Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘social

Call me biased, but I like featuring news and research that counters the fear-driven narratives of much of the press.


Video source

In the video above, parents learnt how to play video games to connect with their kids. This is not the only way parents connect, but it is an important one. The strategy not only creates opportunities awareness and involvement, it showcases the kids’ abilities to teach their parents.

Another resource certain to ruffle the feathers of proverbial ostriches with heads in the sand is the NYT review of research revealing that fears about kids mobile phone and social media use are unwarranted.

Though not specially labelled in the article, the reported research sounded like meta analyses of prior research studies on mobile phone and social media use on well-being.

The meta research revealed that the effect size was negligible. On the other hand, studies that spread fear and worry tended to be correlational, e.g, the rise in suicide rates in the USA rose with the common use of mobile phones.

But the NYT reminded us that correlation is not causation. Furthermore, there was no appreciable rise in Europe even though there was a similar rise in use of mobile phones.

One reason the NYT has the reputation it has is because it resists the temptation to be reductionist or simply regurgitate what the rest report. This is not about stand out. It is about being critical and responsible.

Sometimes I do not have to share my thoughts about social media. Others have articulated their thoughts more clearly than I could.

In March, Andrea Howard unpacked a magazine article about limiting screen time to counter social media use [full thread].

The TLDR version of this 12-part thread: Blaming social media is a convenient but misleading smoking gun.

Last month, Martin Weller critiqued social media detoxes.

Weller’s message: Take control or lose control. You decide.

I am sad. This is the last episode of Crash Course’s series on Navigating Digital Information.


Video source

This week’s focus was social media.

Host John Green started by outlining how social media has had far reaching consequences, e.g., shaping our vocabulary, changing our expectations of privacy, organising grassroots efforts.

But probably the most important impact of social media might be that it is now the most common source of information and news. This includes disinformation, misinformation, and fake news, all of which are easy to spread with a click or a tap.

The ease of creating, sharing, and amplifying is social media’s best and worst set of affordances. The affordances are neutral, but we can choose to bully and mislead, or make new friends and organise special interest groups.

Regardless of their purpose, social media are powered by targetted advertising and algorithms. Both affect what we read, hear, or watch in our feeds. This can create filter bubbles.

This insulation is a result of social media companies needing to keep us engaged. A consequence of this is that we might not get to process dissenting views or the truth behind the lies we are fed.

If we know what drives social media, we could take Green’s advice by:

  • Following entities that have different perspective from us.
  • Deactivating the recommended results or top posts so that you get a more neutral feed.
  • Avoid going down rabbit holes (deep dives of content or perspectives that result in more of the same or the extreme).
  • Exercising click restraint and practising lateral reading.
  • Having the courage and taking the effort to correct mistakes.

Today I continue my reflection on the CNA article and video, Regardless of Class.

The video segments on what kids thought about the “class divide” caught my attention the most. There were clips of children aged 9 to 11, and older students aged 15 to 17.


Video source

The whole video is proprietary on CNA’s site, but most of the segments featuring both sets of kids are in the YouTube video above.

The footage and editing sent a clear signal: The younger kids were perceptive and honest about the class divide; by the time they were older, the gaps were
brutally obvious.

The video, particularly in its longer form, made for uncomfortable viewing. Rightly so because the full video was designed to create cognitive and emotional dissonance.

Such dissonance might lead to questions like:

  • How is our schooling system creating and perpetuating such class divides?
  • What might we do to mitigate this?
  • If schooling is, as one teacher pointed out, a symptom and not a cause of social divides, what other contributing factors of social divides might we also need to address?

After repeated and reflective readings of the article and viewings of the videos, I am convinced that what happens at and to the family unit is crucial.

Disadvantaged adults pass their status on to their children and it is difficult for the latter to break out of their structural and social strata. Adults with greater means not only pass their privilege to their offspring, they also find ways to boost what they have.

Fundamental to what adults and parents do is their attitudes and mindsets. Are they defeated by or defiant to their lot in life? Do they believe they have a right to a better life and is this right reserved only for some?

So I wonder simplistically: We have SkillsFuture now; do we need AttitudeFuture and MindsetFuture as well?

CNN took a break from the Trump circus to focus on one ordinary person.


Video source

The man at the centre of a social media storm was roundly criticised for grooming himself on public transport. A mad mob made judgements instead of finding out the facts first.

Some basic journalism revealed that the man had fallen on hard times and had been in and out of homeless shelters. He had just left one such shelter and was on his way to visit an estranged brother. He just wanted to look presentable.

Some from the mob apologised. A few started raising money for the man. The thing is: Could we not have skipped the mad mob and started with the caring crowd?

Common to both the mob and the crowd was social media. The same tool set that spread vitriol also focused on helping.

There are some people who still like to blame social media for our ills. Doing that is a convenient cop out. We are responsible for the tools we use and what do with them.

Tags: , ,


Video source

In the first part of this SciShow video, Hank Green outlined a study that examined the link between social media use and ADHD symptoms.

Bottomline: No study is perfect and this one suffered from a reliance on self-reported data, reporting symptoms without prior baseline diagnoses, and correlational outcomes.

The last point was key. Green pointed out that the study could not prove that social media caused ADHD symptoms any more than the tendency of users with ADHD checking social media frequently. In his own words:

Using this study to say that smartphones and social media cause ADHD would be like looking at ER data and concluding that firefighters cause burn injuries.

For me reading some Facebook (FB) group posts is like feeding a morbid habit of watching train wrecks.

I can see them coming because they are guaranteed. The conversations (if they can be called that) are unpleasant, but I plow through anyway. Why? All for the single pearl in the mud trampled by swine.
 

 
By comparing what I do and read in FB and Twitter, I realise that the issue is granular control. I can choose who I follow on Twitter. I can only choose which groups I join in FB.

I can even block people in Twitter so that I curate the right kind of followers. This is not the same as muting people on FB as the control is finer and deeper in Twitter.

It is strange that the more verbose FB provides less granularity of control while the shorter form Twitter provides more. This starts to make sense if you buy in to this description: FB is where you hang out with family or friends. Twitter is where you learn from strangers. It makes sense to have locks on your front door, but not on the ones inside.

But this is where the description falls apart. FB groups are full of strangers who have a lot to say with very little sense. You need only examine any FB interest group with the lens of granularity to realise how this leads to breadth instead of depth.

By breadth I mean the reach that large FB groups have in transmitting information. By lack of depth I mean unsubstantiated rumour, baseless information, or knowledge built on weak foundations.


Twitter is not immune from these, of course. But you can choose who to follow and you can even choose who follows you. You can go for quality, not just quantity, and by doing so choose depth over breadth. As you reputation grows over time, you might develop reach and breadth.

Developing depth over breadth is a more responsible approach. I wonder if this is modelled and taught in digital and media literacy modules. If this is not, then learners just go with the flow of popularity contests that favour breadth over depth.


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: