Introduction

Social media may get credit for things it doesn’t deserve (and criticized for problems it didn’t cause), but few can argue that without social media, there would be no such thing as citizen journalism.

Only a decade ago, the idea of general public news was somewhat absurd. Media was the media, and outside of the opinion page or comments sections, we simply didn’t participate. Blogs dotted the online landscape, but to the general public they were mostly a novelty and often viewed with a bit of mirth. What did these tech savvy upstart young-lings know about the world?

The catch was that blogs were quickly gaining traction not as the outlet for emotional youth, but sounding points for well informed, and in some cases even additional outputs from news organizations themselves.

Today the blog has fallen away as a news source, replaced by micro blogging and main stream social applications. As always, with any change there are benefits and pitfalls. Let’s look at a few…

Accountability

Accountability flows both ways does it not? Big brother is always watching – but in a slightly ironic and perhaps scarier twist, little brother is watching too. Few incidents or mistakes on mainstream media’s part will escape a public eye armed with smart devices.

But little brother’s sudden power comes with a dark side – with no motivation outside fame, and no recourse for damage, the once harmless busybody is now a potential social media fallout in the works for anyone unlucky to be caught in their cross-hairs. This is a stark contrast to mainstream media which must carefully temper itself to avoid litigation and other forms of backlash.

Accuracy

As with accountability, citizen journalism is a double edged sword. Cameras don’t lie, but they DO distort. Little brother’s vigil over mainstream media may force a more mediated approach to journalism, though thus far it seems to have resulted in quantity over quality.

The same cannot be said for the citizen journalism itself. Little brother operates without training or research, resulting in news that is raw, but may not tell the entire story at all. Just as with mainstream media and its own inevitable bias, it is up to the consumer to think critically and disseminate material with an informed and emotionally detached eye.

Introduction

Previously (several times actually) I had postulated that social media can be a dangerous lure for the unprepared. Like a great sponge, it has the power to absorb, deflect, and ultimately destroy movements before they even get started.

With that said, it’s fair to say most grass roots movements cannot survive without social media behind them. So how then do movements maintain this precarious balance? Let’s look at some possible counteraction against social media pitfalls.

Issues

Pseudo Participation

This has been cited many times throughout DC Current, but for posterity, I refer to the ease would be volunteers or other audience members fool themselves into a sense of participation. Click a like, type a quick comment, maybe even argue with a critic in some round robin debate for a while, and that person walks away with a sense of accomplishment. The problem of course is they haven’t actually done anything tangible to assist your cause.

A possible technique to counter this problem is replacing general calls for participation and emotional appeals with specific needs. As an example, a homeless shelter could post an interactive calendar that indicates times of need and allows users to click these “blank” areas to schedule themselves. The single click convenience is still present, but is being harnessed into a real world action. Similar techniques could be employed for political movements – keeping a steady stream of polite but purposeful calls to a political figure’s channels over months might prove more effective then shouting them down for a few days until your volunteer momentum is lost.

Emotional Drive

Emotions are a powerful motivator, but are often fleeting. Appealing to emotions with your movement might get things off to a great start, but sooner or later someone else will have a catchy new slogan or cause that drains away attention and resources from yours.

This is where balance and using your voice to incite real movement comes into play. Obviously a bit of emotional appeal is needed, but once you have an audience, it’s time to focus on what that audience can accomplish besides growing until it bursts and evaporates.

Research your movement carefully before you “go live”. Find out exact what voluntary steps you can take. Do you want to build houses? Evoke political change? Send care packages overseas? Whatever the cause, someone has likely done something similar and there are channels or actions to assist you. This incidentally, is where social media can help – remember, it’s not just a soapbox, but a powerful education tool as well.

After having mastered your techniques to a satisfactory level, this is when you switch to the soapbox mode. The social media is now now just a way to get attention, but a tool to instruct your audience on what exactly they need to do for real change. You may also be surprised at how quickly the effect snowballs, as audience members will bring their own skills perfectly suited for allotted tasks, which can then be spread back out through the social media in a beautiful cycle.

…To be continued…

Introduction

Social media is touted as the ultimate tool for movements, and it may well be. Where else can a group with no money, no voice otherwise, and no access to influence in the system go to advocate change?

The answer is quite a few actually. No offense to Mr. Khan or Keller, but social media is a tool, not the end all be all of grass roots movements.

Questions

Q1. What has social media accomplished?

One example given by Mr. Keller and Douglas is the WTO meetings in Seattle, and how social media enabled the organization of protest movements.

