In continuation to earlier posts on “Twitter Crusades and Anarchy“, “Why do we really Twitter“.
Is Twitter really the anti “Social Network” ?
Let me be clear I am not referring to a network of “anti socials”.
What I am asking is if Twitter is the opposite of the “Social Network” in the sense that Facebook is a social network ?
Perhaps we can answer that question by reflecting on what makes social beings in the first place in the real world. There is Trust which is the bedrock of civilized living. Then there are intimate relationships that enhance this web of trust. Then of course there is the peer standing. Both intimate relationships and peer standing bring with them significant barriers to behavior that risks violating that Trust. Then of course there is the unwritten and unstated social contract of give and take within these intimate relationships and peer groups. That contract makes implicit demands of consistent behavior, reciprocity, parity amongst others that either boost or stress inter-personal dynamics.
It is arguable to what degree a social network like Facebook mirrors the real world in these aspects of social behavior. But when you have your immediate family and closest friends within the immediate circle of you digital life, it is more than likely your social interactions in the digital closely mirror your social interactions in the real world.
Now here comes the contrast with Twitter with its web of untrusted relationships with no underlying social contract.
It is foolish to expect consistency, parity and reciprocity in this untrusted web where nobody owes anybody anything in the real world. It is even more foolish to hold each other to exacting standards of digital behavior when identities can morph in a split second. Even if one were to be so foolish to hazard such an endeavor, it is humanly impossible to even hold one’s own self consistently to those exacting standards.
Twitter with its anonymity and lack of intimacy best reflects our behavior in a Crowd or a Mob. It allows us liberties we can afford to take in the relative anonymity of the crowd in the real world without the physical risks. Celebrities can talk down to the masses, revolutions can become spectator events and the faceless, nameless can shoutback with good odds of being heard but not necessarily being singled out.
But as is our wont, the social beings that we are, we seek out cliques and comfort zones within the crowd and inside the mob. We seek validation from whosoever appears to lead the crowd at a given point in time. Inevitably expectations follow. But then we forget that the Crowd and the Mob can be brutually insensitive. Not because individuals are intentionally insensitive but because in the cacophony and anarchy of the Crowd there is far less listening and far more shouting. We also forget that crowds usually mobilize for an agenda.
Is there a place for the lone ranger on Twitter who is neither a celebrity nor a leader ?
No more than there is comfort and security for that lone ranger in a real crowd. Such is the harsh reality of this digital anti “Social Network” that allows us to be heard while not requiring us to listen.
Make no mistake there is nothing permanent or certain about our understanding of this digital medium. It is continuously evolving and morphing with our actions.
Can there be such a thing as a Twitter Dharma ?
Perhaps if the Crowds, their Leaders, those Lone Rangers and the many Celebrities figure out why it is exactly they need each other on Twitter.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Filed under: Digital Citizen, Internet Hindus, Offstumped on Twitter, Social Media Reflections
but your point is valid
Comments