Kate Hawkesby: Social media is not as bad as we think
Early Edition with Ryan Bridge · Newstalk ZB
March 9, 20223m 23s
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (pdst.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
Mark Manson is the author of two great books I’ve read.. The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k, and Everything Is F**ked: A Book About Hope. They were New York Times bestsellers, which sold over 13 million copies. These days, like everyone else, he podcasts, and he has an interesting take on social media - which intrigued me given my recent battle with Facebook and how annoying I think tech giants are.
I am deeply suspect of their algorithms which just capture people into their own little echo chambers. Anyway, Manson argues that everything we say about social media being bad - is not actually social media’s fault. He reckons it’s the user's problem. He says it’s about how we use it. So is this true? Can we dip in and out as we please, set personal boundaries, limit our exposure and keep social media a healthy space?
It might be a good time to reassess this given how much awful news we’re consuming online at the moment.
I for one, cannot read enough on Ukraine, it absolutely breaks my heart, it leaves me devastated, and yet I can’t stop reading about it. And the fact I’m seeking that news out means the algorithms will send more of it my way - and if I’m not careful my feed will be awash with nothing but war. So whose fault’s that? Mine? Or Instagram’s?
It poses an interesting question. Is social media responsible for all society’s ills or not?
Obviously, Manson argues not. He says social media is a simple dynamic of a three-tiered network. Creators (or influencers), engagers, and lurkers.
The creators are the people who feel passionately about stuff and are confident enough to post about it and create the content, the engagers are the ones who form tribes around these people because they appreciate the sentiment, like the way the creator's framed it, they identify with that narrative, and they’ll defend the creator and engage with them.
Lurkers are too busy to bother commenting or engaging or creating, they’re scrolling mindlessly while also cooking dinner or changing a nappy, they care less. It’s these 3 groups he says, who make up the bulk of social media users.
Of course, the largest group is the one outside of social media – the silent majority.
Disturbingly though, Manson argues the people who’ve been screwed over the most by social media are those who work in mainstream media. He says we’ve been ‘screwed sideways’ by it. It’s become our information channel, our source of all reporting. He says we follow it, target controversy, look for moral panic, and report it back, thus, feeding the monster.
We’re looking to supply content quickly, and he argues that’s overtaken our ability to use time to search for facts, so he says our culture gets shifted to extremes, as we look to shift awareness. He argues in general we all need to push our perceptions back to a more mature understanding of social media.
Because as he says, social media hasn’t corrupted us, it’s merely revealed who we always were.
I am deeply suspect of their algorithms which just capture people into their own little echo chambers. Anyway, Manson argues that everything we say about social media being bad - is not actually social media’s fault. He reckons it’s the user's problem. He says it’s about how we use it. So is this true? Can we dip in and out as we please, set personal boundaries, limit our exposure and keep social media a healthy space?
It might be a good time to reassess this given how much awful news we’re consuming online at the moment.
I for one, cannot read enough on Ukraine, it absolutely breaks my heart, it leaves me devastated, and yet I can’t stop reading about it. And the fact I’m seeking that news out means the algorithms will send more of it my way - and if I’m not careful my feed will be awash with nothing but war. So whose fault’s that? Mine? Or Instagram’s?
It poses an interesting question. Is social media responsible for all society’s ills or not?
Obviously, Manson argues not. He says social media is a simple dynamic of a three-tiered network. Creators (or influencers), engagers, and lurkers.
The creators are the people who feel passionately about stuff and are confident enough to post about it and create the content, the engagers are the ones who form tribes around these people because they appreciate the sentiment, like the way the creator's framed it, they identify with that narrative, and they’ll defend the creator and engage with them.
Lurkers are too busy to bother commenting or engaging or creating, they’re scrolling mindlessly while also cooking dinner or changing a nappy, they care less. It’s these 3 groups he says, who make up the bulk of social media users.
Of course, the largest group is the one outside of social media – the silent majority.
Disturbingly though, Manson argues the people who’ve been screwed over the most by social media are those who work in mainstream media. He says we’ve been ‘screwed sideways’ by it. It’s become our information channel, our source of all reporting. He says we follow it, target controversy, look for moral panic, and report it back, thus, feeding the monster.
We’re looking to supply content quickly, and he argues that’s overtaken our ability to use time to search for facts, so he says our culture gets shifted to extremes, as we look to shift awareness. He argues in general we all need to push our perceptions back to a more mature understanding of social media.
Because as he says, social media hasn’t corrupted us, it’s merely revealed who we always were.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.