Critical Perspectives on Social Media

Critical Perspectives on Social Media

While the theorist Jenkins had a positive view of the Web 2.0 and its participatory culture, other theorists such as Fuchs, Van Dijk and Nieborg argue that economical aspects of social media platforms should be taken in consideration. Their general idea is that these platforms exploit their own users for profit by making them believe they have a part of involvement in the creation of culture and content (Fuchs, 2014, p.54).

Fuchs demonstrate his argument by pointing out how Wikipedia would not exist without its users’ participation in the uploading of new content and knowledge. Yet, it is also viewable on the American video-sharing website Youtube, where users can upload and share their videos with the rest of the community Fuchs, 2014, p.54). It is also the case of the corporation BIC which is known for its production of four color Bic pens and ballpoint pens. Last October, the brand asked to its customers on its Facebook page (My Bic pen) to vote for their favourite new four colours pen design. The contest was named #PickYourBic! and people had to use Facebook’s new like buttons in order to vote.

Social media has changed the way traditional mass media engage with their audience. Effectively, consumers are now placed on the foreground of the platforms, able to share what they find valuable. This participatory culture is somehow what makes the Internet so democratic.

But a democratic system viewed with such a culturalist approach – as Jenkins did – ignores the economical tools hidden in these social media. Fuchs points out that Jenkins’ argument neglects aspects of participatory democracy: “it ignores questions about the ownership of platform/companies, collective decision-making, profit, class and the distribution of material benefits” (Fuchs, 2014, p.55). According to him, it is not possible to give the power to every member of a democratic system, no matter if they have the right to vote for their political leaders and if they have rights within the system. Every democracy is owned by an elite group that controls and exploits its subjects. If we look back at our previous example, Youtube is a corporate ownership which earns most of the money generated by its video uploaders and not the other way around. Fuchs believes Jenkins’ argument is too weak in the sense that it only focusses on the positive aspects of the Web 2.0 instead of looking at other negative aspects as well.

Besides, Van Dijk’s and Nieborg’s (2009) earlier work already criticized the naïvity of Jenkins’ positive notion of participatory culture, which stated that all users contributed to the Web 2.0 in a collective and equal manner. They wrote a response article to Jenkins’ manifestos entitled Wikinomics and We-Think. Firstly, they argued that participatory culture is not quite true since only 13% of social media users are creators, which means that 87% of the Internet population does not have any impact into the creation of cultural content: “the majority of users are in fact those who watch or download content contributed by others.” (van Dijk, Nieborg, 2009). Thus, although social media could be seen as democratic, it foremost marks socio-economical differences between users and creators, where users provide free labour without noticing it by reacting to the creators’ posts. Yet, although their interaction makes the posts successful, users still do not have any control over what is on the media. Moreover, when users do so, they also share personal information – or not – with the producers who use it for marketing strategies. Users do not even know which information are saved by ones in power.

Besides, as Fuchs also noticed, the authors saw participatory culture as a way to make profit out of users’ interests. Effectively, the creators of high-priced advices manage a great business, selling their projects to companies and still gaining from them afterwards. It was perhaps their main critique of the manifestos, judging that Jenkins masked this digital commerce to his readers.

Then, they critiqued the way in which Jenkins wrote manifestos which support this business hold by social media ownerships. Moreover, the theorist would have received money from media corporation which would explain why his judgment is so positive and not critique at all.

Many theorists such as Jenkins saw participatory culture as a positive system where users and producers had the same influence on what is being uploaded and viewed on the Web. However, Fuchs, Van Dijk and Nieborg have successfully showed how the system also had negative aspects, letting their readers know that the Web 2.0 does not really belong to them and that producers use them to enhance their digital business.

Sources:

Fuchs, C. (2014). Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage.

Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its Discontents: A Critical Analysis of Web 2.0 Business Manifestos. New Media & Society, 11(5), 855- 874.

sarahn

Leave your message