I think this guys is on to something.
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Did social media just cause the second great depression?
By now, everyone knows that we had a huge bailout that did not pass and then did pass.
One of the stated reasons for the bill not passing the first time by many representatives was the high number of their constituents who contacted them saying that this bill should not pass.
In this video, congresswoman Bachmann states that she received a 10 to 1 ratio of calls against the bailout and that was similar to the experiences of other members.
Of course, there have always been people who would contact Washington to give them a piece of their minds, but now in the world of immediate contact through email, online forms, massive social organization by sites like Facebook, Digg and Reddit, community organization is far easier than it ever was.
Think about it. Social media has had a huge effect on the campaigns of the more technology savvy politicians like Obama and those with social savvy followers like Ron Paul. This theory is not unrealistic.
At one point prior to the first bill failing to pass, while I was reading Reddit (My favorite site) I noticed that there was one post on "stopping the bailout" for every five other posts Everyone was pushing to have people contact Washington and tell them the bailout was a bad thing and to vote it down. Digg was in a similar state. Twitter was "all atwitter" about stopping the bailout.
I think that it's a plausible scenario that all that social activity on Reddit, Digg Facebook and other social sites could have tipped the first bill from "pass" to "fail" in the minds of some congresspeople and swayed their votes to stop the bill.
I'm not saying that the actual sites themselves were read by the congress, but that the power leveraged by distributing the message "of the people" much more efficiently than it would have happened twenty years ago.
I'm saying that social media allowed much more efficient recruiting of constituents to sign petitions, attend rallies and telephone representatives.
The bill failed when it really needed to pass. It didn't pass until almost a week later. Had it passed the first time, we might be in a better place.
I know it seems hard to fathom but in a situation as dire as the one that we are in, a week is a very long time. A lot of things froze up in the economy during that week. Things that might have provided just enough liquidity to keep the economy from going over the edge that it has seemingly gone. That one week could have been the "tipping point".
If that proves true, then it's possible that the failure of our economy can be partially blamed on the popularity of Reddit, Digg and Facebook. Potentially it could actually be the fault of those social sites. The votes were close enough that a clown car load (23) of congressmen would have changed the outcome.
A pretty small number that could plausibly be affected by calls, emails and letters.
One of the stated reasons for the bill not passing the first time by many representatives was the high number of their constituents who contacted them saying that this bill should not pass.
In this video, congresswoman Bachmann states that she received a 10 to 1 ratio of calls against the bailout and that was similar to the experiences of other members.
Of course, there have always been people who would contact Washington to give them a piece of their minds, but now in the world of immediate contact through email, online forms, massive social organization by sites like Facebook, Digg and Reddit, community organization is far easier than it ever was.
Think about it. Social media has had a huge effect on the campaigns of the more technology savvy politicians like Obama and those with social savvy followers like Ron Paul. This theory is not unrealistic.
At one point prior to the first bill failing to pass, while I was reading Reddit (My favorite site) I noticed that there was one post on "stopping the bailout" for every five other posts Everyone was pushing to have people contact Washington and tell them the bailout was a bad thing and to vote it down. Digg was in a similar state. Twitter was "all atwitter" about stopping the bailout.
I think that it's a plausible scenario that all that social activity on Reddit, Digg Facebook and other social sites could have tipped the first bill from "pass" to "fail" in the minds of some congresspeople and swayed their votes to stop the bill.
I'm not saying that the actual sites themselves were read by the congress, but that the power leveraged by distributing the message "of the people" much more efficiently than it would have happened twenty years ago.
I'm saying that social media allowed much more efficient recruiting of constituents to sign petitions, attend rallies and telephone representatives.
The bill failed when it really needed to pass. It didn't pass until almost a week later. Had it passed the first time, we might be in a better place.
I know it seems hard to fathom but in a situation as dire as the one that we are in, a week is a very long time. A lot of things froze up in the economy during that week. Things that might have provided just enough liquidity to keep the economy from going over the edge that it has seemingly gone. That one week could have been the "tipping point".
If that proves true, then it's possible that the failure of our economy can be partially blamed on the popularity of Reddit, Digg and Facebook. Potentially it could actually be the fault of those social sites. The votes were close enough that a clown car load (23) of congressmen would have changed the outcome.
A pretty small number that could plausibly be affected by calls, emails and letters.
What do Facebook users invest in?
While playing around in Facebook, I've found a neat tab on the stock application that I have added to my profile. It turns out that you can get a list of what all people who have added the app have chosen as their stock picks.
Of course, there is no indicatin of ownership, watching or short/long position, but the names alone are interesting to know.
Here is an image of the list of "most popular stocks":
I wouldn't use this as any kind of sound investment advice, but since Facebook users are supposed to reflect a slightly more affluent user base you might make this a short list to review.
Heck, they got AAPL right ;-)
Of course, there is no indicatin of ownership, watching or short/long position, but the names alone are interesting to know.
Here is an image of the list of "most popular stocks":
I wouldn't use this as any kind of sound investment advice, but since Facebook users are supposed to reflect a slightly more affluent user base you might make this a short list to review.
Heck, they got AAPL right ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)