Mass Amateurization

            Thanks to the advances in technology communication we are living in a time where everyone is interacting on the Internet. The Internet has made it possible for people to connect and share information with one another on a global level, at rapid speed and very minimal cost.  Social media cites like Instragram, Tweeter and Facebook create the platform where people can communicate in a personal and public manor. Communication between people isn’t as private or awkward as it uses to be because on Facebook and other social media cites, creating the “everyone’s doing it” effect. A combination of “everyone” interacting online and sharing information creates a sense of normality, which makes it easier and less awkward to reconnect with friends of your past. Clay Shirky calls this phenomenon “Mass Amateurization”.  Mass Amateurization as explained by Shirky is the mix between the mass amount of people interacting online and the context if the writing/information they create and share.

Shirky explains that the context of our private conversations, one to one, has left the private realm and has transferred to the public social media real. Conversations that would normally find closer at the end of a lunch brake can now be continued on online plat form.  Sure, you could of this before by calling the person you where talking to and continuing the conversation, but the fact that you can communicate with a much larger amount of people on the same communication platform, practically at the same time, crates an incentive to reach out to others more. This seamless transition, Shirky argues, over saturation and clutters the web dude to the large amount of people interacting online. He argues, “Most-user generated content isn’t ‘content’ at all, in the sense that of being created for general consumption, any more than a phone call between you and a relative is “family” generated content” (85). These private conversations may have left the private real but the format in which the information is shared has remained the same. If you analyze a private conversation, details are left out because it is information that the people involved already know. Therefore, the context of the information being shared is not meant for the 3^rd world public party, it’s only relevant and important to the people involved in the conversation. It’s unlike the information we are use to receiving in the public real, where the content provided, for example news articles, are written for a public audience.

For example, my little sister conversation with her friend Annie about prom showed up on my Facebook news feed. The conversation they had during lunchtime has continued in the public real of Facebook. Annie’s posted on my sisters wall, “prom”, showed up on my news feed. My curiosity was sparked and I started reading the conversation prior to speaking to her about it.  I noticed that there was no structure, no begging nor end. I had walked into a conversation in which I had no idea of what was going on. I ended up with more questions than answers, I didn’t know anything about the boys they were talking about and nor the girls they gossiped about. I basically stumbled on to this conversation because it appeared on my news feed, it was not directed to me or anyone else, but anyone could read it.  This is an example of most of the content that is being created and shared online and anyone can access it. The problem with most of the content on social networks, for the most part, it is irrelevant to the mass amount of users because, “Most of the what gets created today is just the ordinary stuff of life-gossip, little updates, thinking out loud- but know its done in the same medium as professional produced material”(87). Shirky brings up a great point there, if anyone can write and share information online, how does this affect the realm of professional produced material?

Before, journalist or any professional writer would have to use established publishers, who decided what’s worthy to publish, in order to get their content viewed by the masses. Shirky argues that people are use to having someone else; editors, producers, etc filter the content we received. People are use to someone else, gatekeepers, making decisions in regards to what content can reach them and how much of it. These prior forms of filtering are bypassed, “Mass Amateurization has created a filtering problem vastly larger than we had with traditional media” (99). We no longer have someone deicing what is news worthy and what is not, due to different platforms in which information can be published for readership. People surfing the web have to become more conscious of the material they are consuming and questions its credibility. People have to become their own guardians, dictating right from wrong and choose where they receive their news and information. I’m all for people being their own gate keepers and questioning the integrity of the content they consume.

But it’s not all bad, one of the positives effects of this phenomenon is the accessibility to create and share opinion. Just because I am not a professional writer, does not mean my opinion matters any less, it just means I do not have the proper training or experience. I think Mass Amateurization is a part of evolution and growth, I don’t think we shouldn’t depend on a few sources and points of view. It’s not like the profession of Journalist is disappearing, it’s just that the competition got larger.  When photography became widely popular through smart phones, the argument can be made that now “everyone” is a photographer. In Henry Jenkins “Why Heather Can Write” he illustrates how fans and fan fiction can great a place where people can meet and create content based on a favorite show, movie, book, story, etc. This illustrates the true power and benefit of mass Amateurization, the power of creating continent, which is what makes social interaction on the Internet so appealing. 

Mass Amateurization does not mean that the professional is obsolete; the person who has studied the art and develops their crafted is still a better photographer than a person with a go pro or smart phone camera.  He technology has made the craft more accessible, which in tern has ignited massive amounts of armatures participating.  Some people will only be Instragram photographer; the true professionals will always be able to do more than the amateur. At the end of the day, the professional will just have to work harder to compete with the massive clutter, but I think that’s a good thing. 

This accessibility and culture encourages people to create, share and communicate about different topics. Writing and sharing content online creates the sense of relevance and that “you matter”. Although that’s great and you get to add you’re two cents into the “conversation”, the massive amounts of posts swarming the web cast a shadow over the deep and important works of professional writers. Although it’s true this leads to massive clutter, I much rather look at what Mass Amateurization is demanding people to be their own gate keeper, and filter what they deem worthy, for once. It makes it possible for people to create content and be a part of the conversation, instead of just being an audience. And it’s razing the bar for our professionals, which will lead to greater and more refined work from them. It’s quite simple, if you’re not moving forward, you’re falling behind.