Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:A review of the trajectory of self-expression on social media shows a trend towards increasing brevity and homogeneity. The early days of online discourse centred around longform text on blogs and message boards. This required individuals to think through the substance of what they wanted to say and then articulate it in their own words to communicate to their audience. Even if the content itself was nonsensical, it required conscious engagement, certainly from the writer but also the reader, who would need to specifically seek out that particular content and spend time reading and responding to it in her own words. With the advent of social media, longform text has gone through a series of abridgements, from posts to tweets to retweets, likes, memes, and emojis. Now, one of the most striking things about online communication is how little people speak. Speak in their own words that is. It is worth asking at what point in this trajectory does engagement stop being a form of self-expression but instead becomes a tool for mass homogenisation. It is unclear how by repeatedly replacing one’s own words with those of another individual (through retweets, likes and memes) or a corporation (via emojis), any individual can find her own voice. This question is relevant also because the time spent on these discrete engagements is too fleeting to allow active involvement. Does a retweet or like indicate 100% endorsement or merely fluid alignment with the “spirit” of the content? And, if we do not take the time to reflect and articulate specifically what we feel, instead of merely reiterating someone else, does it qualify as self-expression?This question needs to be asked because social media moulds expression to fit its own format instead of vice versa. Retweets and likes are binary instruments which leave no room for personal nuance. Memes and emojis constrain articulation to the selection at hand, shaping instead of facilitating self-expression. Are people really laughing till they are crying as the popular emoji (a smiley) seems to suggest? And if not, does its use denote self-expression or artifice shaped by an external platform? What too of the ambiguity which gets injected into communication due to variable interpretations by different individuals for various emojis and memes? Social media also forces brevity — due to its format and the larger ecosystem it has spawned — which shows up not just as typographical errors and poor grammar but also constraints on the possibilities of what can be said. This limits, instead of enhancing, the fullness of self-expression. However, it is not just the structure of social media platforms which inhibits self-expression but also the incentives. An important emerging discussion focuses on how the incentives of social media shape the discourse by privileging antagonism, snark and outrage over dialogue and reason. This in turn prods individuals to become more antagonistic and outrageous with the effect that the medium dictates the message. This influence of the medium on the message is visible also in making virality the primary determinant of value instead of the substance of the message itself.Q.Based on the passage, what are the incentives of social media platforms discussed in the context of online discourse?a)Encouraging thoughtful discussion and reasonb)Promoting personal creativity in self-expressionc)Privileging antagonism, snark, and outraged)Fostering a diverse range of opinions and perspectivesCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.