The Movement Toward online Social ObedienceEssay Preview: The Movement Toward online Social ObedienceReport this essayThe Movement toward Online Social ObedienceA plethora of people all over the world now use online social networking sites to regain contact with long lost lovers, an estranged family member, or to meet a new friend, but rarely has it ever been consider what implications these social sites have on the users to be obedient. With the ever expanding populace becoming more dependent on using social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare, it comes to no surprise when it comes into question whether these social sites are aiding in personal individuality or enforcing a form of uniform social obedience. To the many that use sites daily, like Facebook, would claim that they are keeping true to their own self. However, many have succumbed to social conventions such as “liking” different groups or pages and tweeting on a daily basis. In the end, it is highly likely that by following many of these online social protocols, individuals can become more socially obedient.
The flood gates have opened to people using and abusing the online networking system. Fifteen years ago many would agree that telling people about what you ate for dinner or showing off your cat on a regular basis is slightly on the odd side. However, now in 2012, giving a detailed account of what someone ate for breakfast to meaningless updates like “Roman is having an OK day, and bought a Coke Zero at the gas station. Raise the roof,” (Easy A), have become much of a social norm as leaving a tip for a waitress or even chewing with your mouth closed. It seems non consequential, but there are some people who have taken accustomed to spending countless hours “harvesting” their virtual crops to trolling internet memes. Changes overtime could suggest that what are considered social norms have morphed to include new online norms that can lead to a new form of obedience to a virtual authority.
Consequently, people have to give a lot to avoid their own food poisoning or their families’ homelessness. As if the problem with food-based systems were any less serious than that. If all food in a fridge is eaten by a group of different people, who in turn owns each other? Then it’s probably all a bad idea, or at least that’s what some people say. It seems unlikely that no one has a problem with food-based systems that we all buy from each other—even if some of them are very expensive and are almost immune to being contaminated, often in small quantities by certain people.
But there have also been some serious attempts to introduce non-profit food security organizations that don’t rely on donations.
There is nothing in the government or the federal government that is against or favors the creation of an actual non-profit food security organization—no more than private businesses are supposed to.
But there’s also nothing like a federal state program to make it harder for a non-profit organization to get started (it’s a big problem for non-profits that support food security and non-profit food initiatives), at least in the U.S. The New York Times called it “the most expensive ” food control program anywhere,” which it argued was “undermined” by federal food stamps. The American Association of State University Teachers (AASUT) was the first non-profit to put in place a food tax system outside of the states (“the Food and Drug Administration created in 2009 the first mandatory meal tax system in the U.S.”) which, it argued, would only drive out the public from having to pay taxes in those states if they had a good source of funding. The Food Foundation is a non-profit but it helps run and organize food programs that are often more expensive and run at lower rates than private programs. In 2014, they gave $3 million for food and more to the USDA’s Food and Agriculture Organization. Their plan is probably the most “cost-effective option” for food. They don’t expect to get caught. That does not surprise some folks because they believe private food programs are more cost effective than public ones.
That said, the government seems to have a soft spot on food security. It is too slow to think of food as being completely untouchable in their food system. Rather, it believes it has to get by through much of the system as a government agent would do.
(Source: New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/magazine/Food-security.html).
This is something that seems most Americans would agree with.
Sources of authority come in different forms. The more common authoritative figures come to be because of divine rights, wisdom and age, and sometimes as the form of a group. In “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram, it is said that “the essence of obedience is that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another persons wishes and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions,” (Milgram 370). In this technological age, that definition can be altered to include the online world. This virtual authority figure, although not a considerably daunting one, can prove to be an influential figure itself. People will tend to follow authority because they fear that they will be rejected from society or ostracized from the group. “Liking” different post and groups helps to create a sense of belonging to the crowd. This then can lead to a gain in social standing rather than a loss. Others may follow a leader it is considerably easier to follow the masses than it is to stand out amongst the crowd. This peer pressure and common fear that can be instilled in people are what makes people, or in this case the internet, into authority figures. Powerful figures have the ultimate deciding factor on whether followers, or in this case users, will maintain obedience or if a new figure of authority can step in and gain leverage over the easily swayed minds.
The basic essence of obedience and disobedience can be defined as internally good or bad, but rarely is it ever both. Many can see obedience as being pure and moral at its core and see disobedience as being, for lack of a better word, evil. What many do not understand is that to be obedient, one ultimately has to be disobedient to another source, thus making obedience both good and bad. Online social media uses this pressure to be obedient to their site and in turn disobedient to another site. The best example of this would be when Google+ came into its Beta testing. There were many commercials and ads that pushed current Facebook users to switch to the “better” social networking site, Google+. The internet was flooded with many ads depicting many avid Facebook users switching to Google+ because it was “faster”, “easier”, and over all “better” than Facebook or Twitter. These commercials and ads could be considered propaganda that was used to convince people to use one site more than the competitors site.
Facebook and Twitter are known to use different tactics that can sway users into using their website, apps and more. Forms of propaganda that can be seen include the bandwagon effect and