Beginning with the 18 June 1999 ‘Carnival Against Capital!’ demonstration that covertly organized hundreds of thousands of protesters (including labor, environmentalist, feminist, anti-capitalist, animal rights, anarchist, and other groups) throughout the world to demonstrate in new found solidarity, the Carnival continued with the infamous ‘Battle for Seattle’ against the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in December 1999. Thus, an international protest movement surfaced in resistance to neo-liberal institutions and their related globalization policies, while democracy, social justice, and a better world were championed.

What does not get mentioned is the protests were by and large ignored, and the WTO continues to operate unfettered. Bluster and noise, now a forgotten footnote in obscure writings. As is also the case for IRAQ war protests also mentioned in the article.

Does that sound familiar? How many “movements” have started on social media, made some noise, and peter out within months.

Conversely, women’s suffrage, prohibition, removal of prohibition, civil rights, are all powerful examples of grass root movements that DID affect change, and did so without the benefit of electronic media.

Social media can claim accomplishments to a degree, but comparatively speaking, it is a drop in the historical bucket.

Q2. How to truly empower social media?

If we can assume Q1 is correct, then the next question must be why? Ease of use might be one common reason. Successful grass root movements actually require grass roots level effort. Posting on social media and waving signs aren’t going to frighten the establishment any time soon.

Use of social media to organize practical change can. For instance, in lieu of emotional slogans and zerg rush post movements that will be ignored and forgotten, a movement might instead try to educate their target audience. Explain the issue, and provide channels the audience may use (numbers to representatives, company meetings, donation targets, etc.). In general, keeping in mind the social media is a tool and not an end will pay dividends.

Introduction

With all of the hoopla that surrounds the rise of social media, it is often easy to overstate the effect it has on various aspects of our lives. But there is one area where it may be difficult not to understate social media’s influence, and that is the news. To be short, social media has not merely influenced the news, it has become the news. Let’s brooch some discussion topics this phenomenon and responses to it.

Interactivity

Not more then a decade ago, news sources were many, but not varied, as they all used the same “them to you” model. Be it radio, paper, cable, or just your local at 11, the public had very little input aside from editorials or the occasional gimmick dial in.

Social media has rewritten the rules on interaction. A news article found online is now subject the immediate dissemination and discussion – with results that are not always pretty. In response, some organizations have chosen to close their topic forums or comment services, but this is no defense. Users simply link the article to their favorite social media application and the discussion proceeds unfettered.

With this in find, news outlets have been forced to rethink their publicity policies, as even the slightest mistake (or perception of one) can have disastrous consequences.

That all said, interactivity is also a boon for organizations, as they can leverage this to create a sense of responsiveness to their communities, and gain another source for their story searches.

Economy

Smaller news sources with little market and even less in their budgets have found social media to be a powerful and money saving tool. Facebook live streaming for instance, allows video distribution without networks or even a studio. The social media itself then acts as a distribution tool, again affording smaller news outlets a larger voice with little investment.

Quality

An oft cited complaint is the downward turn in news quality due to social media. This may be a fair complaint. Placing power of voice into the hands of individuals who lack the training, professionalism, or accountability of a larger organization, and mixing that with sometimes emotionally charged topics is a recipe for muck.

Then comes the “right now” > “right” issue. With instant access being order of the day, there is simply no time for prudent quality control. Throw in click bait, fake news, and other intentionally misuses of news media and there is a good chance of generating complete public apathy. It’s still too early to see how these problems will be resolved, but hope springs eternal. it’s not the first time news delivery has been disrupted, and perhaps as the social media concept matures, quality will come along for the ride.

Introduction

It’s no secret that an online presence is all but a necessity for any organization to survive, or at least remain relevant in the first world. Unfortunately being “online” isn’t enough. The internet is a vast, unwieldy beast, and it does take some planning to make it work for you. Get it right though, and you’ve just armed yourself with the second best tool any entity could ask for (the best still being a compelling product, natch).

Non-Profits are no exception, it just so happens the product is their mission. Want to promote that mission and or gather resources to execute it? Look to the money makers and learn from them.

Discussion

Websites

Before the advent of social media applications, a website was the starting point for most entities seeking an online presence. Because of the greater amount of front end effort (or cost), some entities now opt to make their website secondary or in some cases never bother at all. While this is understandable, it is a very serious mistake. A website offers several advantages over social media applications.

• No Advertisements – Unless you are using a free service to host, your website is yours alone, and you don’t have to worry about another entity inserting itself right between your lines.
• Content control – websites give you full control not just of what goes in, but how it looks. Colors and logos are often a big part of an organization’s brand. Only a website offers this freedom.
• Permanence – Websites are the little black dress of the internet. They may not be fashion forward, but they maintain a steady relevance . Conversely, the hottest social media applications today may well be abandoned or even shut down in short notice.
• Centralization – Rather than compete with social networks, a well crafted website works with them, serving as both a portal to social applications and a funneling target for social media users.

