Recently, a lot of voices have risen saying Facebook, Twitter or other social media are used to utter hateful ideas about other people. Since its rise, social media have been applauded for their democratizing and emancipatory potential. Now, however, its users are often considered cold, harsh or cruel for voicing shocking opinions, hurting wishes and even death threats. With every new mediatic hype, a Facebook group and ante-group is created. Instead of invigorating debate on social issues, this phenomenon disembogues into a noise of shouted slogans.
Two case studies from recent Belgian media hypes are exemplary: journalist Linda De Win's envied streak of victory in De Slimste Mens, a Woenstijnvis quiz on Flemish broadcasting station één; and referee Luc Wauters' giving Club Bruges soccer player Ronald Vargas a red card. Both got stuck in the eye of a (social-)media-storm when people created several hate-groups around their person. The events were hyped on radio and television and in Belgian/Flemish newspapers. Society watchers were invited to vent their ideas on the matter and people condemned first the groups and later Facebook's giving people the ablity to spread hatred.
Obviously, what happened to mrs. De Win and mr. Wauters is intolerable. Yet, would the things said remain unsaid if Facebook or Twitter did not exist? They would still be uttered in bars, on busses, at the hair dresser's - which means they would be kept hidden or difficult to find for sociologists and academic moralists. The widespread availability of world wide fora does not create new social or moral standards, it merely gives people the opportunity to spread their immoral ideas more effectively.
Instead of convicting sites like Facebook, researchers on human traits should praise them for easily and freely externalising what goes about in society.
Sources: De Standaard, Knack
Two case studies from recent Belgian media hypes are exemplary: journalist Linda De Win's envied streak of victory in De Slimste Mens, a Woenstijnvis quiz on Flemish broadcasting station één; and referee Luc Wauters' giving Club Bruges soccer player Ronald Vargas a red card. Both got stuck in the eye of a (social-)media-storm when people created several hate-groups around their person. The events were hyped on radio and television and in Belgian/Flemish newspapers. Society watchers were invited to vent their ideas on the matter and people condemned first the groups and later Facebook's giving people the ablity to spread hatred.
Obviously, what happened to mrs. De Win and mr. Wauters is intolerable. Yet, would the things said remain unsaid if Facebook or Twitter did not exist? They would still be uttered in bars, on busses, at the hair dresser's - which means they would be kept hidden or difficult to find for sociologists and academic moralists. The widespread availability of world wide fora does not create new social or moral standards, it merely gives people the opportunity to spread their immoral ideas more effectively.
Instead of convicting sites like Facebook, researchers on human traits should praise them for easily and freely externalising what goes about in society.
Sources: De Standaard, Knack
An excellent observation.
ReplyDeleteAt a conference panel I attended, a female speaker who has a very public persona mentioned that one of her YouTube videos had recently gotten far more attention than usual, and with it came a barage of hateful comments - especially related to her physicality. (She is a very attractive woman and many comments sought to degrade her in some respect.)
Another panelist noted (as you did) that these kind of comments very revealing as they shed the light on feelings that are prevalent (still hatred towards particular races, sexes and sexual orientation) that many no longer acceptable by society , but are views that many (although not the majority in most cases) still hold.
Without these comments we wouldn't be aware that these views were still so popular. So: sad but revealing - and helpful to know.