The inspiration for my blog post came to me as I was reading
my economics textbook entitled The World
Is Flat. It’s mainly about the impact that technology has had on
corporations, changing them from mainly local to national and then to global
entities over the past several decades, with incredibly expansive and
interwoven networks of relationships and communications around the world. I
thought, “Well, technology must have had a similar impact on other human interactions
too,” and then philanthropy came to mind. Here’s what I’ve found on the
subject.
In addition to the interconnectedness that our world has felt
due to the increased importance of the internet over the last few decades, the
rise of social media has further brought our world together. Some good supplementary
information can be found in the following article: https://philanthropy.com/article/How-Nonprofits-Can-Use-Social/126402/
The main point the article was trying to drive home was that
through the introduction of social media, non-profit groups have been attempting to
use virtual campaigns in conjunction with tangible action in order to increase both individual participation and the multitude of people their cause
reaches. It also emphasizes common mistakes that non-profits make when
utilizing social media to reach their supporters and offers some helpful tips
to use social media to their advantage. In summary, it shows how social media
outlets could potentially be both constructive and destructive forces depending on how they
are utilized.
But to every positive innovation, there seems to be a drawback; in this case, the increase in technology has caused some to lose sight of people's problems other than their own. Despite efforts to get
their message out there, the messages of many non- profit groups still fall on deaf ears more often than not. Is it
probable to believe that even with growing consumerism in regards to
technology, which allow people to tune the world out with high-tech headphones or
expensive gaming consoles, it is still possible for non-profits to reach an
increasingly wide range of genuinely caring individuals? This article I found
seems to address this question: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-bootcamp/201102/is-technology-making-us-less-empathic
It seems that, at least with what I have noticed, the growth
of technology and social media has fostered quite a bit of disinterest in
others, as people become fixated on accumulating more and more of the newest gizmos
and gadgets. While technology has brought many people together, it has made
others into introverts who distance themselves from others and other people’s
problems. Can this shift in mindset caused by the rise of the “Digital Age” be
overcome or will it counteract all the potential good that can come from the
interactions social media allows groups to create?
So what is to come of these technological and
communicational innovations that we have seen especially over the past 10
years? What are some thoughts on the potential impacts that social media and
the “Digital Age” as a whole can have on philanthropy in positive or negative
ways, at both the global and the local level?
When I discovered that the technological debate was central to your blog post, I was oddly excited. Although this subject is beaten to death in relation to every aspect of life, its impact on philanthropy is largely overlooked. One of the reasons I am so intrigued by this debate is because it continues to elude me. I know I am uncomfortable with the thought of technology spreading like the plague, yet I too succumb to my cellphone.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do know where I stand with regards to technology’s impact on philanthropy and human compassion. I agree with you, Kyle, in that the emotional connection between us is widening every day. Sure, people say that the Internet and social media are fostering an interconnected world, however, aren’t we essentially connecting with our computer screens? I may be old fashioned but I believe a great way to become an empathetic person is to hold meaningful conversations with those around you. This is the foundation for philanthropic activities within ones own community and abroad.
Can the shift in mindset be overcome? I think it is too late for that. In high school, I was teaching an elementary student voice and she whipped out her iPhone 5 to silence the ringer. Technology is becoming more and more accessible to our youth and the more they have access to it, the deeper it is embedded in our culture. On the other hand, I still think it has potential good when it is used in moderation. Some non-profit organizations rely heavily on websites and social media for advertisement.
Before I end, I want to leave you with something I discovered recently. Google created something called Google glass (http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/). They are glasses with a computer that allow you “to share the world through your eyes and get answers and updates instantly.” I am genuinely concerned this will help us be emotionally unconnected. They boast that they are shaping the future. Who wants a future where we all talk with glasses on our faces instead of those around us?
This discussion raised various points concerning what we have been discussing in class about whether or not it is important that the non-profit organization we donate to uses social media or not. If possible, we could choose to use the first link you provided, which talked about how non-profits should use social media, in order to assess the local non-profits websites and social media accounts for effectiveness. Just a thought!
ReplyDeleteFrom my personal experience working at a non-profit that used a Facebook page, I found it to be both good and bad. The Facebook page was helpful in creating awareness about public events and our program itself; however, since the majority of our clients were older people, the emphasis put on social media was almost a waste of time, since the wrong crowd was receiving our information.
I agree with both Kyle and Kaitlyn that people are becoming less emotionally connected when communicating with other people face to face, but are we really becoming less empathetic? To me, these are two different concepts. I feel that the connectivity we experience with technology increases our empathy towards people we might never have even heard of before. Before the internet, I could have been ignorant of the genocide in Darfur, for example, and thus had no sympathy for the people. But because of the new technology, we can see pictures and videos of actual people experiencing things around the world, and this creates an empathy and a connection that was previously lacking.
