The fast-breaking legal developments on the Trump front have gotten me a little behind on the class lessons, but hopefully that’s given some of you a chance to catch anything you’ve missed or been meaning to (re)read. Next week I will close out the module on social trust, which I wrote about in
Loving your comments! Please do focus on how social media impacts your behavior and social relationships, rather than the nature of social media in the abstract -- I'm interested to know how you think it compared in terms of its effects on social behavior compared to other technologies.
In my opinion, social media is a unique medium in comparison to the telephone or the television. Telephone calls are generally one-on-one and television is a broadcast medium that provides information filtered by the owner of the television network. Social media, on the other hand, permits individuals to share opinions (and other sources of information) both to friends and large groups. Posts that are shared by others can reach many thousands if not millions of people. Social media also require critical thinking on the part of the user, as there is no vetting process for many social media posts, and therefore can be a significant source of misinformation. The closest analog to social media may be amateur radio, which provides licensees with the ability to reach people worldwide on a broadcast basis. However, due to the limitations of licensing, amateur radio has never had the popular impact that social media has.
For me, social media has not changed how I interact with family and friends—I still phone my family and talk one-on-one and text my friends and then get together for dinner and chat as a group.
Where social media has really changed my behavior is in how I access news and information. I no longer watch television because as others have noted, it’s filtered by management. I use Twitter (what even is X?) and follow a limited number of people who lead me to more diverse information/articles than I could ever find using older technologies. And Substack has been such a wonderful addition to the information world. The platform allows you and others—thinking of Mehdi Hasan’s new Substack, Zeteo—to share what is important to you to help us understand the world better. Thanks for the work you put into this!
Telephone etiquette required/s us to (learn to) listen to the one we are conversing with. Social media do not. SMedia feed the narcissist in us. People tend to share or forward copious amounts of messages and photos without a polite back & forth. I know people on Facebook who unfollow while staying as a ‘Friend’ irrespective of who initiated the Friend request. They are just collecting an audience, not reconnecting with an old friend or making a new friend. People forward messages and links to different WhatsApp chat groups simultaneously without actually entering any of the chat groups. How rude!
We cannot hope to expand our social network without actually calling or answering someone on the old-fashioned telephone.
I think social media is like the phone and television on steroids. But different because with the press of a button a person (or bot) can send out a message or information with a reach heretofore unattainable. The sheer speed (nanosecond) and depth of contact (global) doesn't compare to the telephone which was a one-to-connector and the television is a one-way communication (albeit with multitudes). It's different, unique, dangerous - which is why social media should be age-gated to prevent children from abuse of all kinds, bullying, irrational comparison of self with others, etc. We need regulation of social media like Europe has done, but I'm not hopeful given the amount of $ the tech companies spread on politicians to obtain action or inaction on legislation affecting them.
The major technological difference is that a “speaker” can read the “body language” of a large, geographically dispersed audience, obtain real-time feedback, via “likes”, and learn the language and terminology their audience uses via comments. They can then use the platform to micro-target the audience with tailored messages while receiving even more real-time feedback.
Furthermore, the speaker doesn’t have to be a human.
Coupled with AI technology, there are no antecedents to social media. It’s a whole new world.
When applied to elections, my field, the implications are frightening.
With respect to human interaction, as social media becomes increasingly infected with disinformation, its use as a platform for exchanging information, I believe will be severely diminished.
There are many wonderful comments here describing how social media differs from telephone or television and the impact on real-world behavior. Unless I reviewed the comments too fast, I didn't see one narrowly focused on the fact that social media combined with algorithms enables like-minded people to connect across communities and even across borders who would never have met otherwise. In some cases, this can provide much needed support, but in others (i.e., grooming for white nationalism or ISIS) can lead to dangerous paths that neither telephone nor television would have cultivated. While television and telephone could provide access to bad actors in the United States and from foreign countries, the chances of that are slim. Most people would hang up on an unknown ISIS or KKK caller or turn the channel away from ISIS or KKK programming (which probably wouldn't exist to begin with on standard cable). Social media, meanwhile, serves up messaging from U.S. bad actors and foreign nationals as microtargeted by algorithm-driven interest area in some to many cases it unclear the foreign or U.S. bad actor connection. These algorithms often are programmed to radicalize in the interest area. Meanwhile, Russian-style "reflexive control" propaganda -- triggering emotions as a means to cause an over reaction often counter to the interests of the person triggered -- is often designed to hide the affiliation of the person sending the message -- again somebody the propaganda targets would never have connected with without social media. This style of propaganda is behavior based (versus awareness raising/branding) and is thus designed to evoke real world action. An example we have seen is Russian-linked actors organizing Black Lives Matter protests across the street from Blues Lives Matters Protests to evoke fighting, which then could be videotaped and photographed to further use social media to divide, fuel hate, and destroy trust in democratic institutions if police mishandle the situation. There is no way television or telephone could in any way result in something similar, especially connecting like-minded people (to include foreign nationals) who would never have met outside of social media.
