Social Media: Aggregating Uninformed Opinions?

June 18th, 2009 • 2009 Write-off

Sometimes, I wonder if social media reminds me too much of how willing people are to make uninformed opinions public – or how many people are just truly uninformed.

Before you lynch me for that statement – which, trust me, is an informed one – hear me out. Every experience I’ve had during the course of my life has surrounded me with smart, sensible people, in addition to everyone else in the general populace. I learn a lot every day from those who I interact with – both online and off – and am better for it. Part of being connected, however, is being able to see what the popular trending is. While ordinarily the flood of awful memes and banal event/celebrity/reality TV news is easy enough to tune out, it’s when the conversation turns to more serious issues that I get irritated. The utter lack of knowledge behind many people’s impassioned support is easily questioned, but when it becomes the popular thing to do, questioning it leads to detrimental effects for the questioner. If you’re observant enough, you can also identify hypocrisy between different viewpoints. Perhaps it’s just me that does that, I don’t know.

Creating this strong movement of uninformed opinions and groupthink really leads to some interesting interactions. It also acts to turn me off of social media. I’m not really interested to listen to the same message over and over again; let alone the same incorrect message.

While I’m not specifically referring to the current situation in Iran, it is a good case study for this. There is a sea of green avatars being shown by people on Twitter. It’s being pitched as the colour of freedom and democracy, but green is the colour of Mousavi, the leader of the losing party in the election, and the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is an important point here; if you examine Mousavi’s history, he’s certainly not without fault, and will not bring our concept of democracy to the Iranian people. Bring that up now, however, and see what sort of response you get.

The Sri Lankan protests in Toronto brought a lot of the same issues to the forefront here – and offered a lot of the same problems. People were taking sides or making statements on situations without making an effort to educate themselves of both sides. It was painful to watch, although it did at least bring up some true conflict.

The only victims in these situations are the people themselves, and not the leaders of either party. This means that stepping in and getting involved into these situations from a government level is NOT the thing to do – unless you want to start another Taliban.

What do you think? Are you facing a significant number of ill-informed people in your social media interactions? Am I one of those? Would love to know your thoughts.

Trackback URI.

  • I'm going to add another equation here that I learned over my 15+ years of being on the web and involved in political sites.... it's really easy to set up a fake account and post propaganda. If you aren't the owner of the site (and even then with proxies you may not be able to tell) you have no idea if the person you are hearing from is legitimate, real, or spinning a tale to suit an agenda. It happens more than too many in these "new" social media circles recognize.

    I am no supporter of either side in Iran but I do know that there's a lot of presumption going on in Twitter land... why? To who's benefit? That's one to study.
  • I suppose I'll preface what I say by indicating that I work for a communication medium, and it relies heavily on word of mouth for interest, which I think makes it a social medium.
    Or at least that will have to serve for my example of how my work creates ill-informed people.
    I write for a small town newspaper for those who don't know. I live in a town of 3000, and the paper has a weekly circulation of roughly 2/3 that, (which means a readership of anywhere from 7000 to 12000 depending on the school of journalism mathematics you follow). And no matter how many people read a story, they listen to the words of one or two individuals in the community, and let that be the synopsis.
    I guess it's because I'm young, or because I was an 'oddball' at school (that being I chose to stop playing hockey so I could focus on my education more, and chose to not be involved in many school sports once I got to high school... except volleyball).
    I cover a smaller town's council, and recently they've been attempting to create a Property Standards By-Law. They have had a few very strong opponents to the motion, who have exaggerated the facts off the proposed by-law. This causes everyone who listens to them (and in such a small, tight-knit community, everyone hears what everyone else says and does) to believe that they're right.
    The best example I can give you is that I reported that the new by-law allows officials to call for pricey environmental tests if there is reason to believe that something on their lot (an old tractor or vehicle, a storage system in poor repair, a leak in a sewage system in a pig barn, etc.) is causing ground, and thus ground-water, contamination.
    Well, somehow these individuals took from this that anyone with a vehicle not in a barn will be forced to pay for the tests. (Obviously not the point).
    By the time council convened, the small chambers were filled with enough people that it was standing room only, all caused by the model of social communication and (essentially) the rules of the old "telephone" game, where the first whisper is nothing like the last.
    These ill-informed people, unfortunately, make up the majority of the people who read the paper, and take nothing away from it. The informed people are usually reading to make sure I got their name right.
    Apply that to the elections (which I have noticed), every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Muchmusic VeeJay) thinks they know the story because they've heard someone's point of view on it. The really sad thing is I bet a lot of them have listened to 'mock' news media, like The Colbert Report.
    So, if you can acquiesce a newspaper as a social medium, I face more than a significant number Dan, I face a dominant number, and it does tend to get under my skin.
  • You mean attending Live 8 didn't solve world issues? Huh. But I did so much. Oh wait, no I didn't.