However, despite my endorsement for technology as a whole, the Google glasses scare me and I would never want to live in a world where I have to first look at a screen and then the world second.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have a personal experience that shaped my view on the benefits and costs of technology and social media in philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteWhen I did a fundraiser for Doctors Without Borders in 2012, their use of technology made fundraising very easy for me. I had decided to run a half-marathon for charity, and had settled on Doctors Without Borders because I strongly believed in their mission. When I got in contact with them, they already had a program set up for donors like me. They sent me a DWB pinnie to wear during the run, as well as stickers, flyers, and other advertising materials for me to distribute. In the weeks before and after my run, they advertised it on their Facebook page, which is currently seen by over 630,000 people. Most importantly, however, they made the actual donation of money easy for all of my sponsors. They had several different DWB logos for us to use that linked directly to PayPal. We put these logos on my fundraiser's website, making it so potential donors only had to click a couple times to give money.
If DWB hadn't had this program in place, it would have been much more work for me to advertise my run, and even more work for me to keep track of all of the money being donated. Luckily, DWB is savvy with current technology and social media, and working with them was a breeze.
My experience with technology in philanthropy shows how crucial it can be. However, I think that with major donors, it is not as important. Non-profits may use social media to make big donors aware of them, but to secure a large donation, they need to do more than that. Getting big donations often requires personally interacting with the donor over weeks, months, or even years. With my run, I only raised $2,000, and I don't think that donations on the scale of 100 times larger than that can be secured by social media presence alone.
As for Kyle's point about empathy, people might be becoming more disinterested with all of the ads for causes they see. However, the ads and videos are just a starting point; people will still be empathetic in a personal setting, once they get more involved with the non-profit. Once I got involved with DWB, they personally connected with me, and made it easy for me to use my network of donors to raise awareness of their organization.
This is a very interesting topic and I agree that technology is making people be less emotionally invested. I look at my younger cousin who received a phone and computer much earlier than I did and see how much harder it is for her to hold a conversation face to face. While I do think this is an issue, I think that technology has many benefits.
ReplyDeleteLook at our class for example. We have to tweet and blog every week. Two forms of social media/technology. These allow us to share our ideas with other people. Anyone who looks up our hashtag or hashtags about philanthropy can find article videos and ideas that we have shared. Our blog allows us to have more discussions and get us to think more than we would be able to if we were limited to our one class a week. I think when looking at technology you need to find good ways to use social media instead of just updating people on what you had for lunch.
A bunch of people tweeted about the UNICEF tap project to go without phones, or freerice.com, or kiva.org. These are all examples of how technology is being used to help people. Technology allows people who may not have enough money to give on their own become part of a bigger cause. I have used technology to fundraise for Relay for Life (a fundraiser for American Cancer Society). I was able to email my family a link to my fundraising page and explain what I was doing and they could donate right from home, which was convenient considering my family is spread out in four different states. Technology can be used in a great way; the problem is getting more people to use it in this way, to share ideas and cause people to think.
It seems obvious that there are both benefits and drawbacks to the use of technology in relation to philanthropy. Clearly, the fact that individuals can quickly and conveniently donate via an organization's website is very beneficial. In addition, organizations' ability to advertise through the use of social media allows them to spread awareness effectively in most cases. However, I agree with Kaitlin that technology is becoming almost too embedded in our culture. It may be causing people to lose sight of what is really important in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe use of social media is becoming such a vital aspect of advertising for non-profits that many have chosen to hire additional employees to manage their social media accounts and websites. Save the Children, for example, hired Dave Hartman as Social Media Manager. His sole job is to monitor the organization's media accounts. While I think it's great that Mr. Hartman has chosen to use his communication skills to help a charity like Save the Children, it does mean that there is one more salary for the organization to pay. Although it may not be a big deal for large organizations to sacrifice some of the money they have in order to pay their social media manager’s salary, for smaller organizations this may be an issue. They simply may not have the funds to support this position, but without a social media presence in this era they will most likely be overlooked.
That being said, I do not think the trend towards an increased presence of technology in our culture will be reversed. Therefore, organizations are probably smart to hire social media managers – they might as well take advantage of the technology! I support programs and apps, such as the ones Emily Olander noted above, that have been created in order to use technology for good causes. The UNICEF Tap Project is definitely my favorite, though, because it uses technology, but at the same time encourages us to put down our phones and see the world around us through our own eyes rather than through a phone screen.
I want to focus on a specific point that you bring to our attention in this blogpost "But to every positive innovation, there seems to be a drawback; in this case, the increase in technology has caused some to lose sight of people's problems other than their own."
