readingthedigitalblog - Tumblr blog

[readingthedigitalblog]

Cyber Enthusiasts and Cyber Sceptics Social media’s origins are commonly traced back to Internet Relay Chats that populated the early internet in the 1980’s. Users were able to communicate with each other by sending text messages from computer to computer connecting people from all over the world. [1] The first social media platform as we recognize them currently was called Six Degrees. Founded in 1997, it allowed people to meet others digitally by viewing and creating their own profiles.[2] Today, social media encompasses more than message sharing and is often categorized into five groups determined by their functions: (1) Social networking/LinkedIn; (2) Image sharing/Instagram; (3) Video sharing/Youtube; (4)Blogging/Tumblr; (5) Social communities/Quora.[3] The most successful platforms such as Facebook overlap these categories. While social media began as a niche interest available to the technologically savvy, it is now an everyday part of society used by over half the world’s population.[4] Although any attempt at labelling a point in history is challenging from within without the benefit of perspective, it is undeniable that social media adoption will play a part in defining our time. It has changed the way we communicate, share ideas, and access information, at a speed and scale that has provided little time to reflect on the impact of these changes.[5] Early public opinion was largely positive and markedly affirmed the mission statements of most social media platforms.[6] Take Facebook, their mission statement in 2009 was to give “people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.”[7] In recent times, the public’s confidence in the truth of these statements has started to crumble. A YouGov study in 2018 found that only 14% of British voters surveyed held a positive opinion about social media.[8] Has social media been a force for good or bad for humanity? To answer this question, it is useful to contextualise the viewpoints of both sides. Researchers studying social media’s impact on society found that public opinion could be accurately divided into two camps they called “cyber-enthusiasts”[9] or “cyber-sceptics.”[10] The enthusiasts champion the ability of social media to be a positive force in society by creating connections between people acting as a democratizing force and facilitator of positive social change.[11] Sceptics meanwhile, believe the connectivity and the benefits it purports to bring are illusory. They believe social media often creates a false sense of connection and participation which threatens people’s abilities to enact real change.[12] The two viewpoints could not be more conflicting. In order to evaluate both frames of reference, this series of posts will look at the impact social media has had on an individual level, examining how it impacts user’s mental health, and the societal level, investigating the role social media has in facilitating activism and democracies. [1] Daniel Stenberg, History of IRC (Internet Relay Chat) (2011/2011) [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [2] Jon Allen, The History of Social Media (2017/2017) [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [3] Brent Barnhart, 5 Types of Social Media Every Marketer Needs to Know (2017/2017) [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [4] Jessica Clement, Social Media - Statistics & Facts (2020/2020) [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [5] Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, The Rise of Social Media (2019/2019) [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [6] Dr. Philippa Collin and others, ‘The Benefits of Social Networking Services’ Literature Review, 1 (2011), 1-29 (pp. 12-20) [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [7] Gillian Reagan, The Evolution of Facebook’s Mission Statement (2009/2009)  [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [8] Duncan Grimes, Joel Rogers de Waal, Public opinion and the social media crisis (2018/2018)  [Accessed 1 January 2021]. [9] Gadi Wolfsfeld, Elad Segev and Tamir Sheafer, "Social Media And The Arab Spring: Politics Comes First", The International Journal Of Press/Politics, 18.2 (2013), 115-137 (pp. 117) . [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid.

[readingthedigitalblog]