All of these advantages do come at a price. Websites require a high level of maintenance – uploading an electronic billboard and expecting any sort of positive result is pure folly. The website must have some interactive content, or at least (as above) serve as a portal to social media apps that do. Furthermore the website must be updated with some level of frequency to avoid becoming stale. Most organizations simply do not have the time or expertise for such tasks.

To help mitigate website maintenance, a powerful solution is to employ Content Management Systems. WordPress is the most oft used example – this site for instance is powered by WordPress. Drupal, SMS, and others offer similar solutions. Content Managed Sites offer end users the ability to edit content (hence the name) without editing the site itself, essentially separating the content from its engine. In short – modifying the content becomes akin to creating a Word Documents or PowerPoint. Users can upload media, pictures, link to social media sites, and even make minor design changes depending upon their level of comfort.

Advanced design aspects are still the province of information systems professionals, but by employing a CMS, you don’t need to call your IT guy just to write up a manifest on latest charity excursion.

Social Media

The game changer. In theory. To an organization long on needs and short on resources, social media beckons like an old lover, and has just as many pitfalls.

• Wide Reach – The potential for social media to reach an audience can be more or less described as “everyone online”. Realistically, that’s not likely, but even today advertisers understand word of mouth is the best for of ad. Social media is the ultimate tool for jump-starting a virtual word of mouth.
• Ease of use – Few people have the expertise or desire to build and edit a working website, and few non profits have the funding to pay someone who does. Even with CMS, a website simply cannot hope to compete with the single click ease of social media posting.
• Instant Communication – Websites may employ forums for two way discussion, but for instant interaction with customers and constituents, social media is the king.
• Front Lines – The advantage of websites are their “slow and steady”, never going completely out of style approach. But for entities looking to grab attention fast, sometimes it pays to follow the fad.
• Cost effectiveness – Social media applications and websites like may be used as fundraisers, but only social media applications are “free”. It costs nothing but time to log into an social media app and create a presence.

Doesn’t that look like a great deal? Just be careful. If not leveraged correctly, social media will happily serve as a detriment to your cause or organization. One of the biggest pitfalls is simply not keeping social content up to date. Whereas a website can get away with monthly updates, a social media site must update at least twice a week.

Worse, a website left to rot is simply ignored or perhaps assumed by viewers the information did not need updating. An out of date social media presence implies the organization is closed, too short handed to carry out their mission, or simply doesn’t care. In effect, the organization would have been better off not to use social media t all.

Another issue may simply be the overwhelming number of options. At any given time there will be ~10 social media applications with relevant world wide saturation (assuming the English speaking world). Choosing which can be a daunting task, especially considering how quickly a freshly adopted presence may quickly be replaced be something newer.

A possible solution is the top down sharing approach. Many social media applications offer the ability to automatically share to each other, and still others may work with websites by offering feed portals. For instance, consider the following:

1. Instagram allows direct sharing to Twitter & Facebook when a port is created.
2. Twitter offers automatic sharing to Facebook whenever tweets are created, and also offers users a predefined window feed for websites.
3. Most CMS systems offer auto share to twitter, Facebook, and most other social applications.

What this means is that an entity with Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, a website and very little time to manage all of them would be best serve with a compromise:

1. Set up Twitter to auto share to Facebook.
2. Leverage Twitter’s feed feature for the website.
3. All photographic posts are performed through Instagram and auto shared to Twitter. Twitter in turn auto shares to Facebook and appears in the website feed.
4. Short, non photographic messages are routed directly through twitter. Facebook is reserved for longer posts, and the website for informational articles.

Using this approach, the user is only every dealing with one application at a time – usually Instagram, but keeps two other social applications and their website flush with fresh content.

Conclusion

Leveraging the internet is not easy, but you need not pour vast amounts of time and money into creating a presence. With a bit of resourcefulness and a great cause or product, one can quickly make themselves a force to be reckoned with in the online world.

Introduction

In some ways the digital divide makes a fine example, albeit a very unfortunate one, of the Square Cube Law. It’s not simply that the digital divide itself is growing exponentially, but the rate at which commerce depends upon electronic networking climbs at a similar clip.

We in the first world have a responsibility to take on this gap, if not for altruistic purposes, then for our own benefit. As more and more of the populace becomes disenfranchised, they in turn cannot contribute to culture, physical needs, and commerce. Sooner or later we will all suffer the loss.

Discussion

Several solutions to attacking the digital divide are being tested and applied with varying degrees of success. All have their advantages and challenges.

