In This Time Of Techlash, It's Important To Remember That Sometimes Social Media Is Actually Good
from the quite-often-in-fact dept
It feels like pretty much every day there's some sort of new "techlash" story, about how awful social media is, about how it's dragging down democracy, destroying lives, and that we'd all be better off without it. We've been arguing for quite some time now that while there are real issues of concern about social media, most of the narrative is exaggerated to downright misleading. So it's actually surprising, but nice, to see the NY Times (which has been among the most vocal cheerleaders of the "internet is bad" narrative) have an excellent opinion piece by Sarah Jackson outlining how Twitter, in particular, has "made us better."
Jackson has recently co-authored a book, #HashtagActivism that details what a wonder Twitter has been for traditionally marginalized groups. It has allowed them to communicate, to organize, and to bring their messages into the mainstream.
We found that movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, while they had pre-Twitter origins, were pushed into mainstream consciousness by networks of ordinary people sharing firsthand stories, making demands and developing shared political narratives on the site. Without Twitter, these campaigns for race and gender justice would still exist, but they wouldn’t have nearly the same momentum.
The short op-ed highlights numerous stories that likely would not have received the attention they did without Twitter. Indeed, despite all the people who mock the "internet utopians," it certainly looks like the idea of tearing down gatekeepers and giving a voice to all were ideas that worked for many communities:
Twitter users have disrupted a media landscape where gatekeepers — in an industry that has always fallen short when it comes to race and gender diversity — were for too long solely responsible for setting the agenda of what we talked about as a country. While most Americans do not have Twitter accounts, journalists and politicians often do, and they have turned heavily in the past decade to the activists, scholars and people of color on Twitter to inform their coverage and policies. When they haven’t done so, these communities have responded resoundingly online. And America has listened.
Twitter has fundamentally altered the ways many communities interact with the media, as users feel empowered to challenge harmful framing. “I think the presence of Asian-Americans on Twitter has actually really showed journalists, editors and people in general in the newsroom how it is important to cover Asian-American issues,” one user told my colleagues and me in an interview for a report published by the Knight Foundation. “With Twitter, you can call out a publication if they mess up, or if they don’t cover certain topics. Now there’s accountability.”
Yes, the same tools can (and sometimes are) abused, but the point we keep trying to make here is that we shouldn't throw out the tools that do so much good just because sometimes they are abused. It's nice to see at least some acknowledging this.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: activism, connections, disenfranchised, social media, voices
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Hashtag hashtag activism"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They've crossed the hashtags....never cross the hashtags.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Hashtag hashtag activism"?
Yes. Absolutely.
And you can buy the book with cash you got from the ATM machine , using your PIN number.
Also, are you concerned that the title of the book uses more than the necessary hashtags?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Hashtag hashtag activism"?
Aww. I'd rather get it in PDF format to view on my LCD display.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Hashtag hashtag activism"?
"PDF format to view on my LCD display."
Will you be using RAM memory on your CPU unit, or will it be on DVD disk, LAN network, or USB bus? Are you watching via GUI interface or as part of an RPG game? And do you have a GPL license, or is this a DOS system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hashtag hashtag activism"?
OK, knock it off, before I report you to the Department of Redundancy Department!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Hashtag hashtag activism"?
Gaah! You got there before I did, B#bvi#us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every tool has two sides.
That pretty much says it all. Example: Guns can be used to defend. On the other hand...
The same thing goes for every tool from rocks to everything else humanity has ever built or done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every tool has two sides.
A shield defends.
A gun doesn't defend it can only attack.
Defending by attacking isn't really defense.
It's just two guys attempting to fill each other with holes and the faster and more accurate one wins.
Mind you sometimes a hammer is just a hammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every tool has two sides.
As demonstrated by history, a shield is only useful when coupled with an offensive weapon, and/or used against projectiles while closing for an attack. If you only have a shield, an attacker can close to where they can reach round it with a weapon, or move it out of their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every tool has two sides.
"As demonstrated by history, a shield is only useful when coupled with an offensive weapon, and/or used against projectiles while closing for an attack."
err. Actually, history shows something completely different. Shields are, essentially, hefty implements of war with the side benefit of being wide enough to parry blows and catch arrows.
Their main drawback is range and penetration. But you can say that about a mace or sword as well in an age where the cheapest and easiest weapon to arm yourself with was a boarspear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every tool has two sides.
FBI reports more people are more likely to be killed by hammers than guns .....
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/11/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-rifles-kind/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every tool has two sides.
breitfart?
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social media can be a force for good — but that all depends on how one uses it. For example: a few suggestions for improving the Twitter experience. (The “turn off retweets” thing is one I’ve stuck with for a while and it really does do wonders for my feed.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has Mike done lost his mind? Social Media is never good. I guess good old Mike Masnick believes that it's okay for these Social Media sites, which are all liberal, for engaging in censorship and violation of free speech rights under the constitution.
For a website like Techdirt to claim to fight for fair copyright use, free speech and freedom from illegal searches that I guess now Mike Masnick support censorship and violating the free speech rights of anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Twitter, Facebook and many other services routinely ban conservatives whenever Cancel Culture screams "racist" without proof. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Paypal and many online services routinely engage in Censorship and violation of everyone's free speech under the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps Mike and Techdirt should fight for everyone's rights, not just people and organizations that agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this satire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad satire, maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shatire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's effectively admitted that Conservative == racist and simultaneously demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the 1st Amendment and related court decisions. It reads a lot more RWNJ than satirical to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Is this satire?"
Poe's Law says "Maybe. Who could tell?".
