Social anarchy in social media is an effective way to discuss real world ideas. In an ideal democracy, every person has an equal voice. In reality’s democracy, few people have a relevant voice. In a virtual democracy, every voice counts. The internet is a place where we can build infinite systems and organization that have a real world effect. However, if the internet is to be social anarchists, there shouldn’t be a dependency on its results. Rather, the internet should be used as a reference for social order. The internet could move in several directions from this point and our action now is crucial to its future.
I think public discussion over public government matters is well discussed over. Everyone has a voice until oversaturation occurs. There is no right way to say something and there is no wrong way. In a forum where anons aren’t afraid to be rejected, they are generally more open to share their opinions. A part of social media advantages in reference to public discussion is its anonymity.
A citizen of the Philippines was able to start a real world protest against the Filipino government. The Filipino government planned to withhold evidence against President Joseph Estrada in order to avoid his impeachment. The protest came to be from a simple text message that read, “Go 2 EDSA. Wear blk” and the protest rallied over a million people (Shirky 2011). The text message was sent and resent over seven million times in a week making the author untraceable and the protest a success.
The potential power of social media is undeniable to all governments, organizations and individuals. Clay Shirky of New York University wrote, “All over the world, activists believe in the utility of these tools and take steps to use them accordingly.” Social media offers the most freedom to all participants in a system that is open and collectively goal oriented.
Social media is the newest form of assembly with the widest spectrum of abilities through engineering. Numerous organizations already utilize the conveniences of the internet in order to publish polls, establish community forums and advertise their cause. The internet is a public sphere. Habermas defines the public sphere as a place that forms public opinion, is accessible to everyone, has unrestricted speech and where governing rules are discussed (Fuchs 181). Most everyone, from small businesses up to the presidential administration of the United States uses the internet to advise the public of ongoing matters. While social media isn’t popularly used to deliberate politics, it still has the potential to. In any case, the internet offers the freest speech in the world today. Because it is the freest, it has allowed us to challenge everyday beliefs the world has today.
Habermas said the public sphere (possibly through social media) “confronts the ideals of the public sphere with its capital reality and thereby uncovers its ideological character” (Fuchs 183). Using the public sphere to challenge the public sphere will almost certainly destabilize conventional systems in politics. The virtual world, while limitless in its space and fruitless physically, does have real world influence.
I believe social anarchy through the social media broadens the number of ways we can express ourselves without fear of being shot on sight for our beliefs. I believe that it is important to allow discussions of matters of governmental rule in a fashion that may tread against established ideals. We challenge all theories in the world in order to find errors, improvements and solutions.
The rules of social media as a public sphere allows the sincerity the community deserves in a discussion of government affairs. Conversely, it also allows for the limitless obstruction of an effectual and competent discussion. If there are no rules and there is no right and wrong, how do we decide who is right and who is wrong?
Anarchy is exceptional in its personality that it gives everyone a chance to speak. However, there may be difficulty in coming up with a single widely agreed upon resolution or result to act upon. Well-acquainted is the internet with misconception. An impersonal and vague statement may mean one thing to some person and have alternate meaning to another.
In addition, the internet should not be a sole reference source is because of the “digital divide.” Statistics stated, “In the United States, the typical Twitter user was, in 2013, part of a younger age group of up to 34 years (62%), white (67%) and earned more than US$100 000 per year (58%)” (Fuchs 190). If discussion were to occur on a nationwide scale in the United States, not everyone would be represented. The 99% versus the 1% income divide in the US for example, leaves a disadvantage in some way to both sides. The internet can provides information in abundance that can be used to create real world change.
Social media could be the future system in politics. People tend to feel more open to share their opinions when the variable of rejection is absent. We could build an infrastructure on the internet through social media in dedication to politics. This infrastructure could potentially open up the government for more public participation. While social media anarchy has its benefits it also has a range of drawbacks. Social media in this form should be used as more of a reference in politics than a new form of politicking. Social media has opened up a new avenue for Americans to use their first amendment right and they are going to use it.
Fuchs, C. (2013, November 15). Social Media A Critical Introduction. Retrieved from http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/smchapter8.pdf
Shirky, C. (2007, January/February). The Political Power of Social Media. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2010-12-20/political-power-social-media