Physical Connections

Usually when the digital divide is mentioned, the idea of having no physical connection springs to mind, and with good reason. Oft repeated elsewhere in my articles is that only ~40% of the world is online at all. Of that 40%, very few enjoy a quality of connection we take for granted.

On the surface this is an easy problem to solve. String some fiber optic, fire up an access point or two and everyone is connected, and there is some truth to this. Infrastructure is the first step to a connected society.

There are however a few challenges.

Infrastructure

What infrastructure is best suited? Satellite connections might work well in the highlands of Nepal where the open shy is plentiful and wired infrastructure is prone to destruction by the unpredictable Himalayan wind shear – but the same concept would be virtually useless in the thick canopy of South America’s rain forests.

Contact Point

Once connectivity groundwork is laid out, how do you actually connect the people living next to it? A few WIFI access points might have the capacity to cover an entire village, but what good is that when no one owns a phone? Place a phone in everyone’s hands? How long can they be expected to last in a harsh environment where the most basic human needs are sometimes a privilege?

A more prudent solution might be something akin to an internet cafe, where centralized maintenance can take place, but this again does little to connect individuals on an every day basis.

Virtual Connections

By virtual, I’m not talking about a failed GameBoy offshoot from the early 90’s. There is more to being connected than having a wire and a computer. The to us perfunctory skill of operating and maintaining electronic equipment is mythical to most of the world. Typing, searching, installing software, and understanding search heuristics on the most basic level are all skills that are necessary for an online world to be anything beyond a curious novelty.

Is it realistic to expect we can educate the entire world at the same rate we run wires into their territory? If not, how do we open up the online world to people not equipped to use it while offering the level of power that we in the first world enjoy?

Follow The Money

The final challenge is one that sees little discussion, but may pose the greatest danger to a connected, free society. I’ve barely skimmed the surface of approaches and pitfalls when attempting to connect the world, but it is obvious to anyone no matter what approach is used, that approach will be costly.

The danger though is not one o lacking funds (though of course that is a problem). It is one of power. SOMEONE is paying for the “free” WIFI in your neighborhood or a fr away country. It might be you through taxes, a Non-Profit, or some mega corp looking for publicity. In any case, the purse holds the power, and by ceding the responsibility of connection to another entity, one cedes control.

We in the first world still have a choice of how we choose to connect. Even in monopolized areas we have some (however infinitesimal) power since we are direct customers. Third world areas have no such privilege. It might not hurt to take a long look at the long term ramifications and motivations of a single entity trying to connect X territory.

Conclusion

Lots of negativity, yes? It’s only caution – we can and should push to connect the world, but in doing so avoid being dogmatic. No solution is perfect. Instead a multifaceted, careful approach based on the needs of culture, environment, and economic realities should be taken. In short, crossing the digital divide is a marathon, not a sprint.

Introduction

In a previous discussion, one of the obstacles preventing social media from affecting a positive influence on social capital was the Digital Divide. The problem of course is that like many singular issues, the digital divide is itself made up of multiple caveats.

Article

Note: The article posted for discussion was offline at time of writing.

Discussion

Physical Connection

Connected

This is the most obvious – if you don’t have a connection, you aren’t online. As cited by InternetLiveStats.com approximately 40% of the world’s population is online. This status is meant to sound impressive and it is – but viewed from the opposite angle, that means 60% of the population is NOT online.

Semi-Connected

Being online does not mean one has a quality or even a consistent connection. The statistic of population online is a binary, and a misleading one at that. After all, intermittent and or poor access is still “online”. There is little quantitative data on connection quality, but speculative heuristics paint a bleak picture for most of the 40% who have a connection at all. Only the first world – and not even all of that – enjoys a full fast connection.

Connection quality may sound like more of an annoyance than a real problem, but perspective applies. What we call a poor connection, most of the world calls unimaginable. Furthermore, most online content is designed and built by the very entities with the best connections. This includes government sites, information sources, non-profit organizations, and of course most social media applications.

End result is that as the first world moves more and more of its basic commerce and social interaction online – the rest of the world actually loses access rather than gaining as is a common assumption.

Linguistics

Another obvious issue. English is the language of business. Unfortunately though English is the third largest language by number of speakers – that still leaves most of the world behind a vast and for the moment virtually impenetrable wall of non-communication. As is often the case, it is the world’s poor yet again at the greatest disadvantage, for they are more likely to be native speakers of more obscure dialects, and the least able to obtain access to English education.

As communication goes both ways, native English speakers are often no more well equipped than their non occidental counterparts to deal with a linguistic divide, and many simply have no wish to.

Education

We love to joke about how inept our progenitors are when it comes to online savvy. The classic story of some random grandmother being preyed upon by schemers, scammers, and spammers is more prevalent than ever.

