How social is social networking?
How long is a piece of string? Likewise the answer to the former question vary, as does the vigour with which they are argued. What is more interesting to me, are our communications aspirations as a global community. How do we want to communicate in the future?
Effective communication is a two way process which involves both, speaking and listening.
In traditional conversations we teach small children rules for effective communication. We are all predisposed to being more accomplished at speaking or the listening and we strive to find a balance.
We do not really teach children (or adults) etiquette with regards to digital communication. Digital etiquette's and cultures have evolved and are often rather vague. Communications don't have to happen in a set sequence. You can just post on twitter or face book with out reading or read with out posting. Time intervals are not set, people can respond immediately or at sometime in the future and multiple conversation or information transactions can take place at any given time. My interest here lies within weather or not this is an improvement?
Example, at a recent transition event for primary 7 pupils, designed to give them a positive experience of the future high school and the future peers, it transpired they had already made up their mind to 'hate' some of their new class mates. A fight broke out and was immediately stopped. On investigation as to why two children from different schools who had never met could be fighting so quickly the child answered "I hate him". "How is that possible you don't even know him",was the next question. "Yes I do" answered the boy, "How do you know him"? asked the adult. The answer? Face book.
This was one of the many example of antisocial networking which are increasing. The lines of reality and digital communication are not as clear for everyone. Two children on separate occasions this week said "OMG" not not the words, the letters. Sadly it is not just children, the recent case of two Dunblane parents fight prearranged on face book to happen outside the Primary school , highlights some adults have difficulty with the concept also. Are a certain amount of life skills required which prerequisite safe digital communication? If so how do we prepare future generations for safe use?
This was one of the many example of antisocial networking which are increasing. The lines of reality and digital communication are not as clear for everyone. Two children on separate occasions this week said "OMG" not not the words, the letters. Sadly it is not just children, the recent case of two Dunblane parents fight prearranged on face book to happen outside the Primary school , highlights some adults have difficulty with the concept also. Are a certain amount of life skills required which prerequisite safe digital communication? If so how do we prepare future generations for safe use?
Supermarkets are criticised for displaying sweets next to cashiers, Toy companies are criticised for advertising during kids programmes but no one is really monitoring advertising on children's sites. Or worse still don't realise. The Guardian highlighted this in 2009 after the Byron report in 2008. The reports was updated in 2010.
The final example I have from this week is a child from another group I work with. The child has a blackberry however is rarely appropriately dressed and this week had toenails, which were so dirty, I though they were bruised. It is not an isolated case. For me, this highlights a lack of priorities. Why are communications devices priorities over basic care? There are many possible answers but no positive ones I can think of.
This brings me back to our communications aspirations. We know we are able to bring around huge cultural changes such as the smoking ban and that digital communications can be effective in helping us to do so. We know digital communication is here to stay. It can be used as a force for good or bad. What we don't seem to agree on or be discussing, is how we should aspire to communicate. Public relations is intrinsically reactive, we exist inside a given culture, but that should not dissuade us from having aspirational direction.
What are your communications aspirations? Where should we go?
The examples you post of anti-social networking are interesting. However, outside academic circles where we are expected to maintain 'composure' and to 'see' situations from a repertoire of perspectives I would say they are horrifying. Clay Shirky aptly captures the situations in his book under the sub-title, 'Three Kinds of Loss.' Clearly, the improved freedom of assembly and self-expression that is enabled by new media has a cost tagged to it. When the ease and tools to form groups are in the hands of everybody, society will have to grapple with the effects of these changes. PR, fortunately is a part of this wider society. Shirky's advise is to Publish-then-filter.
ReplyDeleteHi Nyawira, thanks for your comments. I agree with your comments and think it provides an adequate solution for us as professionals. I do however think there is a separate issue with regards to social responsibilities concerning vulnerable adults and young people. I know we can filter which communications are personal and which are intended for a global audience. What I am less convinced about is whether all the people using these communications, (posting to there friends) realise they will be open to this kind of scrutiny?
DeleteClay Shirky also states that 'Communications tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring.' if this is true, we may be in trouble, because progress is endless and we won't be interested in reflecting until it is too late.
Shirky states that’ “consumer” is now a temporary behaviour rather than a permanent identity.’ He also discusses the current changes in the form of a revolution and that ‘The hall mark of a revolution is that the goals of the revolutionaries cannot be contained by the institutional structure of the existing society.’ As we know in a revolution sacrifices are made.
To this end, if we fail to support people, in the realisation of future consequences, that there comments, however privately intended, have the potential to be seen by the whole world and will leave a digital foot print which can not be removed… Could we be accused of using this generation as social lab rats? Or just letting them go like lambs to the slaughter?
The roller-coaster speed and magnitude with which social tools are being invented to serve every interest and purpose - in my view - means that we do not have the ability to reverse or alter the direction technology is taking. As a society, we cannot even control which groups will form next - around what tools; let alone what people will do with the groups they form. If we agree that the more things change, the more they remain the same, we are likely to see that social tools don't create new motivations, they simply amplify them. Perhaps what we may have some control over is our involvement and contribution to the on-going conversations and to use them to put our opinions across. At this point it might be useful to reflect on the insights of the Power Law Distribution explained by Shirky - which dispels the myth that the removal of the obstacle to self-expression by the new media would lead to equal participation in the internet conversations. Apparently, as illustrated by the Power Law, only a tiny proportion of people are active participants. People with the highest stakes in an issue or matter are using the tools most. In that respect I would agree with you to the extent that we could could help to shape groups' opinions and behaviour about the usage of the new tools.
