Dark Side of Social Media

Facebook is the cause of 20% of today’s divorces.

I have heard this figure a few times and while I cannot confirm or deny this statistic it does make you think. Social Media is amazing, without it for some, life would not be the same, and others wouldn’t see a change. I am a user of various forms but can easily go without it for days or weeks at a time. Others are obsessed and fail to continue to live without checking Facebook hourly to find out what is going on in the world. Obsession, is not the worst thing that Social Media does to people.

If the figure mentioned at the start of this blog entry is even loosely close to the mark, Facebook is a curse. Myself, I doubt and cannot fathom how Facebook can even be considered a cause of anybody’s divorce. Facebook itself is not sending saucy messages to inappropriate people, it is the user. Facebook is an excuse. I live in the country and found out that a co-worker of mine has become divorced because of Facebook. As a reaction he has ‘encouraged’ his teenage daughter to delete her account. While it is a sad and unfortunate tale, Facebook cannot be blamed. The marriage must have been in a situation that allowed for her to move on.

This unfortunately is not an uncommon story.

While divorce is the extreme in failed relationships there are others which also end with Facebook being a catalyst. Catfish, a popular MTV TV series, follows the investigation and first meeting between two people that have had a relationship online and have failed to meet. In most cases the ‘Catfish’ is not who they said they were, hence not meeting in the past. It is a sad and unsettling trend that meeting somebody online can be so dubious, and those who seek a partner and decide to follow the online route may be dragged through a long emotional journey fuelled by lies and deception for the other person’s gain.

Again however, Facebook or any other form of social media that is used to grow these relationships cannot be blamed and it is the users of these platforms taking advantage of others that are the real dark side of social media.

Sunday, 19 January 2014

TIME 14:53

Simulacra

In the early 2000’s I remember sitting in my bedroom, staring at my computer screen, ready to do my homework. But homework is boring and I really didn't want to do it. I’d have my word document open with a title written across the top of the page and my text book open looking up at me. “I've got time for a quick game” I’d say to myself. ALT-TAB into The Sims, my computer wasn’t very quick so even a quick play would take a while to load. I’d have my family of Sims walking around the house, mum and dad had to manage their jobs to the kids didn’t get taken away by the social worker, and I’d have to make sure they did all their homework so they got a good grade at Sim High… I wonder how many times I thought about how my grades were affected by not doing my real homework but only my Sim’s virtual homework.

Simulacra essentially means similarity or a representation. Move forward ten years or so from when I was playing the Sims there are many forms of digital media that give people an experience where they can represent themselves in their own way. Second Life is probably the most notable virtual world in which users can create themselves and live in a virtual world. Playstation Home is another which I came across a few years ago, and when I did I was perplexed. My mate showed me it and told me to look at how real it was, sure the graphics are great and the map is vast but I didn’t get it. He went on show me how he could interact with people and even buy clothes. This guy struggled pay check to pay check but proceeded to show me how he could spend $100 on a new T-shirt. I asked him if he would also get the shirt in the mail but he laughed and said “It’s only in the game mate”.

I think there is something about a virtual world that gives people a sense of freedom without restricting. Shy people are able to interact more easily, people who are embarrassed about their appearance are able to create a character without perceived flaws to show the ‘real’ side of them. For me there are limits, I still like to play the Sims, especially when I have homework to do, but I could never see myself spending real money on virtual clothes I will never be able to touch.

The video below is another from South Park, but it hits the mark.

Sunday, 12 January 2014

TIME 14:52

Politics

In this modern world politicians are using turning to more and more forms of media in order to spread their words of wisdom. In the United States of America, President Barack Obama has over 41 million followers. Closer to home former Prime Minister and social media fanatic Kevin Rudd has nearly 1.4 million followers is regularly seen taking 'selfies' with the youth of the nation. The main question is, does social media help politicians? Can it influence their popularity and lead to more votes or will it do more damage than good?

According to the Australian, Kevin Rudd has missed the mark. The article dated August 19th 2013, during Rudd's short second stint as Prime Minister, states that proximity is the key to a successful campaign stating that those physically closest to the candidate have the most influence. Some key statistics gathered from virtual focus groups listed social media low on the list of preferred sources for news on Australian politics.

83% Newspapers

81% ABC television

81% ABC radio

49% Commercial television

36% Blogs and non-mainstream media

31% Social media

One could argue that blogs form a part of social media, which would raise the figure above 31%, none the less, social media is not seen as a particularly favourable way to gather information about politics in Australia.

According to Gallup.com the figures do not paint help social media in the United States with the preferred news source being Television with 55% and Internet at only 21%, with only 2% coming from Facebook, Twitter and other social media.

So why do politicians insist on using social media? Thumbprintmarketinggroup.com believes it comes down to four reasons, worldwide reach, saving money, donations and trust.

These are all legitimate reasons and considering the ease and price of using social media, it seems stupid to not make use of what can be used as an essentially free marketing tool that gives wider and faster reach world wide then many other forms of media. Even 2%, for the costs involved, is worth using social media.

For politicians, much like businesses and and anybody else, social media can be a very beneficial and helpful tool, the key is to make sure that it is used correctly in order to have the best outcome. Taking a leap out of Mitt Romney's book and buying followers will no doubt cause more damage than good, and it might be a good idea to keep the number of selfies to a minimum to avoid targeting the wrong demographic for the party's policies.

TIME 08:16

Wikileaks

Wikileaks is a non-for-profit media organisation officially launched in 2007 by Julian Assange. Wikileaks has been subject to much criticism and has caused an ethical debate over the past six years due to the manner in which the information they have released was sourced and if the information should have been released at all.

But what has Wikileaks done and why does everyone have an opinion on it? According to the Global Post a brief history of Wikileaks includes publishing Sarah Palin’s emails after Anonymous had hacked into her account, publishing a video of a helicopter attack that killing civilians and journalists, publishing information supplied by Bradley Manning, publishing 91,000 documents about the United State’s involvement in Afghanistan and publishing war logs; over 400,000 classified documents.

Simply put, given that the information obtained by Wikileaks was all done illegally so this list in itself seems to show that Wikileaks and Julian Assange are bad people. But looking into what the publication of these documents has achieved is where opinion begins to divide. Opinio Juris lists why the benefits out weight the dangers.

Firstly the bad: Diplomacy- the effects on diplomatic relationships due to the fact that government documents have been released in the past. Safety: the first batch of Wikileaks documents published failed to remove the names of informants. Transparency: there is a view that ordinary American’s know more than they need to know about the day to day goings on about the US government and military.

Now the Good: We have learned a lot about what has gone on in the war in the Middle East, the death of over 109,000 people including over 66,000 civilians by Iraqi and coalition forces. Security has been increased in many governments throughout the world to prevent hacking and future publication of documents.

So what do you think?

Is WikiLeaks evil or good?

For me, as a former military man myself I understand the power and necessity of ‘Need-to-Know’ information and only informing military members and the civilian population of information that is relevant and necessary. There are many things that I was involved in that I only needed to know the bare bones of the task. However in terms of safety and security, governments being hacked into is a danger that should have never been made possible and the fact that security has been enhanced is beneficial for everybody.

Welcome to The Pub Couch

Thoughts, ramblings and other nonsense

Dark Side of Social Media

Simulacra

Politics

Wikileaks

Archive

Popular Posts