It never ceases to surprise me as to how many, diverse approaches people have, when it comes to dealing with cyberspace. Some treat it with suspicion, and are wary, perhaps rightly so. Yet others try to find ways they can only gain from it (and their selfishness blocks any possible gain).
Very few would actually share resources through it. Or want to give before expecting to receive. To freely allow others to reuse what they "own". Or even see it as a useful space through which to extend free speech and freedom of expression.
Needless to say, things have changed a lot from the early days when the social media was just taking shape. Today, newer, leaner and meaner products (like Facebook) have placed their owners the richest men on the planet. Yet, at the same time, these very same products have also changed the very way the social media operates.
Way back in 2011 itself, we were being warned by scientists that "Facebook and Twitter are creating a vain generation of self-obsessed people with a child-like need for feedback". This is especially true for Facebook, I'd think, where we follow each other's fake lives and fake boasts.
In the early times, there was a lot of idealism in cyberspace. People really believed that it could be used for something good. Like promoting environmental causes, supporting alternative communications, fighting illiteracy, building virtual blood banks, and what not.
In more recent times, we mostly see a more cynical use of cyberspace. Politics, scams and business agendas drive the space. The manipulation of the social media since Goa's 2012 election is a case in point. Even the surprise wins of a Boris Johnson and a Donald Trump, in the UK and US respectively, would have arguably not been possible without the mass manipulation of the social media.
Coming back to the behaviour of people on the social media though. Different people respond to social media in different ways. That's okay. Some also find it intrusive and unnerving. That's also okay. It can be tough to deal with faceless, unrecognisable people saying all kinds of things to you. The troll armies linked to various political parties, including our ruling ones, only make things more complex.
Others see it as a way of building friendships and getting to know things. It is also true that some people also have a very different persona online, as compared to the real world. For instance, I know this person who is often fighting and disagreeing vehemently with me online. In the real world, we are the best of friends, and get on admirably well!
Some people get (rightly) overwhelmed by the amount of posts on a group. One Salcete Konkani group on WhatsApp, in its heyday, could see something like 100-300 posts a day. A few members of the group tend to post incessantly. But this is very much like a town hall (or panchayat) meeting. It gets overwhelmed by a few loquacious members, while the majority remains silent.
We are more comfortable to work in traditional and hierarchical patterns or organising. This means having a structure, which is well-defined and clear. But cyber initiatives work on different lines. They grow on their own, and tend to be "crowd-sourced" (everyone contributing spontaneously, what they can). People volunteer themselves to play different roles.
The fear that some feel is understandable. All people might not be extroverts. There is a genuine uncertainty about how the medium works. It seems too public for some. The concern about "what will the others say" is always present. Not entirely with basis too.
Sometimes, even those whom one would expect to be more open to the social media, are not. Journalists have mostly been late starters on this front. So have teachers and educators, who could have made a very effective use of the same. Of course, there have been rare exceptions, like Curious E Paul Fernandes. This teacher puts YouTube to maximum use, for educational purposes.
Another challenge here is to fact the 'what's in it for me' syndrome, by most. People want to know what they would gain from cyberspace, rather than what productive role they could play in that space.
This often turns into a chicken-and-egg syndrome. If you wait along the sidelines, skeptically, there's little chance of you contributing. And if you don't contribute, there's even lesser chance of gaining the positive benefits of cyberspace.
Goa, despite all the potential it has on this front (literacy, language skills, voluntary initiatives), has been quite a late starter. We've heard of the cyberage initiatives, covering thousands of college and school students. How effectively have such tools been used in the social media?
Even before such schemes came about, groups of expats struggled hard to build a Computers-in-Schools Project. More recent times have seen attempts like the GITP (Goa IT Professionals) volunteers like Vincent Toscano working to promote technology and inexpensive Raspberry Pis in schools. More recently, Prof Vijay Borges, from the government's technical education wing, has been working to build IT skills and infrastructure in schools.
But unless there are serious efforts to engage social media on Goa's terms, sufficient change might not happen. We need to work out ways in which (i) we overcome fear and alienation of cyberspace (ii) we learn to build long-term digital assets there, without expecting to get some direct benefit from the same (iii) realise that social media and selfishness don't go well together.
