Social Media’s Emerging Impact

“Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites” was a great article from a historic standpoint that still addresses the needs of the ramifications of its emerging impact. I recall the early days of MySpace, and I guess by the time I joined the conversation it was already losing steam in the youthful circles. I was a bit confused by the articles dates because it seemed to me that by 2007 Facebook was already gaining ground over MySpace. Even recently, there was a Facebook meme initiative of eliciting profile pics from today and ten years ago.

Nonetheless, there is a lot going on in the article where the ramifications are still unknown; yet, we are gaining insights to social media’s strengths and weaknesses. Danah Boyd, early on, mentions that youthful engagement in social networks affect “identity formation, status negotiation, and peer-to-peer sociality” (119), and we decidedly see this today in developing identity importance to the youth, as well as adults. Having a lot of friends is still a status gauge, and we develop our online presence through peer-to-peer feedback and engagement, good or bad.

I found it interesting to learn that these sites were developed out of the dating services industry. As I read on, it was clear why some of the information fields are what they are. Boyd’s discussion about mediated and unmediated worlds was eye-opening as thoughts about privacy in a public forum should be intuitive, yet, we don’t often think about that under the guise of “privacy settings”. More importantly, is the fact that things saved in the site databases are permanent even if it’s not available to
“all” others. Considering that anything put on the site may not stay only on there, it’s searchable and sharable because “a mediated public …  consist[s] of all people across all space and all time” (126).

One term I personally related to was “social voyeurism”, as I periodically enjoy perusing my “wall” on Facebook, but don’t actually post very much, and it is a voyeuristic form of participating, but not really entering the conversation. Similarly, when Boyd discusses our parental drive to keep tabs on our teenagers, and our mixed hold and release relationship that we have with our children, is voyeuristic in nature. We, adults, have a need to “see” what our kids are doing, but don’t often know what to do with that information, as exhibited in the misunderstanding of Allen and his daughter Sabrina. Allen who had a good relationship with his daughter, was confused about her post that her personality was like cocaine; he knew that this information could be misconstrued by others. Yet, how do we monitor what we think is right in a world that is generationally more open to this type of sharing.

Some of the things we share, all while knowing it is public, can be helpful or harmful. It can help us understand the world, and build social skills, or it can be hurtful and cause strong emotions, such as, anger, extreme sadness, or a detrimental self-image. Common discourse around the value of social media interactions are currently grappling with when the hurt kills. These things are happening. A question that came to my mind is how can we circumvent these negative consequences to a remote free speech venue as these networks have changed our social priorities from real world exchanges (and the politeness, and restraint that accompany them) to a fictional, or idealized reality, because although Boyd claims, “Our role as adults is not to be [teenagers’] policemen, but to be their guide” (137), and this is often not happening, or not accepted in the face of peer priority.