Social Media: The People's Choice Awards of the Internet
The author's views are entirely their own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.
I've been hearing a lot of grumbling lately about the steady degradation of the quality of content online, especially as it relates to social media and social news sites. I don't necessarily agree with the gripes--was content that magical in 1999? As far as I can recall, there were hamster dances, dancing babies and Geocities pages long before LOLcats, Rickrolls and MySpace. Sure, there are millions and millions more people online now than there were 10 years ago and there are buttloads more pages of content, but to me, the type and quality of content hasn't changed all that much. You still have news articles and research papers and useful information in one corner, and porn, memes, photoshopped images, and general nonsense in another corner.
Why then are so many folks turning their nose up at the seemingly lackluster content that plagues the Internet nowadays and are pining for the days of yesteryear? Well, for one, it's always great to reminisce. Everyone always seems to think that the current era sucks and that the previous decade was fantastic. A child of the 90s will say "Today's cartoons suck! Tiny Toon Adventures and Animaniacs were the best," while a child of the 80s will disagree and insist that Smurfs and He-Man were the greatest. Some people will cling to Motown while others will swear by disco, yet both will agree that "music nowadays ain't what it used to be."
Another reason is that it's easy to point fingers at the seemingly obvious culprit: social media sites. Everyone seems more than willing to kick that mangy dog. After all, if you pull up a site like Digg or reddit and glimpse at the home page, you'll often see silly pictures and inane top 10 lists mixed in with actual "newsworthy" submissions. It's easy for Internet snobs to point at this type of content regularly making popular, sneer and say, "This is why Internet content sucks now."
However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that social media sites are simply the People's Choice Awards of the Internet. If you're unfamiliar with the People's Choice Awards, good. They suck (see, this is why I can relate to folks hating on Internet content quality). The awards are decided not by movie critics, movie industry union members, or by an academy of voters, they're cast by millions of regular Americans who vote on what they like and don't like. And despite the trove of quality films and shows that come out each year, oftentimes the People's Choice Award winners are mainstream, crowd-pleasing fare.
Here's an example: in 2007 some notable dramas were released:
Okay, maybe you love Harry Potter and disagree with my example. No problem, I'll provide you with another one. The masses voted Robin Williams as their "favorite funny male star" of 2007. Robin Williams. In 2007. Not 1987 or even 1997--apparently America thinks he's the funniest person of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN.
You see where I'm going with this? As a somewhat snobbish moviegoer, I think the People's Choice Awards is the absolute worst, most "you've got to be kidding me" awards show. Don't get me wrong, the Oscars and other prestigious shows have their fair share of bullshit wins and snubs, but as a whole they tend to recognize quality films and truly talented actors. Nonetheless, the People's Choice Awards exists and it lets the average Joe vote on his favorites for the year. And wouldn't you know it, not everyone in America is a film snob, a movie critic, or has seen 80+ movies in the theater that year (don't judge me and my disposable income). They vote on what they have seen and what they're familiar with, and they vote on what they like; thus, oftentimes mainstream, crowd-pleasing, familiar, or even downright silly (c'mon, Robin Williams?!) choices are made.
Which brings me back to social media sites. When you're giving the masses the ability to submit, vote on and promote any sort of content from across the entire web, what do you think they'll do? Sure, some people will want to know about the latest news in the Middle East while others are interested in Obama, and lots of people are are paying attention to recent medical advancements, literary thesis papers, search engine patents, the economy, and other "high quality," valuable information. And yeah, niche social media and social news sites will have a focus (Digg leans towards technology, BallHype is sports-oriented). But when you boil it down to a fairly general social media site that allows anyone to participate, you're gonna see a lot of mainstream, general crowd pleasing stuff. Pictures you can easily glance at and laugh about. Bulleted lists that are easy to skim and consist of X Funny Nostalgic Things That You Loved When You Were a Kid. Stupid rants that have no discernible point and won't make any sort of positive impact other than the fact that they made you smile or laugh for five minutes out of your busy, hectic day.
Am I a movie snob? Sure. Do I look at the People's Choice Awards and think that the quality of movies and television have gone down the crapper because "America has voted, so surely this must be an accurate representation of what's being made nowadays"? No, absolutely not. Great films and TV exist, and it's easy for folks like me to find and appreciate them. Similarly, great content still exists on the web just as it's always existed, and it's easy to find it if you know where to look. Don't take a cursory look at social media and reduce a vast, entire Internet's worth of content to the stuff you see being featured on Digg, reddit, Facebook and MySpace profiles, etc.
Just because the "crappy" stuff now has a magnifying glass being held over it doesn't mean it didn't exist before or that the "good" stuff is drastically declining. That's the beauty of the Internet--it's a comprehensive resource created by the people, for the people. For every and all kinds of people--elitists, snobs, dummies, juveniles, women, men, geniuses, liberals, conservatives. And that's the way it should be.
Why then are so many folks turning their nose up at the seemingly lackluster content that plagues the Internet nowadays and are pining for the days of yesteryear? Well, for one, it's always great to reminisce. Everyone always seems to think that the current era sucks and that the previous decade was fantastic. A child of the 90s will say "Today's cartoons suck! Tiny Toon Adventures and Animaniacs were the best," while a child of the 80s will disagree and insist that Smurfs and He-Man were the greatest. Some people will cling to Motown while others will swear by disco, yet both will agree that "music nowadays ain't what it used to be."
Another reason is that it's easy to point fingers at the seemingly obvious culprit: social media sites. Everyone seems more than willing to kick that mangy dog. After all, if you pull up a site like Digg or reddit and glimpse at the home page, you'll often see silly pictures and inane top 10 lists mixed in with actual "newsworthy" submissions. It's easy for Internet snobs to point at this type of content regularly making popular, sneer and say, "This is why Internet content sucks now."
However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that social media sites are simply the People's Choice Awards of the Internet. If you're unfamiliar with the People's Choice Awards, good. They suck (see, this is why I can relate to folks hating on Internet content quality). The awards are decided not by movie critics, movie industry union members, or by an academy of voters, they're cast by millions of regular Americans who vote on what they like and don't like. And despite the trove of quality films and shows that come out each year, oftentimes the People's Choice Award winners are mainstream, crowd-pleasing fare.
Here's an example: in 2007 some notable dramas were released:
- The Lives of Others
- Away From Her
- Atonement
- Michael Clayton
- There Will Be Blood
- No Country for Old Men
Okay, maybe you love Harry Potter and disagree with my example. No problem, I'll provide you with another one. The masses voted Robin Williams as their "favorite funny male star" of 2007. Robin Williams. In 2007. Not 1987 or even 1997--apparently America thinks he's the funniest person of TWO THOUSAND SEVEN.
You see where I'm going with this? As a somewhat snobbish moviegoer, I think the People's Choice Awards is the absolute worst, most "you've got to be kidding me" awards show. Don't get me wrong, the Oscars and other prestigious shows have their fair share of bullshit wins and snubs, but as a whole they tend to recognize quality films and truly talented actors. Nonetheless, the People's Choice Awards exists and it lets the average Joe vote on his favorites for the year. And wouldn't you know it, not everyone in America is a film snob, a movie critic, or has seen 80+ movies in the theater that year (don't judge me and my disposable income). They vote on what they have seen and what they're familiar with, and they vote on what they like; thus, oftentimes mainstream, crowd-pleasing, familiar, or even downright silly (c'mon, Robin Williams?!) choices are made.
Which brings me back to social media sites. When you're giving the masses the ability to submit, vote on and promote any sort of content from across the entire web, what do you think they'll do? Sure, some people will want to know about the latest news in the Middle East while others are interested in Obama, and lots of people are are paying attention to recent medical advancements, literary thesis papers, search engine patents, the economy, and other "high quality," valuable information. And yeah, niche social media and social news sites will have a focus (Digg leans towards technology, BallHype is sports-oriented). But when you boil it down to a fairly general social media site that allows anyone to participate, you're gonna see a lot of mainstream, general crowd pleasing stuff. Pictures you can easily glance at and laugh about. Bulleted lists that are easy to skim and consist of X Funny Nostalgic Things That You Loved When You Were a Kid. Stupid rants that have no discernible point and won't make any sort of positive impact other than the fact that they made you smile or laugh for five minutes out of your busy, hectic day.
Am I a movie snob? Sure. Do I look at the People's Choice Awards and think that the quality of movies and television have gone down the crapper because "America has voted, so surely this must be an accurate representation of what's being made nowadays"? No, absolutely not. Great films and TV exist, and it's easy for folks like me to find and appreciate them. Similarly, great content still exists on the web just as it's always existed, and it's easy to find it if you know where to look. Don't take a cursory look at social media and reduce a vast, entire Internet's worth of content to the stuff you see being featured on Digg, reddit, Facebook and MySpace profiles, etc.
Just because the "crappy" stuff now has a magnifying glass being held over it doesn't mean it didn't exist before or that the "good" stuff is drastically declining. That's the beauty of the Internet--it's a comprehensive resource created by the people, for the people. For every and all kinds of people--elitists, snobs, dummies, juveniles, women, men, geniuses, liberals, conservatives. And that's the way it should be.
Comments
Please keep your comments TAGFEE by following the community etiquette
Comments are closed. Got a burning question? Head to our Q&A section to start a new conversation.