In response to Ian Bogost's article of 

The Age of Social Media Is Ending

Gabrielle Edenia

013201900023

1. What is Bogost's main argument about social media?

According to Bogost, it's a terrible idea to build systems that are intended only to produce an infinite stream of material since it is intrinsically tied to the idea of social media. Social media's primary goal was to connect people, not to create. The core purpose of social networks was networking: establishing or fostering connections, first mostly with familiar relatives. It's simple to forget how really miraculous this breakthrough seemed when it first came out because of the negativity of social media. Social networks, which were previously only potential touch points, developed into content superhighways. Their social networking features have been relegated to the background in their most recent iteration. As an instance on TikTok, users are more likely to just plug into a continuous flow of video material that has bubbled to the top via algorithm, even though they may link the app to their contacts and follow specific users. Some of the capabilities of these services still need users to connect with other users. But the importance of connection has diminished. The relationships were crucial in the social networking age, boosting both content production and consumption. But the social-media era seeks the thinnest, most soluble connections possible, just enough to allow the content to flow. On social media nowadays, everyone thinks that everybody to whom they have access owes them an audience: a writer who wrote a take, a star who launched a project, a gorgeous lady attempting to live her life, that anonymous person who said something hurtful. When a network connection is enabled for any reason or no cause at all, every connection appears to be worthwhile. Bogost said individuals shouldn't assume they will have such a big audience for their expressions, and they shouldn't assume they have the right to respond to every concept or idea. The issue stemmed from the fact that engaging in such behavior constantly as a lifestyle or desire might result in an unhealthy fixation.

2. How does he differentiate between social media and social networks?

Although the phrases "social network" and "social media" appear to be the same thing, they differ significantly. Social networking is a platform for connecting with one another, whereas social media is essentially a platform for spreading information. Social networking is a form of two-way communication, whereas social media is a channel for communication. According to Bogost, social networking ushered in a new age of "user-generated content" on the internet by providing simple-to-use, quickly accepted technologies on websites and later mobile applications. The social network was designed to be established for producing and sharing "content," a phrase that, when pronounced differently, had historically signified "satisfied." Connecting is the focus of social networking, not publishing. People might surface a bigger network of trustworthy connections by fusing their own networks of trusted contacts with the networks of others.

Meanwhile, social media was different. Social media provided channels for individuals to distribute material as far as possible, far beyond their networks of close friends and family, as opposed to connection, forming latent relationships to people and organizations we would generally ignore. Everyone has become a broadcaster thanks to social media. The main objective of social media is to produce and consume material for any purpose or no reason at all.  The connections in the social networking era were crucial for both content production and consumption. The era of social media however, looks for the smallest, most soluble connections imaginable, just enough to let the material flow.

3. How would you respond to his argument? Do you agree/disagree? Explain why!

Before turning sides in his arguments, I’d say he points out quite a lot of interesting thoughts along with its legitimate validity. It’s reasonable to think that social media isn’t as effective as it was before with the term “social network” since it’s focusing more on the production and providing contents instead of expanding our society and community. But the thing that’s not clicking and becoming too subjective was the part where Bogost pointed out that the trend has become a disaster and he defined it as horrible. In my opinion, this is a fresh start of an innovation. He stated in his article, “Ordinary folk could now make some money or even a lucrative living “creating content” online. The platforms sold them on that promise, creating official programs and mechanisms to facilitate it. In turn, “influencer” became an aspirational role, especially for young people for whom Instagram fame seemed more achievable than traditional celebrity—or perhaps employment of any kind.” This is proof that social media could provide more job opportunities than it was before. People are no longer spending their time on social media creating unnecessary content for no reason. For every littlest thing, even from the most unthinkable value, they could gain a penny to fill their pocket. The term “social media” itself already seems to force social life to suffocate the practice. Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that the current era of social media kills the primary purpose of having “social” in its term. There are a lot of social platforms, including the ones Bogost mentioned, that obligate their users to interact with others to experience the whole  facilitation. The objective of having twitter itself is to express the users’ thoughts to other people and public, by this means, people even exchange their opposite views toward each other and that leads to a comeback to the main purpose of having social media itself. This applies to other social platforms as well. By this means, I’m against his opinion regarding the case which he called the “downfall” of social media. It’s not a downfall, there’s always a change since life is always thriving, with its dynamicity.