Opinion: Those perfectly coiffed kids you’re seeing on social media signal that we have a problem - CNN | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Media

Opinion: Those perfectly coiffed kids you’re seeing on social media signal that we have a problem – CNN

Published

 on


Editor’s note: Kara Alaimo, an associate professor of communication at Fairleigh Dickinson University, writes about issues affecting women and social media. Her book “Over the Influence: Why Social Media Is Toxic for Women and Girls — And How We Can Take It Back” will be published by Alcove Press in 2024. Follow her on InstagramFacebook and X. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own. Read more opinion on CNN.



CNN
 — 

Kids are back at school, and many of our social media feeds are full of pictures of children with #backtoschooloutfit inspo (inspiration) — but they don’t seem to have insisted on wearing mismatched outfits or run out of time to stand perfectly still and smile for the camera.

That’s at least in part because so much of the content we’re seeing isn’t just of our friends’ kids anymore — it’s coming from influencers and brands. Mainstream users are posting less of their lives publicly these days, so more of the content we’re seeing on platforms such as Instagram is highly curated by people trying to sell us things.

With our feeds increasingly full of content from brands and people peddling products, “platforms as we knew them are over,” University of Illinois-Chicago communications professor Zizi Papacharissi recently told The New York Times. Business Insider’s prognosis was more dire: “Social media is dead” asserted a recent headline.

In part this trend reflects a savvy realization by users that we have to protect our privacy online; more people are using closed groups or direct messages to share information about our everyday lives. But in going publicly passive on our favorite platforms, we’re also ceding the opportunity to use social media to empower ourselves and our families. Being proactive and cautious is a good thing; going silent is an approach we should all rethink.

Opinion: We’re thinking about teens and social media all wrong

It’s smart for users to be concerned about sharing some of their personal information online. For example, Harvard Law School lecturer Leah Plunkett writes in “Sharenthood: Why We Should Think Before We Talk About Our Kids Online” that when new parents post public birth announcements, they give potential criminals valuable information such as their children’s dates and places of birth that can help thieves try to steal their kids’ identities.

Similarly, if we name our kids’ schools online, we give scammers a potential answer to security questions our kids may use on websites in the future. And we all know the content we post online can be used against us — possibly totally out of context — in the future.

But while we should be thoughtful about how we protect truly private information, we’ve been too quick to give up on public posts entirely. After all, the promise of social media was that it would allow us all to participate in public conversations — to raise awareness of issues that are important to us, talk back to politicians and corporations when they violate our trust and help determine what authors, artists and ideas become popular.

For example, as I argue in my forthcoming book, “Over the Influence: Why Social Media is Toxic for Women and Girls — And How We Can Take It Back,” women in the US are experiencing a tidal wave of attacks on our rights and power. Roe v. Wade was overturned last year. Some of the men pushed out of power by the #MeToo movement are back — and so is “bro” culture in Silicon Valley. Between 2011 and 2021, the number of teen girls who say they were forced to have sex increased by 14%, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Opinion: Parents, get your kids off social media

But women could use social media more effectively to fight back against these developments — and the prevalence of misogynist content online — if more of us collectively started using our platforms to share information about issues that matter to us. And if social networks saw that more users had an appetite for this kind of content, they’d adjust their algorithms to show us more of it.

By instead passively scrolling through influencer content without making our own contributions to the public conversation unfolding on social media, we cede that power back to those who control the algorithms. What’s more, the kind of aspirational content to which we’re giving our attention — such as those back-to-school posts by influencers with perfectly coiffed kids — can leave us feeling like our lives don’t stack up.

“Marketers and advertising agencies deliberately capitalize on mothers’ (culturally constructed) feelings of inadequacy in order to convince us to buy stuff,” Sara Petersen writes in “Momfluenced: Inside the Maddening, Picture-Perfect World of Mommy Influencer Culture.”

Get Our Free Weekly Newsletter

I’m not trying to hate on influencers here, many of whom are predominantly women who rarely make a living wage from their work and are often under intense pressure to project perfect lives to attract brand sponsors. But I’d so much rather see these women make their money from content that organizes women to call on Congress to invest in child care and demand that tech companies take down the violent, hateful posts about girls that are endemic on their platforms.

Let’s not pull back from protecting the privacy of ourselves and our families online. But let’s also think twice about passively scrolling through rather than producing public content on our social apps. If we all started sharing back-to-school content about what being a mom is really like — whether it’s talking about sending our kids to schools with poor air quality that could be bad for their health or how American workers are often expected to be present in the office long after school lets out — we might change some things. Then, instead of influencer images, it could be our actual lives that look a little more rosy.

Adblock test (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

 on

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

 on

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

 on

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version