Social Media Paradox
Social media is like a wastebasket. On the platform, used objects are piled up without any partition and mingle, multiplying the waste of life.
Male and female, young and old, high-low strata, rational-emotional, all interact without barriers. Social media gives its users space to express their thoughts, feelings and artificial roles. As written by Rulli Nasrullah (2014) and explained by social examiner Baudrillard, the virtual world is apparently growing into a representation of the realm of imagination.
In the virtual world, users can be anyone they want to be. Therefore, using social media does not require clarification unless it leads to verbal violence, public lies (hoaxes), the spread of pornography and hate speech. Only to this extent can the state intervene to protect its people.
The word "imagination" is what Baudrillard sees as a differentiator from mainstream media, such as television, radio and print media. In the mainstream media, facts are the source of information production. If it is not factual, in the journalistic tradition it will be punished as an unethical act.
Invitations to meetings, info, instructions, prohibitions and warnings, all are shifted through social media.
Even, in the formulation of the Journalistic Code of Ethics (all versions), this fact is prohibited from being mixed with the opinion of the journalists. This difference seems to be ignored by the majority of social media users in Indonesia. Social Media is interpreted as a representation of reality or fact. Governmental, educational, social, religious, and all social network organizations have decided to use social media as a means of formal communication. Invitations to meetings, info, instructions, prohibitions and warnings, all are shifted through social media.
Users of social media are demanding more than the destiny of social media itself so that in practice many problems arise. Social media has advantages in speed, distribution, and the convergence of meaning, but at the same time it contains weaknesses in terms of correctness and accuracy in giving meaning to the meaning to social media content.
Demands to respond quickly and comment on messages lead the users to be chased by time so as to rule out correctness or accuracy. Then they also have the potential for misinterpreting the "language of intent". It is in this context that social media contains the potential for divisions, conflicts, and tension in social interaction.
Each user is free to produce and distribute the representation of his imagination. There are no effective controls to limit conversation and make any thematic filters. Control can only be effectively done by the user himself. This is different from the mainstream media, where its production process is guarded through the gate keeper. Newspapers, for example, have an institutional structure to ensure that the process of producing information is in accordance with journalistic code of ethics.
Accuracy, validity, and precision are the focus of attention so that when they reach the public they are free from ethical issues. For the press, a violation of the code of conduct is a gamble on reputation,
credibility and trust. As an industrial product, public distrust can affect circulation and advertising. Similarly in the broadcast media, the message production process is overseen by the Broadcast Program Standards (SPS) and the Broadcasting Behavior Code (P3), as mandated by the Broadcasting Law (Law No. 32 of 2002).
There is no bargaining for the mainstream media except paying attention to the ethical dimension.
In other words, in the mainstream media there is control from within (self-control) and also control from outside [Press Council, Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI/KPID), and market]. There is no bargaining for the mainstream media except paying attention to the ethical dimension.
Type of visitors
Meanwhile on social media, outside control is not very significant, as what exists is even the user\'s subjective freedom. Social media is like a dark and wild wilderness. The sounds can only attract attention when they are loud and echoing. Each individual is free to use the wilderness to build his social network for different purposes. In the context of cyber communication, there are what is called residents and visitors.
The residents and visitors often meet in a network for certain purposes so that they are connected as an in-group for a relatively long time. They build networks associated with the recognition of the (certain) existence in groups and that is valid.
The problem of in-group cohesiveness arises when there are visitors who position themselves as lurkers. According to Hine (2000) and Nasrullah (2014), the position of the lurkers is merely looking and leaves no trace.
Not all groups of lurkers leave negative messages in in-group interaction. They know their existence is difficult to trace so they are free to offer their opinions. The problem arises when the lurkers only pick one or some partial information, then sell it to certain parties to get benefits.
The presence of these scouts can metamorphose into a buzzer-like person or account promoting a product or figure to be popular and legitimate. The existence of buzzer lurkers in social media forests is like a pendulum that produces fragments of information as commodities. Misunderstandings and conflicts are often sparked by the pendulums in the in-groups. Therefore, residents must be aware that there is information from the networks with nuances of buzzers. It does not necessarily have to be swallowed fully to later reactively respond.
The harm and benefits must be calculated.
The "truth" context of the information in the social media must be checked and rechecked repeatedly because the language in the social media tends to be informal, little by little, combined with jokes, or comments from network members. Indeed, a reactive response can give an impression of a brave, independent, and strong person, but it can also make an impression of being unethical and frightening other members. The harm and benefits must be calculated.
The message being conveyed can be a fact, but because it is wrapped in emotion, the meaning is different. Not the fact that is getting the attention, but the packaging that is captured. The public fail to focus.
The type of social media users in a network context that Hine and Nasrullah have not yet discussed is what Everett M Rogers calls as the isolated. In the context of networking, they are indeed passive, silent, and do not react. Maybe due to reasons of no benefit, not interested, fear of risk, and none of their business, they choose to take an easy going stance. They record well, but take careful decisions. Silence is golden. Unlike the type of network that is called a bridge, they actively search for pieces of information to convince residents at certain conclusions. What I mean is that the presence of the isolated in the network may be more needed because its function tends to maintain stability, while bridges tend to create provocative negative imaginations.
Don’t be "gede rumangsa"
If we agree with Baudrillard that social media tends to be an imaginative representation of reality, any person should not take the social media content seriously. Although initially departing from reality, in its transformation it becomes a message whose precision is not guaranteed. Because, individuals who are very free to produce and distribute messages have the power to reduce, exaggerate, dramatize, and the like. In the hands of social media users, opinions and feelings (like it or not) easily shift the reality into what Baudrillard calls hyper reality.
Phenomenon that we often find is the fact that people often associate themselves with the contents of the message, as if the message content in social media is a representation of their existence. For example, there are individuals who upload complaints in the form of the sentence, "Noble people who are grow through dishonest means are like living corpses."
Even though we may be offended by the narration, there is no need to associate that we are the living corpses. The results make us feel insinuated, angry, furious, and other unwell things. The message is general, aimed at anyone who has a similar nature.
Another example, there is someone displaying a photo of a doll in a headless IG with the narration, "It cannot be imagined if we are just bodies without heads... However, in fact many people also live without heads. They have heads, but never use them ... Don\'t be adigang (having an arrogant display of superior power), adigung (having an arrogant display of superior status), adiguna (having an arrogant display of superior knowledge), just because you have big heads. Be careful because you only have to wait for the time to lose your heads."
Its term is "do not be gede rumangsa alias ge-er (get over oneself).
Postings like that are general. Don\'t associate "you" in the text with yourselves. If we are the type of sensitive social media users, we should not have to surf there because the wilderness of the social media is full of weapons whose bullets are scattered everywhere. Its term is "do not be gede rumangsa alias ge-er (get over oneself).
Social media is a place where we look in the mirror, introspect, and earn wisdom.
Redi Panuju, Teaching Staff at the School of Communication, Unitomo Surabaya