Social media and the social fabric

*Appeared in the Laurel Leader Call newspaper in Jones County

It’s mid-morning on a Friday.  Already, I’ve checked my Instagram messages; scrolled through my Twitter feed; and perused snaps on SnapChat. I even googled a music video on Youtube.

This snapshot provides support for the Pew Research Center’s survey on social media usage, which found that seven in ten Americans “use social media to connect with one another, engage with news content, share information and entertain themselves.”  

 

Compare that to 2005, when the Research Center began tracking social media adoption (think: Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, Twitter, etc.).  Just five percent of Americans used one of these platforms 16 years ago, yet today about 72 percent of the public uses some type of social media.  To say the least, this rise in social media adoption has been astronomical. 

 

In the early days of social media, younger Americans were more likely to utilize these technologies. But as more Americans have joined these platforms, “the social media user base has also grown more representative of the broader population.”  For example, half of Americans aged 65 or older say they use Facebook.  That’s a lot of grandmas and grandpas, y’all.

If you follow national news, you know social media and big tech is a hot political topic these days.  Despite recent outrage against social media platforms like Facebook for “censoring” political and other news, its users have actually remained quite active on the platform.  About 70 percent of users say they check the site daily, with half of those saying they use the site multiple times daily. 

There’s some irony in widespread adoption of social media compared to Americans’ views on these platforms.  According to a study conducted last year, about two-thirds of Americans believe social media has a “mostly negative effect on the way things are going in the country today.” These individuals cited misinformation and harassment they see on social media; concerns about users “believing everything they see or read – or not being sure about what to believe;” and social media’s role in contributing to further polarization by creating echo chambers (only following news and other outlets that reaffirm one’s beliefs). 

More Republicans than Democrats felt social media was negative, but a majority of both parties felt the impact of these platforms was more negative than positive. 

 

So, what does it all mean?  For starters, we have a complicated, “love/hate” relationship with social media.  We use it on a mostly-daily basis, yet believe it is contributing to society in negative ways.  Why then, if we believe that social media is damaging to society, do we continue to use it so frequently?

 

One thing that social media does well is keep you engaged. After all, these are companies seeking to make profits so they can grow and employ hundreds of people. But this leads to platforms catering their content to keep users coming back and staying there. This can be convenient at times – we get to see more of what we like! But ultimately, the content that humans can never get enough of is that of crisis, urgency, and negativity. Think of the train wreck from which you simply can’t look away. That’s what we get with social media: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

This constant access to negativity can cause many to believe that things are much worse than reality. The phrase “Twitter is not real life” is repeated over and over by various pundits to remind people that things are not nearly as bad as our social media feeds may lead us to believe. I’d encourage everyone, when encountering a negative article on Facebook or Twitter, to take a deep breath and think about the positives that are happening in your life.

 

Social media also presents unique opportunities for hostile engagement with and negative perceptions of peers. Consider your personal experiences using social media. Chances are you’ve seen your friends or family members post links or provide comments that you absolutely disagree with.  I bet it made you mad – or at least made you roll your eyes.  And I bet it made you think differently about that friend or family member, didn’t it?

 

This raises an important point.  While social media can be positive for sharing views and information, it also creates an isolated method for discourse (whether political or not).  It’s far easier to defend one’s viewpoints from behind a computer screen than have a face-to-face interaction about the same topic.  The vitriol that may be acceptable (well, not really) on Facebook, for example, would likely not be tolerated in an actual human conversation.  

 

We know that humans act differently online than they do when physically present with others.  We tend to be more empathic, respectful, and open to hearing others’ ideas.  Are those traits that you associate with social media?  I didn’t think so.

 

I fully believe in an individual’s right to his or her own opinion, and if someone wants to share that opinion online, then so be it. But consider the fact that just 17 percent of adult Americans say their views have been changed because of something they saw on social media.  My point is this:  It may feel good to rant on Facebook or retweet an incendiary article on Twitter, but you’re probably not changing anyone’s views on the actual issue – just their views on you.

 

I’ve written before about the need for empathy, and I believe social media has eroded our society’s understanding and practice of this trait.  So next time you’re logging onto a social media platform, consider the impact it has on your relationships.

