Because the Internet...

Reflections on Internet Culture & Digital Communities by Abraham Alberto

[kengalvin-blog]

The collective nature of the crowd

Crowdfunding has become a bit of a buzzword over recent years, so firstly let’s look at what is crowdfunding? It’s a fundraising practice that utilises connections much like networked publics to gather funding in support of a specific project (Doan & Toledana 2017, p. 38). To put this practice into a fun pop-culture perspective we can look at a successful crowdfunding campaign instigated by Kevin Roberts in 2013. Veronica Mars, a detective drama following the adventures of a high school/college student by day and teen detective by night was revitalised as a feature-length film through networked crowdfunding seven years after the series was cancelled from network television (Yahr 2014). Roberts employed the help of Kickstart.com, a website dedicated to helping raise funds for creative projects. Roberts initially requested $2 million dollars for the project but by the end of the crowdfunding campaign, he had raised a staggering $5,702,153 (Hills 2015, p. 2). If you consider that this project targeted a very specific niche demographic it highlights the impact and possibilities of using networked publics to generate connections by utilising the affordance of spreadability to link dispersed individuals who can come together to fund a common goal, it also tells me that teen detective dramas are wildly more popular and I may be missing out on quality television.

Veronica Mars (Shellstropaljamil 2016)

If it’s possible to not just generate involvement but to exceed expectations for the value of entertainment, can we take the same basic principle of using online networks collective nature and converge in collective democratic action? This is exactly what the developers of Ushahidi proceed to do in the aftermath of the 2007 Kenyan elections. Post-election protests turned into widespread violence, which leads Kenyan blogger Ory Okolloh to make a public appeal to her followers asking for ideas of how it may be possible to collect information regarding the names of Kenyan citizens who lost their lives in the violence throughout this turbulent period. Approximately twenty develops came to the aid and offered their time and labour to develop a tracking system via SMS and an online platform, and in a week Ushahidi was born (Ford 2012 p. 33-34). Ushahidi was developed through the collective nature of crowdsourcing, crowdsourcing goes beyond the collective funding, crowdsourcing commodity is people power, its a collective of individuals and their skills sets brought together to create and find solutions to a task or problem (Shepherd 2012, p. 11).

Crisis Mapping Japan (Ushahidi 2011)

Ushahidi’s success is its ability to utilize networked publics affordances of direct participation, as Henry Jenkins eloquently states, “crowdsourcing is about shifting the power relations between audience and producers” (2013 p. 248). The collective nature of Ushahidi promotes the co-creative involvement of collective groups establishing a bottom-up networks (Zorina 2016, p. 85). Since the turbulent Kenyan election of 2007, countless Ushahidi maps have been developed in over 159 countries (Hyman 2014, p. 28) to track an abundance of social, political and environmental issues. Ushahidi is a constantly evolving platform with users embracing the affordance of crowdsourcing collaborative nature helping to stimulate a worldwide social consciousness “to help improve the bottom-up flow of information” (Ushahidi 2018).

Ushahidi’s Crisis Mapping in 40 seconds (99 Faces TV 2011)

Reference List

Aljona, Z 2016, ‘From a competing to a collaborative crowd: Tactics for co-creation with innovative bottom-up communities: Tactics for co-creation with innovative bottom-up communities’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 2, pp.80-93.

Doan, M & Toledano, M 2018, ‘Beyond organization-centred public relations: Collective action through a civic crowdfunding campaign’, Public Relations Review, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 37-46.

Ford, H 2012, ‘Crowd Wisdom’, Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 33-39.

Hills, M 2015, ‘Veronica Mars , fandom, and the ‘Affective Economics’ of crowdfunding poachers’, New Media & Society, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.183-197.

Hyman, P 2014, ‘Peace Technologies’ Enable Eyewitness Reporting When Disasters Strike’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 27-29.

Jenkins, H,  Ford, S & Green, J 2013, Spreadable Media - Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture, NYU Press, Ebook Central (ProQuest).

99 Faces TV 2011, Ushahidi’s Crisis Mapping in 40 seconds, 24 March, viewed 17 May 2018, <https://youtu.be/SakTPDHs6iI>.

Shellstropaljamil 2016, ‘Veronica Mars Amazing’, [image], Tumblr, viewed 17 May 2018, <https://78.media.tumblr.com/9da1690a02ecc1f6ca8281bddd9588ae/tumblr_nmjn88Iuo11rohg16o3_250.gif>.