Mental Health and the Impact on the Individual Mental health issues have been on a consistent rise in the United Kingdom.[1] Each year, one in four people will experience mental health issues,[2] resulting in seventy-two million days lost, at an estimated cost of £34.9 billion each year.[3] The United Kingdom is experiencing a mental health crisis that is intensified by the effects of loneliness and isolation. For cyber-enthusiasts, social media has an important role to play in addressing the mental health crisis and has been established to positively contribute in three crucial ways. First, social media can increase interactions with others leading to a decrease in isolation. Second, social media can provide a platform for emotional support for sufferers of ill health both physical and mental. Third, social media can raise awareness for mental health issues destigmatizing conditions while simultaneously alleviating barriers for treatment.[4] These three key areas are addressed by social media’s ability to bring people together which is made possible by a common human behaviour sociologist call homophily. This is the tendency individuals have to seek out those that are similar to themselves or share the same interests.[5] By finding like-minded people on social media, individuals draw strength and confidence in their own qualities with the reassurance they are not alone.[6] People could be isolated for a variety of reasons. Whether it is the remoteness of their location, unsociable working hours, or an illness preventing their ability to make friends, social media can provide a way for people in these situations to build new relationships and friendships digitally. While seeming like an insignificant task, connecting people on social media tackles a wide range of health issues associated with loneliness and isolation. Not only are both risk factors for mental health issues but loneliness and isolation have been found to impact the prevalence of heart disease[7] and have a similar impact on the body as smoking fifteen cigarettes a day or obesity.[8] What exactly does this look like in practice? It could be connecting with people over a shared interest on forums, sharing photos and videos with friends and relatives abroad, or taking part in collaborative projects online. Social media can also be a place for suffers of ill health to talk to each other in a supportive network. Users can provide each other with practical advice on how to overcome their illness based on their own experiences. Social support has been proven to lessen the impact mental health problems such as depression have on an individual’s life.[9] Furthermore, social support is vital in creating an environment where an individual can address negative behaviour patterns associated with their illness.[10] Currently, there are long waiting lists for people seeking mental health treatment in the United Kingdom, these specifically tailored support networks could help people manage their symptoms while they wait to see a medical professional.  Social media is one of the most effective tools for communicating with a large audience. Many studies suggest that stigma surrounding mental health is a common reason why people avoid treatment.[11] Any delay in a patient receiving care can have a large impact on their likelihood of overcoming their illness. Social media campaigns can highlight the prevalence of mental health issues effectively addressing public stigma. Social media can also attack other common barriers to treatment by educating people on the treatability of mental health and highlighting ways people can find treatment in their area. While there are undoubtably proven benefits, cyber sceptics would suggest that these findings do not present the full picture.  As mentioned earlier, homophily enabled by social media can bring people together online. Sceptics would point out that this behaviour is not limited to those with good intentions. People with interests that are criminal or immoral can meet on social media platforms with a degree of privacy. By creating an environment filled with people that think alike, they are not exposed to ideas that differ from their own.[12] This results in a creation of an in group which often leads to hostile behaviour towards individuals the group views as outsiders. This could result in violence and the normalisation of other criminal behaviour. [13] Social media use can often become addictive and can replace real life interactions for addicts. Platforms are intentionally designed to keep their users engaged, from the design of the algorithms that feed users information, to the user interface on websites.[14] Studies have shown that social media addiction often leads to low self-esteem, depression, and issues with poor body image.[15] Taking both sceptic and enthusiast view points in mind, it would appear that social media use is not intrinsically good or bad but amplifies the positive or negative aspects of each user. It is up to social media companies and users themselves to be mindful of the negative aspects this technology can have so that the platforms and the people that use them can work cooperatively to minimize the downsides. [1] Sally McManus and others, Mental Health and Wellbeing In England: Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2014 (Leeds: NHS Digital, 2016), pp. 8-12. [2] Sally McManus and others, Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England - 2007, Results of a household survey (Leeds: NHS Information Centre, 2009) [3] Craig R and others, Health Survey for England 2014  (London: The Health and Social Care Information Centre, 2015) [4] John Naslund and others, "Social Media And Mental Health: Benefits, Risks, And Opportunities For Research And Practice", Journal Of Technology In Behavioral Science, 1.5 (2020), pp. 245-257 . [5] Zeynep Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas ([S.l.]: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2021), pp. 9. [6] Ibid. [7] Nicole Valtorta and others, “Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for coronary heart disease and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational studies” Heart, 102(2013), pp.1009-1016. [8] Holt-Lunstad and others, “Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review.” PLoS medicine, 7.7 (2010), [9] Xingmin Wang and others, “Social support moderates stress effects on depression.” Int J Ment Health, 8.41 (2014), [10] Ibid. [11] Claire Henderson, Sara Evans-Lacko and Graham Thornicroft, "Mental Illness Stigma, Help Seeking, And Public Health Programs", American Journal Of Public Health, 103.5 (2013), 777-780 . [12] Tufekci, p. 166-168. [13] Laura Huey, “This is Not Your Mother’s Terrorism: Social Media, Online Radicalization and the Practice of Political Jamming ” Journal of Terrorism Research, 6,2 (2015) [14] Hilary Andersson, "Social Media Apps Are 'Deliberately' Addictive To Users", BBC News, 2018 [Accessed 2 January 2021]. [15] Yvonne Kelly and others, "Social Media Use And Adolescent Mental Health: Findings From The UK Millennium Cohort Study", Eclinicalmedicine, 6 (2018), 59-68 .

