The new internet modes of communication have ushered in the era of social media. It has become a major part of people's lives and is more ubiquitous than ever. Facebook and Twitter have become powerful platforms of information and entertainment. There are negative repercussions that have arisen from this new technology. Social media can be used to cause civil disorder or destabilization. What is posted can be used for extortion or violate a person's privacy. While it is responsibility of the user in regards to what is posted, there seems to be a disregard for sharing information that individuals do not want public. Privacy may become a past relic forever lost. A more troubling phenomenon is that social media can be used to spread extremism and produce manufactured dissent. Hate groups, terrorist organizations, state actors, and far-right extremists can use social media to spread their ideology to a much larger audience. People with limited critical thinking skills or ability to decipher mass amounts of information become susceptible to being manipulated. While it has become an ally of extremists, those who seek change or social justice are also victim to manipulation. Social media has created an atmosphere of manufactured dissent. Hashtag activism has emerged as a form of controlled protest, but does not challenge the system itself. These campaigns emerging from social media are not revolutionary and they are not even reformist. They simply act as a distraction or a means to control the discourse on a particular issue. Commonly this is referred to as arm chair activism, but it can be barely classified as that. It is essential a means of making users feel better about the horrid state of the human condition. Allowing this space to express frustration or project catharsis take a users energy away from being an effective activist. Social media has benefited business, entertainment, and as a tool of organization there has been negative consequences form its inception.
Social media has become a means to promote far-right extremism and terrorism. Hate groups have been known to use websites to promote their ideas, but now social media can help spread them faster. Individuals can meet people with their views faster than meeting outside cyberspace. Terrorist organizations can recruit through social media. ISIS has used this in its propaganda campaign. Organizations of such criminal nature know that young people are more susceptible to media online. More teenagers and children are on social media compared to other age demographics. They are simple to recruit, because they are easily influenced. The prevalence of European born citizens going to fight in Syria can be partly attributed to social media campaigns by terrorist organizations. The rise of a larger white nationalist movement in the United States was helped by social media platforms. While these social media platforms have terms of use policies designed to stop possible abuse, multiples accounts can be made. Relevant to US Constitutional law free speech issues could become a problem.
Facebook and Twitter have become platforms that could enable individuals with malicious intent. Suppressing such speech or thoughts does not help defeat extremist groups. It may be used as evidence of criminal activity of the Klu Klux Klan or Neo-Nazi groups. This also could be an opportunity for gathering data on their activities. Public safety is important, but social media also enable abuse from the government.
Governments around the world have been known to abuse their power. Western democracies do this under the cover of "protecting" their citizens. The truth is that the data that is sent online from social media outlets is most likely being viewed by the National Security Agency. Eric Snowden revealed that the US was engaging in surveillance of the US population. Defenders of such programs were claiming that it was designed to track terrorists.Logically, it should be assumed such individuals would use other means of communication to avoid detection. Terrorism will not increase simply because individuals have access to social media. The reason is that the US wants to spy on its citizens in a more efficient manner. This is a violation of basic rights and privacy, however the US has done this to its own citizens of decades. The FBI and CIA were known to spy on various social justice movements in the 1960s and 1970s. The wiretapping of phones and infiltration of the civil rights, feminist, and environmental movement was a common practice designed to undermine movements for change. Social media allows this process to be easier with possible FBI and CIA agents making fake accounts or doing cyber espionage. The only problem is that activists can use the platform to organize. The method to neutralize them would be to dismantle net neutrality rules. Doing so would mean certain webpages or social media accounts could be blocked or have their speed reduced. The US government could gradually use social media to spy on its citizens and reduce their freedom of speech. An unsuspecting user of a social media platform will not have an idea they are under surveillance. Privacy has become almost a luxury of the past. If a person contains a cell phone, and e-mail address, and numerous social media accounts privacy is almost non-existent. There is the option of not using such devices or web services. However, this will not protect citizens from the growing police state emerging.
