Social media is
synonymous with ranting. The rants might not have any reasons but to many a
rant a day is conceivably the only way to keep a doctor away or so as the adage
goes. The social media indubitably has turned the nature of conversation upside
down. Expertize in the pre-internet days stemmed from the ability to have their
byline in a newspaper or a magazine or a bit of presence in the news television
or radio. Given the supply demand dynamics of the media, it was not possible
for many to have their views aired or published so as to become celebrities. This
however did not stop people from getting published under Letters to the Editor
column in many newspapers and newsmagazines. Moreover, the townsquare was ubiquitous
for the celebrities in the community to hold fort on topics all and sundry. The
social media with its arrival and subsequent expansion changed the dynamics.
The vertical ‘raja-praja’
hierarchy was dismantled with the horizontalization of information flow. Platforms
like Twitter became a hub for political conversation. YouTube became a platform
for broadcasting videos of political and social significance. Blogosphere too
expanded its presence. A corollary was the erosion of monopoly of the experts
in setting the directions of conversation. They still had a domineering
presence. People would still listen to them for the relevance and accreditation.
But it was longer undisputed. Many new faces started to make their presence
with their point of view carrying weight. In terms of market structures,
markets moved from a relative degree of oligopoly to a monopolistic competition.
The latter needed differentiation to survive thus making the participants hunt
for the differentiating element.
To many, upward
mobility in social media hierarchy meant more number of followers or subscribers
or connections based on the characteristics of the platform. To build a
presence on the platform, the visibility is indispensable. It is a different
matter whether visibility is niche or mass. To some, they would prefer the
visibility to be niche within the circles of interest thus enabling them
maximization of their presence value. To others, given no ostensible niche
interests, it makes sense to attempt visibility on any contemporary issues. Further
it makes sense to align on ideological grounds irrespective of competence or
not.
The visibility
emerges only through a significant presence and significant interventions. For offline
celebrity, social media would be more a public relations extension than an
independent avenue for establishing presence. For others, the social media is a
new platform. Therefore, their presence has to be established implied of which
is increasing number of posts. The content for the posts have to be created. The
content creation is not easy. A method of creating content is to latch on the
issues of the day. It is much better for example to tag or comment on others
posts or TLs or profiles as the case might be to garner attention. Some might
garner attention quickly, others may languish for months but their persistence
would be noteworthy.
The objectives
to those seeking to rant are manifold. If they are ideologically aligned
opposite, then are enough reasons for ranting anything the government does. It does
not matter whether they understand or not, but it is executed by the
government, so it must be opposed irrespective of its merits. To these ranters,
their signals are driven by what are being talked by the opinion leaders. The opinion
leaders are the ones who drive the charge the rest follow like a herd.
Amplifying the rant besides targeting the ones of the opposite side of the fence
would command great merit. Fearless of trolling and ability to hit the hacks of
the other side often drive their movement upwards in their hierarchy.
On the other
side of the spectrum, a few would feel a need to defend each and every action irrespective
of its demerits. These are apologists of the regime but do a valuable work of defending
their government at multiple fora. In contrast there are many who pretend their
allegiance to an ideology rather than the government. They have also the shred
the notion of ‘blind bhakts’. Therefore they have create a reputation of being
constructive critics and not follow blindly what the government does. Therefore,
the most suitable option for them is to keep criticising. They are the ones who
begin ranting at any given opportunity. The moment they find any statement of
the government, they rush into the well or at least the social media sphere to
pick flaws and point out how it is a deviation from the ideology. They claim
upon themselves a legacy of protecting their ideology irrespective of the
consequences short or long term. Further so, if they are branded as blind
bhakts by the media and the opposition, they have to shed it. They have all the
more reasons to appear critical of the government whether it merits or not. Further
through a sharp critical take, they feel their reputation will go up. in their
assessment, the media will take notice of their rants and thus designate them
to be of some repute thus giving credence to their posts. In all probability,
the media or the opposition would hardly lend any credence to these outbursts. On
the contrary, they might even choose to rankle them further by describing them
as blind bhakts again and again and enjoy the rants and thus the discomfiture
of the government and its social media managers. In the long run, these ranters
instead of acquiring an upward mobility might end up discredited with hardly anyone
to take notice of their arguments, if they have any.
There are others
who adopt a vociferous stand because they have a hidden agenda. The hidden
agenda needs a camouflage and taking a strident stance on an issue would be the
best mechanism to achieve that. The agenda might be a brief from a rival
company or an organization or even a political party or a country. They also
perhaps have hidden grievances for which they need to execute a counter attack
without appearing to be bitter or a case of sour grapes. To them, a convenient
issue that matches with ideological deviations or nationalist postures could be
a good signal to begin their fulminations. It doesn’t have to be knowledgeable
to fulminate. All that matter is cloaking of your fulmination with ideological
or nationalistic or internationalist or woke posture suiting to the occasion. The
internal motivations might be linked to a payoff extraneous to the rant or
linked to the possible acceptance as key member of the ideological gang
operating on the platform.
Thus an analysis
cursory it might be reveals it’s the signalling that predisposes an economic
agent to keep ranting on the social media on all issues that he or she might
deem fit. The signalling might be aimed at one or multiple constituencies
either in sequence or simultaneously. But it will have to be a posture that
should serve the intrinsic or instrumental needs of the agent. The rest as they
would describe is secondary.
Comments
Post a Comment