[readingthedigitalblog]

Activism vs Slacktivism As highlighted in the previous post, one of social media’s main strengths is its ability to create a participatory culture by connecting users together. In recent times, this element of social media has been a key tool for facilitating activism, acting as an organizing component, and as a way of generating awareness of societal issues. The enthusiast and sceptic viewpoints are best illustrated by comparing the ideas of digital activism with ‘slacktivism’. Slacktivism, slacker activism, is a deprecating term attributed to many social media campaigns, often criticizing the ability of social media to enact change outside of their platforms.[1] Critics point out that likes and shares do not go far enough, campaigns focusing on their digital activism run the risk of giving participants a false sense of addressing certain issues by contributing to spreading awareness. This viewpoint is not speculative but is backed up by many studies. Research done by the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business found that when participants had the opportunity to show support through a social media group or by signing a petition, they were less likely to donate money or volunteer their time in the future.[2] Furthermore, their research found that if the initial act of support was private, participants were more likely to reengage with the cause.[3] This would suggest that not only is there a false sense of addressing the issues, but social media activism also addresses a desire to present well to other people. This would indicate that a large social media presence may not be an accurate reflection of public opinion towards a certain topic. Why then do many social media campaigns focus on growing their followers? While the study demonstrated that initial public support through social media diminishes further engagement it fails to quantify the amount of people that will continue to talk about these issues with others. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning found that people that engage with online causes are more likely to talk about them in private.[4] The goal of social media campaigns is not to fix the issue through a like, but to shift public debate towards their cause and using that time in the public eye to pressure those in a position to enact change to do so. If an online following is large enough, campaigns that originate online may end up covered by conventional news sources, further helping to shape public debate. People that hear about the cause indirectly may donate, even if a small portion of participants donate their time and money, that is still an increase from if the social media campaign did not exist. Many activist movements have been funded by their social media following using their platforms as an opportunity for crowd funding. The environmental activist group Extinction Rebellion is funded by non government organisations, private donations, and crowdfunding with the later making up 60% of their donations.[5] Extinction Rebellion has been instrumental in pressuring the government of the United Kingdom to declare a climate emergency which has since made a legal obligation to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.[6] There have been many examples of online movements crossing into the offline world. #BlackLivesMatter, which began following the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the shooting of Trayvon Martin, has grown into a global network working to build a society that is just and fair toward black people.[7] The hashtag has been used to reveal incidences of police brutality and racially motivated violence which has been co-opted by any group of people seeking to fight racism and systemic inequality. #ALS and #IceBucketChallenge was able to successfully fundraise for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis by creating a challenge where people would dump ice over their heads or donate to charity. The ALS Charity Foundation saw $168,000 donated in the first week which was a massive increase from the $14,000 raised the year previously in a much shorter time frame.[8] Hashtag campaigns and social media followings are effective for gaining awareness and donations, another benefit of social media is its ability to help facilitate offline movements such as protests or demonstrations. Messaging services allow activists to organize, platforms such as Twitter help spread awareness of key dates or events, and Facebook allows movements to maintain an engaged user base by creating a digital social space for members to communicate with other people. Social media is a necessary tool for organizing large groups of people and makes carrying out public activism much easier. WhatsApp and other encrypted messaging services have been used by activists to react to events quickly, allowing them to respond to and organize events quickly en masse.[9] The privacy afforded by these messaging services makes it harder for those the groups are fighting to shut down their activities. To conclude, social media has had an overwhelmingly positive impact on modern day activism. While critics believe online activism is more akin to slacktivism, it is unwise to dismiss an entire movement because some of the members may not be committed to future help. Social media has given many organisations the ability to focus on keeping and retaining the individuals that do contribute, and allowed them to leverage their following in the form of public pressure to impact real change. [1] UNAIDS Outlook Report: July, 2010 (World Health Organization, 2010), pp. 142-143. [2] Kirk Kristofferson, Katherine White and John Peloza, "The Nature Of Slacktivism: How The Social Observability Of An Initial Act Of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action", Journal Of Consumer Research, 40.6 (2013), 1149-1166 . [3] Ibid. [4] "So Much For "Slacktivism": Youth Translate Online Engagement To Offline Political Action", Circle.Tufts.Edu, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [5] "XR Funding Stats", Google Docs, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [6] "The Ten Point Plan For A Green Industrial Revolution (HTML Version)", GOV.UK, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [7] "About", Black Lives Matter, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [8] "'Ice Bucket Challenge' Leads To Major Surge In Donations To ALS Association", Boston.Cbslocal.Com, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [9] Fiona Law, Te-Ping Chen and Newley Purnell, "Apps Speed Up, And Often Muddle, Hong Kong Protesters’ Messages", WSJ, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021].

