More on social media and socialism

Peter Kim gets into a muddle when he suggests that social media does not imply socialism, and then conflates socialism with plagiarism:

[from Being Peter Kim: Social media isn’t socialism]

If you’ve started blogging, photosharing, or tweeting to any extent, then you’ve witnessed firsthand the “social” nature of social media. Individuals post opinions and ideas, share emotions, and exchange thoughts on topics ranging from mundane to profound.

As for me, I love LOLcats as much as I love social psychology. Socializing increases the value of content. The channels may have a feedback mechanism, but they’re worthless unless put to use.

However, socializing shouldn’t be confused with socialism, although some principles seem to apply. For example, social computing has facilitated a transfer of power from traditional media institutions to a widely distributed base of smaller beacons, typically individuals.

When someone plagiarizes content, the social system breaks down. Individuals who plagiarize seek to claim credit for themselves. Social media is already social and a Robin Hood-style redistribution of value isn’t required. But credit and attribution remain key to socializing and increasing the value of content for everyone involved.

First off, social media is social not because we are ‘socializing’. In this sense, social denotes social networks: we are interacting through the medium, so we establish social relationships, and all that those imply. It leads to social capital and social reputation (or ‘swarmth’ as I call it, although many call it ‘karma’ which is misleading, really).

Social media does not imply socialism in any direct way, although the rise of social media has led to the defection of many, many formerly passive media ‘consumers’ from traditional media. This seems like a redistribution of something, but in fact it is more of a movement based on a new sort of self-identity by those participating in social media, who are rejecting mass identity imparted by broadcast media in favor of a social identity.

This social identity is not really organized around collective or individual ownership of the ‘means of production’: it’s really about web culture, in which a shared ethos is arising.

Kim shouldn’t worry though. The shared ethos of the Web is strongly meritocratic and as such is naturally opposed to plagiarism. In fact, the various best practices (or ‘commandments’) about linking to other’s ideas, citing sources, and so on, suggest that the natural contours of web culture lead to a hatred of plagiarism.

The people most likely to steal others’ ideas or words or works are those least involved in web culture, usually get-rich-quick types. Those that are basing their core morals around social identity won’t play in that game.