Shepherd, H 2012, ‘Crowdsourcing’, Contexts, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 10-11.

Ushahidi 2011, ‘ Crisis Mapping Japan’, [image], Ushahidi, viewed 17 May 2018, <https://2ee8a9b674d3b6a52133-b7785f8c6e03b0b67de30b88e1b0fcb9.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/2011/04/sinsai-500x348.png>.

Ushahidi 2018, About Ushahidi, Ushahidi, viewed 15 May 2018,<https://www.ushahidi.com/about>.

Yahr, E 2014, ‘Veronica Mars’ creator Rob Thomas explains how his canceled show rose from the ashes for a groundbreaking movie, The Washington Post, viewed 15 May 2018, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2014/03/13/veronica-mars-creator-rob-thomas-explains-how-his-canceled-show-rose-from-the-ashes-for-a-groundbreaking-movie/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d3b70ae07666>.

[abefromswinburne]

Thanks for sharing this Ken, I do like how you’ve drawn attention to the internet’s affordances for spreadability. In more serious issues like global crisis’ this spreadability has seen digital citizens banding together to assist those affected, this almost immediate community support is something that could have only been possible through ICT.

[allthingsgeshblog]

Social Media and Politics... do these mix or is it just counter-productive to the cause?

Let’s have a deeper look at politics and how Social Media impacts on politics. Through advanced technological advancement within Social Networked sites including Facebook and Twitter, coupled with advancements within the physical structures of the internet worldwide, anyone with a device, app and the internet can now have a political voice according to Jodi Dean. Interesting to note however, that an individual always had a voice, whereas now that individual can leverage the larger group that the internet and the Social Media sites can provide to create a larger impact thus magnifying their voice.

It’s also Important to understand that the values of democracy and advanced technology have allowed the “cause” to become a more practical form through global telecommunication, achieved simply through the expansion and accessibility the of the internet, which has effectively reduced class power and economic inequality (Dean, 2013). With increased technology and infrastructure within telecommunications, participation and traction is increased globally.

With these advancements, it is also important to note that the individual voice or message can also be lost within the larger group communication.

Kind of like a double edged sword if you will isn’t it? With greater participation by many increases traction, however, the initial message can be lost within the larger group message. Additionally, as Jodi discusses the whole piece of communication through Social Media channels such as Facebook and Twitter can become more about the “story”, rather than the fight itself, its fighters and or the ones suffering that the initial message was designed to help.

Can one find a balance? Is it even possible? 

Say you reach out to express your distaste of a particular circumstance, with every intention for it to reach as many as possible. Brilliant, your message is flying, awareness is increasing globally.. 

How do you pull it back in line before the original message and purpose is lost? particularly if it goes viral!

Can widespread awareness and traction be harmful to the cause?

Awareness of your cause is viral, global and gaining fantastic traction. The media are all over it! 

What about the more fundamental issues, ones closer to home, has focus been removed from these while your cause has been flying? Poverty? Food, shelter, homelessness… Jodi reflects a valid point, while the awareness of ones cause is fantastic through larger group communication, it can unfortunately overshadow the smaller more critical economic issues which is effectively detrimental… 

I don’t yet see a way to balance this? Do you?   

References:

‘Social-Media-Politics’, 2018, viewed 22 April 2018, <http://capitolmediasolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Social-Media-Politics.jpg>

DCU School of Communication 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3 - Jodi Dean, 3 July, viewed 22 April 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>.

[abefromswinburne]

What thought provoking piece! I agree that smaller causes can get lost among the larger issues taking place and with initial messages of a cause becoming diluted or changed through constant sharing and the way these messages are being received and interpreted by the masses. I think that we are responsible to exercise our own critical judgement when it comes to receiving information and to utilise internet tools in order to inform ourselves of other issues taking place in our own societies and around the world.

[ajoeblogs]

A New Species Called Trolls

The Internet is known to be vast, fast and informative. But it’s also a dark place full of dangers… like ruthless online trolls – never heard of them? Unlike the trolls in the fairy tales, online trolls neither hide nor live in caves or deep down in a forest. No, online trolls lurk in public, in the suburbs and some in the city centres of the great capital cities around the world. Precisely where and when they smell the best opportunities to attract the public’s attention, they strike. Not to mention, online trolls are far less harmless and cause a lot of damage. Their repertoire ranges from verbal abuse and slander to serious threats (Boyd 2014, pp. 131-132).

