Being “raised” by the Internet, I’ve always wondered about the rise and fall of social media platforms or more specifically, how social media trends die out. What happened to Myspace that millennials all of a sudden transitioned to using Facebook as the dominant networking page? Why do some videos go viral within hours and does that have anything to do with current news events? (Some notable ones from my upbringing: Chris Crocker’s “Leave Britney alone!” meltdown, the action flick 300’s “This is Sparta!!!” getting remixed, or inspiring rainbow cat videos, and the notion of the “Internet celebrity’s” claim to fame.) Does the Internet operate on an entirely different “timeline” of events or is it “separate” from “real-time” real-world action?
I mention this because Myspace used to be the “hottest” thing *insert fire/flame emoji here* on the block in terms of "describing" your social status. Whoever you hung out with, there was a way to “quantify” your social circle by adding bands, random strangers you found attractive or interesting, and of course… changing your “Top 8” willy nilly depending on who upset you that week or who you were hanging out with as of that month. The “strength” of one’s friendship relied on whether or not you were their #1 priority or at least made it into their Top 8 (some friendships heavily depended on “public displays” of affection on social media like commenting on each other’s pictures or being the first to defend their friend from any “haters”). Sometimes teenagers would even go insofar as to “comment” on each other’s pictures or spam their friend’s webpages (remember pc4pc?) to ensure that their social capital was heightened by the amount of comments they had.
And I still see this kind of “behavior” on Twitter or FB when a couple posts their relationship status as an “official” declaration of their love. When friends post on each other’s pictures (almost every single one) with positive affirmations because that’s a way to determine their “best friend” status. Or how Instagram relies on the amount of likes and comments to determine one’s level of attractiveness or “marketability” in being that approachable person everyone wants to be friends with. The behavior is still the “same” but the platform is considerably different. Suddenly, there’s a different way to demonstrate publicly a sort of “performative act” that is found to be some form of “validation” for the individual who commits to it.
Borrowing from the Ellison et. al reading, I found it rather interesting how social capital is built around different messaging platforms and the ways in which they contribute to fostering relationships of all kinds. Consider the “implications” that instant messaging can have: it can be informal, direct communication, and somewhat intimate.
However, the fact that the interaction can be put on pause or hindered by other distracting conversations can limit the level of intimacy in the messaging platform. Video messaging can be a video conference for an important business meeting, a romantic Skype date to navigate a long-distance relationship, or an informal exchange between friends watching a movie on the same screen together.
Voice messaging might be the “newest” form of text messaging now that entire conversations can be carried on over the phone--without actually “talking” on the phone--you’re essentially still “talking” to the phone to the person you’re leaving a voice message for (and not a voicemail that you can’t retract), or “meme messaging” where exchanges between two people or more are held entirely by a game of who can choose the best fitting meme during the appropriate time. GIF messaging will shortly be the new thing as soon as iPhones become readily available to its audience. (Android for life, man.)
What does any of that have to do with Myspace or social media platforms? One word: networking. “Building connections” seems to be the keyword of anything that promotes sociability, but the kind of connections you want is also determined by the platform you choose to network on. Say for example, the expectations for Match.com or its bastard son Tinder where “offline meetings” are usually designated for quick, informal meetups between casual daters. You’re more likely to find your “soulmate” or a long-term relationship (the goal is marriage for many and usually the people using it are older) on Match.com or eHarmony compared to Tinder which has been notoriously known as a “hook-up” app for young people and overtly dubbed with misogyny or “scamming” bots with modeling pictures who seek your credit card information.
There’s also a similar “transition” period from one dating app to another. I recall Plenty of Fish, eHarmony, and Match.com becoming one of the “first” dating websites where meeting people online was still considered taboo. Stories of potentially meeting an axe murderer as a romantic partner or taunting those who were seeking love online as “less-than” for not being able to find any fulfilling relationships “in real life” were some of the criticisms facing online dating. When Myspace was a prominent social networking site, there were two people in my life who were getting married to someone they found on Match: (1) one was a high school English teacher who was known to be “quirky” and I remember my classmates making fun of her for finding a “decent-looking” guy to marry behind her back, (2) my aunt who had many unfulfilling relationships before her “IRL” that ended up not working out at all until she “found the one” online and whom she has two kids with now.
Even after learning about the “small-world phenomena” regarding “six degrees of separation” in class, shouldn’t we be more “able” to find connections IRL without the help or constant reminder of the hold that our social media presence has over us? It’s amazing to see people find connections online and have them translate to offline relationships, but I also see a huge disparity in how we value our online connections compared to the people we have in our lives. For some people who live in small towns, I see how it can be beneficial to broaden their social horizon by meeting different kinds of people online and expanding their social circle. But what about developing social skills without necessarily relying on social media per say? Are you able to be comfortable with an awkward silence or talking to someone who you don’t necessarily share the same interests and still build a rapport with them in hopes of finding “something” else in them?
That part, I don’t know. With the advent of niche dating websites, it may seem like the chances of meeting someone are “higher” for those who are older but the social circumstances seem unlikely for “our” generation. Less people are interested in getting married or having kids, divorce rates have somewhat slowed down over the years and yet are still at an all-time high, and millennials are more likely to be correlated with this dramatic increase in “hookup” culture. Are dating apps to blame or have the social circumstances changed for the “worse” (student loans anyone?) when priorities are vastly different compared to previous gen-Xers and baby boomers?
Well, I think that depends on how you see it or what you base your decision on. Perhaps the “problem” with our generation is that we have too many options, too many choices to make nowadays. Now that dating apps are more nuanced, you can “easily” choose which one to take part in.Coffee Meets Bagel seems to be a dating app for young professionals that are seeking more long-term relationships and not a one night stand and is centered on making “less” options by setting an expiration date on the mindless “swipe-left” or “swipe-right” choice. Bumble is “Tinder for women” after seeing how many women were being harassed on Tinder and leaves the ball in her court to send the first message. OkCupid is “all-encompassing” by borrowing features from Match and Tinder, while promoting more room for curating a social identity on their dating profile without any character limitations.
Or what about more “specific” dating websites catered to your identity? VeggieDate where vegetarians can increase their chances of finding a partner that matches their dietary preferences and also have the afforded convenience of catering to the same lifestyle. (I have a family friend who actually found her life partner after meeting him on this dating website; their story is posted on the website as a “testimonial” and I got to DJ at their wedding.) Funny how much has changed in the digital age of meeting people. It may not necessarily make for the most romantic story, but I also think that meeting someone you actually enjoy spending time with instead of settling is more important than answering the question of how you met (Why not just make something up? And how is meeting someone at the produce aisle ‘more’ romantic than meeting someone online?)
Whatever the case is, I think the transition to social media websites and online dating make for remarkable cases of human behavior in seeking connections to fulfill whatever void we have. More and more websites or apps are being created to ensure that we rightly seek what we’re searching for (TallFriends.com for those who are searching for other tall people or Acebook, dating for asexuals). However, more and more people are also vocally expressing their disdain for not being able to “find” the right person even though they actively search on multiple platforms. There’s a kind of “digitally-induced” loneliness that runs rampant in our generation especially because there still emerges a radical disconnect between fostering human connections IRL vs. connecting with others online that I’ve noticed with other millennials who’ve also been “raised” by the Internet. So I guess this touches on the metaphysics of “knowing” but when will it ever be enough for us? When will we ever stop wanting more and remain content with what we have?
Comments