Many of the literature classes that I have taken so far at
Georgian Court University have mentioned, either in passing or in depth, about
the influence and importance of Britain, particularly during the Victoria Era,
when Britain owned a good portion of the known world. Moreover, for a long
time, London was the pulse of invention, the creator of trends and wielded a
great influence over the arts. Although it is true that Britain (or London
itself) does not exert the same impact it once had, it still is a major player
in all things “cool” and/or “up and coming.” Therefore, I was very interested
in reading the article “Why
London Comes Last in Social Media City Rankings.” I was curious to know why a city, which is known for its influence and being ahead of trends, would lag so far behind in the world of social media.
 |
| London's Big Ben |
The article, examening a German study, seeks to find out exactly that. Using the “social media services provided by the
governing bodies of 31 major cities around the world,” researchers from Heine University in
Düsseldorf, Germany “measured the number
of different types of social media account that each city publishes, the amount
of activity on these accounts and the number of followers. They also look at
the links to and from city social media accounts and their websites.” In
all the social media outlets they measured, London came in dead last. Why?
Disappointingly, article leaves the reader wondering. The
article title is “Why London Comes Last in Social Media City Ranking?” and yet it
does not answer its own question. The article suggests that the researchers could
not find enough internet activity, which is unlikely, or that “Perhaps London and its eccentric mayor,
Boris Johnson, need to learn a little more about social media,” which is
possible but unlikely as well. That is how the article ends, abruptly, with no
clear answer or attempt of an answer as to why London is last.
The comments, however, were interesting and enlightening.
Several suggest that London is last in social media because it is first in
real-person interaction. One commenter, Archie, writes, “Yeah, Londoners are too busy being actually social face to face rather
than fake social on junk like Twitter etc.”
One commenter, shattered2016 asserts, “British police will swoop down and
interrogate you and if they find that one of their seeping
Orwellian "offensive speech laws" has been violated, they can
put you in prison and impoverish you. That's why people don't use social media
much in the UK!” He goes on to tell the story of a man who was interrogated
for eight hours for a cheeky comment made on social media. Now I do not know if
what the commenter says is true, but if it is, it would sure put a damper on
social media usage!
Other commenters say that most people in London do not
use “London” to describe where they are. ray.thackeray writes in his comment, “It's
pretty simple. Most people in London don't say "London" much. They
say Chelsea. Or Fulham. Or Wandsworth, Or Kensington. Or Victoria. Or The City.
Or any number of tube stations. Or Cromwell Road. Or Piccadilly. Or the Strand.
See where I'm going with this?” That would explain why, the researchers did not
find much online activity for London.
Overall, the article was an interesting, if not satisfying.
It was interesting to look at the chart over the article and see the different
social media usages from cities around the world. I never would have guessed
that the inhabitants of Berlin, Germany were such powerhouse Twitter users or
that the people of Kuala Lumar had a presence on Flickr! Still, I do wish that
the article had fulfilled its intended purpose and either actually explained why London is dead
last in social media or gave a more thoughtful hypothesis as to why the author
thought London is last in social media.
--------------
No comments:
Post a Comment