 |
Haha this graph doesn't even mean anything, numerically, at least. Narratively, however, it gets the point across - viral emergence equals fast death.
|
Yale assistant professor Molly Crockett looks at how digital media changes the expression of moral outrage and its social consequences, and this WIRED article talks about her on the subject of getting mad online.
It's been a good year for speaking out against sexual harrassment and abuse. Maybe it's because the president of the USA doesn't deny that he is an abusive misogynist. Maybe it's because it's finally time for us to talk about how (typically) women have to put up with forms of social behavior more appropriate for animals than people. Regardless, it's definitely time to start talking about experiences of harrassment and abuse on the biggest megaphone humankind has ever created, Twitter. This comes in the form of the Me Too campaign, where people tell their stories too. That's where this article stems from.
Growing up in a hyperlinked world makes you suspicious of anything viral. Doesn't matter if it's good or bad, for or against; if it's viral, it's suspicious. Has this been engineered? Is there something inherent in the subject that makes it so susceptible to hyperlinked amplification? Is it just probability and statistics?
Why did
Kony 2012 happen? At one point it was the most viral video ever. Ever. Oprah had something to do with that, just saying, in case you're looking for ingredients for a viral pie.
Point being, just because something's viral doesn't mean it's doing a good thing for the movement or campaign that it's a part of. Professor Molly Crockett, and the article below, explain this:
Me Too and the Problem with Viral Outrage
Oct 2017, Jessi Hempel for WIRED
It’s often the case that the people or organizations you shame “publicly” via social media will never see the criticism at all. Your social audience is generally a group of like-minded people—those who have already opted in to your filter bubble. Or as Crockett writes: “Shaming a stranger on a deserted street is far riskier than joining a Twitter mob of thousands.”
One of the chief reasons we decry the actions of others digitally is for our own reputational benefit—so those like-minded people will like us even more.
“People are less likely to spend money on punishing unfairness when they are given the opportunity to express their outrage via written messages instead,” she writes.
Post Script:
Can't help but raise Slavoj Zizek's ideas about consumerism and charity - how we engage in charitable acts as a way to morally license ourselves, to permit ourselves to participate in an economy and way of life that by its nature takes liberties away from others. Weak as it may be, there is a link here between this pursuit of moral license. We're all looking for qualifications for our actions (because every one of us knows that we can be called out any day for what we do, right in front of the whole world all at once). White folks want a license for black folks. Men want a permit that gets them into the women's club. The cops want to hi-five the civillians. The surer the gaurantee that you'll be let into the club, the greater the motivation to participate in any particular movement.
Slavoj Zizek on Consumerism and Charity: "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
Notes:
Molly Crockett's TED Talk about morality and decision-making:
https://www.ted.com/talks/molly_crockett_beware_neuro_bunk