Social media has also changed the way in which the public consumes information. This may have some benefit, if it offers an alternative to the mainstream corporate media. The rise of incorrect information or as the popular terminology calls it fake news poses a challenge. Mainstream media outlets have lost much credibility over the past decades due to distortions and partisan bias. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and ABC want to control the narrative, but realize that social media could be a rival. These companies do use these platforms, but not to an extent that would expand their audience. Instead these outlets claim that social media is the propagator of fake news. Fake news is nothing new, considering there is a much more specific word for it: fabrication. If viewed from this context mainstream news organizations have been guilty of fake news in regards to reporting about Iraq, Libya, and the War on Terror itself. Consumers who believe false reports presented on social media do not have the critical thinking or reasoning skills to distinguish what is truthful. These might be users who are older and may not understand how to use the new social media platforms. The problem is that consumers do not have the skills to decipher mass amounts of information and draw rational conclusions. The uneducated and uninformed are most vulnerable to this type of manipulation. Those who trust one source of information are also subject to this type of distortion. The trouble is that the public has become credulous. Even if social media did not exist they would believe anything presented on television. There is a general lack of media literacy and this is disturbing especially in a period in which mass amounts of information is easily available. Confusion can happen to a user who does not understand the medium. The job of the journalist or reporter was to explain certain events in a lucid and accurate manner. This has been abandoned and the concept of objective or unbiased journalism and reporting has disappeared. Although there is limited hope that television can provide unbiased reporting, social media may be another option. Media is becoming more amalgamated with the Walt Disney Company purchasing Fox properties, leaving little room for start up companies or competition.
Social media has become a means to promote far-right extremism and terrorism. Hate groups have been known to use websites to promote their ideas, but now social media can help spread them faster. Individuals can meet people with their views faster than meeting outside cyberspace. Terrorist organizations can recruit through social media. ISIS has used this in its propaganda campaign. Organizations of such criminal nature know that young people are more susceptible to media online. More teenagers and children are on social media compared to other age demographics. They are simple to recruit, because they are easily influenced. The prevalence of European born citizens going to fight in Syria can be partly attributed to social media campaigns by terrorist organizations. The rise of a larger white nationalist movement in the United States was helped by social media platforms. While these social media platforms have terms of use policies designed to stop possible abuse, multiples accounts can be made. Relevant to US Constitutional law free speech issues could become a problem.
Governments around the world have been known to abuse their power. Western democracies do this under the cover of "protecting" their citizens. The truth is that the data that is sent online from social media outlets is most likely being viewed by the National Security Agency. Eric Snowden revealed that the US was engaging in surveillance of the US population. Defenders of such programs were claiming that it was designed to track terrorists.Logically, it should be assumed such individuals would use other means of communication to avoid detection. Terrorism will not increase simply because individuals have access to social media. The reason is that the US wants to spy on its citizens in a more efficient manner. This is a violation of basic rights and privacy, however the US has done this to its own citizens of decades. The FBI and CIA were known to spy on various social justice movements in the 1960s and 1970s. The wiretapping of phones and infiltration of the civil rights, feminist, and environmental movement was a common practice designed to undermine movements for change. Social media allows this process to be easier with possible FBI and CIA agents making fake accounts or doing cyber espionage. The only problem is that activists can use the platform to organize. The method to neutralize them would be to dismantle net neutrality rules. Doing so would mean certain webpages or social media accounts could be blocked or have their speed reduced. The US government could gradually use social media to spy on its citizens and reduce their freedom of speech. An unsuspecting user of a social media platform will not have an idea they are under surveillance. Privacy has become almost a luxury of the past. If a person contains a cell phone, and e-mail address, and numerous social media accounts privacy is almost non-existent. There is the option of not using such devices or web services. However, this will not protect citizens from the growing police state emerging.
Social media has also changed the way in which the public consumes information. This may have some benefit, if it offers an alternative to the mainstream corporate media. The rise of incorrect information or as the popular terminology calls it fake news poses a challenge. Mainstream media outlets have lost much credibility over the past decades due to distortions and partisan bias. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and ABC want to control the narrative, but realize that social media could be a rival. These companies do use these platforms, but not to an extent that would expand their audience. Instead these outlets claim that social media is the propagator of fake news. Fake news is nothing new, considering there is a much more specific word for it: fabrication. If viewed from this context mainstream news organizations have been guilty of fake news in regards to reporting about Iraq, Libya, and the War on Terror itself. Consumers who believe false reports presented on social media do not have the critical thinking or reasoning skills to distinguish what is truthful. These might be users who are older and may not understand how to use the new social media platforms. The problem is that consumers do not have the skills to decipher mass amounts of information and draw rational conclusions. The uneducated and uninformed are most vulnerable to this type of manipulation. Those who trust one source of information are also subject to this type of distortion. The trouble is that the public has become credulous. Even if social media did not exist they would believe anything presented on television. There is a general lack of media literacy and this is disturbing especially in a period in which mass amounts of information is easily available. Confusion can happen to a user who does not understand the medium. The job of the journalist or reporter was to explain certain events in a lucid and accurate manner. This has been abandoned and the concept of objective or unbiased journalism and reporting has disappeared. Although there is limited hope that television can provide unbiased reporting, social media may be another option. Media is becoming more amalgamated with the Walt Disney Company purchasing Fox properties, leaving little room for start up companies or competition.
Only a few media corporations run the news industry, so the public is getting one message rather than multiple perspectives. Another problem with social media is that false information can spread rapidly compared to the traditional newspaper or television program. There also hold the possibility that state actors could use social media to induce discord. Russia has been accused of making fake Facebook accounts and posting advertisements in support of Trump during the 2016 US presidential election. It is difficult to verify such claims,but is a possibility this could be done in the future. The way information is being consumed now is not contributing to a knowledgeable public. Social media offers the convenience of speed, yet lacks the verification of accuracy of data. Combined with a short attention span user and a fast paced world, it is rare that individuals would go do further research.
Social media could be used in efforts to destabilize nations. It cannot be ignored that one of the positive aspects of social media is that it exposes injustice. Videos of police brutality or corrupt behavior from public officials have generated awareness and public support. Technology can either be used for noble or malicious purposes and social media is no exception. Movements for change should be suspicious of particular accounts that appear on sites that claim they support a particular cause. The Arab Spring is an example of movements being co-opted. The uprisings across the Arab world were not genuine revolutions, but regime changes. Few protesters had a vision beyond simply removing the leadership. Social media did play a role in Mubarak falling from power in Egypt. Wael Ghonim was the internet activist and computer engineer who became the international face of the 2011 Egyptian revolution from the technology based aspect of the movement. The "We are Khaled Said" Facebook page appeared in 2010 in response to the fellow mentioned being tortured and killed by Egyptian police. Some are uncertain if Ghonim even made this Facebook page. Other Facebook pages emerged by users claiming to be in support of the revolution. Again, it is uncertain whether these accounts were genuine or designed to create confusion or chaos. Egypt was really a testing ground for how social media can be used in psychological warfare. It would be simple to replicate this process in China or Russia. If a few messages over social media can induce people to action, what would stop an insurrection in Xinjiang or Tibet in the People's Republic of China? This explains why certain nations want restrictions on internet freedom and specifically social media. It could be used by Western and European Union countries to balkanize or induce regime change in certain nations. This process is still in a prototypical stage,but it will be used as a weapon in the future.
Hashtag activism has become a trendy pastime for some, but is not progressive. Serious issues are reduce to frivolous spectacle. The only positive element is that people become more aware or somewhat knowledgeable about a crisis. However, it fails to get users involved beyond just merely adding likes or sharing it. Movements that begin on social media become nothing more than distractions. Sometimes they can even become over exaggerated. Other times certain problems are not taken seriously enough. The #Me Too movement has generated awareness about sexual assault and misconduct, but does not extend the conversation or debate. If sex crimes are seriously going to be challenged rape in the US military and prison system has to be addressed. Debate and discussion are essential to movements for change. There must be a reasoning process behind how to solve society's ills. Digital activism is only one tool that can be utilized. There must be multiple methods and tactics to counter oppression. Writing can be a revolutionary act, but simple messages will not transform a population's consciousness. Social media can be made to form an atmosphere of manufactured dissent. This phenomenon has arose from this technology. The discourse is controlled in the context of appropriate levels of protest, rather than genuine movements for change. If a hash tag movement emerges on the internet, it stops people from being active in real life. The establishment can use advertising disguised as dissent to maintain a compliant populace. It also stops debate or allowing people to question the political situation. The hashtag movement # Bring Back Our Girls campaign was directed at the Nigerian government when Boko Haram kidnapped a total of 300 girls in 2014. The terrorist organization had been kidnapping children for a number of years and even making them into soldiers. The only reason the Obama administration took notice was because he wanted to enhance his Africa foreign policy. That meant becoming closer to states like Nigeria and South Sudan due to their oil reserves.
