Keywords: brands , news , social media , tiktok , featured post
A study on media consumer trends from the Creative Digital Agency on Generation Z revealed that roughly 80% of Gen Z’s population of 67 million Americans gets its news through a mobile device—either on social media or through a news app like Apple news, as well as through word of mouth discussion with friends and family. The study also revealed that less than 20% of Generation Z catches up with the news through traditional mediums like radio or newspaper.
As humans we need to get better at our relationship with social media. It’s far too jejune to blame social media for how we behave. To do so would be to forfeit any free will & strip ourselves of agency. Instead of just having a singular spotlight on the responsibility of social media, why not rig up another spotlight and shine it on our own responsibility to be aware of how we behave & how it can be manipulated? No intelligent algorithm can work its magic without you taking first action, and continuing to take further action. Your attention can’t be monetised unless you wilfully give it up. We are the start point, but we are also the end point.
When we discover that someone disagrees with us on a matter we consider settled, we often go through three steps to “understand” why they are wrong, and those three reasons go from most charitable to least:
They are ignorant. If they knew what I know, if they had the facts I do, they would see things as I do.
They are too stupid to understand the facts. This is the next line of thinking once we realize that they know the facts we know and simply interpret them differently or feel differently about them.
They are acting in bad faith. They don’t want to know the truth because their intentions are bad. They don’t care about others or the truth, just whatever immoral or unjust thing they want.
The problem is that both sides of a disagreement think these things about the other party, but they don’t question…
These platforms allow people to access them supposedly for free, but instead of charging them a fee they require people to give up their personal data. This is then analysed to aggregate people into groups, and to make predictions about their interests and characteristics – primarily so they can use these insights to generate advertising revenue. The report found that the scale of harvesting and monetising of personal data by these platforms is incompatible with people’s right to privacy.
Even though the main calls in the report are to governments and how they must regulate the industry, it behoves us all to look at the roles we play.
At Amnesty, we are just as dependent on these platforms as big corporations, political parties, and local businesses in order to reach, engage and grow our audiences. The pervasive power of these platforms is exactly why Amnesty has brought out a report on them.
This is a deep link to a segment where Snowden was explaining how important evidence is in establishing facts (i.e., in journalism, in courts, etc.). I myself contrasted this with the way science works (the scientific method cannot prove anything, scientific theories are simply descriptions of phenomena that have not yet been refuted by testing hypotheses). IMHO it would be nice if more people took the skeptical attitude inherent in the scientific approach.
Everybody’s kind of getting scammed in that space and you probably shouldn’t be buying Google search.
Matthew Horiuchi (Director of User Acquisition @ Calm) [ @ ca. 30:35 ]
Note that this depiction is vastly oversimplistic (for example, Matthew himself notes that costs actually vary widely, they are not pinpointed as depicted here). Also, there are probably an infinite number of axes upon which to chart media channels (for example, if one such axis were to represent “rationality”, all of these would be at the “zero rationality” end of the scale — see also “Definition: How to Define “Retard Media”“).