I've written a few times before on social media - generally focused on my use of the various platforms, how I reconcile its use with general time management considerations, and my sense of unease with it that develops from time to time. These past couple weeks, for a variety of reasons, that sense of unease has again crept into my mind. Part of it is, again, limited to my particular circumstances and use; but more and more, its starting to think bigger picture of it - how social media impacts, what I guess I would term, micro and macro relationships; the relationships that exist on an intimate, personal level (spouses, friends, family, co-workers), and those relationships that are formed on a larger scale, in our communities (our neighborhoods, civic groups, churches, localities, states, nations, etc.). Then, this past weekend, I read this opinion piece from the New York Times, titled "How Facebook Warps Our Worlds," that starts to encapsulate, and then crystallize, many of my feelings.
The piece is worth reading in its own right, but it speaks to the many ways that social media (the title picks on Facebook, for understandable reasons, but the content and gist of the piece would be applicable to the majority of social media platforms) significantly change not only how we interact, but how we perceive; and perhaps most concerning, how we don't really know what the impact from all this is. The article also, if only tangentially in some instances, gets at the unease I've been thinking of that last several weeks regarding social media.
One of the great assets of social media is the ability to customize our feeds, which thereby results in the customization of the sources of our information. It allows us to have access, instantly, to thousands (if not more) of people who agree with us on a particular issue (or have the same political perspective; the same sports fandom; the same hobby; etc.). This, perhaps, is in some ways a great thing; perhaps it lessens the ability to feel that one is alone; after all, if I can find someone else who has a similar hobby or viewpoint, I have someone with which to share and converse. At least theoretically. I think, in practice, what happens is that those cultivated lists/feeds/sources trend towards only those viewpoints/hobbies/etc. that we share or agree with, thus providing us a very limited and provincial view of not only the world and our immediate surrounding community, but of our personal viewpoints and beliefs. We engage in dialogue and discussion that's not authentic, its just confirmation. So it gives a false bias - we believe we are engaging in critical examination because we are engaging in the process that leads to critical examination, dialogue. But the dialogue doesn't challenge; it doesn't contradict; it doesn't provoke and counter-argue. Without that, the dialogue produces no fruit, and leaves us with little growth in the strength and validity of our ideas and, more importantly, the processes that leads to our ideas.
Another impact of all this is that we learn no way to enter into discussion with those with conflicting viewpoints, different interests, and diverse backgrounds. We have no need - we can always take the easy path to find someone who doesn't have these "challenges." Truly, this reality seems paradoxical. Internet and social media has made it easier than ever before to communicate with anyone and anywhere. Yet, instead of serving to expand our world and our horizons, bring us fresh ideas and perspective, I think one can argue it does just the opposite. Over-reliance on the medium results in a diminishing of the breadth of ideas, backgrounds, experiences, and perspective we are exposed to and therefore must grapple with. Further, so much of our discussion becomes through the medium of social media itself, which also warps our conversation. We can more easily devolve into vitriol and meanness when we don't have to see the person we are talking to, let alone what we are talking about. Our discussions lose decorum and civility; and decorum and civility, instead of being viewed as tools that lead to genuine dialogue, are treated as signs of weakness.
In addition, the ability of social media to pass on so much information to its consumers, is that the resultant ubiquitousness of the information makes all information seem relevant and equal, when its not. Having one's bias confirmed from a source (like a blog, for example) doesn't mean that said source is equal in its validity to that from credible, expert sources. But social media allows everything to be a "debate," even when its not, and when one can always find someone to agree with their pre-existing bias, then we can reject what information comes from actual data and evidence. And ironically, because of those pre-existing biases, stating that the evidence and data doesn't support a certain position is often met with an accusation of bias (and yet, bias in favor of actual evidence to support conclusions could be said to be the basis of rational thought). All this, of course, leads to less actual discussion among people.
We are more connected and have more information available than ever before, but as a paradoxical result, we have less ability to personally connect with individuals, discuss conflicting ideas and interests with people, and discern that available information as a result. At what point do we consider the balance between digital connection and physical connection, and decide that the latter outweighs the former?
"Distracted from distraction by distraction." - T.S. Eliot
"I mean, all this stuff you're involved in, it's all gossip. It's people talking about each other behind their backs. That's the vast majority of this social media, all these reviews, all these comments. Your tools have elevated gossip, hearsay and conjecture to the level of valid, mainstream communication." - Dave Eggers, The Circle
No comments:
Post a Comment