Online trolls are easily one of the scariest inhabitants of the Internet and thrive on negativity and cyberbullying. They love to stir up and spread hatred (Rosewarne 2016, p. 94). But who are “online trolls” – and what should you do if you come into contact with such a shameless species?

According to McCosker (2014, pp. 206-209), online trolls are people who purposely provoke others on the Internet, typically through inflammatory, insulting or provocative comments. Trolls have one goal: to upset others and cause emotional, preferably provocative results (Rosewarne 2016, pp. 105-111). To achieve this goal, trolls will grumble wildly and often on an off-topic post and ride personal attacks, post simple hate speech and even post death threats (Rosewarne 2016, pp. 90-97)

But it’s important to differentiate between some trolls. According to Dowling (2014), some online trolls can be passionate about a topic or cause and simply intolerant to differing opinions – for example, some die-hard unsocial individual or young kids who make fun of something and others. Usually, however, online trolls are generally intelligent people who leave no gap behind the comma. For the sake of simplicity, this group is often referred to as online trolls. In fact, the Internet is full of people who want to share their opinions.

But unlike the angry users who share negative but sincere beliefs, trolls probably don’t believe a word of what they’re writing. They choose their words precisely to upset others (Arendholz 2013, pp. 121-124). In short, trolls are online bullies. They’re found on virtually any Internet platform that allows comments or interaction. One study found that a disproportionately large percentage of online verbal abuse occurs on Twitter. This may be due to the rather anonymous nature of the platform compared to other social networks, such as Facebook. Apart from that, trolls can lurk everywhere on the Internet.

What you should avoid in your response to trolls?

First, don’t fall into the online troll trap and feed the trolls. This is very important. However, it’s also easier said than done, especially if a troll posts personal attacks. Dowling (2014) sums it up in his article: “If they want to be funny, your willingness to swallow the bait is their punchline. If you do not bait, there is no joke at all.”

Reference:

Arendholz, J 2013, Title:(In)Appropriate Online Behaviour: A Pragmatic Analysis of Message Board Relations, John Benjamins Publishing, EBSCOhost-Ebook, viewed 17 May 2018, <http://bit.ly/2J8ehpN>.

Boyd, D 2014, ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 128-52.

McCosker, A 2014, Trolling as provocation: YouTube’s agonistics publics, Convergence, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201-217.

Rosewarne, L 2016, Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators: Film, TV, and Internet Stereotypes, ABC-CLIO, ProQuest-Ebook, viewed 17 May 2018, <http://bit.ly/2JjyI6x>.

Image Reference:

‘Seven Tips for Dealing with Online Trolls’ [image], in SPINSUCKS 2013., viewed 17 May 2018, <http://bit.ly/2JlsJy0>.

[marnyaw-blog]

“trolls probably don’t believe a word of what they’re writing. They choose their words precisely to upset others”

I will be interested to read Arendholz work.  Is this a case study that makes contact and discusses the motives behind their posts.  That would be fascinating! I couldn’t find anything of value when I was researching.

[ajoeblogs]

Arendholz referes to: “They choose their words precisely to upset others” 

[abefromswinburne]

An interesting read, thanks for sharing. It’s clear that trolling is able to attain a reaction from people which can make a tweet, video or post viral. What’s interesting is that businesses are also using the act of trolling as a marketing strategy. The tactic is usually to post something or produce something that is controversial in order to garner widespread attention. Kind of bad, but kind of genius don’t you think? Here’s an article I found about businesses using trolling for marketing: https://www.crowdspring.com/blog/troll-marketing/

[florenciablogs-blog]

Game, over.

What is a gamer?

Oxford defines it to be someone who “plays video games or participates in role-playing games.”

Now, just like this definition has two distinctions, so too do real life gamers.

The first, he who plays video games is the everyday player. Those who have downloaded a fruit ninja or angry birds.

The second, takes that definition one step further and not only plays the game but becomes part of it through role play.

