabilities and the receptiveness of a social tool depends on its value in comparison to existing practices.
This week’s reading made me think of a current news story involving the cancellation of two public discussions scheduled to take place at the South-by-Southwest (SXSW) Interactive festival in March 2016, in Austin, Texas. According to the Washington Post, the SXSW festival is one of the largest technological conferences in the country. The cancellation of two panel discussions- one on gaming journalism integrity and the other on harassment in gaming- resulted from “numerous threats of on-site violence”. This occurred after the forums were linked to Gamergate, an online community known for harassing women (game developers, users, critics) involved in the gaming industry, using the hashtag Gamergate as a digital signature. Gamergate users have been accused of various acts of harassment including: posting misogynistic comments, publishing personal information (private phone numbers and addresses), as well as rape and death threats. The Washington Post describes the Gamergate controversy as “the undying culture war around diversity and inclusion in video games”. In a statement, SXSW event planners explained that to ensure the safety of attendees they felt they needed to cancel the discussions. The cancellation has created a lot of public backlash, especially because one of the forums was based on digital harassment.
One of the panel’s speakers, Caroline Sinders, gave copies of her communications with SXSW organizers to the Washington Post which highlight the neglect of the event organizers. Sinders claims that the Gamergate community is well-known for online harassment and that event planners ignored her request for security provisions prior to the event’s cancellation. She believes the events could have gone on as scheduled if planners acknowledged the social impact of digital harassment and the need for organizers to take these matters seriously. Rather than confront the very issues leading to the panel discussion, SXSW decided to avoid the conflict by cancelling the forums altogether.
I think this article illustrates how online groups can use social tools for destructive purposes. Do you think the SXSW planners were justified in cancelling the panel discussions? Is it possible to manage online harassment without sacrificing anonymity or user freedom?
References
Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. Penguin Books.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it make a sound? How about a modern twist: If a group tries to gain supporters for some cause without launching a social media campaign, does the cause even exist?
Clay Shirky in “Here Comes Everybody” talks about engagement, and launches into how blogs and online community made it much easier to take a stand and bring widespread attention to it. Because everyone can access these tools, anyone can post photos of injustices, or plan flash mobs or movements.
Just this week, social media has rallied against a South Carolinian police officer throw a student – and her desk – to the floor, violently arresting her:
According to this article, the officer has a reputation of violent arrests, but it was never caught on video, and he was never investigated for it. But, one short video posted to social media, and the misconduct is finally being investigated.
The article shares tweets from students explaining how they were too scared and shocked to try and help the girl. This officer strikes such fear he can manhandle a student in front of a teacher. But now, social media’s far reaches stirred national outrage and he will – hopefully – be stopped.
The Wall Street Journal posted a list of the top five social media movements of 2014, and how they took hold:
The first one they discuss, Bring Back Our Girls, is aligned with Shirky’s discussion of how online engagement can be political. #BringBackOurGirls was a political campaign against a terror group in Nigeria that kidnapped nearly 300 young girls. The movement was popular in the United States, with many celebrities getting on board. Even First Lady Michelle Obama voiced support for the movement.
These movements have also been used to take a stand against social problems, like sexual harassment, with the movement Yes All Women. The movement gained footing after an alleged murderer posted a video about how he’d slaughter women who rejected him. He allegedly killed six people.
After his Youtube video took off, women nationwide formed #YesAllWomen to share stories of sexual harassment and abuse, and how our society is tuned to this mentality (shared on the list): “Because we’re taught ‘never leave your drink alone,’ instead of ‘don’t drug someone.’”
Shirky talks about how angry citizens can ignite fast action, but that if that fury flickers out, action won’t follow on the part of the accused. A movement must be organized. We see so many horror stories of injustice that never see results because people forget and move on. For example, the girls kidnapped in Nigeria haven’t been rescued, though some did escape on their own. While the movement garnered so much attention, there wasn’t ever any organized action planned with it.
On the flip side, Yes All Women spread effectively into the political world, and became the focus of Emma Watson’s address to the United Nation, and the basis of another gender equality movement, #HeForShe.
Group engagement is necessary for any successful call to action, and social media is a great tool for that, but if there isn’t an organized action plan, there likely won’t be any affect except fleeting anger.
References
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations (pp. 161-204, 182). New York: Penguin Press.
Self-diagnosing has always been pretty popular with people in this day and age. Instead of going to the doctor, it’s much easier to either decide what your ailment is yourself, or to ask a friend who is clearly an expert. When the Internet started booming, it made it even easier for a person to look up any symptoms they might be having. Self-diagnosis has never been so easy.
The rapid growth of social media has made it even easier. On a regular basis, people are posting Facebook statuses about a cough they have, or tweeting about whether or not it’s a good idea to have a dental procedure on a tooth that has been giving them a lot of trouble.
Self-diagnosis is something that we are frequently told is a bad thing to do. By diagnosing ourselves, or listening to someone who isn’t considered an expert, we’re exposing ourselves to a lot more issues and problems in the long run because we really don’t know if our diagnosis is correct. Even I’m guilty of this. I’m a frequenter of Googling what’s wrong with me instead of taking the time to make an appointment to see my doctor.
I thought about this a lot when I was reading Shirky’s chapter on Solving Social Dilemmas. Part of the chapter is about a class that he taught at NYU, and one of the students in the class.
The student in his class worked for the magazine YM. The magazine had a set of bulletin boards online where people could go on and connect with each other. It was a great way for teenagers to talk about issues they were having or things that they liked. However, Shirky was shocked when his student told him they were shutting the bulletin board for health and beauty, something that would be an important subject for teenage girls. According to Shirky (2008) “… she said, ’Most of the girls were fine, but we couldn’t figure out how to stop this one group of girls from swapping tips on remaining anorexic’” (pp. 203-204).
According to Shirky (2008) “The problem for YM wasn’t that the bulletin board had failed to get the interest of their readers. The problem was that it had succeeded in a way for which YM was unprepared” (p. 204). When you’re creating a bulletin board to help people, no one really expects that it will take a turn like this. However, the people using this board don’t see what they’re doing as wrong or unhealthy. They think they’re helping themselves. It’s the same with people who seek out help from the Internet when they’re suffering an ailment. They don’t see it as being an invalid resource for medical help. It’s the right thing for them to do to help themselves.
According to Shirky (2008) “The shock turns out to be misplaced: the Pro-Ana movement is in fact a self-help movement, because the content of a self-help movement is determined by its members The logic of self-help is affirmation— a small group bands together to defend its values against internal and external challenges” (p. 208). These girls were trying to seek help from others that they trusted. Even if they didn’t know them, they felt a connection from sharing the same disorder. It’s the same with self-diagnosis. I can’t count the number of times that I’ve seen people enlisting the help of faceless strangers, asking on a message board about their depression or what their cold symptoms could mean. It seems strange, but it really isn’t. People see the Internet as a resource and they believe that it’s a valid resource even if professionals say that it isn’t.
So, here’s my question for you: Do you think it’s bad for people to seek out the help of others on the Internet instead of seeking the help of a professional? Or do you think diagnosis should be left to the professionals?
References
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations (pp. 203-204, 208). New York: Penguin Press.
Technology of Communication 