    Oh yeah, actions mean more than words, especially with social media, where words are ever so cheap. The problem is that there's so little reputational capital at stake. Then again, this is democracy at its heart. Everyone can do whatever the hell they want. And you can write a post about that. :D
  • The other important point here is defining what an action is. Turning your avatar picture green isn't an action. Retweeting someone isn't an action. Most interactions within the Twitter platform themselves aren't actions.

    Setting up a Tor bridge or similar to get past censorship? That's an action, but is it just one of the few we can take?
  • philnelson
    In a crisis the only reasonable thing to do is gather data and treat all of it provisionally.
  • I take everything from social media for what it's worth. Crap.

    I call it "Malcolm's Law". It's 10 better than Sturgeon's.

    And people must know they are putting out crap with all their tweeting and circle jerking. If you haven't watched this video yet on the "scam that is the 140 conference" check it out: http://tr.im/oZwV (soooooo good.)

    Now I'm not really a fan of this guy, but he lays down some good and honest gospel about how naive people are. But if you have any sense I think you have to agree with enough of what he says.

    On the topic of politics, so many people who are the relative experts in social media are still completely clueless, that any sort of main stream journalism coverage of it, with all the media filters and prejudices that get injected just make all of that news not worth the time. You can see me go entirely off topic on just this discussion here: http://twdsc.us/112.html where I point out arguments from another article pointing out how one reason twitter is getting so much attention with these events, is maybe entirely because of American mainstream journalism's attention and infatuation with it right now.
  • I feel like we've had this conversation before... But yes, good examples of things that aren't politically charged also perpetuating this phenomenon. I think it all ends up going back to the "social media is A tool, not THE tool" argument that can be made. Sometimes I can't believe the number of times I can see the same points over and over again through various means.

    Hell, maybe that'll actually be a benefit of the aggregation of these opinions - if everyone knows and is now saying the same thing, we'll be forced to come up with something new, right?
  • I always fear that if everyone knows and is saying the same thing, it's a dangerously strong influence on those who are listening.

    If everyone is saying X (assuming X is probably untrue), then people who: Aren't smart enough to distinguish the difference, people that believe who they're getting the message from, and people that have a prejudice in favour of X (they want X to be true and are looking for something to confirm that belief)... In all of these cases we are screwed.
  • Swine Flu was another great case where traditional media was going as far as saying "don't believe anything you read on twitter". You're right, in a world where everyone is a publisher and publishing and distribution are so accessible to all, it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out which opinions are ones we should listen to. But really, is that any different than choosing between CBC and CTV? Fox News and MSNBC? I think, in much the same way, it really all boils down to personal preference and trust.
    Great points here.
  • Heh, I never made a statement as to the trustworthiness of MSM - let's just say that I take everything with a grain of salt.

    I think your point about trust is a legitimate one here. There are a lot of people that I trust that have gotten involved in this campaign, but I don't question what they're doing as much - at least, not to their face. My passive-aggressive approach - writing a blog post about the issue - is my way of getting those people to question whether they're doing things for the right reason, I suppose.
  • philnelson
    What are you, a contestant on the bachelorette?

    http://www.dose.ca/TV/story.html?id=5e8e9de0-d3... "for the right reasons"
  • As great as social media is at spreading the word about good causes, it can be equally if not more effective at spreading sensationalist opinions or even false urban legends.

    The painting of an issue with a single brush (in this case green) is not necessarily accurate of fair to the issue.

