Very interesting paper. I'm always amazed how much you can already
derive from communication meta data.
The internet (and much more so social media) might simply much better in
tearing systems down than building them. Probably the main reason that
movements on the internet do only flare up and not last longer is that
they have no clear "skin" in the game of real life. Prem Chandavarkar
highlighted here a few month back the difference of communities of
network and communities of practice which is a very interesting
distinction to look at. In my eyes the online alt-right would have no
chance if there wouldn't have been offline structures like donating
billionaires, the republican party, or Fox TV into the voter's daily life.
Looking at the longevity problem of online based activism I see several
interrelated points that I find really noteworthy to mention. Please,
take them with a pinch of salt. I'm rather thinking of obstacles of
scaling out of niche communities created by and actively maintained by
highly engaged and sensitized members. Small communities have different
dynamics but engagement in long lasting large scale communities is
probably a little bit more driven by instincts (as in satisfying the
cave human's tribal mind) than ratio.
TRUST
.. is a very fickle thing. So easily damaged so hard to create. The
mind-gobbling complexity of the block chain, 5 star ratings, or review
systems are all helping but they might not add enough trust potential
(that can't be easily challenged by other messages) to create many long
lasting relationships in online communities.
RESONANCE
Social media might actually not be good enough in mediating the tender
signals that create the feeling of resonance between the communicating.
I really wonder how many here on Nettime have already met in real life,
have faces attached to the names, have seen the other side laugh?
IMPACT
Looking into Skinner's box and crawling out of it again. But if I push a
button I want something reliably to happen, again and again! Signing a
one click petition and receiving an email that "we" did it might not
give the long lasting feeling of impact, especially if one is actually
not close (physically or emotionally) to the affected.
POWER
The internet is arguably quite flat as power structure. However, social
media is a quite bad tool for decision making. It's all voice and no
filtering, collation, compacting, or evaluation. Looking at other online
based decision making systems (e.g. https://www.loomio.org) and hearing
peoples experiences with them tell me that it remains very hard work to
make decisions. I wonder how many can actually invest this energy. I'm
really interested in recent discussion of the "failure" of the Occupy
Movement which seems often to rotate around the hesitation to set up
clearly defined and publicly communicated organizational structures.
That would have many relieved from the "burden" to actually make
decisions about the many things that needed to be decided and given them
the head space to do other things (in life or in the community).
LOW-FI
With all the power of words and images. Online media is still a very
shallow mirror of the real beautiful mess. The feeling of physical
presence, the wordless experience of sharing space (and being
responsible for it) are just some examples that come to my mind.
Communities grow and persist to the repetition of shared action.
Clicking a few times, showing up to a rally once in a while, might not
really cut it. Furthermore, empathy, is often difficult to evoke. Social
media might have to rely too much on the "shocking" to do so, risking to
create very quickly resistance.
MATTER MATTERS
At some point it's about having some potatoes ($£€) on the plate and
often the one who provides wins. I feel that many online (mediated)
projects lack the real life counter part. The system that actually
affects life locally and physically has a very strong advantage. Also
cultural change only embodies very slowly. Like rain on the sun baked
desert dirt, change might often just flush over, sweeping all away that
is not rooted very well, uprooting some, but not only keeping the well
rooted behind but also provides new clearances for it to grow. I really
wonder if the online world needs to think more about building real life,
small scale, and local structures, working models to which people can
attache desires, thoughts, admiration to be able to project their
ability to be part of it. Local and tangible might be important as it
pleases the tribal mind.
NARRATIVE
The bigger the group the more more basic the story of the purpose of
existence might have to be. For me it moves up from the particular (say
from the the Mallorca Donkey Sanctuary) to the need to consider animal
welfare, to ensuring a perpetually regenerating earth. As the narrative
becomes more and more abstract, the "gain" of acting for it becomes more
and more intangible. Neo-liberalism, in my eyes provides a a great
narrative that joins the prospect of a very personal gain straight
through all layers with the big picture. It also stuck because it fits
into the group think (for many to my amazement it makes still sense).
Change will have to focus on an alternative narrative, that sticks.
Bursty social media action shooting in all directions might simply lack
the ability to latch onto the bigger narrative. "Anti-*" is not good
enough as it does not open pathways for new collective thinking.
INCLUSIVENESS
While "everyone" is on social media not everyone is actually active.
Many people that might quietly take on important roles in the
background of offline organizations have no means to do this online as
everything is public. Someone has to bring the trash out and social
media based, primarily online based organizations might lack the support
of silent thrash bag carrying. In real life communities you meet the
"good soul" that is always there but does not stand on the podium. Have
they got their place, their means, to act as they like
HABITS
Lastly, there are many habits that social media form or even try to
build. The slot machine effect is a very well discussed one. Communities
are probably very much like muscles, they need workout, nourishment, and
attention, all this is hard work. Living on a platform that abuses
habits might rob actually the users' energy to act. You need to be
flashy to keep attention (even to be brought to visibility by the
platforms), and the hard labor of day-to-day engagement, might not
transfer very well into the online world. Also, looking at long lasting
online community membership from the habit angle (thinking of the very
basic reminder-routine-reward habit loop) I really wonder about the
rewards that social media triggered campaigns can deliver to allow
community participation to become a habit. Especially, if the community
strives to counter rather intangible or for many through the lens of
daily experience barely perceivable issues such as climate change,
inequality, or racism.
Hmm, this turned out to be rather long. Seems like I'm working on
something. Feedback is very, very welcome. Thanks!
\\vincent
On 26/06/2017 06:05, Felix Stalder wrote:
I think what social media are really good at is to produce "bursts"
of activity. Things flair up, reach a lot of people, and then die
out quite quickly. The idea that these bursts would, over time,
consolidate into something more structurally coherent (other than
companies that provide the infrastructure) has been wrong, at least so
far. This is probably not a co-incidence.
<...>
--
DE: +49 (0)160 9549 5269
UK: +44 (0)75 0655 0520
http://vincentvanuffelen.com
http://transmit-interfere.com
http://deepmediaresearch.org
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
