It’s fine if a writer wholeheartedly agrees with what seems to be a widespread opinion. Then, it’ll re-circulate on social media, and instead of offering something new, it will solidify and reinforce the same opinions and perspectives. They’ll write a piece that panders to the masses, whether intentionally or otherwise, and send it back to them in a kind of feedback loop. It’s not always a big deal, but it can be problematic when they aren’t thinking for themselves. Unfortunately, too many writers angle their content in a way that accommodates to what they consider to be the majority view. How many times have you read an article that simply rehashes the same points that are already prevalent on social media? To make matters worse, narratives and trends on social media often influence the views and opinion of writers too. That’s probably why we’ve seen an increase in the amounts of bots, shills, and trolls, which take advantage of this system to sway and influence others. But it’s an imperfect system that gives a lot of power to people on social media, regardless of their agenda. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. In turn, this influences their perspective, while also reinforcing the narrative, and the cycle continues. They’ll base it on what they see, which ultimately is whatever has been upvoted the most. People are entitled to their views, and sometimes a trending narrative is fair and accurate. But sometimes it’s not, and it’s easy to see how it can get blown out of proportion.Ī neural reader might glaze over a thread to get what they assume is an informed and universal opinion. Naturally, criticism is warranted and always welcome. Ironically, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, since dissenting views often get drowned out by what seems to be an overwhelming majority.īut is that really what most people think, or is it what a particularly vocal portion of people think, which then snowballs into something bigger? I’d say sometimes it’s the former, while other time’s it’s the latter. All it takes for the ‘hive mind’ phenomenon to kick in is a vocal minority mass upvoting anything that supports the desired view, while mass downvoting anything that doesn’t. In other words, uncritical conformity runs rampant to the point where a single all-encompassing and often over-simplified opinion prevails.Ī good example is when people are discussing whether or not a game is good. What ends up happening is the creation and curation of a narrative, one that conforms to the values and intentions held by what has come to be known as the ‘hive mind’. Similarly, those who upvote and downvote make up a more significant portion, but it’s still a fraction compared to the number of people who read and move on.
However, people who post and comment only make up a small portion of actual users on any given platform. People upvote the comments they agree with and downvote those they disagree with. Generally, news surfaces either directly or indirectly from various sources on social media, and a discussion ensues. Something I’ve realised is how influential social media can be on the news we consume, especially in the gaming and esports industry. But I’ve been doing it long enough now to understand how it works, and how it can be improved. I’m still relatively new to the freelance writing world. Narratives on social media are too influential on people’s opinions when it comes to games However, if you’re only interested in my opinion on Rocket Arena, please click here. If you’re interested in my breakdown of narratives on social media and why it’s a problem, please read on.
Just a heads up, this is a piece of long-form journalism written in a stream of consciousness style. Here’s my take on how narratives on social media are too influential when it comes to games, why it’s a problem, and why we should be mindful about how they influence our decisions. It’s had a turbulent start, but it’s on the right track.
0 kommentar(er)
