SOCIAL MEDIA
Every new change comes with infinite possibilities in its periphery, while at the same time there are not necessarily some concerns attached to it. Social media is no exception to this. In this new change, some people are seeing infinite possibilities and for some it is just a means of self-fulfillment.Social media is an interesting word pair. A media that not only claims to belong to the society, but apparently provides an opportunity to every individual to make their expression public. In this sense it is different from the 'traditional media' which claims to belong to the society but does not accept the direct participation of the society. Social media has in a way made everyone the owner of a 'media house' where they present their expression through text, video, photos etc. Hardly anyother medium has expanded the range of expression as much as social media. Although social media appears as 'open' and 'social'on the surface, it is as 'closed' and 'selfish' in its internal structure. .First of all, what is the true meaning of being social.On the basis of which we can decide whether platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. are social or not. If we limit the meaning of being social to establish mutual communication and consider being social only to be social, then surely these platforms are social..But if being social means working for the betterment of the society and its development then The reach of social media has not been reached here. In this sense it becomes selfish rather than social. Social media does not have a definite goal and neither does it have any 'social rules' outside the state.Thus becoming selfish of social media with a 'targetless' and It's only natural. So far, social media has not been able to establish such astructure of communication that leads to the progress of the society, rather it has become a mere aggregate of chaotic expressions.The famous scholar 'Noam Chomsky', who gave the theory of'Manufacturing Consent', says that social media has increased the reach of the general public as compared to traditional corporate media, but it is far more powerful in consensus building.Organizations that operate social media have a lot of information about their users' likes, dislikes, views, etc., which they use to guide the advertiser. This is dangerous for tworeasons. One, what we are expressing is being used by private companies in their 'product determination', that is, this'social' has actually become a means of selfishness of some companies. Second, the operators of these social sites largely influence how a particular idea is centered. It isno coincidence that videos of North Korea's dictatorships go viral at a rapid and regular interval, whereas 'other'types of dictatorships are rarely seen. That is, social media is a medium to fulfill the selfishness of the powerful.Apart from this, social media is also used by various political parties and organizations for their selfishness. Selfishness does not mean self-promotion, but false propaganda. The structure of social media is such that what is most 'popular', that is,the one with the most likes and hits, becomes more acceptable.There are only a few conscious users who check the relevance of such'popular news', while most people accept only false and misleading news. historical facts and about any historical personality
Social media is full of false information. This serves the selfishness of those who want to create a new false world.Also, since social media does not force 'right identity',selfish elements carry out wrong acts by hiding their identity.Users with similar characteristics are called 'trolls'. Whether it is spreading communal tension or 'social lynching' someone, these trolls bring it to an instant. Apart from this, even if we talk about 'real users', even if they leave an exception, then their expression is only a reaction to the immediate event and not driven by any major change or purpose. Above all, social media has become a medium of personal glorification. From the above points, it appears that social media is actually a selfish medium, but without looking at its other side, it is too early to reach this conclusion.Social media being a relatively new medium, it is quite natural that there is not much clarity about its purpose and functioning.With time it will become clear. Social media may seem selfish when viewed in a narrow sense, but its greatest achievement is that it has spread the public expression considered 'elite' to 'the common man'. Earlier, where only a few people had the facility of'publication', now it has become almost everyone. It is truethat its authenticity is being questioned in excess of expressions,but the more important thing is that different types of views are coming out. Its authenticity will automatically increase with time and it is not that all expression other than social media is authentic. In fact, the convenience of expressing ideas is basic to what social media provides. Lack of authenticity is an associated problem, which can be overcome.and Social media has emerged as a powerful medium of disclosure of the ground reality. Traditional media often either wanders in the corridors of power or is lost in the glitz of the mayanagari. TV A's camera and newspaper ink do not reach remote villages and marginalized-victims,where as social media has the potential to bridge this distance.Wherever any incident has happened, its immediate information is available through social media. Not only this, it is also often successful in getting help Otherwise the structure of Indian society is such that 'no voice goes from bottom to top'. If there was no social media, would it have been so easy for women to campaign against sexual abuse being committed against them and the mainstream media would give it space? Was it possible that such a ruthless attack would have been made against caste prejudice and people would have been able to speak their mind without any fear of social boycott? Would it have been easy enough for a to make his identity public? Would groups that have been sidelined by the fast current of the mainstream have had the right to express themselves so easily? The answer to all this is 'no'. Social media has provided a support to the marginalized and may be called an anarchic expression but the reality is that it is making the society moreinclusive.Social media broke the nexus of 'creativity and capital' and gave everyone the opportunity to publicly display their art. Today there are so many Poo-D's who became successful just because they had 'free platform' available to channelize their talent. The same thing can be said about Facebook and Twitter. This spread and diversification of creativity would not have been possible without socialmedia.At the same time, social sites have also emerged as a powerful medium of resistance. A movement like the 'Arab Spring' emerged only through social sites. Apart from this, social sites made necessary interventions in 'Occupy Movement', 'LGBT Demonstration', 'Kisan Andolan' etc. It would not be an exaggeration to say that social sites are emerging as a 'counter culture' against the 'mainstream culture' and all these contributions of social media prove its wider social utility.Lastly, there is no denying that social media has inherent challenges, but it is not so intense as to lead to the conclusion of social media being completely selfish. Its achievements are fargreater than its challenges. Also, the challenges which are there can be controlled by proper regulation. Above all itis a tool and a tool can be used to bring about the Arab Spring or even become a troll. Selfishness cannot be given to the ultimate means.