[readingthedigitalblog]

Politics The final two posts detail how social media and its access to information has changed political relations. While undoubtedly a force for good regarding social activism, social media’s relationship to politics is not as black and white. Platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been credited with being a pro-democracy force and key components in replacing authoritarian governments.[1] By using the Arab Spring as a case study, this post shows that it is important to consider the context in which various political movements are taking place in order to evaluate the impact social media had upon them. Furthermore, while having an impact on prodemocracy movements, the role social media played in the Arab Spring is likely overstated.[2]             The Arab Spring was a series of anti-government protests that took place in 2010. Protests started in Tunisia after a street vendor killed himself following on going harassment by the local police.[3] Demonstrations took place against the government hoping to fight corruption in Tunisia. Shortly following, similar protests took place across Northern Africa and the Middle East with uprisings in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen leading to civil war.[4] The protests were documented heavily by activists and shared online for the world to see. For cyber enthusiasts, the audience that social media gave to these movements has been credited with helping spread pro-democracy ideals to neighbouring countries. Social media allowed people in authoritarian states, such as Egypt and Tunisia, to bypass their governments censorship of conventional media outlets. Now nicknamed the “Twitter Revolution,” it was social medias ability to provide quick, low-cost, distribution of information to the masses which led to political mobilisation. [5] Those sceptical of social media’s impact often refer to statistics of social media use as proof its role is overstated. At the time of revolution in Iran, there were only 8,600 registered Twitter users in a country with the population of 70 million.[6] While social media may have been the only inlet the western world had into events in Iran, social media use came after most events not before. Researchers examining survey data in the pre and post protest period found that there was “no indication that the culture of social media was particularly conducive toward dissatisfaction or discontent.”[7] Other studies have also found a negative correlation between the extent of social media access and the amount of protests in the region.[8] This may be confusing for cyber enthusiasts, however when you consider the context of these movements the inverse relationship makes perfect sense. For citizens to take up drastic actions such as protest there needs to be high levels of discontent among the population.[9] Social media use and access to uncensored information lead to lower levels of political discontent. Even when introduced to repressive regimes, social media has been proven to alleviate political discontent not increase it on a country wide basis.[10] Protests are therefore more likely to occur in countries without social media than those with it. The impact of the introduction of social media is the opposite to what most would initially assume. Due to government censorship social media was one of the few avenues the rest of the world had to take notice of the events. This likely led to the western world overestimating social media’s impact assuming it was a catalyst for the protests and not simply a way of documenting them afterwards. [1] Tufekci, pp.13 [2] Gadi Wolfsfeld, Elad Segev and Tamir Sheafer, "Social Media And The Arab Spring", The International Journal Of Press/Politics, 18.2 (2013), 115-137 . [3] "What Was The Arab Spring And What Caused It To Happen?", Culture, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [4] Ibid. [5] Wolfsfeld, pp.117-118 [6] Joel Schectman, "Bloomberg - Are You A Robot?", Bloomberg.Com, 2009 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [7] Wolfsfeld, pp.129 [8] Ibid. [9] Wolfsfeld, pp.128 [10] Wolfsfeld, pp.128-137

