OPINION: Just a few days ago, I told you that Twitter will test a new feature that is already present on other social networks in the states. And I said that it surprised me a little, because when I travel in memory to the beginnings of Twitter and for many users even to its present, this is more or less the reason for the existence of this social network, sharing states. Enriched states, since the number of characters was increased from 140 to 280, images, gifs and videos, URL truncators, etc. have, of course, been included, but still states.

Lots of people on Twitter published and continue to publish stockswhich can range from “I’m sad” to “I’m listening to Velouria, from Los Pixies” going through the eternal “I had a chicken for dinner yesterday” course. On other social networks, such as Facebook, people develop reflections of all kinds and depths … and accompany them with the words “I’m sad,” “I’m listening to Velouria, from Loss Pixies,” or “I had chicken for dinner yesterday.” the network is changing, but the stocks are getting better every day and I bet we’ll see how it grows in the future.

Once this report was published, Benito Camelas (sorry to reproduce the pun, but it’s his username), one of our most engaged readers in the comments, wondered why usefulness of statuses on social networks. A question with much more depth than it might suddenly seem, and what’s more, I admit that I’ve been thinking a little since it was raised. And after thinking, it’s something I can’t disconnect from the reaction buttons, also from social networks.

A few years ago, my colleague and friend Marcos Sagrado made an interesting reflection on a function that Facebook was working on at the time, an alternative to the “like” so typical of Zuckerberg, but which would allow expressing empathy and / or support before commenting and / or unfavorable, negative situation. The answer, of course, consists of a button. A good representation of what social media is and why states exist.

To understand the raison d’être of many elements of social networking, including, of course, states we must take into account two conflicting facts: on the one hand, the need for social networks to have content that depends entirely on their users, and on the other hand, that a combination of factors that some sociologists have already studied makes people more lazy over time. in terms of communication.

I return to the text from Marcos I spoke about earlier, the one dedicated to the empathy button on Facebook. Imagine, for example, that a friend has suffered a significant loss and is talking about it on his wall. Thumbs up doesn’t seem like a good choice, does it? However, the button responds much better to the context with, say, a hug. And it’s much more convenient and faster than typing “Wow, I’m so sorry, big hug and if I can do anything for you, don’t hesitate.” Immediacy and convenience prevail in social networks.

Social networks therefore lead us in many cases a much more synthetic communication model, with as many messaging facilities as we need, and states are a perfect example of this. More conveniently, write that you are listening to the best album in Pixies history, write a comment and recommend a few songs, or simply select a selector activity and add information by writing a song or album. ? Or to link Twitter to Spotify and have your status updated automatically?

In my opinion, and I know that many other people share this, social networks impoverish the quality of communicationbut contribute to an exponential increase in its volume. Today, if your circle of friends use social networks in this way, you can catch up on what they’re doing in a few minutes … God, it’s even possible that they’ll indirectly recommend something new for you. listen. And it would be cynical to deny this positive part of this new model of communication brought to us by social networks.

Communication is changing, as is language it cannot be said in absolute terms that said evolution is good or badalthough there are specific cases where the balance points in one direction or another. In the case of a friend, family member, close person, etc., who shares a bad moment on social networks, the answer with a sad face without further speech personally seems to me personally, just because if at some point I see myself On the other side of the equation I would like got something more than that.

However and in general, lose qualitatively but gain quantitativelyunless it means giving up free choice in that sense, I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong. Being able to catch up quickly with my friends and acquaintances, enjoy the discretion that I can call, write, meet with them for a beer and talk or whatever, doesn’t seem necessarily impoverished.

And I don’t know, maybe I’m too optimistic, but I knowexcept in cases such as the one mentioned, in which Marcos was more right than a saint (seriously, if one of your loved ones has a problem or is going through a bad time, give them the treatment you would like to receive instead), I don’t think social networks have impaired communication, what they’ve done is changing and now it’s up to us to decided how we would use these tools.