The latter is a fascinating segment of the gaming culture. Some label these cyberwarriors with stigma of isolation and obsession and I must admit, the more research I’ve done - the more I agree. You see, these games require time, dedication and patience. Much like the real world, the synthetic world is always on, it is a parallel realm in which when you are not there, it does not stop. You could be missing out on quests and wars all because you decided to go to Sunday mass with Nonna. 

Serious gaming requires time and there is only twenty-four hours in a day. “Most of them earn their keep doing work online, those who work outside the house tend to rush home and log in as quickly as possible” (Castronova, 2008). As only the compulsory life items retain prominence, everything else becomes secondary in the pursuit of advancing in the game.

So then if gamers are like this because of the synthetic environment the next question is why?

Why do individuals choose quests and wars in their role-playing model instead of life?

The fundamental truth to this is when we take on a role, we are assigned an entirely new life and status. This allows us to be or do many things we cannot in our normal lives, “Their online existence, however, is marvellous; it is fair, just and beautiful. Friends and family are there and our protagonists are powerful, respected, and quite accomplished” (Castronova, 2008). Sounds good doesn’t it? The assurance that you can layout everything you’ve ever wanted and know that it is possible to create your utopian vision. Far more secure than the uncertainty and biased structure of society which cannot guarantee a thing. No one can even inform you of the levels or players here making it impossible to prepare for!

Take a second, imagine all the time you dedicate outside work, to life (this could be your family, friends, outings, cooking, gym, etc) How much would this equate to, in a week, a year, a month?

While not all are as obsessive, the true gamers destine a significant portion of their free time to these online digital dimensions and somethings gotta give.

This is no way a judgement, merely a reflection and perhaps, these gamers have a heightened perception of the ‘right world’ which instead of the real world is in fact the digital world.

References 

Castronova, E. (2006). Synthetic worlds. 1st ed. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, pp.249-267

Graves, L., Stratton, G., Ridgers, N. and Cable, N. (2008). Energy expenditure in adolescents playing new generation computer games. BMJ, [online] 336(7637), pp.1-15. Available at: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/42/7/592 [Accessed 25 May 2018]

Humphreys, S, De Zart, M 2014, ‘The Lawless Frontier of Deep Space Code as Law in EVE Online’, Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99

SnagFilms (2018). Gamers. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96mV-ed_fg8 [Accessed 25 May 2018]

[abefromswinburne]

A great read, well done. I feel as though the Internet’s affordances has allowed us new ways of existing. Through online gaming, we are able to express parts of our identity that can only be done through the digital world. We can take on new identities, interacting with others as these new identities, experience new worlds and landscapes and the ability to provide feedback to the creators allows us to shape and contribute to our experiences.

[themindofscottywmitch-blog]

Let’s all be an activist…. Behind our computer!

Social justice warrior, internet activist, keyboard warrior, slacktivist or cyberactivist – these are the latest terms floating around at the moment to create change around the world. As human beings, we like to think that we make a difference in the world, but with the enhancement of technology and creation of online change platforms such as change.org, activism.com and countless Facebook groups calling for change, how much of an impact is this actually making?

Activists are defined as “people who seek to create positive change” (Activist Rights 2018), but there are also traits and characteristics of 21st century activists, according to Bryant (2016), with the main elements being:

embodying the change they wish to see in the world

waking people up

take collective actions toward change.

I have lost count of the amount of times on social media I have seen ‘like this picture to save a life’ or ‘1000 likes and this doctor will perform lifesaving surgery’ or even to ‘change your profile picture to change the law’. This is not activism in any way, shape or form.

While it’s great to show support for a cause, especially on a public platform as social media, this does not create change, even though it can make someone feel better. What really matters is people getting away from their computer and influencing change.

What needs to change in the world, to actually make change happen, is using digital communities and the internet to spread the message and generate the call to action. Social media is a great way to communicate about a cause, but the messaging used needs to be clear on what you want people to do.

A change.org petition is, however, a useful tool to garner support, as it is easy and efficient to generate signatures, but it is clear that it is just a start. One example of this was a mother fighting against the deportation of her son given the strain on resources he would use. His mother received more than 125,000 signatures on her petition, but also had to appear on the ABC’s Q&A program to make her plea and get in touch with the Immigration Minister (Stark 2015).

While this is one successful outcome, it is clear that you can’t create change from sitting behind a computer. Use social media to spread the word, invite people to an event and garner signatures, but for actual activism to take place, people need to still ‘get out there’ and make the change happen. Lobby those ministers, meet with change makers and get out and protest.

References Activist Rights 2018, What is an activist?, Activist Rights, viewed 15 May 2018, <http://www.activistrights.org.au/handbook/ch01s02.php>. Bryant, T 2016, What trains and actions do 21st century activists embody?, Wake Up World, viewed 15 May 2018, <https://wakeup-world.com/2016/11/03/what-traits-and-actions-do-21st-century-activists-embody/>.

Stark, J 2015, People power; 10 online petitions that changed Australia in 2015, The Sydney Morning Herald, <https://www.smh.com.au/national/people-power-14-online-petitions-that-changed-australia-in-2015-20151222-gltgyb.html>.

[abefromswinburne]

Thanks for sharing this Scott, I agree with your stance on how social media is an excellent platform for creating social awareness on an issue. The only thing that concerns me in the social media sphere is that some issues receive more attention than others if their particular society/country has access to internet communication technologies. For example, Black Lives Matter which is an American movement has attained widespread global attention through constant sharing on social media, but issues in  third world countries may not receive the same attention. Granted, these issues can still be highlighted and spread through the same channels if we, as digital citizens look beyond our own social climates and take it upon ourselves to share this information in the hopes of educating our online networks.

[abefromswinburne]

4 Ways The Internet Is Changing The Game

In our daily lives, we take on various roles to manage and negotiate different physical and social contexts (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014). In an office environment we are expected to have a professional manner, when dealing with children, we tend to be more nurturing or when we are at a funeral, we adjust our demeanour to show respect for the dead. With each social setting we step into, there is a social system at play which governs the way we behave and relate to one other (Saipera 2014).

 The internet has seen the emergence of new social systems and social settings (Saipera 2014) through the form of social online gaming (Guegan et. al 2017). While social systems are still at play and there are rules that players must abide to (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014), online gaming has allowed humans new ways of existing and playing.

 A whole new world

Various social games offer a fantastical world in where gamers have the ability to exist and express part of their identities that they may not often show in the offline world. The stories being told within these games and the immersive worlds presented to users provide an escape from reality (Guegan et. al 2017).

 Anonymous Avatars

Games such as Second Life and The Sims, allow users to exist through virtual characters and avatars which can be customised to suit the player. Due to the anonymity of Avatars, gamer’s identities are de-personalised and therefore malleable (Guegan et. al 2017); users are free to be whoever they want to be. The creation of these virtual identities is free from physical constraints such as gender, ethnicity, ability or disability and from the judgement people may experience in their physical communities (Guegan et. al 2017).

 Social Societies

Despite the anonymity of online avatars, online gaming is highly social (Guegan et. al 2017). There is a tendency to form groups within social games where players can play as teams (Guegan et. al 2017). Players are able to interact with one another within gameplay, online chatrooms, voice and video. These groups and interactions can carry over to other social spaces on the internet outside the game through social media fan-sites and game forums. Furthermore, social interactions which began online can lead to offline interactions and gatherings in person.

 Power to the People

Due to the immediacy of internet communication technologies, players are able to provide direct feedback to game developers. Game creators are also able to communicate with players (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014). Contributing to the continual growth and change of a game.

 While our society may have many expected standards of how to appropriately act in certain settings and situations, the Internet and social gaming allows us to exist, experience, share and transform our virtual lives.

 References:

 de Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014,' The Lawless Frontier of Deep Space: Code as Law in EVE Online', Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99.

 Guegan, J, Moliner, P, & Buisine, S 2015, 'Why are online games so self-involving: A social identity analysis of massively multiplayer online role-playing games', European Journal Of Social Psychology, 45, 3, pp. 349-355.

 Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media', in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

[abefromswinburne]

Does a ‘Like’ define you?

Humans are social creatures. For thousands of years we have lived together in cities, towns and communities. Our bonds are created through intimate connections, the sharing of ourselves with one another and the affirmation of each other’s identities.

 The Internet has afforded us the opportunity to express, develop and confirm our identities. People are connecting with others through various platforms on the Internet such as forum sites like Reddit, media sharing sites such as YouTube and through social media networks like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snap Chat. The widespread use of social media has seen people sharing their thoughts, identities and everyday moments through images, video and sound (Farman 2014). Through these platforms, users are often engaging in affinitive behaviour. Affinity can be described as the feelings of connectedness with one another (Lange 2009).