ReplyDeleteExcellent perspective I agree Power Law Distribution provides an interesting context for this discussion. I also agree we won’t be able as individuals to affect people use of ICTs. I agree entirely we can not hope to control the flow and number of access points nor should we. I don’t believe we should even be trying to do that.
DeleteWhat I would like to see is better education so the less active participants have a better knowledge of how and why they are persuaded. I would like a collective awakening! That way people will be able to make informed decisions. Alternatively they are not unduly bothered by a decision they able to make a more informed decision when selecting which shepherd should herd them.
Coming to this a little late I know,....but it's an important question, the emergence of 'anti-social' behaviour in social networking sites such as trolling, or even ID theft.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'd suspect these behaviours are reflective of wider social behaviour that have always existed and not necessarily 'made worse' by social media - it's simply offering a new vehicle for the same issues. Human society has always adapted to new communications technologies whether that be the introduction of a reliable postal service or the telephone. The technology's neutral, it's how people and societies use it, that's the question.
In addition, communication and language have always been in flux. How people spoke in the nineteenth century is different to now. I wouldn't be too worried about a kid saying 'OMG' - in years past, to say Oh My God would have been regarded as blasphemous and not to be said at all!
In many respects, social media simply facilitates whatever's already 'there'. With kids deciding to 'hate' each other over Facebook. We've seen this before with, sadly, sectarianism when a person or people would be automatically 'hated', simply because of their religion or address. Didn't need computers for that.
Also, although people in past times might have apparently more readily exhibited 'proper' conversational etiquette, behaviours we would regard as unacceptable now could still be transmitted on a wide-scale. Instead they would be manifested through social attitudes and institutions, for example, levels of racism and homophobia we would regard as appalling these days - African Americans were not permitted to travel on some public transport and homosexuality was (in some places still is) a criminal offence. With that sanction, people could in the past, say offensive things and no-one would bat an eyelid.
With possession of communications devices, these are an essential to modern living - not a toy, novelty or 'luxury'. It can't be an either/or between care needs and being able to stay in touch. If anything, if a kid is showing signs of neglect, it can be a sign of a range of other issues such as deprivation, job-loss, unsuitable housing, mental health issues or a struggling parent/guardian without an adequate support system. These things have to be seen holistically and with wider understanding. At least some-one wants to be able to communicate with a kid - a demonstration of care, that these new technologies and social media offers.
That said, as a species we're all still figuring out the new etiquette. I'm amazed at how open people can be on social networking sites! Restricting kids exposure on the internet, while desirable in some ways (such as restrictions on advertising on kids' telly) it's very tricky. Shirky hails the empowering, anarchic nature of the web, placing restrictions starts to change that.
As PR practitioners, L'Etang makes clear the importance of PR practitioners considering the role of ethics in their work and considering wider 'public interest'. I think the impact of social networking on kids (such as online advertising), will be an issue we'll all have to think about in our professional lives, with a strong sense of responsibility and ethics.
Hi Samantha I agree about the trolling. My friends Facebook account was hacked, leaving a comment about her losing weight. She’s not 8 stone soaking wet which made the comment funny, consequently, she didn’t worry. However a few weeks later her bank contacted her to advise someone had tried to obtain a credit card using her details. They believed the Facebook hacker was the culprit. It seems strange to me you’d leave evidence that you were there then try to steal from the person?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of progression in language you are also right on reflection, it was not so much the use of a new phrase as the use of an inappropriate new phrase and furthermore their lack of understand of the meaning. Yes the context was correct but they would not be allowed to say Oh my God however they felt OMG was fine. A better example is another child tried to use the term ‘Bitch’ only pronounced beatch ( or something like that) she thought that was ok almost a term of endearment demonstrating her coolness to her peers. When we discussed this she was horrified when I explained the words really meant the same.
I do however think that social media is not just reflective of society I think it amplifies it. Yes you can communicate with more people, more quickly, more often but you have less time to think less time to differentiate. It a
With regard the child and the blackberry I agree that communications devices are less of a luxury and are more essential to modern living. Even necessities have to be prioritised in this case I’d venture the child parent believes providing your child with branded items and gadgets makes a good parent. I still think these are luxury’s when your 11. What you need it to be dressed in clean cloths and have someone communicate with you face to face.
I was particularly interested in your comment about young people’s access to the internet/ social media. I would agree with your comments if they were about adults. Shirkys comments make perfect sense and restrictions and who would be in control of deciding those limits would seriously change power structure. What I’m not sure about is letting children have free roam in cyber space in the same way I would not let them walk the streets alone with out boundaries. It makes me think of two things firstly how we prepare them for safe use. Secondly I grew up before computers permeated every walk of life; my first computer was a commodore 64! I had a different life experience as did most of the people writing the texts. I wonder for people who grow up now surrounded by ICT’s how that will affect their use and understanding of the world. Will the lines of reality be more blurred for them, will they be more or less easily persuaded. I agree with L’Etang that we have an ethical responsibility but I mostly wonder, what varying impact does age have when it comes exposure to ICT?