This meme came out in the aftermath of the January 6th, 2021 March on the Capitol. The left column of photos depict a rioter, while the right column depicts a victimized police officer who defended the Capitol on that day. While proved to be two different men, however, their physical similarities lead to some extremists to claim that they were the same person and that Michael Fanone (the officer) actually took part in the rioting. The rioter’s real name is Kevin Seefried.
The meme can have two effects. First, from the extreme rightists’ and rioters’ perspectives, it can be used as a source of validation and motivation. It encourages the rioters to believe that there was someone on the inside who agrees with them. Because that “someone” is an officer, that “someone” is representative of the law. Now, the law and justice is on the side of the law. The destruction, havoc, and chaos they are causing has been validated and empowered.
From the perspective of extreme leftists, it is demonstrating weakness and corruption in the government. It inspires fear and distrust because they can no longer put their faith in the government and the democratic system to protect what they believe to be in their best interests.
No matter the interpretation, it cuts a deepening chasm between the different parties and factions of the American people.
This second meme attempts to rectify the assumptions of the first meme by encouraging viewers to fact-check their sources and information before drawing conclusions. On the left half of the graphic, the meme shows a surprised and mind-blown face after have supposedly learned some new truth. On the right, the face has become embarrassed because they jumped to conclusion too quickly without performing further research into the topic. The moral of this meme is applicable not only to false memes like the one above, but an news article or story that might be found online.
My meme will not have the same viral quality as the first. It is not controversial or a “hot topic.” It does not elicit strong emotion from viewers and is little more than a small dose of comedy and relatability. Consequently, if posted on social media, users will be less likely to repost and share it with their friends and the world. Social media algorithms will also likely classify it as “not exciting enough” and proceed to exclude the post from users’ media feed.
In order for good news and uplifting content to travel faster than bad news, social media and other communication organizations would need to restructure their algorithms and and platforms to limit user feed to only what their friends and communities post and repost. They would have the ability to view negative content, but they would have to go looking for it instead, which most people would not feel inclined to do. Why go look for something that will only make you feel bad? This will make room for people to view the good posts that are no longer being washed away by the unnecessary negative content. Users will also feel confident that they can post something happy or uplifting without it disappearing and never showing up. This has happened to some people I know with some of their Facebook posts – the algorithms had somehow decided their content was not “exciting enough.”
Fact Check News Article:
You must be logged in to post a comment.