ReplyDeleteThis part really hit home for me, Kyle, as it made me question how much the technology has impacted society's attitudes towards giving. I had always viewed technology in a positive aspect, never negative, however, what you had to say shifted how I come to now view technological advancements. I completely agree with you that although technology has helped in our philanthropic efforts, while also doing the contrary. It is so easy to make a monetary contribution online, with the swiftness of pressing a few buttons. This, in a sense, creates a standoffish approach to donating. Instead of physically engaging in the lives of people and making a positive and worthwhile impact on their lives, technology has made it so easy to contribute from our computers, possibly thousands of miles away.
Thinking some more on this topic however, technology can also be viewed in a positive aspect as well. For it creates the means by which those individuals who do not necessarily have the time or enough motivation to go out and make a physical difference in the world. For these individuals, technology serves as a purpose for optimizing conditions to donate to a cause of their choice.
Thank you all for your input! I'm so glad my blog post brought about such a reaction from my peers. I'm glad some of you agreed with my argument that technology is changing philanthropy, for better and for worse. I would just like to clarify that, as a whole, I believe that the impact technology has had on human interactions is a positive one.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I see the positive effects that technological advances have had on philanthropy. The internet has brought us in contact with so many more people than we could ever have been in contact with before. Jesse's story about his work with Doctors Without Borders exemplifies this point very strongly. I do agree with what Jesse has said about there still being a requirement of face-to-face interactions in order to secure large donations but it is undeniable that with all of the new technology out there (for example, Google Glass that Kaitlin mentioned), many people are finding it harder and harder to actually hold these face-to-face interactions. There will always be a percentage of the population that is genuinely empathetic towards the plight of others. I believe the real variable here is the actual percentage of the population that donates. It seems to me that as time passes, many people require more prodding in order to give, instead of just giving out of empathy or compassion for others. These are all speculations at this point though.
I guess we have yet to see the full impact that technology will have on philanthropy as the youngest generation (the one most shaped by the new technology) is not of the age to engage in large-scale philanthropic endeavors. I'm not trying to be overly negative with what I've said in this comment; I'm just very skeptical of the further impacts technology can have on our giving habits and our characters as a whole.
After reading your blog post and comment I question is my roommate a sociopath. He happens to own a kindle fire HDx, Nike GPS running watch, Beats head phones, A newish dell laptop, a variety of video games, and a phone he is getting replaced mere days after it broke. Kyle is my roommate sane?
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with your second article and most of what people say against technology. It is not bringing is farther apart. People today are closer than they ever where. I myself have friends from all over the globe and I am the rule not an exception. Technology is also making us smarter live longer and yes even give more. Of course there are some people who are completely devoid of knowledge on technology. These people are probably very bad at getting donations online. And from what I hear from many seminars about technology and charity, it seems that everyone agrees that giving and awareness spreads and gains the most traction online.
Furthermore I believe it is up to us at this point of time to use the technology we have to help the world. We do not have to wait for the youngest generation, for they will have their own problems. In conclusion I believe technology is only bringing us closer and more philanthropic than ever before, and that is why I wholeheartedly disagree with most of what was said about technology. It can always be viewed in a bad light because it is different but I believe that it is the future and we should embrace it and the changes it will bring. I am sure people were equally scared with the invention of the wheel and how that would change their lives.
When I first read the post and two articles accompanying it I was leaning towards the negative views against technology (then came the replies and some pondering). In many senses, communication has changed and empathy may have been reduced through distancing communication and desensitization of violence. There are many videos and articles streaming through social media that may detract from philanthropic actions, merely by detracting focus or even by promoting selfishness and over-consumption. Additionally, Google, Facebook, and Amazon (to name a few) are all tailoring their service to the user. I remember a Ted Talk where the speaker presented how his Facebook feed weeded out the posts of his friends with whom he disagreed with politically, and then showed how Google would display different results for the same search just based of location (or previous searches). It would thus be easy for technology help one isolate themselves from empathetic actions. However, I also see many stories of great acts of kindness trend through social media, and much moreso than traditional news media, which has increased its coverage of violent crime even as the rate of such crimes has decreased. Our technological environment is impacted by the articles we read and the videos we view, often gathered from things our friends have recommended (though perhaps inadvertently by clicking something with curiosity). Thereby, if we promote more stories of good deeds, social awareness, and empathy, we will promote an environment encouraging our peers to follow suit. Technology and modern social media can not only help shape the environments of our peers, but also streamline awareness and charity campaigns. Jesse was able to promote Doctors Without Borders with great ease, with technology even easing the process of donating. I've seen the same thing happen with my girlfriend’s father, who does walks in order to raise money for a children s hospital. He has gained many of his sponsors via Facebook. While social media has clearly changed our environments, it doesn't mean we have to be isolated from empathy and philanthropic acts. Instead, we can use social media to promote support for good deeds and help raise awareness for the needs of philanthropic acts.
ReplyDelete