 

Remember, social media is a great tool. But with all things in life, moderation is key. Be kind to others, focus on life’s many positives, and consider spending a little less time scrolling through feeds on your phone or computer. 

News delivery: Times, they are a-changin’

*First appeared in the Sept. 26, 2013 edition of the Laurel Chronicle.

When I first sat down to pen this column, I admit that I was undecided as to the topic of this week’s piece. Looking to the news for a little inspiration, I began my casual contemplation with a mental overview of the week’s current events, which led to me flipping on the television to watch Sen. Ted Cruz’s filibuster.

Responding to a ping on my iPhone, I noticed a fellow politico had mentioned me in a tweet about the filibuster…so naturally I started scrolling through my Twitter feed (for those of you not on Twitter, your “feed” is basically the home page that shows all the activity of the people you “follow”). According to this social media outlet, there was – er, is? – a lot going on in Mississippi and the nation.

Sen. Cruz was giving an impassioned filibuster speech, which some on Twitter referred to as a “fauxlibuster” due to a procedural technicality. Delta-born Jim Henson, best known for his creation of The Muppets, would have celebrated his 77th birthday. The Book of Manning premiered on ESPN and was, according to my feed, a moving documentary about Mississippi’s First Family of Football. Election results were coming in for the supervisors’ races in Hinds County, and, perhaps more importantly, for the special election held in Hattiesburg to elect a new mayor. (At the time of this writing, absentee votes were still being counted and no new mayor of the Hub City has yet been declared.)

After only a few minutes of perusing my Twitter feed, it hit me: Technology has drastically changed the landscape of news delivery and, along with it, the way candidates and campaigns communicate with constituents.

I love Twitter and consider it my number one news source. In a matter of minutes, I am able to scroll through my feed and instantly get a sense of what’s going on in the global marketplace, the national political scene, and the neighborhood next to mine.

Facebook and Instagram provide similar opportunities, though I often think of these sites as more social-based than news-based. But that’s the beauty of social networks – each user gets to customize his or her experience.

Since “all politics is local,” campaigns and candidates have seized opportunities to connect with constituents at a more localized level. Political groups continue to focus on newspapers, radio, and television, but recognize the changing landscape of news delivery. If you can’t articulate a message in 140 characters or less, then you’re probably out of luck in the political communications realm.

Last night, Sen. Cruz read tweets from people across the nation who were following the filibuster and using the hashtag “MakeDCListen.” The Twitter platform allowed thousands of Americans who were, I assume, previously unconnected join together in opposition to Obamacare by tweeting. The power of social networks cannot be underestimated.

Obama for America (OFA) is often heralded as the first campaign to truly utilize the various social media platforms for mobilizing campaign efforts: volunteers, get-out-the-vote (GOTV), and messaging. Subsequently, there is an increasing awareness of the need to incorporate social media into marketing strategies, regardless of political leanings.

According to a 2013 Pew Center study, nearly 72 percent of online U.S. adults use social networking sites, a huge increase over the same study in 2005 that showed just 8 percent of adults used these sites. A stand-alone question about Twitter found that 18 percent of online adults are now Twitter users, roughly double the amount of online adults who said they used Twitter in 2010.

And if you assume that all social networkers are young people, consider that six out of ten internet users ages 50-64 participate in social networks, as do 43 percent of those older than 65.

(Of course, the young generation has the largest social media presence, at 89 percent of 18-29 year-olds active online.)

Social networking coupled with the emergence of 24-hour cable news channels means that even a small gaffe by a candidate or official can become a huge political liability. In a political environment driven by breaking news on Twitter and shrill cries from talking heads, rationality can often times go out the window.

The rise of social media as a political messaging tool can be a two-edged sword: It can effectively mobilize supporters, but can also lead to overreactions and the cheapening of political honesty.

For what it’s worth, I think social networks like Twitter provide citizens like me with access to information that, in other eras, would have been nearly impossible or simply too time consuming to find. To borrow a quote from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, technologies like his site and others have “revolutionized how people spread and consume information. We often talk about inventions like the printing press and the television – by simply making communication more efficient, they led to a complete transformation of many important parts of society. They gave more people a voice.”

In this era of boundless information, I can’t help but recall a throwback Dylan tune: “The order is rapidly fadin’, and the first now will later be last, oh the times, they are a-changin’.”