I don't see in the sometimes very long responses much mention of the flattening of expertise versus non-expertise! That's one of social media's horrible results. Everybody is equal and Joe blow or Jane blows opinions on complex public health situations or climate solutions are on equal footing with people who devote their entire careers to solving problems and gaining expertise. In my veterinary peer discussion forums there is always a professor of the particular discipline watching conversations so that the general practitioners don't spread mistakes amongst each other. Professor Rangappa is our lighthouse in this political science and propaganda space! Thank God for expertise ♥️
Im thinking about my long life before answering machines, call waiting, when we had what was playing on out TVs at whatever time it was playing. Missed it? Too bad. The info came from one place and was one dimensional. You didn’t get to give or hear feedback or opinions. Fast forward to get exactly what you want , when you want it and no boundaries about who can interact with you or vice versa. The power dynamics shift from I can go to see B and talk with someone I know about it, to everyone hears and sees everything, everywhere all the time. No boundaries. Choices are gone but you think you need to have them all and no one else should. Cutting off helped get centered and feel saner. I’m making deliberate choices and haven’t been hit by lightning yet.
I’m trying not to read all the other comments before I weigh in, but I caught a few snippets as I scrolled to the end. I think the ability to carry an entire encyclopedia around all day and have instant access to answers for any questions which arise creates a rather lonely existence. Social media as a subset of this technology has become increasingly invasive, robbing many people of human interaction. I just read about a school experimenting with keeping phones out of the classroom by having them locked away during the school day. I hope that becomes the norm. Face-to-face conversations with occasional telephone follow-ups may seem old-fashioned, but I for one believe so-called social media has caused increased alienation.
As much as I would like to believe there’s nothing new under the sun; social media is the realization of Clay Shirky’s writing “Here Comes Everybody.” TV is one:many, broadcast technology. Telephone is 1:1, communications technology. (Telephone party lines, for any who remember these, may be seen as an early example of what social media would become.) Social media is the commons, enabling “many to many” interactions, along with elements of broadcasting or direct communications. What it lacks is any accountability for those who broadcast, or any civilized norms for those who communicate. Instead, tribal clusters and questionable ‘leaders’ thrive as we seek social structures in an otherwise flat space. We should not be surprised that disinformation thrives and radicalization is easier to achieve. As you’ve mentioned many times, establishing and maintaining trusted networks in this flat space (or ruined commons if you prefer that metaphor) is absurdly difficult and requires more effort than most care to put in. One bright spot may be that the debasement of Twitter may reinforce desires for trusted interactions, civil discourse, and accountability for inflammatory rhetoric. One can but hope.
Social media is very much its own animal. It compliments the telephone and the television. Cinema as well. It provides normal day-to-day people with a medium to become content providers.
On the downside, it allows absolutely everyone to feed information into the system. This might sound anti-democratic, but not everybody needs to be feeding information into the system. 😂
It's allowed for the development of isolated communities that wouldn't exist otherwise and that's been problematic in a number of ways too. I know I am preaching to the converted here.
Social media is a big curtain for people to hide flaws and insecurities. It’s also a tool of avoidance for people who just don’t want to be bothered by intimacy and sharing. There’s an amazing amount of families who don’t ever communicate authentically these days. I wouldn’t recognize some of my nieces and nephews IRL because they are so heavily edited for style!
Definitely unique. But some aspects of social media reminds me of phone party lines, or in more recent tech, the AOL chat room (I can hear the modem now). Both certainly had media bubble characteristics to them in that like minded people tended to congregate in specific groups.
Present social media is like an open phone line, and television. If you know the person, the comments can be put into perspective. However, many times it is unclear where the perspective is coming from, and the language can shuts down further comment. It is almost impossible to determine facts. This has lead me to shut off my involvement with social media, and to an extent popular news.
This takes me back to Media Communications degree in college studying Marshall McLuhan's - The Medium is the Message, which dictates that the communication medium should be researched itself as showing the state of communications. I believe social media sits on its own. Newspapers/TV and reporters in general used to have to follow an actual code of ethics., and theoretically, more trustworthy. Social media does not. News shows were still ratings concerned, but were less sensationalized (No flames, No frames). I feel that social media is rogue, where anyone can get on and create a presentation and persona that screams they are truthful and reliable. The giant population in the country that is too used to accepting what they want to hear and not questioning do just that and get instant gratification on their word views. Social media has a remarkable place in our society, but like other elements in society, it needs to be "well regulated."
