Blog Prompt #1
Online spheres, like most things in life, have both positive and negative aspects that must be acknowledged. Let me begin with the positives:
As a start, platforms like Twitter allow us to receive news quicker than ever before, as it happens. As someone working in Sports Information, this is highly beneficial as it allows fans and family members to get results immediately after games conclude, as well as up to the minute news regarding players winning awards or anything else significant happening with different teams. Certain sports also post updates throughout the game, so those unable to be there or watch the live stream can at least keep an eye on what is happening.
Online platforms also allow anyone to have a voice, and give us access to information that we would not otherwise have. If you want to research a topic, there are countless YouTube videos and blogs that are quickly and easily accessible.
On the contrary, social media specifically has largely led to many people existing in echo chambers. Take the Facebook algorithm as an example, if you like something, other similar pages will be suggested to you and similar content will begin showing up in your feed. Given how many people now rely on social media for news, this leads people to only ever hearing one side and not being exposed to a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions.
Multiple public spheres flourishing online is fine with me. However, the key is to acknowledge they exist, and not to immediately dismiss them without actually reading them just because they express a viewpoint that is different than what you have already known or been taught is true.
I am a realist and know most people don't change their viewpoints on issues over a Facebook post, so I see arguing online as largely a pointless exercise and it is not something I engage in. As we discussed in class, talking about the issues in person is far more meaningful and productive.
It is quick and easy to read your side and immediately jump to a conclusion, but it is best to read both sides and then form an opinion, although that takes more work.
Ultimately we should be grateful that multiple public spheres are allowed to exist, because in many parts of the world that is not the case. As a free speech absolutist, I'll end this post with the following quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
As a start, platforms like Twitter allow us to receive news quicker than ever before, as it happens. As someone working in Sports Information, this is highly beneficial as it allows fans and family members to get results immediately after games conclude, as well as up to the minute news regarding players winning awards or anything else significant happening with different teams. Certain sports also post updates throughout the game, so those unable to be there or watch the live stream can at least keep an eye on what is happening.
Online platforms also allow anyone to have a voice, and give us access to information that we would not otherwise have. If you want to research a topic, there are countless YouTube videos and blogs that are quickly and easily accessible.
On the contrary, social media specifically has largely led to many people existing in echo chambers. Take the Facebook algorithm as an example, if you like something, other similar pages will be suggested to you and similar content will begin showing up in your feed. Given how many people now rely on social media for news, this leads people to only ever hearing one side and not being exposed to a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions.
Multiple public spheres flourishing online is fine with me. However, the key is to acknowledge they exist, and not to immediately dismiss them without actually reading them just because they express a viewpoint that is different than what you have already known or been taught is true.
I am a realist and know most people don't change their viewpoints on issues over a Facebook post, so I see arguing online as largely a pointless exercise and it is not something I engage in. As we discussed in class, talking about the issues in person is far more meaningful and productive.
It is quick and easy to read your side and immediately jump to a conclusion, but it is best to read both sides and then form an opinion, although that takes more work.
Ultimately we should be grateful that multiple public spheres are allowed to exist, because in many parts of the world that is not the case. As a free speech absolutist, I'll end this post with the following quote from Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Comments
Post a Comment