Cracking Down on the ‘Social Media Police’
Published: Monday, October 21, 2013
Updated: Monday, October 21, 2013 14:10
A recent BuzzFeed article—BuzzFeed is one of my (many) guilty pleasures—listed “21 Infuriating Instagram Cliches.” The list delves into how pretty much every image uploaded by anyone, ever, is irritating, annoying, infuriating, whatever.
One example is “a shot of some leaves in the grass because it’s Autumn now.” Because apparently now nature pictures are infuriating. Along with beach pictures, cat pictures, silly friend pictures and then, of course, any kind of “selfie.”
And pretty much anything anyone does on any social media platform, ever.
People have become entitled themselves to be the “social media police.” They determine what people can and cannot post on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. People make it well known when they disagree with what someone posts on any platform, normally by making their own posts.
If you remember my “Hashtag, you don’t get it” article, I may seem a bit hypocritical. But I think that there is a difference between using specific features of social media correctly and the general uses of social media.
Now what’s wrong with a good selfie? I too, agree with some about limitations on this phenomenon, but it seriously seems like the end of the word if someone posts a single self-portrait. People now have to apologize if they post a selfie. The story may be different if one violator posts a picture of him or herself every single day, but seriously, if it’s not that often, give it a rest.
I had one friend complain that women use babies as reasons to post pictures of themselves. It seems that many people think women are the only ones using social media to garner attention, even if it is to share a photo of a new family member. That’s just ridiculous.
Heaven forbid any woman posts a picture of any type of gift she got from a significant other—especially flowers—because every jealous single girl will practically claw your eyes out via subtweet.
On the other hand, others complain about men (and women) posting too often during sporting events. “Wait, did the Vikings lose? I never would have guessed,” is a common tweet following a game.
These tweets are probably how the person found out the team won or lost in the first place—how is being informed a BAD thing? I may be the only one here, but I appreciate the play-by-plays of sporting events. Then, even if I’m catching up on Vampire Diaries instead of watching the Vikings lose, I can still be in the loop.
Last year, people complained about others posting about politics. Isn’t that the point of having social media? To be able to communicate with people? Social media allows ideas to be communicated to a large population, but it seems that as soon as anything intellectual is brought up, it isn’t supposed to be there.
If people aren’t complaining about the topics being discussed on social media, they’re complaining about frequency.
Tweet too much: unfollow. Tweet too little: unfollow. I don’t see why this matters. If someone wants to tweet 10 times a day, so be it. If they only tweet a couple times a month, why does it matter?
If someone’s tweets annoy you, that’s fine. The unfollow doesn’t really need a tweet accompanying it saying how annoying people are and that you unfollowed them. Just do it and move on with life.
The main problem with the use of social media is that it is a form of mass communication that is used as interpersonal communication. All 900 of your Facebook friends aren’t going to care about what you ate for dinner, but there are probably five people that do.
Emma is a senior majoring in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @emmajheaton2.