It is remarkable to see the use of a social network in expressing our minds. Nowadays, social networks not only have changed the commoners, or in simple words ordinary people like me and you, in expressing concerns, but beyond that also pledged our appetite for active engagements in opinionating public views.
While at present this transformation seems to be seamless, the evolvement of it in our state was intriguing.
Prior to the reformation era, when the days of information were reigned by the printed media, most newspapers were sincere enough to allocate a space for catering reader opinions at the price of sufficient identity to be given to the editor.
But only those trying to be a hero, daring to challenge the authority, would use this mean for changing the mainstream opinions. Bored with the government ruthless disinformation, those pundits offered alternative views targeting the elites.
Thanks to the invention of the printing machine, information can be mass distributed in less than twenty four hours.
Such distribution enabled the commoners to comprehend ‘the developed situation’, but at the same time, it gave also room for the elites to allege those responsible for subversive views.
It was also prior to the reformation era, as it is now, the commoners had wider choices to raise their concerns via the growing numbers of radio and TV stations. Sadly, the utilization of this media was somehow under, again, the elite pressure.
To cater public opinions, interactive discussions were operated through phone lines. Everyone can fake their identity while expressing a catastrophic opinion on air. This time, the responsibility was shifted to the broadcasters.
During the reformation era, the mode to express opinions changed dramatically with the emergence of the internet. Thanks to the virtual world, everyone created their nickname. Some underground newsgroups were even hosted abroad with moderators concealing the origin of the source.
The internet system however has some drawbacks. Its flexibility to place any information without selective measures created distrust from critical commoners on the content it provided.
To make it worse, the use of the internet in spreading alternate opinions was also crippled by accessibility issues. Internet access at the time was not cheap. High inflation rate forced people to choose food over the internet.
Still, it was admitted, as claimed by upper income commoners, that the internet was contributable to the fall down of the new order.
But not until the convergence of facebook and twitter into mobile devices, the commoners gain their momentum.
The days where the commoners shared their views through interactive phone are being swept away. Real time transmission is said to be the pinnacle proposition to use social networks.
For the commoners, social networks mean sharing views and opinions as well as connect socially in a single economic transaction. As for broadcasters, social networks mean an efficient way to pool opinions in short time with single resource.
When we question the effectiveness of social networks to reach wider audience, we can say that social networks at present facilitate the most pervasive way to share views in front of the public.
But whether such effectiveness gives impact, just like when the internet hegemony demolished the new order, it remains to be seen.
