Why hasn't social media produced a "real leader"?

[dora_da_destroyer]

I wonder how many "anon" types are of this generation. Truth be told they've done good work in many cases quicker and more effectively then some of their ilk from yesteryear.

Ultimately though the tools they have at their disposal are being used frivolously. Give it time though, i think they'll come around...


plus if they don't we're fuked anyway so it doesn't matter

those anon folks are definitely the only crew i can think of that has really built a base online but i don't know how organized their movement is or if they even know. the downfall with a crew like that is it based on the principle that everyone is a leader, if one or two of them were to step to the forefront and really organize all of them, that'd be

 

[Slang]

This is like asking why hasn't tv, radio or the telephone produced leaders?

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

This is like asking why hasn't tv, radio or the telephone produced leaders?

actually, it's not. all of those were very closed circuits - and telephone is a one to one (maybe 1-2) engagement. no one was going to let you on TV to just starting spewing your ideology, and in the rare chance they did, it was the local cable channel that covered all of 6 zip coeds in a city. social media, aside from red flag shyt like KP, is pretty much an open platform, pretty much the easiest way to get thousands of people to "hear" you.

 

[Slang]

actually, it's not. all of those were very closed circuits - and telephone is a one to one (maybe 1-2) engagement. no one was going to let you on TV to just starting spewing your ideology, and in the rare chance they did, it was the local cable channel that covered all of 6 zip coeds in a city. social media, aside from red flag shyt like KP, is pretty much an open platform, pretty much the easiest way to get thousands of people to "hear" you.

Listen, the internet is for the most part anonymous, and engagement is devalued into responding to blog comments, spam postings of mainly anonymous or even bot driven responses.

It's a communication medium like tv, phone or radio. Simple

 

[Brown_Pride]

Listen, the internet is for the most part anonymous, and engagement is devalued into responding to blog comments, spam postings of mainly anonymous or even bot driven responses.

It's a communication medium like tv, phone or radio. Simple

nah that's simply not 100% true. It is not the same as TV or radio. It is a communicaition medium though. The "voice" it provides though is directly from the people, at least some of it. Whereas the other forms don't provide that avenue.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Listen, the internet is for the most part anonymous, and engagement is devalued into responding to blog comments, spam postings of mainly anonymous or even bot driven responses.

It's a communication medium like tv, phone or radio. Simple

regardless of if you're "anonymous" on the net, you're still taking part in two-way communication, whether you respond to something as your self or as "beat-boxer 123", tv/radio is not two-way.


you're also oversimplyfying the various outlets on the net. sure people are anonymous on some blog post from CNN, or spam bots flood replies on TMZ, but there are also a lot of authentic interactions. whether it be a blog, twitter, facebook page, etc. there are channels on the net where the audience is actively seeking to engage with whatever person/brand/product they're following/"liking". in that case, the subject being followed yields a lot of power - i.e. lady gaga can speak out to her monsters in support of gays & all of a suddenly there are 600k people with pro-gay twitcons. rihanna can beef with ciara and all of a suddenly her navy is ready to ride.

the only question i'm asking is why hasn't someone with a larger and/or more serious (in their mind) agenda used these outlets in the same manner? i could easily see someone stuck on the whole doomsday scenario gathering a mass amount of followers across the net, sweeping them into some movement. i don't think it'd be smart for an anarchist, but i could see that was well. these outlets just seem ripe for those with the thought/ability to prey on the weakminded en masse.

 

[Slang]

nah that's simply not 100% true. It is not the same as TV or radio. It is a communicaition medium though. The "voice" it provides though is directly from the people, at least some of it. Whereas the other forms don't provide that avenue.

You're correct I'm only 99.99 true.

So call in radio isn't the voice of the people?

Public tv?

No offence, who the fukk is Brown pride? You are an avatar, an anonymous character of person. Or maybe your a cleverbot response.

The idea of a facebook like or retweet being a gauge of real life voice is absurd.

 

[Mowgli]

Because social media is about exalting yourself not helping one another.

 

[OH SOHH TRILL]

I AM YOUR LEADER, BOW DOWN TO MY GREATNESS.

 

[Darts]

I've been reading a few critiques of current pop icons and one thread that seemed to keep popping up across all of them was about their social influence online and their "followers". While I know people like Lil B are just trolling, dude truly does have a following and when reading their comments, you can see where that line between just having fun with his shyt and real conviction about him/his message gets blurred. I've seen this a few times with various celebriies, some people really are influenced by what these celebs say (i.e. attacking twitter pages of rival celebs, etc)

I'm wondering why a "leader", of any type, hasn't emerged from this sphere? Whether it be a nutcase like Jim Jones, a militant like pre-Mecca Malcolm X, or a peace leader like Ghandi. It seems like social platforms are the prime breeding ground for slow brainwashing & assimilation, plus the sphere of your reach is basically unlimited.

Actually someone has emerged from that sphere in the form of Obama. Not to get into the whole back n forth about his "disappointments" as president...but he was a total social media phenomenon that started with a small following and exploded to cult like status back in 08. Even getting re-elected was mainly because of social platforms...lol and damn near half the country think of him as "brainwashing" the masses and is a cult tyrant.

 

[Slang]

Actually someone has emerged from that sphere in the form of Obama. Not to get into the whole back n forth about his "disappointments" as president...but he was a total social media phenomenon that started with a small following and exploded to cult like status back in 08. Even getting re-elected was mainly because of social platforms.

lolololol

 

[Darts]

lolololol

Problem?

 

[the next guy]

but leader=voice of the generation or leader =/= voice of the generation? are they the same or just similar or completely different? we have to decide

 

[mahnameizray]

Because social media is about exalting yourself not helping one another.

Bang Bang. Pretty much sums it up, we're in a age of self, who gives a fukk about another person? that's their problem

A bunch of individuals looking out for themselves. Somehow they forced an "I" in team.

 

[Blackking]

Actually someone has emerged from that sphere in the form of Obama.

You really can't lead if you're a puppet... I think Obama has the qualities and all that, but he wanted to be in a position that a a small % chance of having the real opportunity to lead. He doesn't lead, he's just in charge.

There are too many sources of information, media, and entertainment for a large group to focus in on one person to lead and something positive-- that isn't involving music or sports. We are saturated; plus the media is more skilled at marginalizing anyone that would ever make a real change or anyone that could be a threat to acceptable and institutionalized views on social issues.

At the most you can have people with websites with followers.. and most of those people will be conspiracy theorist - and basically those theories are another form of satisfaction and/or entertainment for people.

Plus, social media actually disconnected people from real human interaction.. people can be, say, do whatever they want via social media... A true leader has confidence and principles in their message- NOW through social media a person without character or leadership abilities can gain popularity in their pursuit of frivolous bullsh1t. Now it's set up that mostly conspiracy artist, funny dudes, female sluts, thugs, or ultra corny new type n1ggas r the main ones that can gain a following. Someone like Fred Hampton or even J E hoover would be laughed at today.

For the most part if you come at a person under age 22 with some real sh1t..... they look at you like you're speaking some irrelevant sh1t. Disconnect, because we used to listened to the people who are now 40 50... The younger people today now look at 30 year olds like old heads... meanwhile, I'm clueless about who lil B is.