been put into them, and as such, they could be accepted as they are.
Content may be politically-motivated, having inherent biases or just plain mongering. That is fine, we know that and we are wise to that, too. If we like them, or subscribe to their views, or support a certain agenda, no matter how malicious the content could be, we will take them in, warts and all.
There must be basis for all those writings or else why would anyone write them, right? Wrong. Our trust has been betrayed by technology and the evolution of media consumption. There are people who write to deceive.
I am a member of several chat groups, largely made up of people with more time than what they can think of using it for. They have smartphones with data plans, and onward they go as the world of social media beckons.
People of a certain age are not used to the concept of “clickbait” in which content are designed to get us to click them, and hopefully, share them, too. It is our nature after all to be less suspicious when things come from our “friends” on social media, since they would not push to us defective or false content.
Why would anyone fabricate miracle medical remedies or stories of deeds that warm the heart or religious wisdom that promises us salvation, all for the sake of Internet traffic?
Well, people do, and incidentally, the more we share, the more effective the fabrications are.
Ironically, while we know images and videos could be fabricated or staged, we seldom ask ourselves if the pictures were doctored or videos, staged? Are we sophisticated enough to notice camera angles or editing, or special effects that could turn anything into something?
Social media has become the world’s favoured platform for political discourse. It delivers us content in neat, convenient, consumable packages. We can choose to consume them or not, and if we care to share, then we could do so almost instantly. Yet, it also offers a sad reflection of our society when the worse in us is amplified.
The word “viral”, a decade or so ago, suggested something nefarious, which could at the very least, give you a cold. These days, it also describes the phenomena of content travelling and taking a life of their own. In marketing and in the spreading of ideology, content that can go viral is the ultimate objective. These days, all content is designed with an eye on “virality”.
Often, in our inherent naivety we share content without bothering to check. Few of us would read posts all the way to the end. We read headlines, like them or agree with them, and by the magic of modern telephony, scores of people would be receiving them from us. And, if the receivers were so inclined, they would share with others, too, which is often the case.
We want to be the “viraler” with the mostest — the more sensational the better; we better do it first and fast.
Most of us who have several social media groups would have experienced being bombarded by the same messages, one after another, or at times, the very message we sent out comes back to us, misspelling and all.
How many of us are guilty of spreading lies or untruths? I must confess I have been guilty of that, too, and like many people it was out of belief that the content that I shared were aimed at informing. My intention was noble, or so I’d say.
Social media is the world’s favoured platform for political
discourse. It delivers us content in neat, convenient, consumable packages.