Share a Link, Also Something More

So far, so good. Except that this feeling of random surprise gifting, of being caught in a network of love is a signal of the insularity and closeness that online social networks often produce. In many ways, the “Pay It Forward” meme is a culmination of the various forms of internet charity fads that we have seen in recent years. The digital does not need material resources of replication: If you have an e-copy of a book, and you allow me to make another e-copy of the same, we both have the same book, without any reduction in quality or value of ownership. Because of this ability to share, copy, remix, reuse and recycle, these ideas of “paying it forward” have propelled some of the most successful open access and sharing moments.

This has resulted in game-like charity endeavours through social networks. The most famous one is probably where people were encouraged to play games to contribute a bowl of rice or clean drinking water to starving children in Africa. Crowdfunding campaigns like Kickstarter and Indigogo help people support independent entrepreneurs, cultural producers or people in need of capital to expand their quality of life, donate in small numbers. Social networks like LinkedIn or Klout manifest this by providing us with “network capital” where our connections with people help build professional and social communities, which give us reputation and attention currencies.

There are already many critiques of this new wave of encashing your networks and getting financial aid from friends and communities, because they signal a new form of patronage and support that replaces our older welfare models. For me, these are still interesting shifts that digital natives are producing, where they build new societies premised on a community made of individuals (rather than individuals that belong to a community).
The earlier models of welfare or charity were often a reflection on one’s own privilege.

It was contingent upon the individual recognising that they have privileges — financial, social, cultural, political —and hence there was a sense of responsibility and a feeling of “paying back” to the world around. Indeed, implicit in that model of sharing was the idea that those empowered by the sharing will improve the conditions of those around them, thus starting a trickle-down effect, which would help build a stronger and open society. However, within these new digital realms, the sense of paying it back has been replaced by paying it forward. What I give, I do not want to get back, but I want you to pass it on to somebody else.

And that somebody is always, almost entirely, someone like us. The recipient of these rewards is going to be somebody who shares the same privileges and positions, and yet, it gives us that warm fuzzy feeling of “doing good” without having to contribute to the socio-politically disadvantaged around us. Even in the early days of the internet, when Tim Berners Lee was dreaming of the World Wide Web, there were voices warning us that the digital might create an echo-chamber where people who are like each other will stay in isolated but extended communities, where they would not connect enough with the world of inequality and the reality of inequity.

There is nothing wrong with the “Pay it Forward” meme. In an age that promotes ritualised gifting guided by the celebration of “days” shaped by markets, this is a way of introducing whimsy in our social relationships that are often mediated by reciprocal gifting. We should celebrate the impulse and the spirit of this gamified virality. At the same time, it is also good to remember that paying it forward is not the same as paying back, and that the true potentials of sharing are not in sharing with those who are like us, but with those who might be thwarted from accessing the same kind of resources that we, while browsing Facebook and tagging friends, can take for granted.

(Nishant Shah is director, research, The Centre for Internet and Society)