Kony Conundrum

To better understand my perspective on the Kony Facebook epidemic—which has begun to dwindle in force—you ought to know that when formulating the ideas for this entry, having watched the video was not a necessity. Nevertheless, I’m not commenting on the morality, potential, or necessity of the organization, simply the public’s (Facebook’s) reaction, which has given me, along with many others, a plethora of examples to make some anthropological inferences regarding technology, trends, and online debate between teens.

To start off, it’s pretty interesting to see the different forms of online support for the movement, such as changing a profile picture to ‘KONY 2012’ or reposting the video. Yet, the redundancy of these posts has ticked off quite a few people solely for the reason that many “supporters” are people who make it blatantly obvious that they have no prior knowledge about what’s going on in any realm of politics, finance, etc., and that taking pictures of themselves in the mirror just isn’t cool anymore. And yet, all of the sudden they’re so righteous and politically aware.

The ability to speak and represent yourself to a community of peers (with the advent of sending mass quantities of friend requests to people you don’t know) invokes a false sense of pride, since the information was presented to them so easily, and it’s obvious that Facebook is their only medium for news. While some justify the mindless posts that mean little to nothing with the fact that they’re simply spreading awareness, it doesn’t all quite add up as way too many teens openly believe and broadcast that “watching this video and reposting is the only way to stop this problem!”

A more positive and progressive way to look at the situation is that the campaign has fueled endless debate (whether it be in person or on Facebook doesn’t matter) between teens, which is a much more appropriate use of the Internet than simply standing for the opinion of thousands of others in belief that they now possess the moral high ground since they side with the ignorant and quick-minded majority. This draws on the concept of individualism, which is a virtue for those who are not airheads. Have an opinion, but don’t be an airhead. Debate is good for those who care to engage in it, although there have many repeated stalemates following the same grounds.

One makes the remark that there’s nothing wrong with trying to spread awareness and they shouldn’t “hate” on the movement while the other attempts to reconcile their opinion as simply an observation; merely stepping outside the Facebook atmosphere and saying that our generation’s response to these types of situations is not always appropriate and that people misuse social media. The former prolongs their arrogance and fails to see the latter’s devil’s advocate, not argument, but interpretation.

Not only is there something to be said about the power of the majority whether it be used for good or bad purposes, but regarding the willingness and inclination of teens to support what at the time seems, a proper cause. It seems that in a social setting, individual beliefs are sacrificed for what is hip and trendy at the time.

Originally published in the Franklin Gazette's 25th issue on March 20, 2012.