Today, social media is infiltrated with personal
opinions and within seconds, these can change. As soon as you finish looking at
tweets from the last two minutes, there are hundreds of new tweets at the blink
of an eye. People are no longer sitting around for hours watching television,
but instead are using those hours to write their own media and find out news
first hand, rather than relying strictly on television and other large media to
inform them of the latest happenings and breaking news. Thus, it creates a
large social surplus. Without spending as much time consuming television, it
gives people more time to produce and share media.
When “fitness” was searched on Twitter, the first 30-40 tweets were within the last two minutes. When letting the page sit without being refreshed, there were 440 new tweets about fitness. Not only are there people tweeting about fitness, they are also retweeting. The “Twitterverse” allows people in the twenty-first century to do exactly what they want; consume, produce, and share. The Social Media Reader discusses important aspects of a surplus in society. “Now, the interesting thing about this kind of surplus is,” continues Clay Shirky, “that society doesn’t know what to do with it at first – hence the gin, hence the sitcoms” (Mandiberg, Ch. 16). Society gets stuck in ruts and often times has difficulty changing old habits. After all, if people were able to handle the emergence of new social institutions, would there be a surplus of existing ones? Probably not. While television might be in a surplus, Twitter is definitely not. Now having not been refreshed in roughly ten minutes, there are over a thousand new fitness tweets. It is evident that Twitter is most definitely not in a surplus. It is being used every second of the day with people adding opinions, sharing thoughts, and debating actively.
Felix Stalder discusses the issues and cooperation and conflicts in “The Social Media Reader.” Many people on social media agree to disagree. So many opinions pop up even under one topic. No matter the topic or people involved, there is always a sort of disagreement throughout a discussion. Stalder states, “Because of the underlying assumption that communication leads to cooperation, current discourse is virtually silent on such issues” (Mandiberg, Ch. 17). Communication does not always lead to cooperation, often times it has the opposite effect. Tweets such as the following are examples.
When “fitness” was searched on Twitter, the first 30-40 tweets were within the last two minutes. When letting the page sit without being refreshed, there were 440 new tweets about fitness. Not only are there people tweeting about fitness, they are also retweeting. The “Twitterverse” allows people in the twenty-first century to do exactly what they want; consume, produce, and share. The Social Media Reader discusses important aspects of a surplus in society. “Now, the interesting thing about this kind of surplus is,” continues Clay Shirky, “that society doesn’t know what to do with it at first – hence the gin, hence the sitcoms” (Mandiberg, Ch. 16). Society gets stuck in ruts and often times has difficulty changing old habits. After all, if people were able to handle the emergence of new social institutions, would there be a surplus of existing ones? Probably not. While television might be in a surplus, Twitter is definitely not. Now having not been refreshed in roughly ten minutes, there are over a thousand new fitness tweets. It is evident that Twitter is most definitely not in a surplus. It is being used every second of the day with people adding opinions, sharing thoughts, and debating actively.
Felix Stalder discusses the issues and cooperation and conflicts in “The Social Media Reader.” Many people on social media agree to disagree. So many opinions pop up even under one topic. No matter the topic or people involved, there is always a sort of disagreement throughout a discussion. Stalder states, “Because of the underlying assumption that communication leads to cooperation, current discourse is virtually silent on such issues” (Mandiberg, Ch. 17). Communication does not always lead to cooperation, often times it has the opposite effect. Tweets such as the following are examples.
"Don't drive too close and drive into
the hole" - Marius, as we drive past a construction site.
Glad
he such confidence in my driving 😑
— Al
(@UnfilteredAlli) June
2, 2015
Some
people's driving skills are absolutely terrible
—
Brady Berg (@BergmanBrady) June
2, 2015
Driving is already a sensitive subject, especially between
genders. Many males think females cannot park, back-up, or drive in general.
When tweets are posted in reference to bad driving skills or criticizing other
drivers, conflict is going to occur. No one can be positive that communication
will result in cooperation. To many online users are guilty of taking posts too
personal and starting an argument.
While personal cooperation is important, many do not understand the ramifications a post could have in regards to laws and politics. People often post tweets explaining something that could easily break a law. As seen in this tweet:
While personal cooperation is important, many do not understand the ramifications a post could have in regards to laws and politics. People often post tweets explaining something that could easily break a law. As seen in this tweet:
I was drinking earlier now
I'm driving
— MAC (@_Shebaaa) June
2, 2015
If the right person was to see this, it could easily backfire on the person who tweeted it. However, with the constantly changing tweets and live feeds, it would be almost impossible for it to be seen.
Conflicts arise in many ways via social media. Stalder explains, “It is not just that the modes of cooperation contain elements of hostility: the results of cooperation can fuel conflict” (Mandiberg, Ch. 17). Social relationships tend to include conflict, thus social media has no way of avoiding it either. When open source media is used, cooperation and conflict will be reactions to one another. Twitter allows free speech, and people are going to take advantage of it, no matter the social surplus, cooperation, or conflict it entails.
Works
Cited
Mandiberg, Michael. The Social Media Reader. New York: New York UP, 2012. Print.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you're saying. Social media sites like Facebook and Twitter tend to be places where some of us tell our deepest, darkest secrets (for whatever reason), and because there's a physical disconnect between the poster and the reader, we feel safe. We say things we wouldn't ordinarily say. People take advantage of it.
ReplyDeleteGood read!
I'm interested by your observation that a significant portion of people are using the internet to find out the news first-hand, rather than relying on television. Once upon a time, we might have had six or ten news stations to choose from, although most people probably settled on the one that told the news how they liked to hear it (Whether that was from FOX or NBC.) Today there are so many more options to get our news from, but I'm curious as to how many more people really rely on and trust multiple sources. The vast amount of information might be numbing to some. Are we really ending up with any more accurate news than we were pre-internet?
ReplyDelete