Ryback’s Social Media Crusade: Wrestling With The Digital Age
Former WWE wrestler Ryback, or Ryan Reeves, the man famous for his raw strength on the wrestling arena, has recently hogged the limelight. This time,time, it is not his muscles, his wrestling skills, or the way he performs in the wrestling arena that makemake headlines, but his antics on social media. This summer, Ryback has taken Shell Shock to the next level by just recently blocking over 22,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter). Tosay it another way, say it another way, this massive social media cleanup triggers questions on what it is like to be a social media celebrity of the present and future and how far celebritiescelebrities are willingwilling to go to safeguard their sanity. A Digital Clean-Up on an Unprecedented Scale Ryback has recently made a number of moves,moves, and his recent event has attracted a lot of attention. Most of you know he has 35 million people following him on X (formerly Twitter); therefore, it would be quite relevant that he chose to block 22,426 people and muted 7,778. This trick was revealed during Ryback’s episode of a difficult TV show where he talked about his block list,list, and one of them is a regular participant, Seany. His sharing of his current state ofthe functionality the functionality of communicative interactions in social media revealsreveals and captures the daunting hurdles that he experiences as an influential individual in contemporary society with emerging communication media. This accounts for the rationale. rationale. TheThe number of users has been blocked by Ryback. For instance, it makes sense to compare 22,146 to the number of members one can exclude from his online platform, which is equivalent to excluding an entire town. This is not a decision that has been arrived at out of the blue or as a whim or fancy. It seems to embody a fear that he wants to protect himself from all the negativities of fame thatthat people face on social networking sites. The Dark Side of Fame: Impact on Mental Health Ryback’s actions underscore a broader issue faced by many public figures;; more so, I focused on the psychological impact that comes with being famous and being online. X (formerly Twitter), for instance, is both a blessing and a curse to people in their social interactions. interactions. While they allow the user to engage his or her community and create a more immediate identity, the flip side of this experience is ongoing, incessant confrontation with dislike. It can be very overwhelming for celebrities, where the need for attention is already high.. ExperiencingExperiencing this is definitely tiring. An example of this is Ryback’s action on Instagram of blocking and muting tens of thousands of users, and this is, therefore, a defensive approach. It’s a method to provide a positive enclosed space where he is able to interact with his true fans without receiving numerous non-positivenon-positive messages. It may seem obligatory to some extent, but it underscores the importance of caring for one’s mental health amid interactions facilitated by the Internet that can be drudgingly hostile. A Controversial Strategy Here are some ethical issues that are likely to be associated with Ryback’s social media cleanse: Such actions are criticisedcriticised as excessive, where the company blocks such an enormous number of individuals and thus restricts freedom of speech on the platform. The arguments made here recommend that public figuresfigures should be more receptive to dissenting views and assessments. However, the proponents of Ryback’s approach differdiffer fromfrom them by arguing that the welfare of the mental health of any individual should be superior to the qualities of an open online platform. Discussions on Ryback’s actions fall underunder a broader discussion on the role of celebrities and influential personalities on socialsocial media. But should they have to tolerate all sorts of hate,, negativity,negativity, and trolls, or can they block haters and learn how to protect themselves online? High-profile personalities like Ryback show that the stakes are high in modern celebrity culture,culture, where getting ‘peaked’ and putting one’s life on the line are acceptable prices to pay for fame. The Negative Side of the Internet Before understanding the possibility of Ryback’s decision in this case, one should explore the reality of negativity on the Internet. With social media being a common outlet for people to get their information and engage with others, it becomes a perfect breeding ground for toxic behavior. The person in the public domain is vulnerable to being given criticism, sometimes unfair, negative comments, and sometimes remarks aimed directly at the person and not atat the task he or or she is performing. Such views and reminders for the day can be quite demoralisingdemoralising and could take a toll on an individual’sindividual’s mental health in the long run. But for Ryback,countless users countless users blocking and muting represent one way to fight negativity. It is the actact of making a stand and declaring that it is enoughor that or that a particular conduct, behaviour,behaviour, or act cannot be tolerated any further. Logically, by making a more restrictive setting on the internet, he is able to protect himself from negatively affecting his health in any way. The Balance of Engagement and Protection Ryback’s attitude towardstowards socialsocial media elicits a crucial question: what is the right level of active interaction and adequate shielding? It is vital for personalities to interrelate with their fans and consumers, as it assists in creating the image of a personality among the fans or targeted consumers. Yet they equally need to shield themselves from aspects of this engagement. That is why it is difficult to find a balance. That seems to have changed for Ryback, though, as he has shifted towards the side of protection. His commanding and rather aggressive approach towards the use of the block and mute features on X (formerly Twitter) strongly implies that there is more to him than the willingness to fully share his thoughts with the world. As much as this decision may be viewed as appalling, it is a private