[readingthedigitalblog]

Conspiracy Theories This final post will be looking at how social media’s ability to spread information can be used to sow distrust in science and the political process having negative consequences offline. This is a problem shared by both sceptics and enthusiasts as without regulation, the quality of information spread over social media cannot be monitored, leading to an increase in conspiracy theories and misinformation. Most conspiracies born online are usually harmless fun, a call for regulation could be perceived as an overreaction. Conspiracy theories and misinformation have started to resemble more sinister theories from a pre-internet age often disguising anti-Semitic tropes. QAnon, anti-vaccine, and climate change denial have become increasingly popular on social media and are starting to have negative implications on society at large. QAnon is a convoluted conspiracy theory that alleges there is a secret war being fought against Satan-worshipping paedophiles in society often referred to as ‘the elites.’[1] An anonymous poster to a message board website, 4Chan, posted a series of predictions and messages outlining details of this war. When the poster, now known as Q, has been proven wrong, followers of the conspiracy say that Q has deliberately shared wrong information to distract authorities. The conspiracy therefore can not be disproven in its supporters’ eyes which makes followers of the belief particularly dangerous.[2] Many Q followers have already taken action to fight their imaginary threat. In June 2018 a resident blocked a bridge by the Hoover Dam and was later charged with terrorism.[3] In December of that year a man was arrested for plotting to blow up an area in Springfield Illinois.[4] A year later a QAnon supporter was arrested for connection with a kidnapping scheme.[5] These are only a few of many incidences that have been occurring more frequently. QAnon has been embraced by many people in positions of power which has only emboldened Q supporters. Without public denial of these theories and sufficient regulation of Q supporting social media it is likely that these incidences will not only become more frequent but increase in severity. Anti-Vaccination conspiracies predate the internet but have found increasing popularity as the world faces the threat of the coronavirus. A search online will lead to a wide range of theories ranging from vaccines being responsible for autism to an attempt at controlling the world’s population through microchips.[6] Depending on which anti-vaccine theory you read, these conspiracies are often anti-Semitic fuelling hate. Their popularity could not have come at a worse time as governments are currently working on their coronavirus vaccine rollouts. Anti-vaccine protests have taken place during lockdown, the initial efforts taken to create a vaccine could be wasted if people refuse to take it. Anti-vaccine and climate denial share a common mistrust of the scientific process. Climate change denial is also promoted by fossil fuel corporation in the interests of preserving their business emboldening climate change deniers in the same way government actions have QAnon followers.[7] The societal damage done by conspiracy theories will not go away without stronger regulations on social media. Groups seeking to promote these ideas should not be given a platform, and governments need to take actions to properly educate the public surrounding these issues.   In summary, the viewpoints of both cyber sceptics and enthusiasts have merit. Social media is a tool that can have positive or negative impacts depending on the user. The negative impacts are most notable in the areas of mental health and science denial however they are outweighed by social medias ability to facilitate activism and positive social change. With cooperative action from governments and social media companies the problems associated with social media misuse can be limited. Initial steps have been taken with the government in the United Kingdom increasing regulation of social media last December. I look forward to future seeing the impact these measures have in the long run and am confident that as time passes public perception of social media will again be overwhelmingly positive.    [1] Mike Wendling, "Qanon: What Is It And Where Did It Come From?", BBC News, 2021 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [2] Ibid. [3] Lois Becket, "Qanon: A Timeline Of Violence Linked To The Conspiracy Theory", The Guardian, 2020 [Accessed 15 January 2021]. [4] Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] [7] John S Dryzek, Richard B Norgaard and David Schlosberg, Oxford Handbook Of Climate Change And Society (Oxford Online, 2011), pp. 143-144.