See me at any cost: Social media and the phenomenon of negative attention

The beginning of a new year is a time where people take stock of their health, both physical and mental. For this reason, many take a digital detox or clear out of things that they feel no longer serve them, including unfollowing social media accounts. Despite this, sensationalist outlets remain as popular as ever.

The USA has the most Twitter and Instagram users and across the diaspora their dominating influence on Western culture splinters into other black identifying groups. Pages such as The Shaderoom, and for the UK, The Shadeborough are rife with controversy. Negative stories add to the trending surge, popularising individuals such as Chrissean Rock and DJ Akademiks to name a few. Beef scenarios such as Wiley versus Stormzy or Loski versus Digga D take centre stage on these platforms in hopes to boost their numbers. Podcasts like Bkchat Ldn on Trend Centrl are promoted which are breeding grounds for provocative opinions, leaning heavily into Reality TV constructs and social media notoriety. The strong correlation between seemingly simulated or exaggerated online battles and inauthentic interactions drawn up by producers to make shows more ‘interesting’ for ratings show that people truly do tune in to see controversy. By catering to this need, people become increasingly desensitised to harmful levels of positively rewarded negative behaviours which then permeate into real life interactions. And although things are not always as they seem, it gets people talking.  

In a more conservative era, Shakespeare toyed with contentious themes and people flocked to live performances of ‘art imitating life’ as a form of gossip. And so, we are not seeing new constructs, but instead another means of access to the same stories of scandal, good versus bad, and the moral greyness in between. The court of public opinion within most social media spaces has had physical, emotional, financial and reputational impacts on people, businesses and brands, and will continue to do so as we share these virtual spaces. As a relatively new construct - one that has revolutionised social mobility and accessibility - conversations around ethics, accountability, and etiquette are needed. Each situation is different, and the outcomes are influenced by more factors than people can grapple with, especially due to the speed of information and how it spreads or even worse, trends(!). With the knowledge that some people knowingly and intentionally play into ‘negative attention’ - adopting that age-old principle that ‘any publicity is good publicity’, negative social media is taking an even more insidious form than ever before. Negative media can often receive excessive attention and abnormal behavioural reactions from people with mental disorders such as PTSD and anxiety. These individuals can have increased responsiveness and selective attention to negative stimuli and reduced attention to positive. This presents great concern regarding the addictive nature of social media and  how it may increase certain group's vulnerability. But data analysts behind coding algorithms are all about the reach and drive growth by any means, creating bias as to what we are presented with.

The everyday person now has quick access to far more opinions and information to influence their decisions and beliefs. With digital footprints, there are increasingly less places to hide; said something risqué back in 2010? People got receipts for that. Stefflon Don’s resurfaced colourist tweets from 2013 which she chose to own and address being an instance. How individuals engage or respond to people belonging to different groups is directly linked to rules of perception and the current social hierarchies at play. Some use this to their advantage to become victor or villain- both of which hold power by creating buzz or conversation where they are the subject. No one is perfect- we all have moods, disagreements, conflicts and social media with its reach amplifies social issues in real time and gives people easier platforms for free speech and open debate. But at what point does it become counterproductive and harmful?  Bias within algorithms put these conflicts directly under our thumb scrolls and mindless gazes to make assumptions on matters we know little about, other than incriminating images and words. What does that do to one's psyche? 

With fabricated realities being created, life imitates art or at least creates a desired aesthetic, a highlight reel and partial truths. We are entitled to share what we wish but when contentious interactions are hyped up to false levels for clickbait, it feeds into behavioural goals and social standards that are attempted to be emulated and supported. Growth of taking sides and having strong opinions on social matters become part of wider popular culture conversations. Online scenarios snowball into discourse outside of social media and into more conventional media outlets such as news challenges and radio talk shows, widening the reach of incidents even further. Reels and memes translate real life situations into virtual spaces where both feed into one another and traction builds. The dust eventually settles (in part due to our shorter attention spans and high turnover of relevant stories) and conversations move on. But the subjects of these short-lived situations can end up having to contend with lasting damaging effects of narratives that have spun out of control. For the general public, where are the resources in knowing how to exercise damage control and regain normality after ‘losing’ viral altercations? 

Quote culture, toxic positivity and ‘subbing’ people are all common practices used on social media to make direct and indirect jabs at people. They masquerade as taking the higher road, but create a false sense of emotional intelligence through their condescending tone. This is an attempt to seek resonance with an audience to create relatability or at least a sense of community. Yet, there is some level of authenticity to this. In this era of ultra-transparency, important conversations are happening. No one can be positive all the time and there have been revolutions of realness and less placing on pedestals for those in influence as their lives are exposed or voluntarily revealed to be less picture perfect than once assumed. 

It opens the question as to whether our ideals and definitions of taboos around socially acceptable behaviours are changing - and should they? Whatever the answers are, mankind may never reach that utopian equilibrium. There will always be the bad within the good, and the good within the bad in an everlasting cycle. It is up to each individual the degree they choose to engage, disengage or reassess.