Computer and Library Learning (Archived)

Typically in a sporting event such as the World Cup, one hears stories about alleged fixed matches, villains and heroes, failed chances to win the coveted game, and the political controversies that occur during an internationally televised event. It’s interesting to see that today these stories remain but there are newer ones too, such as how technology is used during this live event.

There is no better way to capture this interplay between technology and sports then the story of the race between Facebook and Twitter. Taking on the intensity and publicity of the race between the US and Soviet Russia to land on the moon, Twitter and Facebook’s strive for dominance in the social media sphere is one that is interesting to watch be it with less long term significance (or maybe we’ll remember this race in 50 years?).

Jeff Bercovici from "Forbes" presented figures to illustrate how engaged users were with social media during the World Cup. During the 32 day tournament there were 3 billion interactions on Facebook as measured by posts, likes, comments and 672 million tweets. The countries leading the way on Facebook during the final game were the US (10.5 million participants), Brazil (10 million participants) and Argentina (7 million participants). Twitter’s most popular match was between Brazil-Germany with 35.6 million tweets, which Bercovici described as more of a “news event” (probably because of the 7-1 final score in favour of the visiting German side): “Twitter is where people go to talk about surprising, unexpected events as they’re unfolding. Facebook is where people go to record their feelings about big, shared milestones somewhat after the fact.”

Aaron Souppouris from the "Verge" reported additional Facebook figures: the US was not only leading the way but moreover, it was males aged 18-24 that were the most engaged. Both in the case of Facebook and Twitter, the World Cup of 2014 was the most talked about event ever. In the case of Facebook, Superbowl XLVII had the previous record with 245 million interactions; the World Cup final saw 280 million posts.

The coverage of this Social Media story could be seen as shallow or inconsequential since it is only entertainment isn’t it? For example stories on "The Next Web" cover which brands were successful in their social media campaign during the event. You can’t help realize that entertainment is really about who’s profiting the most. But then you read stories by David Hepworth from the "Guardian" arguing that comments found on Twitter by its users actually clarified what was happening on the field when announcers were avoiding the issues such as when Uruguay player Luis Suarez infamously bit Italian player Giorgio Chiellini. Hepworth notes that commentators tend to focus on reading “pre-planned purple prose” rather than commenting on what is actually happening on the field. He added, “Social media has increased the feeling of this being the World Cup that the fans at home wanted to see rather than the one that the custodians of the game thought was good for us.”

Johnathan Watts, also writing for the "Guardian", cites several political stories that resulted from the fallout of the sporting event. He states that “Outside, the World Cup has been a lightning conductor for polemics on the streets, where there have been small but numerous demonstrations against Fifa corruption, excessive government spending on stadiums, homophobia, racism and forced evictions that this has been one of the most politicized World Cups in History”. He cites examples such as Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani tweeting a rare off-duty photo in an Iranian team shirt and track suit, the Algerian team donating its prize money to the people of Gaza and the American “right-wing rants” against “Socialist Football” among others. But the reality is that these stories were not the most popular and were not “trending” in the social media world. Souppouris reported that the most activity on twitter occurred during the Final match when Germany won'the World Cup with 618, 725 tweets per minute and Bercovici reported on which player was most mentioned on Twitter (Brazilian forward, Neymar da Silva Santos Jr). The fact that statements made by political figures during the games were not even counted leads me to assume that a.) They were not significant numerically when compared to commentary going on during game time and/or b.) fans cared more about the players and their play and not the surrounding turmoil.

Nevertheless, I thought that writing about Social Media and the World Cup was a good way to describe, at minimum, some differences between Facebook and Twitter (a question I commonly receive on the reference desk). In terms of its uses, it is significant to mention that the World Cup triggered historic use levels during a sporting event for both platforms. These are platforms that can be used for good reason such as communicating with friends and families but unlike other tools like email, you can engage with many people, many whom you may not know, at one time, for live events. With Twitter, you use hashtags to participate on a trending topic, for example on a team’s or player’s performance. This would allow you to participate in an online community that is outside your own, as was the case in Hepworth’s story about fans taking over live commentary during a game online.

Facebook appears to be a platform that lends better to activities that occur on a daily or hourly basis, for instance during a final game. I followed the World Cup using Facebook and found that older stories became new again when someone commented or liked a post. This may makes Facebook a better platform to keep a conversation going as opposed to up to the minute commentary. Also, it may be why it had greater overall transactions but there are also more users worldwide using Facebook.

Here are some other books to get you started on Facebook and Twitter