On Digital Words
My favorite ad in the Oscars, and, dare I say it, my favorite for quite some time - was the piece from the New York Times. Have a look below:
The spot derives its strength by pointing out a recently disregarded social norm. The norm that words matter, that they carry weight, that you mean what you say. The impact of our words are often underestimated.
Awful language has overflowed the banks of YouTube and Reddit and spilled into the everyday. It's nothing new, dating back to anonymous forums like 4chan in the early 2000s. Internet bullying was already pervasive among teens, now notorious for more than hurtful playground nicknames.
However, the eruption of caustic self-expression appears pervasive today because it's entrance into the mainstream. The public microscope has turned its lens on online communities and their public figures like pewdiepie, Milo Yiannopoulos, and presidents.
I like to believe that human beings possess an innate goodness that is rooted in millions of years of pro-social behavior. Digital channels have made communication seamless, easier, and faster but leave out a crucial aspect of human interaction. Feedback. It can seem easy and almost trivial to say something horrible while shrouded by anonymity, avatars, and millions of pixels.
Even when unintentional, digital messages to your friends, dates, contacts can be misunderstood. How often do we get an email at work that stirs an emotional response without knowing the context? How often do dating apps get terrible reps due to ridiculous anti-social responses? The reason - digital communication lacks human context.
Person to person, words are tempered by the reactions of peers. Words elicit smiles, tears, anger, frustration, resentment, and a host of other emotions that make us aware of how our words affect people. For all its 'immediacy' Digital communications do not. There is no feedback to close the loop on how your message was received, but there is always a person on the other side.
The conversation should not be about political correctness or an opinion stated. It should be a simple respect for your fellow human. Many words typed through a digital screen would be an impossibility in a face to face scenario. It would be too personal and too real without the distance. This holds true for brands, celebrities, and individuals.
This is compounded by the fact that there is no mechanism for verifying anything said on the internet. An opinion or fact cannot be traced to the source for corroboration. They bounce to and fro in their social echo chambers until they emerge causing a man to shoot up a pizza parlor.
As the internet evolves as an outlet of opinion, our continued social spotlight can only lead to better conversations. Social feedback on actions should always be welcomed.
Digital communications, although fast and furious, remain incomplete. Lack of receiver feedback limits the empathy we feel with our correspondence. I remain committed to fleshy, three-dimensional human interaction. When it's not possible - let's say what we mean and mean what we say because the truth is hard to know.