With the evolution of technology has come the evolution of communication and the rules surrounding it. Gone are the days of snail mail and telegrams. We can send messages in an instant to almost anywhere in the world. Never before has the world felt so large!
And yet… it continues to feel so, so small.
One of the biggest marvels of recent history has been the arrival of social media. We post pictures of our accomplishments and show everyone our best selves. Or break down over whatever it is that upsets us. The world is our oyster in that regard. And for writers, never before has there been such a way to cultivate relationships with our readers—and even other writers. And we don’t have to leave our house to do it!
It is undeniable that social media has changed society’s functionality throughout the years. Never before has our means of communication and the standards by which we communicated shifted so fast. When the internet came, it came with a bang. And what’s next? Who knows.
But, a lot of social media subculture saturates our experiences and attempts to dictate how we behave in such a new, strange world. And sometimes it’s… weird. Hashtags, follow lists, character limits, all the rules and nuances that make up our experiences and tell us how to behave.
Some of them are more extreme than others.
For example, I was on Twitter (now called X, I suppose) for a fair amount of time and was privy to some of these behaviors. An example that sticks out to me is a conversation I had over whether or not follow-backs on Twitter are a necessity. My stance on the issue has always been thus: I am not entitled to be followed by anyone, and likewise no one is entitled to me following them. It’s a mantra I’ve maintained no matter where I’ve decided to rest my cyber-head. And yet, it’s easy in this day and age to be consumed with the need for followers—the need for numbers.
On the inverse, the person I had this initial conversation with insisted that if you fail to follow people just because they followed you, you are not at all interested in community. This assertion puzzled me a lot. Was I not routinely scouring the #WritingCommunity tag for posts to engage in? Was I not retweeting posts that interested me and sharing my thoughts on questions posited, much like the question leading to this very discussion? Was that not enough to build a community?
Obviously, I would say that it is. And yet, people are so obsessed with numbers. And I get it. I do. Without high follow counts and reblogs/retweets/etc., how do you expect people will find and buy and like your work? How else are you supposed to market yourself, if not off the back of the numbers you gain?
The problem is people tend to conflate the numbers they have with having a community, and that this is what a “community” means. But it isn’t. Community just means having a group of people with a/some characteristics in common. In the “writing community”, this means that we are all writers. There shouldn’t be an expectation for follows, no demands you click a little heart—even if it is greatly encouraged. All it means is this: I’m a writer, and you’re likely a writer as well, so why don’t we talk? Furthermore, I view follows and likes and all the other words for internet engagement thusly: Do I like the content you produce? Would I like to see more of it? Do our interests align?
If the answer to these is “yes”, I hit all the little buttons people on social media want me to. And even if my answer is “no”, it doesn’t mean I won’t have a conversation with you. This, I think, is vastly more important than blindly hitting buttons on websites because it’s expected of me.
Perhaps I have an odd stance on this, though. Do you feel the same or different? Let me know your stance on the matter down below!