Week 10

     At the end of class this week, we were asked the question: "should you be allowed to make an anonymous Facebook account?" I have a couple thoughts about this question on anonymity on social media. Basically, this goes back to an earlier discussion we had about social media being used for both good and bad. As long as you can use it for doing good in the world and making prosocial changes, others can oppositely use it for bullying, forming radical groups, or participating in illegal activities such as watching child pornography. I think anonymity follows the same guideline. There are some cases in which an anonymous profile is necessary, like the case of Wael Ghonim (the author of Revolution 2.0). Ghonim launched an anonymous Facebook page protesting against the brutal regimes that were in power in the Middle East in 2011. Ghonim was protecting himself from these people by hiding his identity, as well as taking a stand for change. He was using this anonymous Facebook for good. The downside to anonymity is that a protester with no face lacks something. It is difficult for us to follow or trust a person who could quite possibly not even exist. One may think a person is remaining anonymous so that they can back out at any point when things get dangerous, and nobody will come after them. However, when you stand up together and et your identity be known, then you are all in. So, in this way, anonymity can be used for good.
       On the other hand, anonymity in social media can be dangerous. For instance, I would never be friends with someone on Facebook if I did not recognize them, let alone if they had no picture, nothing about them, or were completely anonymous. You never know who you are connecting with behind that screen. Another thing that is common with anonymity on social media is bullying. Anonymity gives bullies an outlet to hurt others without any repercussion on them because their identity is unknown. It's easier to post something awful to someone else when you have no face. I bet a decent amount of these Internet bullies would never say what they say if their picture and name was on their profile. My point in all of this is basically the same point I arrive to every class. Social media can be used pro-socially and  anti-socially--and it is our choice.

Week 9

This week in class, we talked a lot about the amplification of prosocial behavior on social media. Specifically, we discussed the ALS ice-bucket challenge that went viral on social media last summer. If you were challenged by someone, you either had to donate $100 to the ALS charity or dump a bucket of ice water over your head. We discussed whether dumping a bucket of ice water on your head actually benefits ALS or not. I think yes. The reason I think these kind of things are beneficial to a cause is simply because the awareness it brings. Yes, dumping ice water on your head is not going to cure ALS, but it will bring awareness to what the degenerative disease actually is. Of those people that see it and become aware, some may donate, some may do the challenge and then challenge others who will choose to donate, and some will do both. On the other hand, there are people like Mike Rowe who will choose not to participate. His reasoning was that all of the money is going to fight this one single disease and taking away the money to fight all the thousands of other diseases people are suffering from. I understand his point, but I don't necessarily agree. So much of the money donated to the ALS fund would have not otherwise been donated to another charity. Many of the people only donated because they heard about it or were challenged. I would say most people did not think "well instead of donating my yearly amount to this other charity, I think I will give it to the ALS fund instead." So much of that money donated would have otherwise been spent on frivolous things, not other charities. 

     Anyway, I think social media is a GREAT was to amplify prosocial behavior. Even if someone is not giving their own money, they are spreading the word across the world that will reach others who will actually donate. Social media has not made people more susceptible to performing mass acts of kindness; it has simply given us a way to come together and do it. 

Week 8

This week we discussed amplifying prosocial behaviors and "slacktivism". First, let's start with this idea of amplifying prosocial behaviors. The internet (social media) allows us to connect so easily with other people around the globe that share the same interests as us. In Shirky's novel "Here Comes Everybody," he makes some good points. The easy access to social media and connecting to others who share similar interests as us can be both good and bad. Some people form groups that help organize movements towards (for lack of a better phrase) making the world a better place. As much as people can do good through forming these groups, others can do equally as bad. For instance, Shirky brought up a great example of the "pro-Ana" group on the internet. This group is where girls can join together by a common interest--anorexia. So, this group acts as a security net and support system that keeps this disease propagating. Girls feel better about what most people frown upon because it is always easier to go against the norm when you have others behind you. So, as long as social media acts as a platform for good groups to form, it is also a platform for bad groups. So, is the amount of good worth the bad? I don't know.
     Another thing we talked about was this thing called "slacktivism." Basically, slacktivism is when people try to be activists without putting in any effort. For instance, it is super easy to share a post regarding all of the starving people around the world, but is that post that you shared going to keep a child from going to bed hungry? No. I do think there are cases where sharing a post is as much as you can do. One cannot do anything about world hunger in Africa if they are here in the United States (in most cases). So, by sharing, it allows more and more people to come together and bring attention to an issue, that perhaps, someone else could do something about. So, sometimes all we can do is share a post or show our support. The real meaning behind slacktivism is the person who is sharing posts about the amount of starving people in their community, yet they are laying on the couch and not actually doing anything about it. It's so simple to share something or let your followers/friends know how heart broken you are about something, but it is another when you actually take time our of your day to work at a soup kitchen or send clothes to a homeless shelter. If everyone acted on the feelings they portray on social media about issues, then I truly do think the world would be a better place (as cliche as that sounds).