.jpeg)
We see parasites in the plant and animal world, visibly hanging off the bigger and healthier entity on which they are feeding. Invisible to the human eye, parasites which cause disease propagate in air, water, and within our human systems.
This week, I witnessed some remarkable occurrences of parasitism in the online sphere.
We are all familiar these days with the phrase ‘content creation’. And creation of fresh, original, relevant content both verbal and visual is what drives the growth of online platforms on Facebook and Instagram.
Social media strategists suggest that when an organisation starts to build its platform, and stake its place in the online sphere, it should create interesting posts using compelling and attractive visuals, and utilize catchy hashtags, to attract reader traffic. These words and images should be posted regularly, and even digitally scheduled, to ensure continuous growth and recognition of the relevant page.
It’s often exciting when we begin to use online tools and start to become more adept in using them, learning to connect interactively to our target audience, and build and grow our brand, whether we are a lone blogger or a community organisation.
Successful online organizations will tell you that it takes time and effort, trial and error, and quite a long period of diligent experimenting before they start to see results in terms of growth of audience engagement measurable in increased numbers of likes, follows and emojis.
A quick and lazy way to cut through this effortful process is for a person to create a whole blog or an entire YouTube channel dedicated to ‘critiquing’ one particular Netflix show or the website or publications of a particular company or organisation. They grow their audience from the disaffected or curious viewers of the original broadcast. The phenomenon of false equivalence created by the internet means a blogger with 5 followers can swell fat by trashing a programme with 5 million followers.
The ‘critiques’ are often thinly disguised attacks, sometimes on specific individuals, and the elasticity of freedom of speech seems to cover a lot of ground in terms of what can be said on public platforms. The parasitic bloggers and commenters flourish and profit in the short term by deriving their own material directly from the original content first broadcast by their host.
We see this happening with the new season of ‘Sex And The City’, for example. A person wholly unknown to me is videotaping herself each week, commenting step by step and scene by scene on everything she hates about the new season of the phenomenally successful TV show, the recent iteration of which is titled ‘And Just Like That’.
‘Sex And The City’ was viewed as the ‘It’ Show of its time, when the leading ladies were young and perceived as physically attractive. Now, those sweet young things are nearly 60, and a lot of the criticism of them is centered on how much - and how gracelessly and awkwardly - they have aged, and how much the writers have strayed from the vibrant premises of the original show, with its focus on female friendship and sexual pleasure.
The unknown YouTuber is feeding off the prevalent negativity in a repellant way, enriching herself through the direct correlation and conflation of the content. It’s a form of mimesis, and also a form of stalking. At its most sinister, it’s a form of silencing. If a person had mud thrown at them every day when they left their home, they would possibly one day wake up and decide not to go out of their own front door. Whose freedom of expression is being affected adversely, now?
Today, we know more about how the human mind works, and marketers and social media strategists are aware that sensationalist headlines, clickbait and controversial material are big draw cards, particularly for a viewing audience who have suffered enforced stasis - courtesy of the pandemic - for two and a half years.
It’s a rapid surge of adrenaline, seratonin and dopamine to see the kind of contemporary bear baiting that is created by online contestation of this kind. ‘What has happened now? What scene did the YouTuber attack this time? Who got knifed in today’s episode?’
It can be (and is, often) argued that any publicity is good publicity, but I think that is a crude truism.
Parasitic content ‘creators’ have a ready made excuse: ‘The original organisation is so defensive, and easily offended. They should buckle up and be prepared to face public opinion, if their organisation wants public acclaim and recognition’.
It’s the ‘They are so sensitive!’ denial of wrongdoing justification we are all so familiar with, when some posturing renegade wants to avoid accountability for their cheap tricks and substandard conduct.
But the rapid hormonal spikes and fabricated controversies generated by parasitic content creators do not last long. The very same short attention span and low boredom thresholds that initially create interest on the part of viewers in this low grade infotainment are also their undoing.
True to their parasitic nature, they drop off, dry up and wither, while the original material maintains its substantial and often classic status over a far longer term.
Cue the Circle Of Life!
It’s often exciting when we begin to use online tools and start to become more adept in using them, learning to connect interactively to our target audience, and build and grow our brand, whether we are a lone blogger or a community organisation.
Successful online organizations will tell you that it takes time and effort, trial and error, and quite a long period of diligent experimenting before they start to see results in terms of growth of audience engagement measurable in increased numbers of likes, follows and emojis.
A quick and lazy way to cut through this effortful process is for a person to create a whole blog or an entire YouTube channel dedicated to ‘critiquing’ one particular Netflix show or the website or publications of a particular company or organisation. They grow their audience from the disaffected or curious viewers of the original broadcast. The phenomenon of false equivalence created by the internet means a blogger with 5 followers can swell fat by trashing a programme with 5 million followers.
The ‘critiques’ are often thinly disguised attacks, sometimes on specific individuals, and the elasticity of freedom of speech seems to cover a lot of ground in terms of what can be said on public platforms. The parasitic bloggers and commenters flourish and profit in the short term by deriving their own material directly from the original content first broadcast by their host.
We see this happening with the new season of ‘Sex And The City’, for example. A person wholly unknown to me is videotaping herself each week, commenting step by step and scene by scene on everything she hates about the new season of the phenomenally successful TV show, the recent iteration of which is titled ‘And Just Like That’.
‘Sex And The City’ was viewed as the ‘It’ Show of its time, when the leading ladies were young and perceived as physically attractive. Now, those sweet young things are nearly 60, and a lot of the criticism of them is centered on how much - and how gracelessly and awkwardly - they have aged, and how much the writers have strayed from the vibrant premises of the original show, with its focus on female friendship and sexual pleasure.
The unknown YouTuber is feeding off the prevalent negativity in a repellant way, enriching herself through the direct correlation and conflation of the content. It’s a form of mimesis, and also a form of stalking. At its most sinister, it’s a form of silencing. If a person had mud thrown at them every day when they left their home, they would possibly one day wake up and decide not to go out of their own front door. Whose freedom of expression is being affected adversely, now?
Today, we know more about how the human mind works, and marketers and social media strategists are aware that sensationalist headlines, clickbait and controversial material are big draw cards, particularly for a viewing audience who have suffered enforced stasis - courtesy of the pandemic - for two and a half years.
It’s a rapid surge of adrenaline, seratonin and dopamine to see the kind of contemporary bear baiting that is created by online contestation of this kind. ‘What has happened now? What scene did the YouTuber attack this time? Who got knifed in today’s episode?’
It can be (and is, often) argued that any publicity is good publicity, but I think that is a crude truism.
Parasitic content ‘creators’ have a ready made excuse: ‘The original organisation is so defensive, and easily offended. They should buckle up and be prepared to face public opinion, if their organisation wants public acclaim and recognition’.
It’s the ‘They are so sensitive!’ denial of wrongdoing justification we are all so familiar with, when some posturing renegade wants to avoid accountability for their cheap tricks and substandard conduct.
But the rapid hormonal spikes and fabricated controversies generated by parasitic content creators do not last long. The very same short attention span and low boredom thresholds that initially create interest on the part of viewers in this low grade infotainment are also their undoing.
True to their parasitic nature, they drop off, dry up and wither, while the original material maintains its substantial and often classic status over a far longer term.
Cue the Circle Of Life!
No comments:
Post a Comment