Watching the work of Franklin Lopez was incredibly inspiring me. It's creative, it's catchy and it has a great message. There is a great deal of power that is available to us with the right amount of knowledge of the system.
I'm curious though, while those clips were brilliant, I'd never seen them. You can be sure that I'll pass them on so their reach is even further but in the case of the voting clip, it's too late for this election. So how long does it take to get a message across the internet? What are the keys for a message going widespread in the matter of days? I suppose that this is a big part of what we're learning in this class. If we're going to change the world with social media we need to learn how to get our message across quickly.
I know it sounds conspiracy theorist but all of this social media stuff has had me thinking about the power of the government over all of this. If they truly decided to take control over the internet, how much control would they really have? Could someone still send an unapproved message to the world? How are they using it to sway our opinions on certain issues? Just curious...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You raise quite the list of interesting questions Miriam. I can only respond with partial insight.
ReplyDeleteI think it is essential that we learn to communicate in a way that touches people on an emotional level. The dark forces on this planet generally accomplish this by propagating fear through traditional, highly controlled media channels. That is why I haven't had a TV for a decade. I think the traditional environmental movement tried the fear approach as well but without the budget and political influence which made it largely unsuccessful. This has often been Frank's approach as well. I appreciate his work because he is always trying to make sure marginalized people have a voice but the heavy emphasis on fear only energizes a narrow audience, that of the extreme activist/protestor crowd.
I think those of us interested in environmental & social justice can be more effective by working peoples' positive emotions. I think we can do this by creating a more compelling image of the future than we currently have and then sharing through social media the message: "let's do it this way". That way we aren't using our energy to resist against anything - we are using our natural, creative capacity to nurtue a new reality. This is tricky to do when there are so many heavy issues to contend with but I think it's the approach we must use. I think people will be more receptive to new information (GMOs, climate change, peak oil, government/corporate control, etc, etc) when you have somehow connected through positive emotion first.
As for the government control. It would be difficult to take over the whole Internet because the system is completely decentralized. Control is more easily achieved in non-democratic countries where the government directly controls the country's Internet access. I think the net is certainly not free of governmental & corporate control but it is leaps and bounds better than traditional media. It depends on the work you want to do. If it is exposing narcotics trafficing within the CIA you better get really good at working under an alias and concealing your identity. I don't personally feel like that kind of adventure in my life so I tend to work in areas that are less likely to be threatening to those with the guns.
Humour is a good way to help things go viral: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VtzSDI8u2o
cheers
Justin
I second Justin's thoughts on staying positive, one is weakest when trying to resist and strongest when joining forces. In a kung fu class I used to attend my instructor waxed poetically daily about how physical actions were just extensions of mental actions. When we resist it is not just physically. But to be positive and use anothers force for our own aim takes a practice. Perhaps that is what we are doing at BGI, starting our practice.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about what has impacted and inspired me the most it was fun. Speakers that brought about laughs, that challenged my center, allowed me to interact, and that I could share the fun with others. That is a tall list, especially for online, but I do not think it is our of reach.
Justin: thank you for the unexpected laugh! I didn't get what I was watching at first...hilarious!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that to get people's buy in it's important to make them associate positive emotions with the experience rather than one's of fear or resentment. I think we are lucky to have such incredible tools for this given to us by BGI.
Still one of my favorite Personal Learning Journal threads. Thanks Miriam for inspiring it, and everyone for participating.
ReplyDeleteI concur with the thoughts about reaching people through their emotions, though ethically once you touch their hearts you have to still persuade their more rational side. It is like the difference between propaganda and education — propaganda usually leads with an emotional argument, but rarely follows through with logic.
Regarding positive vs. negative emotions, my experience with game design says that there is real power in both, and a balance between them is possible. However, though negative emotions can work well in single-player games, multi-player games taking advantage of negative emotions in your game design can be very prone to others abusing it. For instance, the online game equivalent of the Scarlet Letter would be the red symbol that says you have been caught thieving in the game, and thus can be attacked freely without penalty. Grief players found ways to take advantage of this by tricking new players into stealing, and then attacking them.
Similarly, some fellow researchers on the topic of reputation feel that is very difficult to design a negative reputation system — they are very easy to abuse or break. Positive reputation systems are much easier. So I advise my clients to start there and hold off on any negative reputation until they are really ready.
-- Christopher Allen