Watch This!

Example

FIRST STOREY: Occupy Wall Street’s Facebook page showcases that users of the page have a difficult and often frustrating time discussing, and perhaps linking, global events to events and concerns that are more local, and perhaps personal, to them. This is demonstrated by the comments under the post “From #Ferguson to #Gaza #BLM,” wherein discussion of the event leads to participants calling each other names like “idiots” and angry confusion over how the Black Lives Matters is related to the Middle East (ex. The post “What the hell does BLM have to do with geopolitics in the Middle East?”).

SECOND STOREY: Such interaction on the page demonstrates that while Facebook pages do provide a useful tool for distributing information and bringing large communities together, users often end up using inflammatory, escalating or insulting language that stunts potential deeper discussions of the complex topics posted.

THIRD STOREY: The Occupy Wall Street Facebook page’s tendency to strengthen local connections while potentially simplifying and weakening links to larger social and political contexts with inflammatory language acts as an indicator that despite the increased reach of an online community, the divisive discussions among its users are likely to affect its ability to influence governmental policy and provide a base for civilian power. Users who wish to turn the Internet into an effective tool for providing a counterpoint to corrupt, dictatorial, or simply misguided governments will need to address this simplification and attempt to ensure that the broad reach of the social-media platform does not replace the broadness in scope of the movement itself.