Try to imagine what happen if grandmother wasn’t a first world denizen with access to contemporary education, a modern connection, and the primary language of online communication. Now face the reality – that is exactly the situation most of our world happens resides in.

Online savvy goes well beyond dodging malefactors. The simple act of searching for information is a skill we take for granted. What about typing? Maintaining software? Or for that matter, hardware. There is simply more to getting online than having a neighborhood connection, and for the people who need it the most, it is these skills we consider perfunctory that are the domain of greatest privilege.

Hope

Logistical challenges of bringing the world online at all, let alone at a quality approaching that we in the first enjoy, is both astronomical and growing. Fortunately several entities have risen to take on this challenge. See below for a few in action.

• Hole In The Wall
• Connect Kentucky
• Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning

Introduction

In this preceding article I’d spoke of some reasons why Social Media acts as a detriment to social capital. However, there are several advantages social media offers over traditional media to the engaged citizen.

Two major hypotheses have been postulated in regards to social media vs. social capital:

• As social media proliferation increases, the balance of social capital decreases.
• As social media proliferation increases, the balance of social capital increases.

As an alternative to these diametrically opposed viewpoints, I would like to propose a third hypothesis:

As social media proliferation increases, the balance of social capital remains constant.

In support, I have already offered points toward social media decreasing social capital. Let us now discuss some of the means by which social media can counteract its own negative effect.

Discussion

Financial Access

An obvious advantage social media offers is potential cost effectiveness. Most social media applications are free to use, offering a powerful tool with cost measured only in time vested.

Furthermore, social media also offers a point of income. Via specific fundraising apps like Kickstarter or gofundme.com or direct fundraising campaigns, citizens and organizations have access to potential fund sources that simply did not exist less than a decade prior.

Global Society

Social media has yet to break down cultural, linguistic, and accessibility barriers, but it’s fair to say physical borders are approaching irrelevance. With a few clicks, one can can communicate with peers and strangers alike from around the world. The simple logistics of organizing a real world meeting is now no more difficult than clicking on a calendar drop-down. And though my previous article made a point of only 40% of the world being online at all, that’s still billions individuals that were just not accessible at all to the average citizen of ten years ago.

Edutainment

Wasn’t this cited as a detriment? Indeed it can be and thanks to Sturgeons Law usually is. That said, one cannot blame the hammer for poor construction. Making informational topics fun and is not a new idea – but social media gives us the power to do so quickly and easily.

Describing how a benefit project to relief victims can be fun and beneficial to society is one thing. Posting a video showing people working together, becoming potential lifelong friends, and the resulting work they’ve done is quite another thing. Only social media gives this kind of power to the average citizen.

Conclusion

It’s not fair to say that I have proven my hypothesis, because I haven’t. There are dozens of points still to discuss, and a lack of hard data for analysis. Even so, on a personal level I believe there is currently a balance. We are no better or worse off in totality – the methodology is just different.

If we want to tip the balance positively, it may help to think of social media for what it is. A tool. Social media for its own sake is worse than useless – used wrong it can quickly escalate to being one of society’s major challenges. But when taken for what it is, a vector, a tool, then it is can be the ultimate trump card toward bringing the world together as never before.

Introduction

I’ve minced no words in my pessimistic view toward the “power” of social media. To outright repeat myself – I believe the reach and influence of social media, at least in the modern sense is overstated. Social media is by and large a new term, but NOT a new phenomenon. I would argue in fact, that it is not social diversification that has taken place within the last decade, but homogenization – that is to say, the social sphere has compressed itself into a series of internet based applications.

The potential of our public social sphere’s continuous migration into the virtual world is enormous, to the point it defies definition. Unfortunately, potential is NOT power. Until certain issues are resolved, there remains a tenuous balance between the advantages and detriments of social media to social capital. Certainly we cannot hope to tackle even a portion within one discussion, but we can at least the opening gambit.

Discussion

Normally my format of choice is to ask and answer my own pair of questions. For this discussion, let’s instead highlight some specific points and try to take them on piecemeal.

Cyberbalkanization

As defined by Techopedia:

Cyberbalkanization is the segregation of the Internet into smaller groups with similar interests, to a degree that they show a narrow-minded approach to outsiders or those with contradictory views. While the Internet has largely been credited for broadening discussion, it also can serve as a means of bringing together fringe groups with intolerant viewpoints. So, while the Internet has contributed to globalization and information exchange, it also may be used to foster discrimination.

In so many words, it’s human nature. We tend to seek out those with similar opinions for validation and comfort. However, with the fore mentioned homogenization of our information sources into a few small (and controllable) outlets, there is a dangerous precedent of reducing what we know into what we want to know.