 Affinitive behaviour is enacted in various ways online. The simplest example is the action of liking a social media post. While it may be something that takes a matter of seconds to do, there is in fact more to that simple click of a button.

Liking can show our empathy, support and acknowledgement for other people’s situations (Farman 2014, Patel 2015). By liking, we are saying to the other person ‘I see what you are putting out there, and I stand by it’. In effect, it can also lead to increased social capital (Patel 2015). For example, liking posts from co-workers can cultivate closer bonds which have real-world benefits that can contribute to positive outcomes in the work-place. Liking also allows us to publicly express who we are, what we like and our belief systems (Patel 2015). When other’s like our posts, we also get a feel-good sense of approval because our identity is affirmed through other’s acknowledgement and vice-versa (Farman 2014, Patel 2015).

 It is amazing how simply pressing the ‘Like’ button on a social media post can convey multiple meanings. All of the examples I have mentioned above can still be expressed in in the physical realm however, there is no doubt that it will take much longer to do and through multiple actions instead of just one.

  Liking is only one example of how internet technologies are enhancing communication. Other examples can be seen in the use of filters on Instagram and in the short, vanishing clips popularised by Snap Chat (Farman 2014). As social media features continue to develop and change, we will also continue to use and adapt to these functions to be able present ourselves and our identities and more importantly, to affiliate and make deeper connections with one another.

References:

Jason Farman 2014, Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media: An Interview with Nathan Jurgenson, 16 June, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnPtZ5lKDHo>.

 Lange, P 2009, ‘Videos of Affinity on YouTube’, in P, Snickars & P, Vonderau (eds), The YouTube Reader, National Library of Sweden, Stockholm, pp. 70-88.

 Patel, N 2015, The Psychology of Liking on Facebook, Marketing Land, viewed 5 June 2018, <https://marketingland.com/psychology-liking-facebook-135599>.

[abefromswinburne]

Crowdsourcing & Wikipedia

Crowdsourcing has been a great innovation of the Internet with benefits for the individual, the community, businesses and the government. Social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter have allowed us to be present with those in crisis; near or far. Online services such as Uber and UberEats use real-time geographical tracking and the reliance of ordinary people to provide services around the globe. World governments are able to gather situational information on relevant events in their country – or gather intel on the public (Bruns et. al 2012).

While crowdsourcing has improved the quality of life for may communities, there is always the issue of trust and verifying information which have been contributed by ordinary, lay people.

(Image Source)

Wikipedia is the internet’s largest encyclopaedia which is built through the online collaboration of users. Let’s take a look at how Wikipedia has used crowd-creation and crowd-voting to verify information.

Crowd-Creation

 As of June 2018, Wikipedia consists of over 48 million articles, across 301 languages (Wikipedia n.d.).  Users from all over the world are able to write encyclopaedic articles (Wikipedia n.d.) contributing to the content of the website. Current rules for English Wikipedia state that articles must strive to contain information that is already recognised and have been covered in academic sources and mainstream media independently (Wikipedia n.d.). Writers and editors are encouraged to provide neutral data with included references through hyper-links that allow readers to back-track sources and verify information on their own (Wikipedia n.d.).

 Crowd-Voting

 Wikipedia has a notorious reputation for being an unreliable source for information due to crowdsourced contributors.  However, articles are now subjected to heavy scrutiny with processes and systems in place that ensure information is the most accurate it can be. Wikipedia articles are monitored by Wikipedians; voluntary users who communicate with one another through the Wikipedia Community channel, hosted on the website (Wikipedia n.d). While anyone has the ability to edit articles on Wikipedia, users are able to view the content’s edited history and dispute questionable information provided (Wikipedia n.d.). Articles that undergo the dispute process are scrutinised by the Wikipedia community (Wikipedia n.d). Through this dispute process, Wikipedians organise, fact-check sources, manage and debate the accuracy of information before changes are finalised (Wikipedia n.d).

Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales, intended for Wikipedia to be a point of free-access to information for everyone (Business Today 2016). The creators of Wikipedia recognised that one authority on information was not going to allow neutral and diversified information; the only way to achieve this was to allow all people the chance to contribute to it. When reflecting on the topic of crowdsourcing and looking at the example of Wikipedia, I recognise the great potential that we, as digital citizens, have in advancing society when we put our minds together. Crowdsourcing not only allows us to connect with one another as a community, but also empowers us to respond to societies many needs in innovative ways.

