How social media triggered new forms of communication
Since we started using mobile phones, the need to cope with the prepaid plans had pushed, especially youngsters, to find a way to save money. The introduction of mobile phones has certainly been a revolution in terms of technology, but especially in terms of communication: allowing a more direct contact (thanks to the opportunity to call someone directly) and sometimes even less embarrassing approach (through texting). Moreover, mobile phones had also pushed youngsters to find a new way to communicate where they had to deal with the costs of texting and calls because the money available was limited to the weekly allowance.
That’s how the trend of ringing was born: a way to communicate different messages depending on the situation: from “I think of you”, to “call me”, up to the still current “ring me when you are at my place”. But also SMS suffered such effects. In fact, the former limited number of characters had pushed towards the use of abbreviations that we still remember and we still bring in certain contexts: the “&” for “and”, “2” for “to” and “too”, “b4” for “before”, etc… And in the most extreme cases, there were even those who wrote the message without spaces to exploit the maximum number of characters allowed.
As time went by, however, things have radically changed: with the introduction of smartphones, the communication via chat, such as messaging apps, and an ever decreasing concern for costs (thanks to ADSL, Wi-Fi, and no longer prepaid plans), the freedom to express ourselves and communicate has become exponential. As well as with social media, of which Facebook was the progenitor.
With the Facebook “like” button, however, something different happened: for the first time, we were able to communicate without communicating. What do you mean? You might say. To “like” something creates a positive stimulus to those who receive it, but it does not impose to do anything else. By clicking that reaction we say we appreciate something, but we are not bound to start a conversation or do anything else. In a sense, we aren’t compelled to reply on both sides: it’s like throwing the rock and hiding the hand, but in a positive sense. If in a classic conversation, even the fact of starting it will bring with it a whole series of commitments: we cannot, for example, call someone just to say: “I appreciate that thing you said” and then hang up the phone, because there are rules of communication to be respected. With a “like” we wink and then we turn the corner without feeling forced to prove anything more, and from the other side, they do not expect, in the same way, anything else. If someone wants to add a comment, that’s fine, but we don’t feel forced to do it. Hence, this way of cutting to the bone communication allows us to probably say what we really think, just because there is no commitment and there are no costs at a communication level. Therefore, we may be inclined to think that a “like” is more genuine than a real “I like you” (meant as an explicit appreciation).
We could rack our brain for hours trying to understand what the other person means by using such an abstract, and almost unconscious system, however, we cannot help but think that similarly to when we are invited to a birthday party we feel obliged to give a present, in this case, there is no social obligation.
If this is true, then, even not liking assumes a value. But since there is no previous evidence, i.e. we do not know if that “like” would have been given in that particular situation, it becomes even more difficult to read, although in some cases it is possible to assume it.
When I met some new friends through some mutual acquaintances, I started to hang out with them, and shortly thereafter I began to notice, where they put “like” and where not, to my posts and/or photos. So I became curious and wondered, “why do people ‘like’ something and why do they not at other times?”. Banally you could answer with: “they put ‘like’ to the things they really appreciate and they don’t put it to what they don’t like or don’t care about”. Obviously, saying that you like something, is easier than saying that you don’t like it, especially on things about your friends, since you don’t want to risk offending. Putting nothing, however, does not denote an “I don’t like it” declared: because a post can be missed or sometimes you don’t want to be annoying in putting too many reactions, etc… However, when you know that to a certain kind of post and/or photo, someone usually puts or doesn’t put a certain reaction, when that behavior changes, we are led to think that something towards us has changed.
With those friends, I started hanging out with, happened the same thing: some liked me on certain posts or photos, others did it with almost all of them, and someone never did.
When we quitted seeing each other, suddenly new “likes” disappeared: both from those who put more and from those who put few. Obviously, nothing changed for those who never put one.
From that point, I realized that it was easy to express dissent, uncaring, and indifference by simply not reacting. Each “like” not put, by now seemed to mean “now I don’t give a damn about you”, a strange repudiation where rather than talking to each other, it became easier to say it without saying it. But at the same time, some consistently didn’t give a damn and continued along the same line, while others probably feigned interest as long as everything was going well.
This form of communication is like an invisible war, where nothing is provable, but there is still a message being sent. The more things are left to interpretation and the less are clarified, the more misunderstandings, friction, that builds up over time. There were probably previous motivations for the resulting behavior in which the “likes” passed from a certain amount until disappearing. Nevertheless, not everything is always easily intuitable and 100% confirmable.
Aside from the “likes”, there are also other behaviors that can give a communicative signal, even if a bit more explicit, such as: ignoring the birthday, add a friend to a restricted list, unfriending, or even blocking the person permanently.
Sometimes making birthday wishes is an excuse to re-establish relationships but at the same time, a way to see how connected we are with other people. If the person who has always wished us a happy birthday, one day stops doing so, we are inclined to think that he/she is mad at us. Although one can still appeal to forgetfulness.
Adding a person to a restricted list, on the other hand, leaves no room for excuses. Although it is a way of excluding the person not explicitly, in the long run you can realize it, since you can’t see any new posts from that person. This is a much more direct attack, though it tends to walk the line between explicit and implicit. This time it is like throwing the rock and hiding the hand but in a negative way. It is a way of excluding while hoping that there will be no reaction from the other side. Probably, the person who does it, hopes or is certain not to see such a person again, otherwise, that person would have to cope with their act of cowardice.
Let’s now get to more overt gestures such as unfriending. This is obviously a drastic gesture that gets noticed, and it is done voluntarily since it is not a gesture of indifference. The person must go find the name and remove it from their list, manifesting therefore a specific intention. On Facebook, you certainly don’t pay a subscription for every friend you have. So, unless the person is annoying, removing him or her is deliberately making a negative signal that begs the question, “Why now?” And if it was the other person who added us we obviously wonder, “So, why on earth did you friend me?”. Although this act is more explicit, you may not notice it right away, but it definitely happens before the previous one. If you have a lot of friends, you may not notice it for a while, but when that person comes to your mind and you go looking for him/her, you will discover the truth.
Among the most drastic actions on social, however, there is, of course, blocking the person. Blocking goes beyond elimination: it is almost a sublimation of a physical elimination in its virtual counterpart. There are no possibilities, it is an extremely aggressive act since you prevent the other person from speaking and having a second chance. We remain locked in our own world while the person who blocked us stays out of it. And when it happens to look for that person, we can no longer even find him/her, and we are left with the doubt that he/she has removed him/herself from Facebook.
Ultimately, social media have brought us to new forms of communication, allowing us to get in touch in the most various ways, giving us the impression of being close even if far away. On the other hand, they have also favored indirect forms of communication, making it easier to misunderstand each other, but also bringing out subconscious thoughts that give us more clues about the people we are communicating with, thoughts those clues were probably already there, though. These virtual wars can hurt those who suffer them, especially when we are excluded from knowing the things of someone’s life, but we must remember that reality has to be faced out there.