Digital Divide

It may shock millennials, Gen-Xers, and perhaps a few Baby Boomers too, but the majority of the world’s population is NOT online. At all. Forget Facebook, Tumbler, and the rest – according to InternetLiveStats.com over 60% of the world populace has yet to experience the musical medley of a dial up modem tone.

It’s simple math – the more our world relies upon online sources of information and commerce, the fewer humans have access to it.

All this only considers having a physical connection. A GOOD connection, basic know how, technology education, online social savvy (cyber street smarts if you will), and linguistic barriers are all obstacles far more difficult to surmount than stringing a bit of fiber optic into third world neighborhoods.

Edutainment

Be honest – how many of you log into your favorite social media to get world news and reports. Be honest again – if you DID log in for education, how many of you wound up watching random videos, looking at friend’s photos, or succumbed to some other distraction?

Human nature strikes again. Combined with Cyberbalkanization, the ratio of frivolous to informative activity is arguably decreasing. End result is an uneducated but highly opinionated populate. If that combination sounds dangerous – it is.

Pseudo Participation

Perhaps better termed “Click Participation”. You will not find this point in our readings as it is my own. In this article among others I have argued a serious degradation to social capital is the self delusion of participation.

It is simply too simple and easy to fool one’s self into a sense of engagement by taking actions online that by and large have absolutely no real effect. An obvious example would be clicking like or posting an offhand comment about a post you agree or sympathize with. More and more specific discussion can be found here, here, and here.

Introduction

Establishing the concept of social capital is one thing, actually doing something about it is quite another. In a previous article, I argued that engagement is the true key to Social Capital. Let us now address the minutia.

Questions

Q1 – What is engagement?

I’ll admit asking this mostly so I can answer it. To truly gain social capital, I argue physical action must accompany the intent. Clicking like on someone’s post about thinking of disaster victims does nothing to help. Donating to the relief effort does. Or if you do not have the financial resources, showing up and providing physical labor. If that’s not possible, just the simple act of rolling up one’s sleeves and giving a bit of blood makes an actual world affecting contribution.

Similar principles apply to the body politic. What is the difference between posting snarky memes and voting? One of them has an infinitesimal effect on the world, and the other is a snarky quote.

Q2 – How To Engage Using Social Media?

If likes, +1s, and pictures don’t help engage, then what good is social media? Plenty of course. Well written discourse can attract the right kind of attention and raise awareness. Social media groups can be used to coordinate real world efforts. Real time data from ground zero of a project can encourage and cajole.

Simply put, social media has thus far proven to be highly detrimental toward overall social capital. Fortunately in the right hands, it is potentially one of, if not the most powerful tool in the engaged citizen’s arsenal.

Introduction

In the last century we have witnessed a gradual but exponential change in the media consumption habits of society. In the first world even those of lesser means possess fingertip access to the sum of public domain human knowledge and entertainment – all distilled through a twelve centimeter array of light emitting diodes. Of course resolving whether such distillation results in a net positive or detriment would be a debate both furious and never ending.

Questions

Q1 – What IS social capital?

The Webster definition of social capital reads as follows:

the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively.

So then, social capital is a network. But how exactly does a network enable a society to function effectively. If individuals are only engaged in self promotion or gain, an oft cited pitfall of social media, how does society benefit? Or does the ability to directly network through Social Media offset the “me” factor enough to actually increase social capital?

Q2 – What is the key to social capital?

Theoretically if social capital is a network, then networking is the key. This is I diverge from Mr. Webster, Dr. Nah, and most of my contemporaries. I would maintain the true key to social capital is engagement. Without taking some action to affect some real change in the physical or even virtual world, all the networking in the world is of no use.

Introduction

One of the most important aspects of non profit initiatives is fundraising. As with many other real world activities, social media has disrupted the paradigm for conducting daily business. Let us discuss how to make this disruption work positively.

Articles

• Benchmarks 2016 (UK Canvas)

Questions

Q1 – How Has The Giving Scope Changed?

As if it wasn’t obvious in the general world sphere, the Benchmark article makes clear that fundraising targets are migrating from static media (email, websites) to social media. This provides both challenges and opportunities for organizations relying on upon public generosity. No longer can one reliably send out bulk emails and expect dependable results. However, while news has always been instantly available – now it is instantly available on a personal level. This kind of “touch it, feel it” illusion aspect of social media may prompt public response in a way that “special reports” on the corner cafe TV never could.

Q2 – How to Leverage Social Media As Fundraising Tool.

