Social Media: Attempts to Ponder

    Social networks are an unpredictable thing. Who could say that this would end when the forums began to appear? But it was they who generated social networks, uniting the first communities according to their interests and simply by their sympathies (and sometimes by territory, and sometimes by appearance). There were no blogs, but it was already possible to speak out. There was no "broadcast into the void", as now sometimes happens with blogs, but for your thoughts you could be banned.

    So, we are developing, and now a new communication mechanism has emerged, which can easily become not just a mechanism, but - an infrastructure.

    However, along with all the charms of this phenomenon, some disadvantages are also visible.

    1. There is a sharp cultural stratification. People in the first, second, and even third circles of community A (with a high culture and narrow area of ​​interest) are unlikely to be interested in the Be community (with a culture of medium and wide range of interests).
    Moreover, both communities will not show interest in the Ve community, whose members do not differ in culture as such (low level of culture and widest interests, without consequences for the interest).
    The intersection of these communities will provide several nodes where there will be some interaction; this is certain: since I know Vasya, and Vasya knows Tanya, and she talks with John, who writes on Kim’s blogs, carefully reading and commenting on Masharatha’s blog ...

    2. The length of the chains results in the value obtained as the product of the number of communication chains and the number of people in the chain (if the chain branches, then each branch is an additional chain), significantly exceeds the population of the planet.
    Conclusion? Someone is participating in several chains at the same time.
    Second conclusion? Community overlap.

    The third conclusion? Stratification is inevitable.
    Some write better, others worse. Some are able to defend the point of view normally, while others immediately spray with saliva. It’s clear that extremes are attracted - and we get people on one pole who don’t know how to write, stand on their hind legs because of the slightest comments “not according to theirs”, and around these people is a community that is gradually changing to the other pole - people who can write, they are able to calmly and correctly discuss opponents who are carefully studying the reasonable criticism.

    The whole sign of division will be that - INDEPENDENT of these characteristics, one will be WHAT to write about, and the other will not. And that will be the boundary point of separation. no matter what your style, text, presentation - you have something to say. And there is a community.

    Nothing to say? You remain in the void.

    The most terrible division that I can imagine is some in companies, others ALL one by one.

    Also popular now: