Effects of Social Media on Peer Communication

Let’s be honest, when it comes to social media, a specific group find themselves constantly under fire - the youths. Be it about the time youths spend online or how they ‘don’t know what proper English is from all that texting’, everyone has something to say. As part of the aforementioned group of youths, I’m not going to lie, I’m a huge fan of social media. I love how it connects people, the random bits of information that go viral in a matter of hours and how communities are built around the strangest things you can imagine in social media. Of course we can’t forget what a godsend Twitter is when you’re stuck waiting at the bus stop. That being said, while social media has undisputedly changed the way we socialise, it’s not necessarily in a good way. With a social media penetration rate at 77%, Singapore far exceeds the global average of 37%, resulting in evident distortion of peer socialisation especially among youths.

THE GREEN-EYED MONSTER STRIKES AGAIN

Living in one of the world’s richest cities, we are constantly chasing after material wants, be it latest technological gadgets or the newest Vans sneakers. Social media has amplified this pursuit, facilitating unhealthy social comparison especially among youths who engage in a never-ending materialistic competition on social media (TODAYonline, 2016). Studies reveal that students tend to feel more inferior as compared to their peers due to heightened exposure to unrealistic lifestyles depicted in social media, highlighting the negative impact of social media on youths’ mental wellbeing.

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE SCREEN

Particularly worthy of note is the rise of influencers - exceptionally popular social media users paid to advertise products. The influence of these users distorts peer socialisation - a false sense of competition is created as users try to outdo each other in achieving false ideals created by pictures of lavish places or extravagant experiences posted by influencers. How many times have you found yourself sighing in envy over idyllic getaway pictures on Rachell Tan (@pxdkitty)’s Instagram? Don’t bother lying; you know we all do it. What we often don’t realise is that these pictures don’t necessarily show the reality of their lives; the glamorous lifestyle they seem to lead can be easily engineered by clever photography and editing. These people, more often than not, lead average lives just like me or you. 

BUT FIRST, LET ME TAKE A SELFIE

Remember all the embarrassing things you did when you were 15 years old? That awful haircut you thought was the epitome of coolness? Now imagine you had to go through all that but risk having every single moment documented on social media. That’s a pretty horrifying thought, right? Youths are especially vulnerable as they are in a developmental stage of their lives where they tend to be insecure in their individuality and seek to solidify their sense of self. Youths’ insecurities can be exponentially magnified by social media due to its focus on living a ‘picture-perfect’ life. The pressures of these experiences are amplified as missteps made risk being put on social media and youths becoming the object of ridicule for extended periods and by a much larger audience than before. 

Moreover, this paradoxically encourages the growth of a narcissist society which values the worth of experiences by how many likes it can get on social media, distorting peer interactions (Fishwick, 2016). Youths try to gain as many likes as possible by putting their whole life online, from the sandwich they had for lunch to arguments with their loved ones. OOTD (outfit of the day) photos are posted to gain affirmation from peers. Even the evolution of social media platforms shows the trend towards an increasingly narcissist society as we move from Facebook where users build a peer network of friends to Instagram and Twitter where users collect followers instead, denoting unequal peer power dynamics.  The increasing emphasis on social media as a gauge of a person’s worth deforms youths’ self esteems and creates a narcissist society through its implicit focus on standing out and measuring popularity with arbitrary value systems. 

BY PEOPLE, FOR PEOPLE

While social media has infinite potential to contribute to mankind’s progress, let’s not forget ultimately social media was created by and for people.  Love it or hate it, social media’s here to stay. Don’t let it control you but rather, make use of it to edify your life. Instead of just liking your friend’s Instagram post, why not drop them a message and ask them out for lunch? Every once in a while, remind yourself to put down your phone and appreciate reality instead of constantly trying to capture the perfect ‘Insta-worthy’ moment or coming up with witty Tweets. After all, what is the point of experiencing the best parts of life through a phone screen?

Reference List:

Fishwick, C. (2016). I, Narcissist – Vanity, Social Media, and the Human Condition. The Guardian. Retrieved 20 February 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/i-narcissist-vanity-social-media-and-the-human-condition

Todayonline. (2016). Is access to social networks harming our children?. Retrieved from http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/access-social-networks-harming-our-children

Is Social Media an Effective Tool in Natural Disaster Mitigation?

Social media has been lauded as one of the 21st century’s greatest inventions, changing the way we now interact with the media and one another. It can be defined as interactive Internet-based applications in which users are able to interact with one another through the creation and sharing of content (Obar & Wildman, 2015). There are no restrictions on joining social media platforms, increasing the diversity of users and thus content shared. Social media also allows users to access online information easily at any time. Content can be shared with others in real-time and distributed quickly. Users can also sieve through the large volume of information with ease through the search function and chronological arrangement of content. (Allaire, 2016). As such, the unique characteristics of social media makes it the seemingly perfect candidate to fill the information dearth after a natural disaster (Huang, Chan & Hyder, 2010). In recent years, social media has indeed gained a growing presence in disaster recovery as seen in the 2011 Japan Earthquake when Twitter played a crucial role in coordinating the distribution of water and electricity supplies in Tsukuba City (Kaigo, 2012).

Yet is it truly so? While there is much social media can offer, the above-mentioned characteristics of social media are also damning in proving its ineffectiveness in mitigating natural disasters. The slack entry requirements result in large volumes of unverified information, increasing confusion in a time of chaotic and thus delaying recovery. Furthermore, social media is not as accessible as portrayed since accessibility to social media is also affected by other socio-economic factors which result in a digital divide and worsening inequalities. Social media is restricted by the need for a functional telecommunications system and power source as well. These reasons thus render social media as an ineffective tool in mitigating natural disasters.

1.    Accuracy of information on social media

The lack of authoritative gatekeepers makes it extremely challenging to ensure the accuracy of the information shared online (Lindsay, 2011). The emergence of social media as a tool for information dissemination post-disaster has created an increasingly decentralized system of information production in which social media is used as a platform for the collection and distribution of information by users (Houston et al., 2014). Lindsay also asserts that the absence of gatekeepers may provide opportunities for the spread of not only unverified information but also malicious rumours such as scams(Lindsay, 2011). Such rumours and misinformation will result in more chaos, delaying the recovery. This is further supported by Obar and Wildman who point out that the anonymous function of social media reduces the reliability of the information (Obar & Wildman, 2015).

Due to the absence of a credible filter, users are exposed to exponential volumes of unverified information available on social media after natural disasters (Tomer, Goldberg & Adini, 2015). This can be very damaging as seen during the 2011 Japan Earthquake when the rapid spread of misinformation and rumours via social media resulted in a prolonged shortage of necessities such as drinking water and gasoline fuel as people started hoarding them despite the Japanese disaster headquarters negating the rumours of biochemical hazards (Kaigo, 2012). The lack of verification of information spread by social media is arguably the main cause of the unnecessary shortage and panic caused. The spread of misinformation and rumours is amplified even further due to social media’s wide outreach, exacerbating the confusion and panic and thus worsening the situation instead of aiding disaster recovery (Allaire, 2016).

2.    The Digital Divide

Many proponents of social media claim that social media acts as an socio-economic equalizing force due to the ease of access to social media (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2013). Anyone can create an account and thus make full use of the benefits offered by social media such as its widespread outreach and speed (Lindsay, 2011). Recovery can thus be quickened through the use of social media, regardless of the user’s initial socio-economic status.

However, this notion is challenged by Madianou who contends that due to their higher level of access to social media and greater proficiency with social media, users who are better-off financially are able to better take advantage of social media as a tool for recovery activities such as fundraising, job searching and rebuilding but users with lower income are not only less likely to reap the benefits of social media fully but may also engage in risky online behavior such as gambling (Madianou, 2015). This has led to the creation of the digital divide which refers the gap between parties at different socio-economic levels in terms of access to information and communication technologies (ICT) and use of the Internet (OECD, 2001). As such, the digital divide causes differentiated rates of recovery which is highly stratified by socio-economic classes (Madianou, 2015).

The Digital in 2017 Global Overview report shows that the 10 countries with the greatest social media penetration generally follows the trend of their HDI ranking as well (We Are Social, 2017). This indicates an association between the wealth of the country and the level of proficiency with social media, further supporting Madianou’s argument. Studies also corroborated that well-educated individuals were more likely to pursue online activities that actively improved their lifestyles such as searching for financial or political information (Hargittai & Hinnant, 2008).

The digital divide can hence cause a second-order disaster which is defined as a humanly perpetuated disaster post-crisis with impacts that can surpass that of the initial disaster (Adams, 2013). As observed by Madianou, the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan demonstrated the harmful impacts social media can cause post-disaster. The 10-month study conducted found that low income participants’ living conditions post-disasters experienced little change, indicating a delay in recovery, while wealthier participants were recovering well and even doing better than they were pre-disaster due to the different types and levels of social media activity the different groups of participants engaged in (Madianou, 2015).

As such, social media acts as a pyrrhic recovery tool which can result in the worsening socio-economic inequalities due to the digital divide between the wealthy and poor instead of acting as an equalizer.

3.    Technological limitations of social media

Social media, while useful in disaster recovery efforts, is ultimately still limited technologically as it requires a functional telecommunications system and a reliable power source. One of the biggest draws of social media as a tool post-disaster is its portability as it can be accessed on any computing device (Houston et al., 2014). However, these mobile devices also run on a limited power supply (Laituri & Kodrich, 2008). Lindsay further corroborates this by pointing out that in 2011, many Hurricane Irene victims experienced power outages which lasted more than 2 days which far exceeds the 12-h battery lives of the average smartphone and tablets depending on usage (Lindsay, 2011). As such overreliance on social media post-disaster could cause more problems instead.

Moreover, critical infrastructure is very much needed to support not only the use of social media in disaster recovery efforts but also other recovery services such as emergency medical aid and thus plays a (The World Bank, 2010). However, such infrastructure is commonly damaged during disasters, resulting in a reduced capacity to perform its function at a time when information is in high demand due to the uncertainty caused by the disaster (Shklovski, Burke, Kiesler & Kraut, 2010).

Furthermore, critical infrastructure is susceptible to the domino effect as seen during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 when the collapse of a power supply system hindered rescue efforts due to the heavy reliance on ICT in USA. Kadri agues that the increased interdependence of different infrastructure sectors resulted in a dangerous vulnerability of the national system as a whole to disasters. Without resilient critical infrastructure to support social media, users are also unable to be utilize it as an effective tool (Kadri, Birregah & Châtelet, 2014). Social media is hence irrelevant without functional critical infrastructure to support it as a disaster recovery tool.

Conclusion

While social media at present cannot be deemed as a satisfactorily effective disaster recovery tool, it does hold much potential which can be fully realized through the implementation of an official framework for post-disaster information dissemination which can help sieve out inaccurate information. Future technological advancements may also lead to the increased battery life of mobile computing devices which will edify social media as a recovery tool.

Though social media does offer a short term solution to disaster recovery, often the most effective disaster recovery plans involve more long-term solutions such as educating people on post-disaster management. Each natural disaster presents its own unique set of problems to different countries, making it impossible to provide a cure-all solution. Governments must step up to evaluate the situation and take appropriate action with the tools available to them in order to mitigate natural disasters effectively.

References:

Adams, V. (2013). Markets of sorrow, labors of faith. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

Allaire, M. (2016). Disaster loss and social media: Can online information increase flood resilience?. Water Resources Research, 52(9), 7408-7423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016wr019243

Kadri, F., Birregah, B., & Châtelet, E. (2014). The Impact of Natural Disasters on Critical Infrastructures: A Domino Effect-based Study. Journal Of Homeland Security And Emergency Management, 0(0). http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2012-0077

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321782

Houston, J., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M., Park, E., Goldstein Hode, M., & Halliwell, M. et al. (2014). Social media and disasters: a functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092

Huang, C., Chan, E., & Hyder, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and Internet Social Networking: A New tool for Disaster Management? - Lessons from Taiwan. BMC Medical Informatics And Decision Making, 10(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-10-57

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2013). World Disasters Report: Focus on technology and the future of humanitarian action.

Kaigo, M. (2012). Social Media Usage During Disasters and Social Capital: Twitter and the Great East Japan Earthquake. Keio Communication Review, (34).

Laituri, M., & Kodrich, K. (2008). On Line Disaster Response Community: People as Sensors of High Magnitude Disasters Using Internet GIS. Sensors, 8(5), 3037-3055. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s8053037

Madianou, M. (2015). Digital Inequality and Second-Order Disasters: Social Media in the Typhoon Haiyan Recovery. Social Media Society

Obar, J., & Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2001. Understanding The Digital Divide

Shklovski, I., Burke, M., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2010). Technology Adoption and Use in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(8), 1228-1246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764209356252

The World Bank (2010). The World Bank Annual Report

Tomer, S., Goldberg, A., & Adini, B. (2015). Socializing in emergencies—A review of the use of social media in emergency situations. International Journal Of Information Management, 35(5), 609-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.07.001

We are Global (2017) Digital in 2017: Global Overview. (n.d.) from https://wearesocial.com/special-reports/digital-in-2017-global-overview

Making it Personal: Wildlife Conservation in Singapore

As a land-scarce country, space is a precious commodity in Singapore. The government is extremely conscious of the importance in ensuring the efficient use of land to maximize the country’s economic growth. Masterplans are drawn decades in advance, often prioritizing the state’s economic goals and thus creating tensions between the other socio-political goals of the country. One such example is the tensions between wildlife conservation and economic development.

Turtle-y gone for the greater good?

Recently the Live Turtle and Tortoise Museum made the news when the owner, Ms. Connie Tan, appealed to PM Lee for help regarding the museum’s eviction from the Chinese Garden, its home for the last 16 years. The only tortoise and turtle museum in the world, the museum currently holds over 500 tortoises and turtles, most of which are either rescues or abandoned (Lim, 2017). Ms. Tan and her father started the museum in an effort to educate children about tortoises and turtles. Workshops catered to children and guided tours are conducted, creating an educational and interactive experience. This is especially so since the animals are allowed to roam freely, allowing visitors to interact with them (Lim, 2017).

However, the museum is not included in the Jurong Lake District project which seeks to transform the area into Singapore’s second central business district. National Development Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about how the project will create a "better, smarter and more sustainable centre for businesses", thus providing more jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans (Phua, 2017). It is estimated that the huge undertaking will create more than 100,000 new jobs in sectors, such as technology, and 20,000 homes as well (Tee, 2018).

When news of the museum’s plight spread, Singaporeans responded with a tremendous show of support. Donations surged and many even offered their homes to Ms. Tan as temporary housing for the animals. PM Lee responded to Ms. Tan’s appeal swiftly, offering reassurances that relevant authorities would look into her case.

Growing public support

The generous public support garnered by the museum seems to be the latest product in a rather curious trend in Singapore - public interest in wildlife conservation arguably has exceeded the state’s expectations in recent years. While economic growth is still very much the top priority of the state, it is undeniable that wildlife conservation in Singapore has been receiving more attention from the government. More efforts have been put into the protection of our natural heritage and wildlife. Natural sites such as Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Bukit Timah Nature Reserve generally include an educational element and are modified to increase public awareness of environmental conservation through sustainable interactions with such natural spaces. From conducting school trips to nature reserves to student projects centered on wildlife, even our education system attempts to highlight the importance of wildlife conservation. This has invariably translated to a growing public interest in wildlife conservation as Singaporeans grow increasingly aware of our unique flora and fauna. As such, Singaporeans now are less willing to sacrifice natural spaces for the sake of economic progress, resulting in increasing private involvement in the protection of such spaces and wildlife.

Is it really wildlife conservation?

Can the Live Turtle and Tortoise Museum truly be considered wildlife conservation? After all, the animals are not truly living in their natural habitat but rather kept as pets, tame and familiar with human interaction. If not, is there really any value to the museum in the fight for wildlife conservation? To this, I say, yes there is.

The significance of the museum lies not only in the survival of the animals or the actual conservation of any natural space but rather in its role as an indicator of the state’s attitude towards such private initiatives. Unlike other wildlife conservation projects, the museum is arguably the only one started entirely by a citizen with the aim of education. It represents something entirely different; it shows Singaporeans taking a much more proactive stance in wildlife conservation. The considerable support and attention received by the museum show how local socio-political opinions of wildlife conservation efforts have changed. No longer do we see such efforts as redundant. We do not merely accept the sacrifices made in the name of economic development nor do we consider the plans made by the state to be set in stone.

The realization that the public had a responsibility in wildlife conservation as well was further driven across by the successful protection of Chek Jawa from reclamation in 2001 when public outcry played a major role in staying the state’s hand (Wee & Hale, 2008). An intertidal zone situated at the eastern shore of Pulau Ubin, Chek Jawa possesses unique marine life not found anywhere off the main island of Singapore (Tan & Yeo, 2003). When reclamation plans were announced, volunteers like Joseph Lai, N. Sivasothi and Ria Tan came forward spontaneously, to help collect, identify and catalogue the organisms found there.

These volunteers came from all walks of life and shared a similar passion for protecting the wildlife in Singapore. Hundreds of visitors streamed in during periods of low tide after news of Chek Jawa’s possible fate spread. Tours were organized by volunteers to minimise damage caused and a long term sustainable guide system was implemented too.

Compared to the 1989 Sungei Buloh Nature Park conservation proposal which only involved a small group, the Malayan Nature Society-Singapore (MNS-S) later known as Nature Society (Singapore) (NSS), the response to Chek Jawa was astounding (Wee & Hale, 2008).

The nuanced significance of the Live Turtle and Tortoise Museum in this context explains how any action taken by the government now will likely set a precedent and influence the future of civilian-driven wildlife conservation efforts. Should the museum receive governmental help, it will indicate the state’s support for such civilian-started initiatives and possibly encourage Singaporeans to take a more aggressive approach in protecting our wildlife.

This may be immediately reflected in the Cross-Island Line debate where the limelight is once again on the conflict between development and wildlife conservation. It is not a far stretch to assume that a positive government response to the museum’s plight will likely encourage a much louder pushback in the debate of the Cross-Island Line where many more Singaporeans are already protesting far more than they would have 20 years ago.

From Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve to the ongoing debate about the Cross-Island Line, there is an undeniably marked increase in the number of Singaporeans getting involved in wildlife conservation efforts. Perhaps, ironically the absence of wildlife in our urbanized environment has made wildlife conservation personal to us - after all, does absence not make the heart fonder?

Reference List:

Lim, Y. (2017). Bye, turtles? Jurong turtle museum to close in March. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/bye-turtles

Phua, R. (2017). Jurong Lake District to create more than 100,000 jobs, 20,000 homes. Channel Newsasia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/jurong-lake-district-to-create-more-than-100-000-jobs-20-000-9155708

Tan, R., & Yeo, A. (2003). Chek Jawa guidebook. Singapore: Simply Green.

Tee, C. (2018). Extension for Chinese Garden turtle museum lease being considered. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/possible-extension-for-chinese-garden-turtle-museum-lease-being-considered

Wee, Y., & Hale, R. (2008). The Nature Society (Singapore) And The Struggle To Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas. NATURE IN SINGAPORE, 1, 41-49. Retrieved from https://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/dna/docs/632e6c269d327908ca4676f28b7651fd.pdf