Social media platforms are based upon one simple concept: being interactive with others. We share ideas along with distributing photos and videos at the drop of a hat because they are interesting to us and hope others feel the same and react to what was communicated by responding and ultimately resharing.
Many even link to an article read in order to get a discussion going. That is after all part of the idea of communication: having a back and forth dialogue. Good concept! If only that was what actually happens.
If you link to an article within social media sites, the chances of getting that article read and a discourse going are slim to none. That is of course unless you recap the article within your post, pointing out what it was that caught your eye. By doing that however, any discussion only comes with reaction the post excerpt and not the article as a whole. If that’s the case, why bother with a link at all?
Okay, on Twitter you don’t get a choice to do little but share a link since everyone is limited to 140 characters, but Twitter isn’t designed for in-depth communication. Those that use it are happy to blurt a thought and continue on. Those who use other platforms though, that allow more interaction, are wasting their time in linking to something outside their posting.
Every platform out there ends up being an inward looking community where we are annoyed by the fact we’ll have to go somewhere else to read something before commenting on the post we started at. It’s easier to simply ignore the post and move on and give an LOL, +1 or thumbs up to the latest gif or photo coming through our streams instead of conversing.
If that is all you do, then why bother being on social media sites at all?
Personally, I blame the whole change of being ‘social’ on those who promote the idea that the more people who follow you, the more important you are and therefore whatever that person says or shares must be significant enough to listen to. If they say ‘go read this link’ or ‘reshare this information’ you do it. One important thing about those with tens of thousands of followers should be noted though: very few of them are actively ‘social’. They rarely discuss but simply post.
As what happens in the book “Lord of the Flies” we have to ultimately decide between groupthink and individuality and not let groupthink overtake our mindset. It’s time to pull ourselves out of our comfort zone people, and learn to become ‘social’ again.
Am I wrong or am I right? Let’s talk about it.
Photo from christians at deviantART.com
Really thought provoking post Grace, thank you.
I am writing a response (which is longer than can be posted here) so I’ll let you know when it is live.
Grace, my response is now up, thanks for the inspiration:
http://colinwalker.me.uk/2012/01/social-groupthink-or-following-the-herd/
I wasn’t following until you got to this part:
“Personally, I blame the whole change of being ‘social’ on those who promote the idea that the more people who follow you, the more important you are and therefore whatever that person says or shares must be significant enough to listen to.”
It may not be the purpose of this post, but the desire to be recognized as being influential (particularly on Twitter and Google+) makes people do stupid, stupid things.
Excellent.
Two ideas prompted me to reply. First, the concept of “being careful of who you link to” applies both professionally and personally. Your ‘link-choices’ can help you grow or be your ticket to a fast demise. Choose wisely.
Second, groupthink is simply dangerous. Educate yourself on a certain topic, question and observe before you ‘follow’.