Interesting article in relation to our conversation in class last week. Being I am not part of any social media site yet, I cannot say if I would or would not feel deeply connected to a cause through internet participation- I doubt it. I feel facebook/twitter etc are good tools for spreading the word on a specific issue, but not so much for anything beyond that. As was said in the article, "The things that King needed in Birmingham—discipline and strategy—were things that online social media cannot provide."
I agree very much with this. Perhaps a seed can be planted on a social media network, but if you really want change it has to sprout outside of the parameters of a computer screen and really become something. Yes, great for bringing attention to an issue, finding people with the same concerns, but then if you want to take action, meet up and speak in real life. It seems it can be a lazy attempt to be part of something. If you are truly devoted to a cause, there are ways to seek out organizations apart from online groups.
Another great example of what the computer is capable of is the case of the stolen cell phone. In real life, opposed to virtual, you couldn't get that many people to watch a video or become aware of something so trivial if you tried for a week. But, online, thousands are informed. The speed that information travels is incomparable to word of mouth spreading of information which is why social media networks can be a starting point for a small revolution of sorts, or just a tool to inform the public of a certain issue. That doesn't mean most people are the least bit interested, perhaps more of a superficial "Have you heard of so and so? WOWW." I think today anything is worth a try even if it is superficial, as most things seem to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment