Does it have to be one or the other? I believe there is a time and place for both...
In today’s increasingly digital age, young (and not-so-young) have a plethora of digital networking tools at their fingertips. Felicity Duncan, in her article Why Many Kids are Leaving Social Networks, discusses how many teens are increasingly picking up more intimate networking tools such as group texting, iMessage, WhatsApp, and Snapchat.
Duncan highlights three main reasons for this increase in more intimate networking tools. What follows in my insight on each of these reasons.
- Close family members can see their activity… perhaps activity they do not want their family to see. I only partially agree with this reason. It is possible to adjust your posts to block certain people from seeing certain things. If teens don’t want their family to see their Friday night photos, they certainly know how to use the audenice selector to block their family, while sharing with their friends. On the other hand, there is big question about digital citizenship here. If teens are posting things they don’t want their families to see, they certainly need to engage in further discussion about what is appropriate to post online. Again, this illustrates the imperative role educators, families, and larger society plays in educating about and modeling sound citizenship in both online and offline spaces.
- Permanence and ephemerality… Duncan states that teens turn to tools like Snapchat because of the non-permanence and the perceived relinquishment of responsibility to protect their digital dignity. Again, I only partially agree with this. First of all, students should demonstrate digital citizenship no matter how long their digital artifacts last… 6 seconds or 1000 years. Furthermore, nothing just “disappears”… it is always possible that someone can take a screenshot (in some apps the sender is notified)… BUT the receiver could also snap a picture of their screen with another camera, etc. We need to impress upon youth that even though certain networks are 1:1 or close-knit, there is still the possibility for permanence. On the other hand, “In a world where forgetting is no longer possible, we might instead work towards greater empathy and forgiveness”, which is something that Alec Couros and Katia Hildebrandt explore in their joint blog post entitled (Digital) Identity in a World that No Longer Forgets.
- The professional and the personal… Duncan claims that many young people are beginning to use social media more strategically. I definitely agree with this. Some of this, I believe is fed by a “fear factor”, but again, as Alec and Katia dicuss, we need to work towards greater empathy and forgiveness. For example:
If we feel the need to perform a “perfect” identity, we risk silencing non-dominant ideas. A pre-service teacher might be hesitant to discuss “touchy” subjects like racism online, fearing future repercussions from principals or parents. A depressed teenager might fear that discussing her mental health will make her seem weak or “crazy” to potential friends or teachers or employers and thus not get the support she needs. If we become mired in the collapsed context of the Internet and worry that our every digital act might someday be scrutinized by someone, somewhere, the scope of what we can “safely” discuss online is incredibly narrow… - Alec Couros and Katia Hildebrandt
Duncan then explores the implications that moving from broadcasting to narrowcasting has on business and the public sphere. One thing she mentions is that “parents who may be accustomed to monitoring at least some proportion of their children’s online lives may find themselves increasingly shut out.” I only partially agree with this statement. While I think it is definitely important to connect with your child online, I would hope that the monitoring of their child’s online life isn’t restricted to online monitoring. What I mean by this is that parents MUST talk to their children about what they are up to BOTH offline AND online. We can’t rely on digital tools alone to monitor the online lives of our youth. We can never diminish the value of talking and being actively engaged in our children’s (digital and non-digital) lives.
Another implication that Duncan cites is the increase of group text and Snapchat (and the perceived exodus of young people from broadcast social media) will decrease the opportunity for new ideas to enter their networks. While Duncan has a very good point here, I would argue that we can’t rely on social media alone to expose us to new ideas that challenge our current beliefs, as those tools, too, have algorithms that can, to some degree, satisfy our filter bubble as well. Furthermore, people may only friend and follow others with similar interests and beliefs… or block or turn off notifications that misalign with their personal beliefs. What I am getting at is that narrow/partisan views aren’t caused by intimate networks like Snapchat and iMessage… what they are caused by is a lack of skill in developing one's open and critical lens. Navigating the World Wide Web (as well as televised, radio, print, blogs, Ted Talks, etc) requires this open and critical lens, and can also allow us broaden our exposure to new ideas and challenge our current beliefs. Yes, we have social media (which I am a definite advocate of), and it does create a “powerful and open public sphere, in which ideas could spread and networks of political action could form”; but that being said, if youth are never taught or granted opportunity on HOW to leverage social media TO spread ideas and network with others for action, then it is not Snapchat nor iMessage that is the culprit. This is why we must cultivate contemporary skills in our youth, preparing them for the world before them and not the world that was once before us.
Duncan also discusses that broadcast social media has turned into merely consumption for teens. Again, I have to wonder if this is a result of what has been modelled for them and a lack of purposeful opportunity both at school and at home to move beyond consumption and into creation. That being said, I think we have to be careful about this idea that consumption is inherently bad. The key is BALANCE. If we don’t at least consume a little, how are we to create? We need to build upon the ideas of others, and we do that by first consuming their ideas. For example, each week in this class, we are consuming… we read articles, watch videos, and attend a 1.5 hour virtual meeting… these things INSPIRE us to create blog posts, videos, etc. Classmate, Logan Petlack, is a great example of this, as, through his consumption of this information, was inspired to create a Snapchat story the next day at school. If we do not engage in the consumption process, our creation process is likely to be less informed. Another example is the whole remix culture; from consumption comes an incredible amount of new creativity inspired by the creativity of others. Again, it is all about balance; if students are more concerned with keeping up the Kardashians than keeping up with the wider public and political sphere, there is a problem. We (as educators, parents, and society) need to empower youth to take interest, broaden their [dare I say it] consumption, and inspire creation.
Ultimately, there is a time and place for networking through broadcast social media and through narrowcasting social media. Some stories are more suited for an intimate audience, while others can inspire a larger audience. If educators, parents, and society can educate about and model appropriate and effective use, perhaps we can empower youth to capitalize on the benefits of both modes of networking, to both serve themselves and others.
For a comparison of broadcasting and narrowcasting, click here to view an infographic on Flickr.