Loving your comments! Please do focus on how social media impacts your behavior and social relationships, rather than the nature of social media in the abstract -- I'm interested to know how you think it compared in terms of its effects on social behavior compared to other technologies.
In my opinion, social media is a unique medium in comparison to the telephone or the television. Telephone calls are generally one-on-one and television is a broadcast medium that provides information filtered by the owner of the television network. Social media, on the other hand, permits individuals to share opinions (and other sources of information) both to friends and large groups. Posts that are shared by others can reach many thousands if not millions of people. Social media also require critical thinking on the part of the user, as there is no vetting process for many social media posts, and therefore can be a significant source of misinformation. The closest analog to social media may be amateur radio, which provides licensees with the ability to reach people worldwide on a broadcast basis. However, due to the limitations of licensing, amateur radio has never had the popular impact that social media has.
Asha,
For me, social media has not changed how I interact with family and friends—I still phone my family and talk one-on-one and text my friends and then get together for dinner and chat as a group.
Where social media has really changed my behavior is in how I access news and information. I no longer watch television because as others have noted, it’s filtered by management. I use Twitter (what even is X?) and follow a limited number of people who lead me to more diverse information/articles than I could ever find using older technologies. And Substack has been such a wonderful addition to the information world. The platform allows you and others—thinking of Mehdi Hasan’s new Substack, Zeteo—to share what is important to you to help us understand the world better. Thanks for the work you put into this!
Telephone etiquette required/s us to (learn to) listen to the one we are conversing with. Social media do not. SMedia feed the narcissist in us. People tend to share or forward copious amounts of messages and photos without a polite back & forth. I know people on Facebook who unfollow while staying as a ‘Friend’ irrespective of who initiated the Friend request. They are just collecting an audience, not reconnecting with an old friend or making a new friend. People forward messages and links to different WhatsApp chat groups simultaneously without actually entering any of the chat groups. How rude!
We cannot hope to expand our social network without actually calling or answering someone on the old-fashioned telephone.
I think social media is like the phone and television on steroids. But different because with the press of a button a person (or bot) can send out a message or information with a reach heretofore unattainable. The sheer speed (nanosecond) and depth of contact (global) doesn't compare to the telephone which was a one-to-connector and the television is a one-way communication (albeit with multitudes). It's different, unique, dangerous - which is why social media should be age-gated to prevent children from abuse of all kinds, bullying, irrational comparison of self with others, etc. We need regulation of social media like Europe has done, but I'm not hopeful given the amount of $ the tech companies spread on politicians to obtain action or inaction on legislation affecting them.
The major technological difference is that a “speaker” can read the “body language” of a large, geographically dispersed audience, obtain real-time feedback, via “likes”, and learn the language and terminology their audience uses via comments. They can then use the platform to micro-target the audience with tailored messages while receiving even more real-time feedback.
Furthermore, the speaker doesn’t have to be a human.
Coupled with AI technology, there are no antecedents to social media. It’s a whole new world.
When applied to elections, my field, the implications are frightening.
With respect to human interaction, as social media becomes increasingly infected with disinformation, its use as a platform for exchanging information, I believe will be severely diminished.
I look forward to your analysis.
There are many wonderful comments here describing how social media differs from telephone or television and the impact on real-world behavior. Unless I reviewed the comments too fast, I didn't see one narrowly focused on the fact that social media combined with algorithms enables like-minded people to connect across communities and even across borders who would never have met otherwise. In some cases, this can provide much needed support, but in others (i.e., grooming for white nationalism or ISIS) can lead to dangerous paths that neither telephone nor television would have cultivated. While television and telephone could provide access to bad actors in the United States and from foreign countries, the chances of that are slim. Most people would hang up on an unknown ISIS or KKK caller or turn the channel away from ISIS or KKK programming (which probably wouldn't exist to begin with on standard cable). Social media, meanwhile, serves up messaging from U.S. bad actors and foreign nationals as microtargeted by algorithm-driven interest area in some to many cases it unclear the foreign or U.S. bad actor connection. These algorithms often are programmed to radicalize in the interest area. Meanwhile, Russian-style "reflexive control" propaganda -- triggering emotions as a means to cause an over reaction often counter to the interests of the person triggered -- is often designed to hide the affiliation of the person sending the message -- again somebody the propaganda targets would never have connected with without social media. This style of propaganda is behavior based (versus awareness raising/branding) and is thus designed to evoke real world action. An example we have seen is Russian-linked actors organizing Black Lives Matter protests across the street from Blues Lives Matters Protests to evoke fighting, which then could be videotaped and photographed to further use social media to divide, fuel hate, and destroy trust in democratic institutions if police mishandle the situation. There is no way television or telephone could in any way result in something similar, especially connecting like-minded people (to include foreign nationals) who would never have met outside of social media.