This hashtag movement was not out of sympathy or human rights concern. It was to advance US foreign policy agendas in regards to the War on Terror. This public relations campaign used social media to sell to the public that the US needed a stronger military presence on the African continent. So far the results have been catastrophic with incidents in Niger and Somalia. There has been abuse of children by some of America's closest allies. During the Obama administration, it proceeded to open relations with Myanmar which still continues to use child soldiers. This was an example of how hashtag movements can be manipulated to change public opinion in favor of policies that are not favorable. To this degree social media and mainstream media have a similarity. It plays on people's emotions and uses chicanery to get them to support policies of the government that would otherwise be considered ethically questionable. Many question if hashtags are even a legitimate form of activism. Social media is a tool and platform not the actual function. Someone posting on Twitter, Facebook, or Myspace is not really by definition an activist.
The world has become a land of imaginary revolutions. There is a false illusion of change, but in reality there is none. Hashtag movements create a sense of comfort and progress, when society is rapidly regressing . These movements are not going to have long lasting impact if they are a product of social media. Activism when it allies it self with social media becomes nothing more than a temporary fad.
Social media is having a negative influence on the way people communicate and general codes of conduct. Users are constantly checking their accounts and some claim they cannot be without their phone for a second. Basic human interaction seems to be replaced with technology use. Infants are even given technology and it is unclear what effect this may have on their communication skills. These problems are minor compared to the more severe cases of abuse of social media. Cyberbullying has become prevalent. It seems more common among young children and teenagers. This type of harassment is new, because it would not exist without the technology. Children are not the only ones who cyberbullied; this can happen in the workplace or reading messages at home. Companies now are implementing social media policies, due to irresponsible or rude behavior of their employees on social media. The Marine nude photo scandal in 2017 sent shock waves across the military. Male Marines posted nude photos of their female counterparts on their social media accounts. This cause the Marines to introduce a strict social media use policy. The rise of cyberbullying has created a type of user colloquially referred to as a troll. These users post insults, rude comments, or disparaging remarks about race, religion, or sexual orientation. These users can be blocked or removed, yet this does not stop abuse entirely. The reason such people are emboldened is that being anonymous protects them from criticism or retaliation. The idea that social media is bringing people closer together is a myth. It seems to enable people to gravitate to other who share their biases and prejudices. The social media atmosphere thus becomes a closed minded microcosm. There was the belief that exposure to different people and believes would reduce the levels of bigotry. The social media experiment does prove this is false. Donald Trump has made Twitter his stage for hate speech disparaging immigrants, leftist politics, women, or anyone who is not white or Christian. Social media can be used as form of harassment.
Technology can have negative or positive influences on society. The rise of nuclear technology gave humanity energy while simultaneously producing destructive weapons. Automobiles have us an efficient mode of transportation at the expense of air quality. We have now reached the stage in which social media is showing its negative consequences. The fact is prohibiting it or simply not using it is not an option. It has become a major part of daily life, work, and entertainment. Social media should be used in a responsible manner. Doing so prevents abuse or future incidents. Whenever a new medium is introduced a level of control may have to be put in place. The problem is that there are those who want to use censorship to stifle dissent or an alternative narrative. Then there is also the threat from organizations who want to promote and advertise convictions that are odious in nature. Hate groups, the alternative right, and terrorist organizations have an easier time spreading extremist messages to more people. It is much cheaper to work through social media and websites than it is to publish a newspaper. Incorrect information can spread rapidly compared to the traditional mediums. Social media is not necessarily a malevolent or good platform, it must be used and managed in a particular way. These negative consequences could be reduced if particular actions were taken. Users must develop media literacy and critical thinking skills so they can decipher the mass amounts of information they are receiving. Users must also be mindful of what they write and post on their accounts. The owners must be willing to deal with abuse or criminal behavior on their platforms. Most importantly the government should not have involvement in controlling or using it as means of spying on their citizens. The NSA should not have the power to use social media as a means of fighting the War on Terror. It is still questionable how effective mass surveillance is at capturing terrorists. Obviously such programs are not directed at terrorists at all. if these solutions to the negative elements of social media are implemented, it can truly evolve and blossom as a respectable medium.
This is a great post. I like this topic.This site has lots of advantage.I found many interesting things from this site. It helps me in many ways.Thanks for posting this again.
ReplyDeleteIndian Astrologer in Sydney | Astrologer in Australia | Negative Energy Removal in Sydney