It looks like rabid satire completely divorced from factual reality. But that means it also looks a lot like the posts Blue/Bobmail/Jhon likes to squeeze from his sphincter all the time on these forums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social media companies aren’t “liberal”. At best, they’re centrist. Why else would they bend over backwards to please and appease pissed-off conservatives whenever they toss their ire at social media companies? And last I heard, Mastodon had a recent influx of users from India and Spain because Twitter had banned leftist voices from those countries.
Also: someone being banned from or shadowbanned on a social media site doesn’t deprive them of any First Amendment rights. Twitter can ban you from Twitter, but it can’t ban you from Facebook or a Mastodon instance. And such a ban doesn’t count as censorship, either. Twitter can’t stop you from reposting elsewhere speech that you first posted on Twitter.
Oh, and one more thing: Even if you could prove a political bias from a social media company, that doesn’t mean shit. Twitter isn’t legally, morally, or ethically obligated to be “neutral” towards political speech. It could ban right-wing bullshit right now and you’d have no legal recourse because Twitter isn’t a public utility or a publicly-owned business.
You want a non-leftist social media experience? Gab is still open. I suggest going there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stephen, the "P****d off Conservatives" are actually right wing nut jobs pretending to be conservative. Their favourite thing is whingeing about bias for those outlets that don't slavishly repeat what they say without question. They're not worth taking seriously. I just file them under "Liars" and leave them to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry if this sounds like I’m otherwording you, but are you saying that they’re ultraconservatives pretending to be more mainstream conservative? I’m genuinely asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Minus three points for lack of /s
I give it a B+
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please tell me what conservative ideal gets the conservatives banned? Lowering taxes? Smaller government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gun ownership?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I haven't seen that. I have seen a lot of pro guns stances that haven't gotten anyone banned? Can you give an example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, you know the ones…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like calling #metoo women golddiggers who slept their way into the jobs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tongue firmly in cheek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or on some cases, between them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Or on some cases, between them."
How so? The facts are not in question here.
Lowering taxes ... for the rich but increasing them on the not rich
Smaller government ... only when the other guys are in office
But you see pointing out their hypocrisy as kissing ass - this is expected from the so called conservatives that are not conservative at all, they are radicalized and out there on a ledge willing to take us all with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By conservative do you mean the religious right? If they get the power that they want, they will make the Taliban look like moderates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look into Dominionism, scary bunch of lunatics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice to see you'll still be a douchenozzle in 2020, Herrick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So instead of fighting for what they believe in they should fight for what you believe in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never mind that, the premise that Techdirt only fights for the rights of "people and organizations that agree with" them is absurd and trivially disproven.
Techdirt routinely stands up for the rights of everyone from paparazzi to heroin dealers. They've criticized both Trump and AOC for blocking Twitter accounts. Christ, just in the past five minutes they put up a post that concerns an overbroad revenge porn law being overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But those aren't the rights the AC wants fought for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Almost as if the AC is being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, they demand an unassailable privilege in every context, not rights. That's their whole problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"But those aren't the rights the AC wants fought for."
Given the gist of the AC's message I think we have an inkling who's behind it. If it looks like bobmail and smells like Bobmail, then pot odds are good it's that lamentable sack of horse shit we all know as the poster-formerly-known-as-out-of-the-blue. Or Jhon.
In which case we know what he wants. Anyone who contradicts him hauled off in chains while the big bad internet goes away in favor of tried-and-proven 18th century technology where human rights and mass communications aren't a thing anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmmmmmm
Hashtivism
;]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmmmmmm
My buds and I are wondering: Did Hashtivism stem from a grass roots movement? We'd look into that. Jointly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmmmmmmm
There's a high chance of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmm
Though it may end up being a pipe dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmmmm
May have to search through the weeds to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd bet a book on the ways social media is bad would be a lot thicker.
Chapter 1: Myanmar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Social media is neither good or bad, but the ways that people use it can be either, or somewhere in the middle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I agree that the concept of social media does not inherently have a moral alignment.
However I would argue that some social media companies may have stains on their past (and people wouldn't be totally paranoid to wonder what else they have in their closets). But that's not really unique to social media (or even companies... it's kinda a human thing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. It's a people problem. People can be very creative when it comes to abusing communications tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When looking at something that "is neither good or bad, but can be used for both", the only real criterion is to look at how it's used. Is it used more for good, or for bad, and by how much?
By this measure, social media is a plague on society; what little good it does is massively outweighed by the harms it causes. It's not that it does no good; it's that the good it does is irrelevant in the face of the overwhelming weight of evil it enables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Social media is not the cause of the bad, people are the cause of the bad, and will organize to do bad things by whatever means are available. Just look at all the genocides that have happened in Africa despite poor communication systems.
Blaming the tool is a way of no facing the reality that some people are bad, and a lot are easily led by bad people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social media can be used by anyone, of any race,or minority,
tv networks make program,s for mass appeal,
also many of the creators are white, male, middle class ,so the art created tends to limited to a certain view point .
Also tv tends to be slanted towards big corporations and companys ,thats where most of their income ,advertising comes from.so many forums and websites give voice to diverse communitys that would be too small or
too political to appeal to mass media .
Yes social media can be used for fake news or to spread extreme opinions .
when everyone has a voice some of those people will be stupid,ignorant
or racist .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techlash Astroturfed
I try to be mindful of my own biases and bubbles but the whole "Techlash" feels very artificial and suspiciously targetted. You are telling me that the repeated most hated Company in America winner Comcast isn't on the list?
That throughly ignorant definition of "Monopoly" and the stream of hit pieces make it hard for me to take seriously as #walkaway where Republicians and Russians claim to be leaving the Democratic party over it not being bigotted enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what a delusional narrative IS:
re: NY Times (which has been among the most vocal cheerleaders of the "internet is bad" narrative)
NYT is clearly just “deep state narrative, witht little to none actual reader feedback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]