Whoa. Almost a year without posting. I know, shameful of me, but I swear I’ve been busy somewhere else and did not forget my humble corner of the digital world. Today I’d like to propose you something more similar to a social analysis than a true essay. So, pardon my dust. Hopefully, being this written in english it may reach more readers.
Cover picture courtesy of http://www.personalbrandingblog.com/
A few days ago, Vice Prime Minister Matteo Salvini stated “per gli immigrati clandestini è finita la pacchia”, which roughly translates into “rest-time is over for clandestine immigrants”. His political position is quite clear and has already set itself against those reception policies meant to help immigrants running from both north African and Middle East countries currently at war. Although nor this statement of Salvini is big news, nor the wrongful manipulation of this piece of information by media, something way scarier has indeed happened again.
The new architecture of media allows more and more people to interact with each other while reading, commenting, or even producing a piece of information. In fact, the voice of every user can be easily heard across the world wide web, but with very different weight. Without doubt, the voice and the image of famous contemporary characters of our societies have a higher impact and a wider area of influence than the voice of the common citizen. Politics’ statements affect national and international relations alike, and the comments of VIPs tend to influence the masses who follow them on social media, thus dragging them into a progressively more powerful groupthink-dynamic. On the contrary, claims made by the single person sway in their own personal backyard, with none or very little power to influence others.
Influencing people’s thoughts through social medias is a phenomenon that happens hundreds of times daily and showed its grave effects also after Salvini’s controversial statement. In fact, on the Facebook page of an Italian influencing artist a post opposed Salvini’s statement. Immediately, the artist’s post has been seen and commented by many users who backed it. This wouldn’t be bad if not for the violent and unreasonable reaction the backers had against some of the opposers, even the most polite and reasonable ones. In fact, many of the latter did see themselves attacked even personally. Showing a terrible lack of empathy, many of the artist’s supporting users shut the doors of debate, thus turning themselves into a digital version of a raging mob. As a result, the power to influence others had disastrous effects.
Undoubtedly, there is so much more behind these events than mere episodes of digital violence that would be forgotten quite quickly. First, such events marks a rising in apathy about the violence provoked by the statements of any influencing figure. More and more people do not realize how negatively powerful their effects can be. Second, such behaviour spreads more and more the consolidation of groupthink. It means that, like a bird in a flock, single persons can be easily swallowed by the mob, consequently loosing independence of though and sight on the heart of matters. Therefore, on the one hand this leads to a dreadful increase in a ‘mechanic of complacency’ meant to please those persons whose influence thrive on social media. On the other hand, the chances for humble debates and confrontation decrease.
In conclusion, the negative effects the influencers’ power can have on people cause great concern. They gravely reduce the importance given to the opinion of the single persons while strengthening that of the masses. Furthermore, a steady rise in apathy increasingly blinds social media users and influencers alike. Eventually, this might lead to the ‘justice of the raging mob’, whose role would not be only that of a commenter, but also of digital judge, jury, and executioner.
EMERALD BASTION 