Too Good At Social Media Summary

Can you Really be “Too Good” at Social Media?

Author Ian Bogost argues that former president Obamas active presence on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook distract the American public, mainly democratic followers on said social media platforms, from serious political motions. Bogost cites Obama’s excessive use of these platforms as the reason for his relatability to those with similar interest in science and technology, as well as the average social media user. Connecting through the social media channels is used as another method to possibly reach out and spread “legislation and governance” as much as public communication. Bogost ends his article by stating, “maybe what America needed from 2009 to 2017 wasn’t a cool dad to tweet

It says “His ‘cool dad’ presidency blinded him to technology’s dangers”. Without actually making a saying it, the author's ideas in the article explain that Obama was that “cool dad” that got distracted from the real world and was too caught up trying to stay up to date with the new generations way of engaging publicly. “What people liked about Obama’s relationship to technology is that it was so much like their own. Obama was relatable and with-it. He clutched his smartphone as much as anyone. He could make a post go viral and deserve it”. This statement by the author examines that Obama is human like everyone else and he will go on to post the same way everyone else posts. The public finds that intriguing and relatable which could make the case in the authors favor that Obama’s social posts are consistent which could create a consistent distraction to the public eye away from real political issues he may not refer to on those digital

Bogost’s article shows various examples of how Obama's digital plan of civic engagement was a political danger that Obama possibly didn’t realize. The author hasn’t once in the article shown why exactly this same program couldn’t be effective beyond its engagement with the public. The author makes a strong case as to why critics could consider Obama to being that “cool dad” that was tweeting from his phone but has not presented any affirmation as to why the White Houses “digital transition” could not do more than just create multiple online engagements with public citizens. Bogost makes a claim in the article and states “While the first social media presidency was busy tweeting and Snap chatting, supposedly for public engagement, it did precious little to address the impacts of these and other effects of technology on the American public as matters of public policy”. One would think that to make a claim that a plan of civic engagement did “little to address” would have supported evidence of statistical facts of the true and full reach of Obama’s digital transition engagement to the public. The author’s claim could be true but he has a lack of evidence to support, which makes it hard for readers to agree with that