 |
| Fig 1. Representational image. Source BBC. |
Every day we wake up to see at least a couple of bad news which show up first on either Facebook or news websites. Checking the comments or discussions on social media, we see a lot of people who hurl abuses and insult each other. Result? A demoralized person. Nowadays, a large portion of the content posted and shared on social media presents negative news and ideas. The rants, arguments and insults that are common in the comment sections only add to the negative ambience online. This bombardment of continuous negativity affects the users of social media, especially their mental well-being. Yet, sometimes a good news headline, or constructive discussions tend to pop up. But such positive content is shared on a miniscule level as compared to the negative content on social media. What could be the reason? Could it be the algorithms that prevent positive content to get shared often? Or is it related to social psychology? Well, it is a combination of several factors.
In this blog we try to determine why there is so much negativity online. We will also try to figure out what could be done to reduce this negativity and promote positive content. In this post, we want to take a look at the people involved in perpetuating the problem: the stakeholder groups that are relevant to the type of content that gets created, consumed and shared.
To understand the issue, let us first try to group the stakeholders.
 |
| Fig 2. Grouping of Stakeholders |
This is a logical grouping, based on the roles people take when it comes to creating and spreading content on social media. All the groups influence the content/behaviours that are allowed or that become popular. Furthermore, each group has some role in making any content popular. There could be groups that are opposite to each other. For example, content consumers can be grouped into two opposing groups, where one has constructive interactions, and the other group often vandalizes. Moreover, we have the groups “Enablers” and “Policing/Admins” which have a major role affecting how content gets spread and have control over content consumers.
The grouping presents several advantages when considering our task, attempting to reduce negative content and behaviours. Firstly, it helps us figure out the details of the societal problem we are focusing on and ‘who’ is involved in perpetuating the problem. Secondly, it helps us understand roles in creating and distributing content and how the representatives of these roles interact with each other. Overall, we are looking to provide a win-win solution to every stakeholder and having a clear understanding of the actors will help us achieve our goal.
Generally, people are aware of the fact that there is a lot of negative content on social media. In particular, people seem to be aware of negative behaviours, such as insults, bullying and arguments [1]. The effects of such behaviours have been reported in the media: for example, cyberbullying has led to multiple cases of suicide among teenagers [3]. There has been discussion about how the negative content people are so casually bombarded with can change their view of morality, right and wrong and appropriate behaviours.
Another issue to consider is that people identify with different groups based on their characteristics, ranging from ethnicity, gender, social status to beliefs like religion, morality and political stances. Members of one group might become hostile to members of what they perceive to be an opposite group. This can be augmented by negative content concerning the targeted group, which serves as validation for the hostility. Take as an example political content. Quite often, a post or the comment section is from an ‘us vs. them’ perspective. Perhaps a non-accusatory, open perspective could instead can bridge the gap between the different groups.
Generally, we think that people also want to “feel good” about themselves and their life. Positive content and behaviours can help, by promoting belongingness, caring, acts of validation and meaningful social interactions.
Social media allows quick and often comparisons. Unfortunately, those comparisons may create a feeling of inadequacy and disappointment. Could people somehow be driven to instead use them as motivation and goals?
It is quite difficult to decide which group is the most important among described ones since the importance strongly depends on the situation or context. Undoubtedly, content producers influence content consumers but still it is really easy for consumer to change the producer if the content for her for some reason is inappropriate.
Some people are also worried about the growing power of enablers. A good example of it is the highly publicized scandalous occasion of Facebook blocking Nick Ut’s “Vietnam napalm” [2]. When considering situations like this one, enablers influence may seem overwhelming. However, if too many cases like this will be revealed, enablers could lose their power quickly due to the decrease of the amount of users. To prevent such problems, enablers should provide a really good policy.
The ‘Policing’ group members act as gatekeepers, allowing posting of content or access to content. The policing can be done through algorithms, users flaggings or by designated people, such as admins and moderators. Thus, policing is an important factor since it depends on the question of determining what is negative and what is positive content.
To be able to efficiently tackle the problem of too much negativity online, we must carefully consider all the groups we have identified. Each group can help reduce the amount of negative content that gets popular. Obviously it would be completely wrong to block all the negative content since we cannot control facts. Having said that, it is important to note that it is equally wrong to let only the negative content to attract all the attention of a user. There should be a balance between the negative and positive content that a user consumes.
References
[1]
|
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323.
|
[2]
|
BBC Reporter (2016, September 9). Facebook U-turn over 'Napalm girl' photograph. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318040
|
[3]
|
The Top Six Unforgettable CyberBullying Cases Ever. (2016, June 23). Retrieved from https://nobullying.com/six-unforgettable-cyber-bullying-cases/
|
No comments:
Post a Comment