The way we communicate on all social media sites and even in text messages, seems to those unfamiliar with it to be a different language. However, I’m thinking that that viewpoint may be correct; that ‘social media’ could be an entirely new language. When limited to text-based interaction, many people felt that the intimacy was lost. As Baym (2010) discovered in her 2002 survey, people felt that “Face to face is much more personal; phone is personal as well, but not as intimate as face to face. The internet is the least personal but it’s always available”. The invention of the first emoticon drastically predates this survey and even the invention of the internet itself, but since then it has spawned many new emoticons. As expressed by Baym (2010), most emoticons are based on expressing feelings, but some of them are just for fun. 

Looking beyond the world of emoticons, Baym (2010) also explored how we use punctuation, shortening of words and exaggerated forms of words to express ourselves and show where the emphasis of the sentence lies. I know myself that online interaction must be a new way of communicating as sometimes I’m not sure what an acronym means and I have to learn. For example, a while ago I was seeing the acronym ‘smh’ everywhere and after a while I came to learn it stands for ‘shaking my head’. This is a great example of the users of the internet bringing social cues from face to face interaction into text-based communication. 

In the world of the internet, we have a totally new set of social norms set for different kinds of interactions. For example, it’s normal and arguably logical that if you like a person and they have Twitter, you follow them and if you see a post on Facebook that you think is funny/entertaining then you like it and if you see someone you’d like to be friends with or you know in real life, you send them a friend request. However, if you take these seemingly normal interactions out of the virtual world and slot them into the real world, the behaviours suddenly seem odd or just downright disturbing. 

Although the emoticon has been revolutionary in the realm of online expression, they should be used in moderation. Thibodeau (2010) warns to “keep your emoticons in check” as using too many or silly emoticons can “have the effect of a squealing teenager”. She stresses the importance of considering whom the message is being sent to; writing a message to a friend is very different to addressing a potential employer. It can be difficult to strike a balance between use of emoticons and colloquial terms and making a message clear. Baym (2010) argues that “mediated communication should be seen as a new and eclectic mixed modality that combines elements of face to face communication with elements of writing” and I wholeheartedly agree. Many years ago people may have worried that their messages would or could be misconstrued by the receiver, but with the use of acronyms, emoticons and other appropriated social cues, that concern is almost completely eliminated. However, it does mean that when you type something, you have to make certain that you’re using appropriate internet social cues, or your message may come out sounding completely different to how you intended.  

Image sourced from World Wide IT News

Reference List:

adclubjaipur. 2011. “If Facebook and Twitter Were Real Life.” YouTube video, posted July 4. Accessed April 12, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIY5rifojPw

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Chapter 3: Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal connections in the digital age, edited by Nancy Baym, 50-61. Cambridge: Polity Press.

In the landscape of the internet there are many different kinds of users. As introduced by Green and Jenkins (2011), the term ‘users’ “merges passive (“merely clicking”) and active (“blogging and uploading videos”) modes of engagement”, encompassing the lurkers, the commenters and the creators themselves. In today’s society, people now watch and listen in a new way; one in which they have the power to contribute if they wish. However, contributing isn’t everything as some content leaves a lot to be desired.  As introduced by groups such as Forrester (2011), there is a so-called ‘ladder of participation’, a model where more visible modes of production occupy the top rungs. However, this is perhaps not the best way to approach the situation, as it tends to devalue the watchers and listeners who generate millions of views on videos worldwide.

  A ‘lurker’ is someone who participates in an online forum in a very passive manner, only sitting and reading, not interacting in any way. Lurkers can be a source of frustration for a large number of content creators though, as Herzog (2012) vents about Facebook pages, one comes to notice that their number of fans does not directly correlate with the amount of attention paid to posts. He attributes the blame to the creator themselves for focusing solely on their number of fans. I understand these frustrations well as I am a YouTube content creator myself, and it is very easy to fall into the trap of obsessing over your subscriber count versus your view count. YouTube is prime example of where the concept of the lurker becoming more visible is specifically apparent. YouTube gives a face and name to every subscriber, every commenter. As Green and Jenkins (2011) explain, it “transforms each of these everyday acts of consumption, giving them greater public visibility”. 

But does relatability equal spreadability? According to my Facebook newsfeed, the answer is yes. Thousands of relatable posts, pictures and videos clutter my newsfeed with millions of likes, shares and views already attached. It seems that if enough people think it is funny/relatable, and think others will feel the same, they will share it. According to Lessig (2008), the financial success and sustainability of UGC (user generated content) sites relies on the fact that “the content must be shared in order to represent value”.  The process of creating a viral video has become such an appealing accomplishment that the Google search for ‘how to create a viral video’ yields About 179,000,000 results. Strauss (2013) states that creating the right kind of video, with the right thumbnail and title and posting to the right social media sites are all vital steps in creating a viral video. He also separates the videos into these categories: funny, weird/quirky, cute, outrageous and poignant/insightful. Anyone who has an internet connection has seen the viral video sensation that is PSY’s ‘Gangnam Style’ music video, straddling the weird, funny and outrageous categories, which at time of writing has well over 1 billion views. I suppose in the end, from the point of view of a content creator, virality is great, but obsessing over subscriber count versus view count can only end in sadness.

Image sourced from someecards. 

Reference List:

Green, Joshua and Jenkins, Henry. 2011. “Chapter 5: Spreadable Media: How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences, edited by Virginia Nightingale, 110-111. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Herzog, Ari. 2012. “Why 84% of Your Facebook Fans are Lurkers” Accessed March 21, 2014. http://socialmediatoday.com/ariherzog/552211/why-84-your-facebook-fans-are-lurkers

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York: Penguin.

officialpsy. 2012. “PSY - GANGNAM STYLE (강남스타일) M/V.” YouTube video, posted July 15. Accessed March 21, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0