As above, social media has already begun to disrupt the traditional email fundraising model – itself a fairly recent disruption of ring downs, snail mail, and door to door. In a way, part of the work has already been done – there is all but a certain chance whatever cause one wishes to take part in already has an operating interest group. Unfortunately, this also means the possible issue of competing for time and resources. Additionally, while previous generational methods are gradually being supplanted, they are still far too relevant and important to ignore. The savvy fund-raising manager will need to find a way to mix public empathy toward their cause with multiple social outlets, and traditional methods – all in a way that is cost and time effective.

Introduction

The concept of a public sphere is hardly new, and certainly predates social media. The very existence of Habermas, J is proof enough, having been published in 1974. But has social media usurped the public sphere?  Or is it just another facet?

Article

• Habermas, J. (1974). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. New

  German Critique, 48-55. (UK Canvas)

• The Nonprofit Engagement Project (NEP): Group Selection (Feb 9) (UK Canvas)

Question

Q1 – Contrast the public sphere vs. the social sphere.

Although this is my own question, I believe that ultimately there is very little contrast between social spheres and the public sphere. The public will acquire and consume information from social spheres at will, even (and often especially if) the originator wishes to keep their content under control.

Q2 – How to leverage the blending of social and public spheres.

If we can assume social networking is a key to the public sphere, then we have an easy access to the consciousness of John Q., if only for fleeting moments. The work of “getting attention” is already done. Instead, it is quality of message that must set us apart to garner force behind our cause, in whatever form it might manifest.

Introduction

Social media brings much more than the logistics of organization to charitable initiatives. It is now possible with just a few clicks to research and evaluate any group or initiative on instant notice.

Articles

• Bookmark Your Browsers! The Official Blogs of the World’s Most Popular Social Media Sites
• Top 15 Most Popular Social Networking Sites (and 10 Apps!)

Questions

Q1 – Discuss basic aspects of charitable organizations and initiatives.

This is a rather lose topic that is (quite intentionally) better for in class discussion. Each individual will have their own personal criteria on what makes an organization charitable, let alone worthy.

Q2 – Discuss using social media to evaluate worthy charitable initiatives.

This again is a question best used for in class discussion. Frankly I look forward to lobbing it into the room like a proverbial Apple of Discord. Amplifying the diversity of opinion is the infinite variability of information available through social media. Within reason, there is really no one correct way to evaluate an initiative. This is the at once blessing and curse of social media power.

Introduction

One of the greatest potentials of social media is that of logistics. No need for daisy chain calls, large scale meetings, or travel. Just fire up a space in your application of choice and go. As mentioned here however, the almost comical ease of joining a cause has potential challenges of its own.

Articles

• Bookmark Your Browsers! The Official Blogs of the World’s Most Popular Social Media Sites
• Top 15 Most Popular Social Networking Sites (and 10 Apps!)

Questions

Q1 – Discuss social initiatives vs. social media.

One of the potential dangers of contemporary social media is the lack of effort required to conceive any sort of cause or initiative. With just a few well placed words or photos, one person can stir a whirlwind of frenzied interest and passion. Yet, just as quickly these movements fizzle out to be replaced with a new interest.

It is of course possible to circumvent this pitfall, creating a true initiative rather than a viral burst. It is my opinion the subtler, more meaningful approach that produces long term effort is what separates a functioning initiative from common social media.

Q2 – How can social media be used to empower a charitable initiative?

On the most basic level, social media is the ultimate logistical tool. I can attest from personal experience. My peers have at times arranged missing person searches, training, tornado clean up, flood aid, and even funeral support.

Social media is also a powerful potential fundraising tool. In the time a single person might canvas one neighborhood for support, social media could potentially reach millions.

Introduction

Continuing discussion of defining social media. The first in class discourse confirmed (at least personally) my theory of social media: That it is largely a psychological construct. Each individual responded with a definition that reflected their own experiences and predilections. This is not a bad thing at all, and in my opinion demonstrates the true power of social media – diversity and awareness.

Articles

• Social Media (Wikipedia)
• History And Evolution of Social Media

Questions

Q1 – What is the true power of social media?

Numbers don’t lie – social media is ubiquitous in society. But how much of an effect does it really have? Consulting groups are quick to assure a social media presence is essential to any business survival, and for brand awareness they may well be on target. In terms of direct sales – perhaps not so much. Facebook’s entire business model is a hedge bet by advertisers not yet backed up by quantifiable results in product sales. Essentially it’s a repeat of the dot-com model (and we all know how that one went).

Conversely though, the psychological power of social media is undeniable. As above, you may not sell more widgets by placing ads on Facebook, but it’s likely you won’t sell any widgets AT ALL without a social media presence.

In short, awareness is the key.

Q2 – What are the personal effects of social media?

How many of us in the first world make a day without checking our favorite social media site? Good old stand by example Facebook is last week’s news in the public consciousness, scoffed at my millennials, derided by Gen-X, loathed by boomers. Yet ~10% of the entire world’s population logs in each day. Nobody on Facebook anymore? Somebody’s lying.

The impact is enormous, and effects it has on everyday lives are obvious. For this question, I will focus on what is perhaps the most oft debated aspect: Privacy.

I’ve made no secret about my view that social media gets overstated a bit. Facebook and its ilk get credit (and blame) for a lot of concepts they neither invented or refined. Data mining? Please. Entities like Equifax know more about us than Zukerburg could ever imagine – and have been at it since 1899. That’s not a typo: 1899! Blaming social media for breach of privacy is no more fair than giving it credit for empowering movements in society. What has social media done then?

See also: Public awareness. Sure, there’s still the common misconception data mining is a new thing, but at least we now have a public awareness that it does in fact exist. Moreover, though social media does make data mining hilariously easy, it also gives John-Q a tool to push back with, if only just a little.

This awareness of social media I believe is far and away more powerful than the social media itself. The illusion or in some cases reality that we are watched by peers undeniably alters our every day human behavior (deny it, go ahead). I would like to delve further into the topic of awareness via in person discussion, as breaching here would need far more than allotment of one page.

Social Media (Wikipedia)

History And Evolution of Social Media

What is social media? Ask Mr. John Q., and you will probably get something akin to “Facebook”, “Twitter”, or whatever the most prominent brand is at the moment. That’s a fine example of branding yes? Those are no more the definition of Social Media than “Kleenex” is the definition for tissue. Or are they? Social media is social is it not? If the public consciousness says that social media is Facebook and Twitter, perhaps it is.

According to Wikipedia, social media is defined as follows…

Social media are computer-mediated technologies that allow the creating and sharing of information, ideas, career interests and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks.

…and then immediately admits this definition is neither definitive or all encompassing. It is likely well beyond the scope of this class, let a lone a single discussion to truly define social media, but we can at least narrow the scope a bit with some simple questions.

Q1 – How does “Social Media” differ from other communication vectors?

Technically speaking, telephones are social media, as would be virtually any form of direct communication in the modern era. What exactly sets apart the concept of social media vs. mass media, vs. a simple phone call? One to many? That’s been around since the days of town criers. Instant access? The telegraph. Two way? Telephone.

Could it be the combination of these aspects that creates the “social” in social media? Or is this merely a psychological effect of the previously mentioned branding?

Q2 – What is the future of social media?

Nebulous though it may be, the history of social media is recorded and available for dissemination. A more difficult question is where it will go. Facebook and its ilk are ubiquitous today, but will not last forever. What will replace the current forms of social media? Will blogs like this make a comeback in the public consciousness? Will a new brands come along doing the same thing with another name plate? Or is there a truly disruptive force on the horizon?

Original Article (UK Canvas)

Further discussion upon previous points raised here resulted in a slightly more concrete debate of social media and political sphere. One aspect is the delivery system, and thus raises my first query:

Q1 – What are the political effects of connection delivery initials such as Connect Kentucky.

Just like the physical Superhighway system that preceded it, the internet was born from a military initiative. And like the Super Highway system the internet was quickly appropriated by civilian interests, bringing information, commerce, and connections at speeds never conceived.

Unfortunately, parallels continue to the detrimental aspects. The super highway system is often blamed for the disruption and ultimately destruction of areas is bypassed or in the case of larger urban areas, dissected. Without access, the disenfranchised fell yet further behind. So far the internet has proven no different. The poor and uneducated are now being left behind on the virtual highway.

Connect Kentucky and similar initiatives hope to ameliorate the connection disparity by bringing WIFI services to every municipality. Leaving out the logistical obstacles, my immediate would be the potential political ramifications. Someone has to pay for all that hardware, maintenance, and access. Paying is power, and power is control. When public access becomes not a convenience, but a dependence, the dangers of single entity control are very real.

Q2 – What are the drawbacks to a fully connected political sphere?

Quick query? When was the last time you recall any grass-roots movement affecting practical change? I’ve oft heard crowing from social media pundits of the power it gives groups to conduct movements and change the political landscape in ways not possible. However, the last time I checked, there was no such thing as Facebook during the movements for Anti Slavery, Civil Rights, Women’s Suffrage, or any other initiative that actually managed a permanent change in our political sphere.

Indeed, an argument could be made that instant access to group communication, and the ability to “join” a movement by pressing Like or posting a random meme has in fact weakened influence of grass-roots initiatives. To put it bluntly, it takes no effort to make one’s self feel involved without actually doing anything. Outrage comes, goes, and the powerful ignore them until they go away, knowing full well a new flash in the pan distraction will appear tomorrow.