    Politics is inherently biased by a person's history, experiences and past and taking the word of the only isolated voice we are hearing as the truth can be naive.

    Though we have a very vocal Tamil community in Toronto, very few people are aware of the scope of the issue and that even our own government considers the Tigers to be terrorists.

    I am very concerned that the reason the US is playing such an instrumental role in the social media channels is that it is pro-US/Mousavi.

    It is not unreasonable to believe that some Iranians are not in favour of a pro-US government given their history in the region.

    The problem I have with social media and politics is that it is far too simple to just add a green overlay or RT something without even reading into the subject at all. I have seen many people retweet articles based on the headline without reading them but when it is support of a complex political issue group think can be misleading.

    Are people realistically passing on the message because all of their friends are or because they have researched the issues at hand.

    I would love to see the numbers comparing the 'buzz' generated and the actual amount of people reading into the issues.
  • philnelson
    Everything said here is true of print and TV.
  • I don't know if I'd like to see the comparison between those two numbers - even though it would validate my point - because I just think it'd make me sad. I think that's part of the other problem with things like green avatars; being able to visually determine where people stand - or think they stand - on these issues just disillusions me a little bit more each time.

    Maybe this is why I'm no "social media expert" - I can't stand the firehose and the inanity that exists a lot of the time.
  • Herd mentality will always exist - social media may make it easier to detect online.

    Having said that, may I add that from speaking directly to Iranians I know, they realize Mousavi is the lesser of two evils - if people don't acknowledge that, then I agree they are uninformed. But many would rather take the lesser evil than the greater evil. And they are expressing their desire to have their voice heard after many years of frustration/oppression. The green movement is not necessarily pro-Mousavi - it's an expression of support for people to have the right to have their voice heard, their vote counted. Objecting to that is naive in my opinion or perhaps reflective of the relatively benign political/social problems we have in Canada.

    Sometimes there is no third option, as much as we'd like there to be one. Just because Iran can't have "our concept of democracy" with the two current options right now, doesn't mean Iranian citizens shouldn't have the right to choose their leader, even if that leader is someone with a heinous past.
  • And that's not what I'm trying to argue, Amrita - I agree that there are a lot of voices that are looking to have their voice heard and vote counted. Whether the election was valid or not is still questioned from a number of sources both ways, but I understand that there's nothing anywhere near that in Canada.

    I'd rather hear from those people than from the majority of uninformed Westerners. If you can't give me a 30 second explanation as to what the situation is over there and who the major players are, you shouldn't have a green avatar.
  • Well said, I agree that people should understand and be able to articulate what they are supporting rather than jump on any bandwagon, regardless of whether they are expressing that opinion through social media or any other form of communication. To get more to the point it seems you were trying to address, you are right that social media is just a tool that makes it easier/faster for opinions to get circulated - it doesn't validate the opinion itself.
  • I'm reminded of Sturgeon's Law on this one - 90% of everything is crap.

    This would include what people do with information. Social media is the aggregation of ground level experience, and reactions to those experiences. In terms of base information (ground level experience) 90% of it is crap (read: lunch tweets, links to lolcats) and 10% is original, interesting, inspired or awesome. Same deal with reactions - 90% will be blah, 10% will capture your imagination. So yeah, I'd bet that 90% of green avatars out there are supporting something they don't fully understand - most of them for the best of reasons, with the best of intentions.

    I wonder if it's possible for people to recognize I'm referring to their ideas as crap, without meaning anything negative? I can try, I suppose.
  • Ah, Sturgeon's Law. Even more applicable these than my personal favourite credo, the 80:20 rule.

    Do you really believe that most of the 90% of people are supporting things on the best of reasons? Do you think they know what those reasons are, or is it because they've seen influential people on their list post links to green-avatar making pieces? See my comment to Amrita below.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Other Entries

About

Dan Hocking is a lifelong web designer, a social media addict, and a passionate community builder. Currently, Dan is employed by Espresso as their Production Manager. Please read more about Dan here.

All content on this blog is my opinion, not that of my employer or any clients I work with.

Contact

Dan can be reached using the following methods:
E-mail: dan [at] danhocking dot com
Phone:(647) 289-2301
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/D_Hock

Subscribe to RSS

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed here.

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus