I just returned from a very uplifting and successful social media event called the “Central Sierra 140 Characters Conference.” I had the privilege of being the old curmudgeon on the stage at one point.
My remarks were something along these lines…
By now there should be no-one here wondering what social media is, or why we are talking about it today. But what is this idea about a “Social Media Divide” and why should you care about it?
I think it can best be understood with some simple examples. Let me start by referring to a concept I came across over a dozen years ago while researching a book I was commissioned to write for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It was the “Digital Divide,” a kind of separation between the technology haves and have-nots in the 1990s. At that time it was clear that those who were able to access and master the techniques of the personal computer had the advantage in both their working and their personal lives.
The dichotomy was deepened with the advent of the web and the swift spread of global connectedness. Those without computers and the fastest internet connections would potentially be left in the dust in numerous ways.
Was it fair? Well, no. But whose responsibility is it to level the playing field? The libertarian ethos of silicon valley provided few leaders willing to step forward and bring the disenfranchised in from the cold. Some governments did, mostly states and the feds.
Later there were a number of initiatives that came about via nonprofit organizations, some on the local level, which gave free computer access and training to those in the lower economic tiers who wanted it.
Then we didn’t hear about this “Digital Divide” much for many years, right up until recently, when a new phenomenon with a similar look to it hit the cultural radar.
Introducing the “Social Media Divide,” a split not always by chance, but sometimes by choice. Here are a few examples of what I mean…
- A young woman in South Los Angeles with plenty of digital media skills misses a perfect career opportunity because the job she was hunting was only announced online, via LinkedIn, and it was gone before she could get to the library to use a shared computer.
- How about the young boy in West Oakland who missed his friend’s birthday party because his parents sent invitations out only to their network on Facebook and his parents didn’t have an account. 600 million users, you expect everyone to be there, right?
- In rural Nova Scotia, getting to the voting booths has always been a challenge due to weather and rugged topography. Online voting for the Canadian province was a great step forward, but not for those without a reliable Internet connection.
These are examples of the how the social media divide is impacting individuals who certainly wouldn’t choose to be excluded. But there are those that do choose to be, or are forced to make that choice.
Like the story of the divorced woman who feels she must stay off the networks so that her unstable ex-husband can’t track her down. Or in my own case, I was at another conference recently and the speaker I was listening to offered to send his presentation slides to anyone who “liked” his facebook page. As it happens, I prefer not to use facebook, so I had to convince him to provide another channel.
But my point is that we have jumped into social media head first, just like we always seem to do with new frontiers, without looking too closely for hidden dangers lurking beneath the surface. We take for granted that these wonderful advances in humanistic technology are available and appropriate for everyone, and its just a matter of time until the whole world is here with us in electronic nirvana.
The problem seems to be that while social media is becoming more commonplace, the “social cost” of not using these networks continues to increase. And right along with it, polarization on the issue of privacy.
The Ponemon Institute recently did a survey indicating that only 42% of Americans classify themselves as active users of social media. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that 39 percent of U.S. adult Internet users still aren’t on Facebook, Twitter or a similar service. This un-connected group is mostly male, older, less education, and lower income. Does this concern you?
I don’t have an answer to what we should do about those in danger of being left behind by the realtime internet when its not of their choosing.
- Should we subsidize those who can’t afford the tools?
- Should we provide computers, bandwidth, and training as a basic right of a civilized society?
- Ø What do we risk losing if we exclude a huge segment of society from the conversation?
When it comes to the privacy question, there are at least some answers.
People—especially younger ones—are increasingly sharing their most personal secrets as well as intimate details about their families and friends, in blogs and on social networks.
- When anyone can publish their every thought to a worldwide audience, how do we balance privacy and free speech?
- How should laws protect people when harmful gossip and rumors are spread about them online?
In a series of really good articles on MSNBC’s blogs I found this piece by Wilson Rothman, who says,
“Even if you regularly reassure yourself that you don’t give a fig about privacy, there’s a difference between open and at risk. I don’t want you to lose your job, break up your marriage, get denied healthcare or get kicked out of school because you didn’t know the difference.”
There are a number of steps one can take to protect yourself in that vein, from the common-sense example of holding off a bit before you post something, to blocking third-party browser cookies. Learn to use Facebook’s privacy settings. Find out how you can do anonymous browsing. It’s worth knowing about what you can do to protect yourself.
You are pioneers here in this room. I salute you for your creativity, your courage, your vision. And I ask you to think about the big picture that is represented not by the innovations we bring forth, but by what we become by how we decide to use them.
