Hive Mind: Social Media has Changed Discourse Forever
Can you imagine what it would look like if the Salem Witch Trials occurred today?
It would reach its peak at lightning-speed, confirming what social media’s hyper-connectivity is best known for – a good, scandalous trend.
Trends come and go daily; they’re essentially what we feed on these days. Memes and hashtags are a way of life, and if you haven’t seen the latest one, where have you been?
“Social media pushes people of all ages toward a focus on the scandal, joke, or conflict of the day, but the effect may be particularly profound for younger generations, who have had less opportunity to acquire older ideas and information before plugging themselves into the social-media stream.”
Jonathan Haidt & Tobias Rose-Stockwell, “The Dark Psychology of Social Media”
This ties into a shared online practice of today: “Cancel Culture.”
Cancel Culture started out as a way of holding people accountable, but the concept, like so many others, has been blown out of proportion.
In my opinion, it was necessary in the wake of the #MeToo Movement, where we saw most of these “canceling’s” happen. It was a direct reflection of how often times survivors get no justice for the crimes committed against them. Taking stories to the public is sometimes the only way victims see any sort of result in the painful and often invalidating experience of seeking justice.
But Cancel Culture becomes a problem when we apply it to more common mistakes many have made due to just living in a society that accepts and forgives people in places of privilege for their offensive behavior toward marginalized groups.
Courtesy @abbymjame via Instagram
It is often difficult to reconcile that someone has caused harm but can still learn and grow. Everyone is deserving of a chance like that, especially if mistakes were made in ignorance. Even so, it is worth noting that most of the time, when a figure is “canceled,” for those more human errors, it doesn’t mean that it is forever. It is more of a signal to take a step back and reflect, returning after a period of both learning and healing.
Even so, there is still a large fraction of malicious vitriol that spews from internet communities. The division in this country is growing with no end in sight. And there are profound repercussions to these– most visibly the violent eruptions the country has faced more and more as those in power drag their feet and pander to their respective demographics.
Humans have always had a concerning knack for mob-mentality. From the Witch Trials to the Red Scare, and countless other hunts for a scapegoat of our own society’s evils and shortcomings.
What’s so twisted about right now is that we would likely meme-ify the terrifying paranoia-filled accusations flung everywhere – entirely de-sensitized for the realities that ride alongside the dramatics.
Humor as a coping mechanism is one thing, but joking about tragedies and trauma is another morally questionable trend from the social media age, specifically in forums.
A common internet-ism is the term “Edgelord.”
“Edgelord” according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It’s generally a harmless thing to be an edgelord. Still, it is another mirror to our current state. In a time that is regarded as too “politically correct” by older generations, some of the most “offensive” humor is at its most popular. Making light of disturbing events highlights the deep-set nihilism that Gen Z is becoming known for.
But even if Gen Z recognizes their own inside jokes, behaviors, or even faults, they’re not the only ones who exist on these platforms.
There’ such a wide variety of people on the internet– all fed their personal algorithm agenda. This includes fake news, propaganda, and generally very biased content. When views and personalities clash, we see an explosive hate-storm that leaves all parties damaged and divided.
In their Atlantic article, “The Dark Psychology of Social Networks,” Haidt and Rose-Stockwell lay out three ways that social media platforms and communities can remedy the harm we’ve caused to the fabric of our culture:
“(1) Reduce the frequency and intensity of public performance
(2) Reduce the reach of unverified accounts
(3) Reduce the contagiousness of low-quality information“
The answers they provide are difficult to execute. Regarding the first, it is a responsibility put on social media companies and the individual. It requires a certain level of self-awareness. But how can we rely on people thinking critically about what they post online? And even if they do, it certainly isn’t what catches the attention of the majority.
The second is mostly the responsibility of the platforms to better track bots and bad actors. This requires a significant sweep of existing accounts, along with creating a new system for creating accounts. It’s very possible and should have been implemented already. So why hasn’t it?
The third is the responsibility of the media and, again, social media companies. The problem is, “low-quality information” is how many companies make their money. It is something that the industry itself has to confront. The good news is this is actually something that has been addressed. Twitter and Facebook are now flagging destructive posts. Fact-checkers have played an essential role in the past few years. Especially as misinformation is as rampant as it is now.
The most apparent problem lies in the fact that, as history repeats itself, our methods of destruction become more sophisticated. Is it just an inevitable truth that we may destroy ourselves at some point?