You mentioned that one of the tendencies of Affective Publics is that it tends to disrupt or interrupt dominant political narratives. However, social network sites like Twitter or Facebook employ complex algorithms to customize what we see on our feeds. It does not seem to me that these sites promote diversity of viewpoints. In contrast, I tend to think that when we see opposing views, it stimulates us to come up with arguments against them, reinforcing our beliefs, and, worse, belittling people who think differently. What are the cases that you see as disrupting/interrupting dominant political views?
I think you made a great point distinguishing connective vis-a-vis collective action. It seems to me that opinions and "what is trending" change so quickly on Twitter. It seems to me that there are so many new issues popping up that steal our attention from one issue. So, it's hard to focus on one and translate that into a collective action.
You mentioned that one of the tendencies of Affective Publics is that it tends to disrupt or interrupt dominant political narratives. However, social network sites like Twitter or Facebook employ complex algorithms to customize what we see on our feeds. It does not seem to me that these sites promote diversity of viewpoints. In contrast, I tend to think that when we see opposing views, it stimulates us to come up with arguments against them, reinforcing our beliefs, and, worse, belittling people who think differently. What are the cases that you see as disrupting/interrupting dominant political views?
I think you made a great point distinguishing connective vis-a-vis collective action. It seems to me that opinions and "what is trending" change so quickly on Twitter. It seems to me that there are so many new issues popping up that steal our attention from one issue. So, it's hard to focus on one and translate that into a collective action.