So, I have to participate in an online discussion forum that operates in conjunction with my thesis class. Each week two students are responsible for posting discussion questions and the rest of us have to debate their topics.
Yesterday, one of my classmates asked if social networking websites have gone too far, i.e. have they grown unruly and made a mess of things? Specifically, they called out Twitter and chided our "trusted" news providers for jumping on the bandwagon. This student's post implied that Twitter has degraded the overall quality of information available to society. It also blamed tweeters for bringing chaos into the system. What line—they asked—should we draw? Where should we put up boundaries and barriers?
That answer is simple—nowhere and none. Here's my response:
I think Twitter is a great website. Micro-blogging is the natural step in the evolution of the scanner culture, i.e. we do not read everything that comes our way—we scan the internet for something that piques or interest/ curiosity.
I know that some people lament that fact, as if it's an indication that society is becoming illiterate to some extent or another, but I completely disagree.
We have to remember that personal computing has its roots in the counter-culture of the 1960's and the echoes of that revolutionary mindset.
As Steve Wozniak said in a History Channel documentary about Hippies:
"We were so influenced by the People’s Computer Company in Menlo Park—the same area that the Hippie thought had come from. The whole Hippie thinking was that, basically, the big, wealthy power structure should be undone. We want to turn the balance over; and we want to make the small individuals more important. And it was basically bringing this power—this mastery of their own universe—away from the powers that be—the huge, big rich corporations."
John Markoff's book What the Dormouse Said: How the 60s Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry takes a more in-depth look at the confluence of technology and counter-culture.
Prior to these movements, information had always been under tight control; there was an aristocracy of knowledge determining what was and was not worth learning. Unfortunately, this informational caste system did more to divide society and empower those at the top, than it did to liberate those at the bottom.
However, now consumers are dictating the terms of consumption. A website like Twitter forces "publishers" to make their pitch in 140 characters or less, which means if you cannot grab someone's attention than you do not get it. After all, why should we read everything a person or organization prints/ publishes just because they have a prominent name like the New York Times?
More importantly, it gives people at the bottom a voice. Who cares if they're tweeting about what kind of cereal they ate for breakfast? That may seem inane to us, but it allows them to feel like they're part of the dialogue. They're speaking; they're contributing; they're finding an outlet for self-expression and—possibly—finding like-minded people to communicate with, which, in the past, was very unlikely to happen.
Social Networking Websites are the first real democratic arena of expression that the world has seen. So, not only do I not think that they have gone too far, but I also think that they have not gone far enough in reshaping communication models.
I do not think that there should be any lines drawn up by an institution or organization since that would just be a reversion to the gatekeeping models of the past. Users should be free to draw their own lines.
As far as news outlets joining Twitter, I say good for them. I think it's long overdue; it's great to see news providers actively engaging the population through channels like Twitter and interactive blogs.
[Relevant Link: http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=716&doc_id=166535]
No comments:
Post a Comment