This class taught me that a lot of the commonplace reflections I had about social media were incorrect, or at least were incomplete versions of the truth. I was a little skeptical of the power of online spaces and communities to improve their members’ lives because I thought of social media as an inducer of problems (e.g.: depression, anxiety, relationship issues). However, communities such as #GirlsLikeUs showed me social media can be a way for people who are highly marginalized to receive forms of care and support that they wouldn’t get elsewhere. It was also fascinating to deconstruct the idea that social media is “the great equalizer” that would enable creators to share their content and gain visibility regardless of whether they are well-resourced or not. In reality, social media can amplify these inequalities between creators — for instance, on Spotify, 90% of streams go to the top 1% of artists. The Zola Story is another example of how a user’s pre-existing resources (material and social) can play a role in the visibility that their content does (not) receive. Another factor is algorithmic censorship — social media companies can program their algorithms to give more visibility to certain types of content and not others. This class introduced me to many new concepts and I hope I continue exploring them in the future.
One Reply to “Final reflection”
Comments are closed.
Hi Sophia, Happy to hear that you found the content of the class helpful and at times surprising 🙂 Social media definitely is not an equalizer, as you point out, and this makes it all the more interesting that it bills itself as such.
I also wanted to note that “algorithmic censorship” is not a term that has existed out there, at least, not to my knowledge. But personally I find it a useful term to think through not just who social media enables, but also who it silences.
I’m curious as to what remaining questions you might have.