“Fridays Are Racist”: Evaluating Social Media Engagement From a Virtue Ethics Framework

“Fridays Are Racist”: Evaluating Social Media Engagement From a Virtue Ethics Framework

Lana Medina
Copyright: © 2024 |Pages: 19
DOI: 10.4018/IJT.344025
Article PDF Download
Open access articles are freely available for download

Abstract

Social media platforms have become a threat to democracy and human flourishing. Critics have previously expressed alarm that our ever-increasing technological habits are negatively influencing human values and virtues. This research explores how the engagement design of social media sites is a morally questionable metric for social media ‘success'. Using a virtue ethics framework in relation to technology ethics research, as well as drawing from the work of Ellul (1962) and technology philosophers, this paper emphasizes the need for perspective and civility in engagement and argues for solutions that withdraw from an engagement design built on efficiency and financial gain. Proposed solutions include global change in the form of 1) altered weights for algorithmic prioritization (e.g., promoting diverse topics and reducing tribalist engagement), 2) returning autonomy to users (compared to corporate control), and 3) global legislation (i.e., the European Union's DSA).
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

In a social media “roast,” comedian Ronny Chieng mocked Daily Show host Trevor Noah for his positive Tweet: “Happy Friday to all of my followers!” Chieng argued in false outrage that Twitter is not intended for kindness and friendly messages, but for hate (Noah, 2022). As Chieng went on to explain, “You’ve gotta be controversial…you should say something like, ‘Fridays are racist!’” (p.). By the culmination of the banter, Chieng concluded their argument was engagement. Although intended humorously, Chieng’s poignant observation about Twitter (and other social media platforms) strikes to the core of the controversy behind engagement.

Critics have previously expressed alarm that ever-increasing technological habits are negatively influencing human values and virtues (Vallor, 2016). Several scholars have pointed to the negative effects of social networking sites, including aspects of depression and low self-esteem (Pantic, 2014), decreased exposure to counter-attitudinal viewpoint and increased polarizing beliefs (Levy, 2021), and lack of moral autonomy through manipulated engagement design (Bowen, 2013). Saura et al. (2021) analyzed how the engagement design of social media sites “can generate addiction and modification of user behavior and feelings” (p. 271). However, past research stopped short of critiquing engagement as a morally questionable metric for social media “success.” In this study, the author sought to explore the problems associated with engagement and suggest potential solutions.

Benefits vs. Concerns

Scholars have identified positive aspects of social media use. In a meta-analytic review of research involving social media use and civic engagement, Skoric et al. (2016) identified positive relationships of social media use, including expressive (i.e., expressing oneself and articulating ideas, opinions, and thoughts), informational (i.e., seeking, gathering, and sharing news and community/political information), and relational (i.e., using social media to strengthen relationships with others) forms. Conversely, Skoric et al. found negative relationships between civic engagement and social media use that focused on identity (i.e., using social media to create one’s identity, gain recognition, and increase status) and entertainment purposes. Early research indicated how social media platforms were providing opportunities for both intensifying relationships and expanding social connections, as well as increased civic engagement and political participation (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2012).

Furthermore, not all engagement relies on negative emotional reactions, such as outrage and disgust. In an online experiment regarding emotions in relation to viral video advertisements, the authors explained how feelings of awe and affective emotions prompted viral sharing, leading to expressions of emotional connection and generosity (Nikolinakou & King, 2018). Spring et al. (2018) emphasized the benefits of moral outrage as a community motivator on social media.

However, none of these benefits offset the incivility, perpetuated through a language of outrage, polarizing viewpoints, confrontational, and negative emotional rhetoric, that the nature of social media engagement augments to greater visibility. Political mudslinging and sensational rhetoric have been favored of cable news and talk radio shows; however, these shows primarily relied on word-of-mouth, repeat followers, and advertisements to gain traction. The motivation behind engagement is the same: Sensational comments and headlines, personality-centered mode of “talking at” someone, rather than “talking to,” and one-sided ideological viewpoints (Berry & Sobieraj, 2014).

Due to this algorithmic design, users may be locked into bubbles based on the actions of one’s social networks. If a user’s social network includes people who engage and share news, they are more likely to view this information (i.e., incidental news exposure); if a user’s social network includes people who disseminate one-sided information and that user engages, their feed is more likely to be flooded with similar post types.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 2 Issues (2022)
Volume 12: 2 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 2 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 2 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 2 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 2 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 2 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 2 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 2 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 2 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing