'Dark Social' may be just an art of sharing

Tech experts may have given it a scary name - “Dark Social” - but don't fall for it. The term refers to something fairly normal, or noble, perhaps. It means the sharing of information through less trackable means like e-mails or instant messaging. Simply put, if you share information through Facebook or Twitter, you make web marketers' lives quite easy because they know where you come from. You don't come from “dark” places, so to speak.
The deal is “Dark Social” activities are continuing unabated and the latest statistics show that Facebook and Twitter are left trailing them considerably in terms of “sharing” volumes. It doesn't affect those who share or ordinary gadget users, of course, and it's totally up to online advertisers and the likes to cope with the phenomenon. “Dark Social” is what drives information at the moment, and that's what every freedom of information advocate must be grateful for.
According to The Guardian, one online advertising firm tried to find out how much “Dark Social” sharing has been going on. More than 9,000 people plus data from their online sharing tools were surveyed and studied. Here are some of the findings: “Sharing activity through email, instant messaging and forum posts, aka Dark Social, is three times larger than the sharing activity on Facebook, globally.
Dark Social accounts for 69 per cent of all sharing activity globally, the survey found, versus 23 per cent via Facebook.
To web entrepreneurs and advertisers, the survey confirms that there is more happening on cyberspace than meets the eye and the homework is bigger than expected for those whose objective is online monetising. To normal people who click or send links on “Dark Social”, learning about these findings must make them feel more empowered. And using “links” on Dark Social is a constructive practice because in many cases people just “copy and paste” content and disseminate the information. Otherwise, without business malice, information could be edited and subsequently lose key elements such as sources or publishers.
Dark Social sharing, ominous as its name sounds, is probably what sharing is supposed to be. It’s a “sincere” sharing as it mostly happens between close networks of friends, families and colleagues. According to an analyst observing the activities, when people choose to
privately share information via Dark Social, they adapt it to the needs of
people they know. Some news may be cut short. Photos may be copied and sent without providing a photo credit.
Another “merit” of Dark Social sharing is that the shared content is far more likely to be “consumed”, because the senders do not want “likes” or compliments. The senders are simply happy in the knowledge that what they send is truly worthy of the receivers. The receivers, for their part, know for sure that what they receive is relevant to their needs. Supply and demand may be more balanced in the realm of Dark Social than in the open, lit up landscape of social media.
Politically, Dark Social is quietly powerful. Content is selected, sent to targeted groups and yet can spread in a similar manner. This is probably the biggest drawback of Dark Social. Since the sources or origins are of less importance, distortion or outright fabrication has always been tempting. Many cases have come to light where unholy Dark Social content found its way to the mainstream social media, like Facebook and Twitter.
But like the social media, Dark Social will evolve, and malicious content will be found and screened out. This will leave one issue that may be harder to solve - how to monetise what goes through
the “dark” channels. But if “sharing” means what it’s supposed to mean, it’s primarily for “givers” to begin with.