One of the things I love about social media is that it’s democratic.
One of the things I dislike about social media is that it’s democratic.
Democracy has its fine sides, and its discouraging sides. Democracy gives a voice to all those who choose to participate, as does Twitter or any social media platform. Given a thoughtful, educated population — let’s call it community — and what one might call conscious use of the tools of democracy, a democratic community fosters sharing of ideas, conversation, and debate, out of which ideally emerge wise decisions promoting a positive future for all. However, if the democratic community is not so thoughtful, shares ideas without consideration, and takes messages at face value, what tends to emerge and gain prominence are ideas, movements, and decisions not so wise or considered, leading to the possible downfall of the democracy and the very tools of the democracy.
This entire topic warrants the many discussions currently underway, and more. Those I’ve had lately with friends and colleagues revolve around news media and charities. We see the benefit of the democratic platform of social media in that messages and news can travel at viral speed. We know that citizens can and do often report events before traditional media. However, ethics are sometimes questioned and the changing face of journalism is moving so fast that there’s no clear picture of how the evolved future looks. There are a host of other issues to consider regarding how social media and the internet are changing journalism; one that concerns me and many of those with whom I speak is that of reduced content and meaning. With so many people scanning so much information online, and relying on Twitter for news and information, and more short bursts of information traveling more quickly to more people, I wonder: How many people actually take the time to delve deeply into an article once they received (and retweeted) the link to something on Twitter? How many people take the time to read the full article from the NY Times, The Christian Science Monitor, or another source, once they receive the link? How many people go further, and search for alternative and additional sources of information?
As with many, my fear is that with the democratization of the news media, people will look no further than the 140 character “headline” of a story before passing on to the next tidbit coming through the roaring pipeline of over-information. If all decisions are based on Twitter-sized bites of information found in a commonly-used pipeline, what type of decisions are going to be made, and what type of considered actions and future will those decisions bring?
Of course, superficiality is not the only possible scenario with social networking, and many are working to ensure the tools of social networking are used for the common good. There are individuals who use Twitter and social media as a signed gateway alerting them to a pathway of information they can choose (or not) to explore. And, perhaps ironically, both the superficial and gateway-to-information uses of social media benefit nonprofits, and contribute to raising the visibility of nonprofits, causes, and even news items across the globe.
The viral capability of social media is giving nonprofits and causes for social good an unprecedented amount of free and nearly free publicity, even if a given message doesn’t go completely viral. The donate-per-click or view programs raise an increasing amount of funds, even if someone doesn’t really understand what a particular charity does. While an individual may not be able to fully describe the work of a nonprofit, they’re often willing to help in a small way, and to spread the word. A few of those individuals will be motivated to learn more, and possibility do more, to benefit the charity.
Ultimately, the web and social media are tools: Powerful, democratic tools changing the world — but tools, all the same. As with all tools, the web and social media can be used consciously to create good and benefit humanity, or unconsciously, in this case potentially resulting in a less thoughtful, less considered society that loses the understanding, consciousness, and deliberation necessary to maintain a democracy. If such a loss were to occur, one might say that the cause and the effect were the same: People were so busy updating their various social profiles that they never noticed.
How we’re going to use the tools of social media, and what we’re going to create, is up to us. Our votes are being cast each day, as we each choose what we use, what we create, what we take, what we pass along, of what we gather online.
