Monday, 9 November 2015

Going Viral in the 18th century vs Now!

In the 18th century, Paine’s pamphlet contained an argument that had an impact on the idea of viral content. He created an argument in favour of American independence and posted it as a pamphlet in the newspaper. Paine created a media mode of production where he created a certain media environment where citizens were able to participate in. He created a mode of communication through his argument that was socially valued and an emotional controversy where meaningful messages *affected* the community. Paine created a culture of believers and disbelievers where anyone was able to share their opinions on American independence.
Music videos such as Friday and Hotline Bling in the 21st century, gain their popularity over what Kevin Alloca calls “tastemakers”, who are popular people that have reliable sources of consumers to view any content they present.  In this form of content becoming viral, it also creates a form of believers and disbeliever. However, in the 21st century, viral content is used for comedic purposes and similar beliefs. Personally I believe that viral content has more of a comedic standpoint as the mode of communication.  Media going viral like Kony 2012 had a meaningful mode of communication where people were coming together with a collective standpoint (besides what happened in the end).
Instead of making meaningful content consumers create a sense of affect through participating themselves. People feel included and popular when they participate in viral content. Through participating in viral media in the 21st century, viewers consume and create popularity for the individual.  Like Kevin Alloca says, everyone wants to be famous. Everyone wants to be heard and gain popularity online to gain a mode of accumulation. Even the recent post about the girl on Instagram and how she was really depressed with her life because she gained a community of people that were interested in her, so she continued to post false interpretations of her life. She eventually got depressed realizing she was gaining the power of popularity by participating in the community with content that was not meaningful to herself.

Overall content that went viral in the 18th century is way more impressive than the content that goes viral presently. Viral content in the 18th century had to spread from one source to another to spread across the country. Whereas in the 21st century if you post something on Facebook it can spread to every county in the world. Facebook, having about a billion users creates a platform perfect for sharing content to go viral.

4 comments:

  1. Laura, I really agree with your ending statement that notes how content that went viral in the 18th century is way more impressive than content that goes viral today!

    I agree with this statement as I believe that back in the 18th century when something went viral it was because it was more so intellectually appealing, such as Paine's Common Sense pamphlet. In contrast I believe that today things that go viral online such as videos and images like Hotline Bling become viral as they are more comedic and appeal to our emotions making them successful. Many meme's today that gain virality are ones that are comical, relatable and interesting to share with friends and family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Laura, Great Post!
    I really feel like Paine's pamphlet was ultimately successful as it was intellectually appealing but also it was a way to talk about issues that were often swept under the rug. Without this pamphlet, people wouldn't openly talk about American independence. I feel like the concept of going viral today is so mundane since there are so many more communication outlets and platforms to use. Since Paine's pamphlet was a new outlet of communication at the time, people grasped the concept and really utilized it to spread the message of American independence. The message in his pamphlet was so intellectually interesting it is not surprising it went viral. However, viral internet memes today don't really emerge from intellectual thoughts, they are often based on randomness, humour, and entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Solid post Laura.

    I feel as though the general consensus on the difference of virality is pretty similar to each student. I like yours because I feel as though your conclusion was original. I did not see much of a difference between Paine's virality vs. todays media society. I believe that the main contributor to these two centuries is more the tastemaker than the technology used. You helped me realize that in today's media that the tastemaker is social media more than the actual individual. Though Jimmy Kimmel might be the tastemaker it's the continuous spread of an idea or photo through individuals in social media. I do agree that Paine's virality is far more impressive than "Friday" or "Hotline bling".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Laura,
    Love the fact you brought up Kony 2012, what a revolutionary movement of our time through the use of the Internet! I too agree with you and Alexandria when you mention how impressive it was for content to be spread to the masses in the 18th century with little resources they had, in comparison to "going viral" in today's society with all of the different virtual and social media outlets that are readily available to us.
    Great post!!

    ReplyDelete