The news media has reported that Jared Loughner, who shot the Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and killed others, used social media such as YouTube and MySpace. In order to react to this news, it was interesting that not only people but also traditional or old media used social media, too. As a result, later stories dealt with people’s reliance on social media, and its influence on society. What kind of positive or negative effects does the phenomenon have?
The development of technology in recent years has offered us many benefits. For example, we use smart devices such as the iPhone and androids to blog, email, and access social network sites (SNSs) such as Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube from anywhere and at anytime.
In Bridging the Gap: A Genre Analysis of Weblogs (Herring et al., 1999), it is claimed that the primary purpose of most bloggers is to keep a record of daily life and express their feelings. Loughner used MySpace, which is a type of blogging site, mainly for this purpose, offering psychology and crime experts the opportunity to analyze his behavior and character. According to the NY Times, his recent acts and his online activity both offer evidence of his instability (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?_r=1).
In addition, in Blogging as Social Activity, or, Would You Let 900 Million People Read Your Diary?, interviews with selected bloggers, and an examination of their posts, show they have a tendency to express opinions to influence others and release emotional tension (Nardi et al., 2004). Loughner used YouTube and MySpace to share his political opinions, and his unstable emotions. His posts and comments on political issues and daily life, together with the personal information on his profile page, are substantial hints to understanding his character. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship (Boyd and Ellison, 2007), explains how social network sites provide various features to help users identify themselves. Loughner revealed his characteristics, and personal information, in detail using online profiles (Loughner’s YouTube online profile and examples of posts captures from http://praetorianprefect.com/archives/2011/01/jared-lee-loughner-internet-profile-photographs/).
Arguably, therefore, the development of technology does not always offer benefits. We already know that crimes have been perpetrated through social network sites (stalking, identity theft, etc), and, as we have seen, Loughner used social media to explain his views on perceived negative changes in society. Furthermore, soon after the shootings occurred, National Public Radio’s reporter ‘tweeted’ that Giffords had died, and Reuters, FOX, CNN, and other traditional media outlets repeated this false information (http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/922370--newsmangled-gifford-news-travelled-faster-than-fact; http://www.lostremote.com/2011/01/09/how-an-incorrect-report-of-giffords-death-spread-on-twitter/). This reminded me that Tenopir, in Online Databases – Web 2.0: Our Cultural Downfall?, introduced Andrew Keen’s warning about sharing information through social networking sites (Carol Tenopir, 2007). Keen was afraid of traditional media being replaced by social networking sites that weaken the authority of information; however it is more ironic to see the traditional media also using social media and losing their authority due to spreading a falsehood.
In conclusion, it is clear that social media has brought both positive and negative changes to society. I believe the term ‘social computing’ is used when people have an online identity and share information and social activity with others, whether they are friends or any audience connected through the social media.
True, it is ironic when the "trusty old medias" are using unauthoritative information that comes from social network sites. Your words also reminds me of a similar story I read before: There was a woman posting her poor health condition on a internet forum, and since she said she was abandoned by her husband and was unemployed, many users donated for her. But it turned out that all the money was going to a young man who posted the story that he made up. Ironically in this case, even some newspapers were reporting on "the miserable story" until it was exposed by someone.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think although it is difficult to make a standard for posting information online at present, it is easier for the "old trusty medias" not to cite information unless from definite sources online.
I agree with both of you about social media having a light and a dark side so to speak. Unlike real life, social media makes it very easy to come up with a completely fictional persona and have people believe whatever you tell them through your blog. Even a site like Facebook, which used to "filter" people in a way by only allowing them to sign up with an .edu email address (confirming that they were attending the college they claimed to) now allows everyone to join, and many use fake names or make multiple accounts. Stories like the one Nan mentioned are common in places like Livejournal, where I remember several cases including a high-profile one of a girl who wrote about her illness for months and in the end faked her own death. As far as I know, no money was exchanged, but many of her followers were genuinely distressed when she "died", and once the truth came out there was a huge uproar in the Livejournal community.
ReplyDeleteAll of these cases, including the Gifford shooting which is the worst scenario, teach us that social media can be a great tool for expressing oneself and for gaining access to a wide spectrum of opinions and ideas which may broaden one's own horizon... but it also should be viewed with caution, especially by professionals such as traditional news reporters. It's simply to volatile and uncontrolled to be taken at face value. In the end I firmly believe that social media is a positive addition to society 90% of the time, and cases such as this shooting simply show that we as users should work harder to make social media safer and make other users more aware of its shortcomings.
Good use of Nardi's point about releasing emotional tension here--the core question seems to be whether releasing it via social media causes it to spread and amplify, or just dissipate into the overall informational noise of the Web.
ReplyDeleteI made the same point in my blog as the second to the last paragraph of your :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the conclusion, it is clear that social media has brought both positive and negative changes to society. In another thread, I was talking about the influence, and how some people tend to be influenced even more by strangers online. Here, I'd like to add that this kind of influence is two-sided, just like a child who's eager to learn.
The positive side is that there is a large amount of information. With a good source, people could gain knowledge and positive side of view. An example of this is one of those study group SNS. Preparing, say GRE, is difficult, by oneself. With a group of people, and the positive influences from other group members is good for the state of mind.
The negative side is obvious. Easily being influenced is the same as being vulnerable. There are many examples, just like you mentioned at the beginning of the second to the last paragraph.
Great insights! When you discussed how Loughner’s Myspace page and YouTube videos were used to analyze his frame of mind, I wondered about how his frame of mind can be discerned by the police. With many “fakesters” (boyd and Ellison, 2007) existing, it is difficult to determine whether or not information posted on-line is real or fake. Can Loughner claim that his posts were satire? Either way, accountability of information creation on the Web is difficult to determine.
ReplyDeleteI also found your thoughts about technology offering benefits and drawbacks to be interesting. In many cases, technologies are developed for specific purposes; however, when it is put into the hands of consumers, it changes completely. For example, the World Wide Web was developed by Tim Berners-Lee with the purpose of sharing scientific articles. However, e-commerce became prevalent and now, social computing. Therefore, the future of the Web is uncertain and the development of technologies is difficult to consider, as actual usage and perceived purpose are very different.
bob
ReplyDelete