Virtual Humanity

Tragic acts of terror continue to anger and confuse the world as this spinning ball of love, hate, and 70% water peacefully drifts through space. I’m supposed to somehow transition from that statement into my blog topic with something like, “all this has really got me thinking about social media,” without sounding like an asinine, tactless, first-world asshole, but, as you now know, I couldn’t figure out how. Reading people’s online reactions to such events just always feels a little strange to me. It seems like just saying something has become more important than saying something sincere. While doing a little research before figuring out exactly what to discuss in this blog, I read several articles written by marketing managers describing the best tweets a brand should make following such a tragedy. I’m not accusing certain companies of using these kinds of things to their advantage, but it just unsettles me thinking that an important thought to have after scores of people get slaughtered is, “what should I tweet?” 

We all remember responding to the Paris attacks just a few short months ago, writing lengthy posts about love and compassion, offering our opinions on politics and Islam, and changing our profile pictures to show solidarity with France. I didn’t really take part in any of that, and I’m in no way saying doing one thing or the other is wrong or right, I just always feel too confused and stupefied to share anything at all. It seems like every week dozens of innocent lives end suddenly at the hands of some ideological organization. Iraq. Pakistan. Ivory Coast. California. Brussels. All so recent. I don't know if any of you relate to this statement, but sometimes, I just don’t know how to feel. What should I feel? What should I do? I don’t want to say something just because it will make me feel better and help me get on with my life, but I also don’t want to remain silent and feel powerless as horror engulfs our world. As a result, a kind of paralysis sets in, and I observe stoically as body counts rise, fingers are pointed, condolences are offered, and the world awaits its next massacre. None of it makes the least bit of sense. We all carry this knowledge of the immense suffering and cruelty in society, and I, for one, don’t really know how to handle it.  

Art by Banksy

I apologize if that was bleak; I’ve just never shared my feelings around that subject before, and I’m very interested to hear how you all feel as well. 

Now to change tone a bit with a topic that relates to the general idea of what I wrote above. I will discuss recent findings about social media and empathy. A startling study from the University of Michigan in 2010 found that in the thirty years from 1979 to 2009, empathic characteristics of college-aged students dropped by over 30%. The researchers drew no definitive conclusions about the cause of the decline, but speculated that the rise in personal technology use damages interpersonal dynamics. A 2015 study from California State University specifically analyzed the effects of various types of online behavior on empathy. It concluded that going online had an extremely small negative impact on real-world empathy, and, actually correlated with increased face-to-face interaction. One interesting detail, however, notes that for both males and females, subjects scored higher on real-world empathy tests than virtual empathy tests, meaning people feel less compelled to be compassionate online.

Since social media holds such a crucial rule in our generation’s civic engagement, the mentality of online interactions can deeply affect which causes we fight for and which we ignore. For example, strong online empathy manifests itself in the widespread support behind LGBTQ rights. As people gain more and more friends, especially in the less discriminatory manner social media offers than real life, they gain new perspectives into people’s lives. Individuals who may not interact frequently with members of the LGBTQ community might be exposed to their lives online and acquire a new understanding and a deeper compassion.

To interject my own opinion, I think the internet and social media sites have rapidly increased the global information intake we absorb each day. This incredible awareness can overstimulate us, leading to apathy and disconnectedness, but it can also help bolster change and create new ways of thinking. We are the sole species on Earth with an adroit control of technology. When you think about it, technology is really what makes us human. So let’s do what we do best and use our wonderful technological capabilities to further our own humanity. 

2016 Election: Case Study

This 2016 Presidential Election serves as the most fascinating and salient example of social media’s impact on this country in history. You have surely noticed at this point that Donald Trump receives an ungodly amount of television coverage, but you may not appreciate how far-reaching his twitter account has become. Donald Trump has about 7 million followers on twitter, so he’s about half-way to Beyonce’s level! Hillary’s page will also reach an impressive milestone of 6 million followers in the coming weeks. And I certainly won’t forget Bernie Sanders. My Facebook feed constantly contains passionate posts and links to articles supporting his campaign. In fact, my social media accounts expose me to Sanders more than any other candidate, which is certainly a result of my college-aged friend-list. I have mentioned in previous posts to this blogs that social media can act as a hall of mirrors for people with similar opinions, and this property can certainly explain Bernie’s popularity with young voters who use Facebook and Twitter every day.

But just how heavily do the candidates rely on social media to get them dibs on Obama’s digs? According to a recent report from the Social Times, they collectively have spent more than $1,000,000,000.00 on digital media and social media (the advanced reader will note that I included all those zeros for rhetorical effect, and the highly advanced reader will note that reporting that statistic to such a high degree of accuracy is complete BS, but the non-advanced reader will have skipped over this text in parentheses to save time, leaving him or her hopelessly clueless as per usual). You may also have noticed that social media is also putting a good deal of money into politics. YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have all sponsored televised debates that integrate questions from their users into the flow of the discussion. Snapchat even covers various debates and important political events in their daily stories. Cleary, the 2016 election has taken advantage of social media more than any other year.

Courtesy of Pew

The candidates focus on social media for obvious reasons. According to a study published last month by the Pew Research Center, social media has become the second most prominent source of election information for all Americans, with only cable TV outperforming it. However, when Pew narrowed the scope to the 18-29 year-old demographic, social media placed at the top of the list, 17% above the next source, online news. Tapping into digital and social media is absolutely crucial to winning the millennial vote; traditional approaches simply cannot compete.

Perhaps watching these candidates’ poor efforts of reaching the millennial heart through Twitter has been the most enjoyable part of this otherwise bleak election. Many seeks to seem “cool” above all else. However, as Erin Lindsay, who worked on Obama’s campaign, says in the Social Times article, “Authenticity is a big thing in social media. I think the candidates that are the most successful are the ones that are clearly the most comfortable.” I argue that the candidate that fits this bill most closely is Donald Trump. Look at one of his tweets where he actually isn’t attacking anyone:

You can just tell by the direct correlation between syntactical carelessness and word-count that Donald Trump’s greasy little thumbs really are the perpetrators of this post; I can imagine them furiously squishing away at an iPhone screen on some private jet headed for the Florida primaries. People respond to this level of honesty. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t quite mask the fact that she has a crack team of underpaid interns working for her day and night to craft her perfect tweets. Here is Hillary trying to appeal to young voters:

…and here is Hillary appealing to African Americans with references to Hip-Hop group Run-D.M.C., Rosa Parks (with Mrs. Parks tragically seated at the back of the logo), and Kwanzaa:

All courtesy of the New York Times

…   and here is Hillary appealing to hispanics with an article on her campaign page that consequently sparked many tweets from latinos using #notmyabuela:

Regardless of your opinion of these two candidates, who at this point will very likely face-off in the November election, Trump undoubtedly conveys an astronomically higher degree of authenticity with his social media accounts than Clinton. For years, people have called politics a popularity contest, and when candidates today spend $1 billion of campaign funds to amass likes, favorites, and followers, that statement suddenly becomes prophetic. I hope that our generation chooses to value policy over personality despite the current trend to emphasize the latter. All I can do at this point is cross my fingers and hope President Obama uses executive action to deport Trump to Mexico. Revenge is a dish best served garnished with irony.