Misuse of Social Media: Social Implies Human Interaction, People!
by
on July 26, 2008,
Today hasn't been a super-happy day on the Web, with sad news coming from every angle, it seems. The escaped "Spam King" killed himself in a horrifying murder-suicide, and "The Last Lecture" professor Randy Pausch lost his battle with pancreatic cancer.
Spending all of my online time using either social media tools or reading news, I'm used to the typical reactions to news that you'll see on Twitter or in blog postings, or so I thought. I'm confused, however, with what people think is appropriate or not appropriate when using social media to express their feelings about a recent news event.
Take, for example, the comments received today on Ian Lamont's post about Pausch's death. I understand that death of a public figure results in feelings of grief that often seem to have no outlet, but the use of the comments option on a tech blog to express sympathy wishes to the deceased's family just doesn't connect. Do people assume that the family will cull every bit of information about the deceased and find these well-wishes? Do the commenters leave similar comments on every blog that carries the story? Does anyone stop and wonder if possibly a better place to leave condolences would be the very-easy-to-find link at Tributes.com, which links up to his obituary, where the family might actually see it? It's a handy sponsored link right in the sidebar on Google.
The second completely mind-boggling use of social media today was by The Inquirer. Now, I know that there is a market for snarky commentary on news events, and I'm often guilty of that same level of sarcasm at times. There is a point, however, that I think most people would accept that you don't cross, and The Inquirer crossed it. The commentary about the "Spam King's" death? "Comment Yay. No, YAY!" A quote from the article seals it:
While it is hard not to feel bad for his brutally murdered wife and child, not to mention his wounded daughter, Eddie's suicide itself is the stuff of happy thoughts. Every deceased spammer is a million fewer in-box-clogging, malware-infested mails a day, so lets tip one back for liberal gun laws.
Yes, by all means, let's tip one back for liberal gun laws that seriously wounded a teenager, killed a three-year-old little girl, and left a 7-month-old baby in a hot truck, dehydrated. I've often suggested stringing spammers up by their toes and letting anyone with an email account play piñata, but I don't recall ever even suggesting that it involve an innocent toddler. Eddie Davidson's death isnt anything that should be celebrated, even if you do consider spammers to be wasting the oxygen they breathe.
The stories may not seem connected, but to me, they both highlighted the fact that all this use of online tools may be distancing us from the very humanity they are supposed to be helping us interact with. The Internet gives us so many interesting ways to interact with other people. We just need to keep in mind that we are actually interacting with people, and there's still a right and a wrong way to do that.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
major
raj
CopyrightLawSucks 
kwarren84 
Michael Fidler 
Jaime A. Restrepo 
Yolanda
Well said Cyndy. You are absolutely right.
“We just need to keep in mind that we are actually interacting with people, and there’s still a right and a wrong way to do that.” <–A-MEN
When someone chooses a way of life that negatively impacts a lot of people like a spammer…that’s tough also. I feel happy & sad that the spam king is gone.
Cyndy, thank you for this piece.
Hopefully, people will keep your last sentence with them.
Nice post. Very true. People too often use the net as a place to be an anonymous asshat, and when confronted say “it doesn’t matter, it’s just the internet”, like that makes any sense at all.
I was thinking about this yesterday when I passed about 15 people sitting in the coffee shop at Borders - all using computers - NOT talking to each other. I casually passed by several of the computer screens to see what these folks were doing - you guessed it…Twitter, FriendFeed, MySpace. So how social is it to ignore people next to you in body, while you type away online, “socializing” with someone you may never meet?
A night on FF beats hitting bars and partying ANY day for me… but then again I’ve been there and done that
Nicely said, Cyndy. I am always a little shocked at how harsh people can be in their written words. One thing that Social Media implies, in addition to human interaction, is spontaneity. One can get words from mind to published state faster than ever. Publishing the first thing that pops into one’s mind… especially a mind that barely has a clue about proper human interaction in the first place… is never wise.
For one such as I, this is my social life - not by choice, but oh so thankful for it and everyone in it.
But this is all electronic. There is no real “human” interaction. This medium by it’s very practice is anti-social. The most involved among us are extreme introverts and shut-ins. Everything in this space goes in the opposite direction of having real life interactions. I’d even wager that a lot of the time real life interactions from these spaces actually ruin the community because all those involved after meeting each other completely change their perspective of each other and not for the better.
How many dinner parties have you been to recently where even the non-tech obsessed within’ a few hours are drawn more to their internet connected cell phones than paying attention to the people in the room with them. I’ve seen this happening more and more and am certainly guilty of it too.
Fair enough, it does depend on the individuals.
That’s why I’m here more than any other SNS site. I just hope FF doesn’t get infested bY pEoPLe tHaT tYpE LyK diS…. HA
Adam, I disagree. Just like how in real life common courtesy and manners exists, it applies in the virtual world as well. Except on the Internet, it’s called “Netiquette” -I believe? As functioning human beings in a civilized society, the way a person conducts themselves should be taken into account both on and off line…. no?
I would agree Mona, if the internet wasn’t so perfect a place to exercise an alter ego or anonymous character. Go read YouTube comments. I’ll bet 90% of those people would never talk like that in a real crowd, but when they’re online as h0+d00d3456 then anything goes. Or so they think.
Please also consider that some people find the Internet the *only* place where they feel comfortable. FOr some people, F2F just doesn’t work, and they are happy to make friends online and crete a new form of social interaction. Because of their ties to the net, they are more likely to adhere to netiquette. But those for whom F2F is the standard, I find they sometimes are the ones most likely to talk trash on the net because they don’t have such an emotional bond to it.
… accepted social interaction methods disheartening.
Note to self: New feature to add to babelnote - if you’re accessing the app via the website, every 2 hours pop up a window that says “Get up, go outside, and talk to a real person”… Kind of like the Wii games that tell you it’s time to take a break.
Thanks everyone. I think there is a vocal group, even if they are the minority, who forget that a typed name still equals a real person. The comments on Industry Standard really threw me… I understand it’s a sort of virtual grieving, but it just seemed so out of place. Before the internet, strangers would find a way to send a card or note, but now, it’s just leave anything anywhere. Of course, you can argue that without the Internet, we’d never have even heard the Last Lecture, but I find the loss of…
Thanks for this, Cyndy. You’re spot on.
“The Internet gives us so many interesting ways to interact with other people. We just need to keep in mind that we are actually interacting with people, and there’s still a right and a wrong way to do that.”
This is an awesome quote, Cyndy. I think there is definitely a point where we focus more on the tools we are using to interact rather than on who we are ultimately interacting with. It can come to a point where you start to lose the personal nature of human contact.
People will take things to a whole different level when they are not dealing with someone face-to-face.