The explosive growth of social media has transformed our public square, but its fundamental essence has remained intact; ideas originate from a few and are promulgated to the many. Today, those ideas have taken on an online form. The technology of our time has encouraged a constant flow of content into our lives, positioning us downstream of a new contingent: The Content Creators.
The content creator is devoted to consistently churning out online material. Consistency is the key differentiator between the average social media consumer, who may post occasionally, and someone who is cultivating online content production. Without this basic structuring, the concept is rendered formless, losing its essence. Content creators are not required to direct their products at some good. Instead, content for the sake of engagement, absent merit with respect to an honorable end, is sufficient.
But this is a dubious function, to say the least, especially considering the deceptive landscape of social media. I find that much of the popular internet content is highly developed with media effects, professional scenery, rehearsed lines, and then paired with an underdeveloped or erroneous point. Although this type of material is fundamentally lackluster, it still performs well in the high-paced online environment. These circumstances burden the consumer's intellect, serving to distract from the underlying merit of a post. Before he can discover what is really in front of him, he is whisked away to another piece of content, where he will again be starved of an adequate amount of time to digest what he is being fed.
Surely it would be too bold to say that appearances should be neglected because of their ability to deceive. The incarnate reality of mankind often calls for a fastidious approach to perfecting the appearance of an object to reveal its genuine reality better. For example, physical church buildings frequently have beautiful features that direct the eyes upward. Consequently, a sense of divinity is imparted on the beholder, bringing harmony with the fundamental purpose of the church: to elevate one to heaven.
The most significant incentive for the content creator is engagement, which critically relies on the appearance of their work. And through engagement, content creators are granted their influential rank in our society, varied, of course, by how much engagement has been attained. However, it only makes sense to bestow authority to those we suspect of harboring a virtuous character, for without virtue, authority is undeserved. Can it be said that the acquisition of engagement justifies said honor?
The short answer is no, simply because there is nothing in the pursuit of engagement or in its possession that necessitates virtue. Whether we like it or not, these content creators become authoritative voices in our ever-changing political community seemingly on the grounds of successfully playing the content role. The achieved notoriety only further advances their social rank because of the positive prejudice consumers tend to have for popular online figures.
The nature of this problem is not entirely new. Human beings have always struggled with the deceptive charm of destructive work. So often, man has fallen for the incantatory speech of a seasoned rhetorician instead of the more reasonable servant of the good. And this will continue to happen, regardless of any solution facilitated.
Social media, however, exacerbates the problem because the technology encourages creators to be intertwined with our everyday lives. Consider the following historical circumstances. Someone visits a public space once a week to listen to a talented speaker and, between each occasion, enjoys the appropriate amount of time to reflect on what was said. The speaker may be of good character, but he could also be very deficient. Either way, you and the other community members have sufficient time to vet him. For him to transcend into a greater communal role, he will naturally deal with this degree of scrutiny. Now, consider a similar situation set in our current public square. You, the community member, are constantly being fed the work of that same kind of person in a dramatically increased way. You not only hear his voice in the evening, but multiple times a day. And not just his voice, but 20 more who are similar. You become so overwhelmed by the abundance of content in front of you that you are incapable of exercising rational deliberation concerning a single one of these individuals. Then, before you know it, this group of people is rapidly expanding their reach into any mind available to penetrate. Most consumers allow this exchange without affording the necessary time to evaluate the validity of such an arrangement.
You can't opt out of this inextricable relationship. This is what society entails. Being plugged into the social media environment, at least minimally, is required to stay with the relevant discourse. Therefore, we ought to care about the true character of these creators. The public seems to be operating as if the acquired social presence of these creators is deserved simply because it has been obtained. That is not necessarily true.
In the past, we had institutions that protected the integrity of the public domain by promoting not only ideas that conduce to the common good but also noble people who would likely promote it. This is not hardline censorship, but rather the favoring of concepts and people that are suspected to benefit society. Unfortunately, these institutions have eroded.
One of which is the university. Historically, universities have played a role in shaping the communal discourse. Those who were privileged to receive a university education were given the baseline respect accorded with such activity, analogous to how we view the average successful content creator today. In a principled sense, it is more reasonable for the graduate to be bestowed with influence than the content creator because universities are designed to form the highest class of citizens. In contrast, the content creator achieves the rank through a less restrained engagement pursuit, which in itself does not say much about his character or the substantive quality of his work. Neither way is perfect. Many men of history have attended prestigious schools, yet have done horrible things or have not been worth their salt. Even today, there is an abundance of non-serious academics who attempt to advance ideas behind the labels of intellectually malnourished educational establishments. Nonetheless, it would be better to have universities that are committed to producing ideal men than to be deprived of such institutions.
Another idea that can be drawn from the depths of Western society is patronage. Similar to universities, it exists today in a certain sense, but ought to be strengthened. This is difficult to implement, as it is deeply contingent on the culture of the time. Nonetheless, small steps may be taken. For example, more seasoned creators could focus resources on developing the platforms of deserving young creators. It is typical for cross-collaboration to occur between such entities, but it seems to be guided by popularity. And a single occasion hardly qualifies as sufficient in progressing young talent. We need more men who are willing to promote these individuals, while rejecting those who are not fit for such responsibility.
Someone might propose a more radical approach that involves exercising absolute control over the social media applications to determine what is permissible to circulate. While the nature of the algorithms is up for inquiry and might legitimately be subject to the community in some way, I won't entertain ideas spirited by revolutionary lust, that have yet to be touched by an ounce of prudence. The public conversation must always retain a strong organic quality that respects human free will. While exercising more control over this environment might be appropriate, we must be aware of the severe harm that follows from a perversion of that course of action.
There is much development to be done here. The reader should reflect deeply about the creators he supports online via his consumption practices. It might seem far-fetched now, but the social authority garnered by these creators today, many of whom are young, will naturally propel them into more powerful political roles in the future. Which is to say, this is the breeding ground for the next generation of leaders. But even so, in their current social ranks, they are shaping and driving the culture today.