I don't see in the sometimes very long responses much mention of the flattening of expertise versus non-expertise! That's one of social media's horrible results. Everybody is equal and Joe blow or Jane blows opinions on complex public health situations or climate solutions are on equal footing with people who devote their entire careers to solving problems and gaining expertise. In my veterinary peer discussion forums there is always a professor of the particular discipline watching conversations so that the general practitioners don't spread mistakes amongst each other. Professor Rangappa is our lighthouse in this political science and propaganda space! Thank God for expertise ♥️
Im thinking about my long life before answering machines, call waiting, when we had what was playing on out TVs at whatever time it was playing. Missed it? Too bad. The info came from one place and was one dimensional. You didn’t get to give or hear feedback or opinions. Fast forward to get exactly what you want , when you want it and no boundaries about who can interact with you or vice versa. The power dynamics shift from I can go to see B and talk with someone I know about it, to everyone hears and sees everything, everywhere all the time. No boundaries. Choices are gone but you think you need to have them all and no one else should. Cutting off helped get centered and feel saner. I’m making deliberate choices and haven’t been hit by lightning yet.
I’m trying not to read all the other comments before I weigh in, but I caught a few snippets as I scrolled to the end. I think the ability to carry an entire encyclopedia around all day and have instant access to answers for any questions which arise creates a rather lonely existence. Social media as a subset of this technology has become increasingly invasive, robbing many people of human interaction. I just read about a school experimenting with keeping phones out of the classroom by having them locked away during the school day. I hope that becomes the norm. Face-to-face conversations with occasional telephone follow-ups may seem old-fashioned, but I for one believe so-called social media has caused increased alienation.
As much as I would like to believe there’s nothing new under the sun; social media is the realization of Clay Shirky’s writing “Here Comes Everybody.” TV is one:many, broadcast technology. Telephone is 1:1, communications technology. (Telephone party lines, for any who remember these, may be seen as an early example of what social media would become.) Social media is the commons, enabling “many to many” interactions, along with elements of broadcasting or direct communications. What it lacks is any accountability for those who broadcast, or any civilized norms for those who communicate. Instead, tribal clusters and questionable ‘leaders’ thrive as we seek social structures in an otherwise flat space. We should not be surprised that disinformation thrives and radicalization is easier to achieve. As you’ve mentioned many times, establishing and maintaining trusted networks in this flat space (or ruined commons if you prefer that metaphor) is absurdly difficult and requires more effort than most care to put in. One bright spot may be that the debasement of Twitter may reinforce desires for trusted interactions, civil discourse, and accountability for inflammatory rhetoric. One can but hope.
Social media is very much its own animal. It compliments the telephone and the television. Cinema as well. It provides normal day-to-day people with a medium to become content providers.
On the downside, it allows absolutely everyone to feed information into the system. This might sound anti-democratic, but not everybody needs to be feeding information into the system. 😂
It's allowed for the development of isolated communities that wouldn't exist otherwise and that's been problematic in a number of ways too. I know I am preaching to the converted here.
Social media is a big curtain for people to hide flaws and insecurities. It’s also a tool of avoidance for people who just don’t want to be bothered by intimacy and sharing. There’s an amazing amount of families who don’t ever communicate authentically these days. I wouldn’t recognize some of my nieces and nephews IRL because they are so heavily edited for style!
Definitely unique. But some aspects of social media reminds me of phone party lines, or in more recent tech, the AOL chat room (I can hear the modem now). Both certainly had media bubble characteristics to them in that like minded people tended to congregate in specific groups.
Present social media is like an open phone line, and television. If you know the person, the comments can be put into perspective. However, many times it is unclear where the perspective is coming from, and the language can shuts down further comment. It is almost impossible to determine facts. This has lead me to shut off my involvement with social media, and to an extent popular news.
This takes me back to Media Communications degree in college studying Marshall McLuhan's - The Medium is the Message, which dictates that the communication medium should be researched itself as showing the state of communications. I believe social media sits on its own. Newspapers/TV and reporters in general used to have to follow an actual code of ethics., and theoretically, more trustworthy. Social media does not. News shows were still ratings concerned, but were less sensationalized (No flames, No frames). I feel that social media is rogue, where anyone can get on and create a presentation and persona that screams they are truthful and reliable. The giant population in the country that is too used to accepting what they want to hear and not questioning do just that and get instant gratification on their word views. Social media has a remarkable place in our society, but like other elements in society, it needs to be "well regulated."