Blog Post 2: #WOKE
As I sit in the Ryerson SLC and sift through the various news stories on the Breitbart Facebook feed, I feel the constant need to hide my screen. Not only was I unaware of this news medium, I was also oblivious to the severely controversial messages these articles convey. After scrolling through various posts, my screen was filled with both hate and racists views surrounding current events within the United States. However, after coming to the unfortunate realization that none of these articles would be particularly uplifting, I decided on a post concerning fake news and censoring online hate.
After taking the time to scan several of Breitbart’s articles I noticed a common theme in their overall construction and reception online. Not only were a large majority of these pieces based on right-winged politics but they also blatantly served to support Trump and his current regime. Despite my lack of interest in politics, this commonality throughout almost all of his posts was very shocking. However, it was the overall development of this specific article and the responses it received that I found particularly intriguing. It appears the majority of comments on this article did not express concern for the amount of hate that circulates online, but rather freedom of speech and whistle blowing; specifically towards the democrats.
The overall message in which this post was attempting to deliver was that Unilever, one of the largest consumer product companies, will not continue to invest in organizations that allow for “anger and hate” to be spread online. Some of the specific companies that were threatened in this public address were Google and Facebook. A quote from Unilever’s chief marketing officer, Keith Weed stated “Unilever will not invest in platforms or environments that do not protect our children or which create division in society, and promote anger or hate”. Not only do I agree with this message, as online activity can often be the cause of many cases of childhood trauma (bullying, racism etc.), but it also exposes various users to blatant examples of hate and negativity. My experiences with Breitbart’s Facebook page is an exact example of this. Although I am not directly influenced by the hateful and often racist comments on this page, this content does have the potential to negatively influence a younger generation of users; if not effectively monitored.
Not only are these responses politically charged but it seems that majority of Breitbart’s subscribers refuse to recognize the corruption in which President Donald Trump has caused. Instead of taking the opportunity to consider other sources for America’s current issues, fingers are automatically pointed at the Democrats. These types of responses, as noted by Weed, not only encourage hate online but also a total avoidance of problem solving; a skill learned in our developmental years. An example of this type of response includes a comment from Nanci DiLeo Bushner, a Breitbart subscriber:
In regards to the responses generated by Breitbart’s work, I believe their “success” is relative to the headlines created. In most cases, I have noticed a trend where headlines including words like “leftists”, “illegal aliens” or “freedom of speech” often generate the most responses. Breitbart’s followers seem to almost instantly reply to content that involves contact with these societal groups or interference with Amendment I; freedom of speech. I believe this strategy is an intentional advertising ploy by Breitbart, simply because he is aware that this content is very important to both himself and his followers. Although I do not agree with his message and online presence, this advertising decision and the construction of his articles is undeniably effective. It is because of this specific construction that Breitbart can generate comments such as this:
However, one of the most interesting comments I came across in response to online censoring was this:
I believe this comment, submitted by Anthony Park, sheds a light on the types of people Breitbart readers are and their desires as social media users. Again, not only are they far-right on the political spectrum, but they also express a desire for online content that is personalized and supportive of their political views. This concept directly relates to the discussion of filter bubbles, as covered in class. It seems as if Breitbart followers would directly benefit from these types of online mediums which allow their political opinions, thoughts and discussion to be uncensored and supported by those who maintain the same views. Until now, the Breitbart news page has provided readers with the opportunity to connect with like-minded people, however, this online assembly could be potentially threatened in the near future.
As for now, Breitbart and his readers will continue their online movement, filled with anger and frustration. However, I am eager to examine how Unilever’s decision unfolds and whether or not it will encourage Breitbart readers to create their own uncensored online community. It seems the Americans on the far-right of the political spectrum will pursue almost all measures to ensure their voice and political opinions are heard and considered. I just hope these types of comments and pages will steer clear from my social media feeds and profiles.