References:

 Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Crawford, K & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods, Arc Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, pp. 7-10, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf>.

 Business Today, I hate the word 'crowdsourcing', says Jimmy Wales, Founder, Wikipedia, 17 December 2016, viewed 1 June 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtqVWNcykM>.

 Wikipedia n.d., Wikipedia, Wikipedia, viewed 1 June 2018, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia>.

[abefromswinburne]

Troll Farms:  A Case Study

Agonistic communication within network publics has been described by communication theorists as flaming, trolling or hating (McCosker 2014). Trolling can be negative forms of communication intended to anger, disturb, or humiliate the receiver of a message (McCosker 2014) and has been linked to incidents of online harassment. People engage in this type of behaviour for various reasons such as boredom, attention and as a tool to navigate through social relationships (boyd 2014). However, in recent years trolling has been used by governments to influence citizens (McCosker 2014). This post will look at how ‘troll farms’ have been used as a strategic tool in the 2016 US presidential election.

 Anthropologist Patricia Lange approaches the study of trolling by looking at the consequences of this behaviour on the receiver of the message (McCosker 2014). In this way, we are able to see the provocative power of trolling and how it can be used to manipulate and influence groups of people.

 By engaging in agonistic online behaviour, a troll is able to garner attention. For example, a troll may leave a controversial comment on a public social media post which generates numerous responses of outrage by spectators. Research on troll behaviour in social media shows that network publics allow users to band together through collective identification to fight back against trolls (McCosker 2014). It is therefore apparent that trolling has the power to affect masses, directly stimulating their passion.

 It is with this motivation that ‘troll farms’ and ‘troll armies’ have emerged as a tool to support political agendas. This can be seen in countries such as China, Russia, Ukraine, UK, North and South Korea, Turkey and Israel (Benedictus 2016).  In a report released by the US Democratic House Committee in 2017, findings show that Russia’s government had sponsored a ‘troll farm’ under the guise of an Internet Research Agency (Carroll 2017). Social media ads and posts were purchased and distributed through Facebook and Instagram targeting American citizens between 2015 – 2017. These posts covered various topical issues such as immigration, gun control and race-relations and reached an audience of approximately 146 million people (Romm 2018).

 These troll farms were able to circulate mis-information and bad advice, leave provocative comments and organise rallies and protests (Romm 2018) through multiple accounts across social media (Benedictus 2016) in an attempt to manipulate public debates. The larger objective of these fake accounts however, was to entice users into liking their pages through viral content, which would then allow the users to receive posts that were allegedly in support of President Trump (Romm 2018).

  An estimated 10 million US users were reached during the 2016 election period (Romm 2018).

  The affordances of network publics have given rise to the Internet troll allowing them to act anonymously. While trolling behaviour is a negative practice, there is merit in seeing the way these troll farms have utilised the Internet to covertly influence society. From this case study, responsible digital citizens are able to recognise the power of harnessing collective identification within network publics and creatively using social media in the hopes of positively influencing society.

References: Benedictus, L 2016, Invasion of the troll armies: from Russian Trump supporters to Turkish state stooges, The Guardian Australia edition, viewed 29 May 2018, <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian>.

Boyd, D 2014, 'Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?', in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp. 128-52. 

Carroll, O 2017, St Petersburg 'troll farm' had 90 dedicated staff working to influence US election campaign, Independent, viewed 29 May 2018, <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-us-election-donald-trump-st-petersburg-troll-farm-hillary-clinton-a8005276.html>.

McCosker, A 2014, YouTrolling as provocation: Tube's agonistics publics, Convergence, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201-217. 

Romm, T 2018, ‘Pro-Beyoncé’ vs. ‘Anti-Beyoncé’: 3,500 Facebook ads show the scale of Russian manipulation, The Washington Post, viewed 29 May 2018, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/05/10/here-are-the-3400-facebook-ads-purchased-by-russias-online-trolls-during-the-2016-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.89d843b053ed>.

[abefromswinburne]

Social activism in an Americanised world

The power of social media has been used by many people to organise protests and demonstrations in the hopes of creating social change. In the last decade, social media has been the driving force behind organised protest and activism for movements like Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and the protest of President Donald Trump. These movements have garnered much attention globally, with protests for the same causes being held in other countries outside America from where these movements sprouted. This is the advantage of digital citizenship in an interconnected world; the disbursement of information brings prevalent issues to the forefront of the media, leading to greater awareness and discussion which can breed activism and global change. However, I can’t help but feel that much of the issues, dialogue and activism dominating the news is coming from North America.

 It is clear that globalisation through the Internet has given birth to an Americanised media, especially within Australia. A majority of our media entertainment is comprised of American movies, music, and TV. News stories shared across social media sites are often produced by American companies or at least focused on American events. In an SBS top 12 list of viral stories in 2017, 6 were Australian, 5 were American and 1 was from Yemen (see the article here). Australia has even held our own activist gatherings surrounding Black Lives Matter, the protest of the American president and Occupy in the last decade (links here, here and here).  But what I find concerning is the amount of other serious issues and events unfolding in the rest of the world that do not receive the same amount of media attention that these movements have gotten (certainly not enough to have international protests in support).

 Just last week, protests in Iran have violently escalated, in response to government corruption, economic conditions and unemployment (Barker 2018); yet there are no viral videos, no trending hash-tags or public gatherings organised in solidarity overseas. Protests in the Philippines have occurred this year following the death of over 20,000 people under the Philippine president’s “war on drugs” (Aljazeera 2018), yet there hasn’t been any global activism or a palpable social awareness in the general public. Perhaps these events aren’t seen as globally relevant, however, shouldn’t the gravity of the situation in these countries warrant the same dialogue and discussion as the aforementioned movements?

 While social media has been effective in allowing the voices of the marginalised to be heard, is globalisation and a homogenous American culture muffling out the rest of the world’s cries for their own social transformation?

  Perhaps it is our own individual responsibility to be more critical and selective with our news outlets in order to gain a larger perspective of what is really going on outside the confines of our own computers.

References:

Aljazeera 2018, Thousands protest deadly drug war in the Philippines, Aljazeera, viewed 18 May 2018, <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/thousands-protest-deadly-drug-war-philippines-180224084450606.html>.

 Barker, A 2018, Here's why people in Iran are protesting, and what's likely to happen next, ABC News, viewed 18 May 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-03/who-the-iran-protesters-are-and-why-they-are-angry/9301316>.

[abefromswinburne]

Filter Bubbles & Democracy

During the early days of Web 2.0, the Internet’s affordances were considered a valuable tool for democracy, opening the gate for citizens to by-pass established media gatekeepers (Pariser 2011) allowing them to connect and share their opinions with one another, free from regulation. While the Internet has certainly given voice to many and a public sphere has formed, newer data collecting technologies may be stifling democracy.

 Internet corporations such as Google, Facebook, MSN etc., now study our personal data through our browser cookies and Internet usage (Pariser 2011). This information is then analysed and processed through an algorithm, resulting in automatic online suggestions, specifically curated to what the Internet thinks we want to see (Haim et. al 2018).  While this allows us to filter through the vast amount of information available on the web and have a more seamless and personal online experience (Haim et. al 2018), this can result in limited access to information. This process has been termed ‘filter bubbles’ (Haim et. al 2018), in where an individual’s online experience is limited to the bubble of information created for them by these Internet algorithms and at the same time filtering out seemingly irrelevant information.

 What does this mean for democracy? As we continue to see, the Internet is increasingly becoming the preference for news consumption, especially for younger people (University of Canberra 2017). Filter bubbles have the potential to prevent different perspectives from ever reaching an individual, which can limit their world-view. This has adverse effects on our ability for proper civic engagement. The political online discussions and information we are presented with, and are presenting to others through content sharing, can be unknowingly tainted with bias because we are only offered content aligned to our own beliefs and ideas. For democracy to truly thrive online, mass-media must present a balance of news, providing diverse content which will enable citizens to make well-informed, rational decisions (Haim et. al 2018).

 Eli Pariser, executive of the viral media production company ‘Upworthy’, suggests that gate-keeping, which is the control and dissemination of information and news to the public, has moved away from media professionals to these algorithmic systems (Ted 2011). While there have been criticisms in the past of how media gate-keepers regulated news to the point of marginalising voices in the community, Pariser argues that at least the regulation of information was done in an ethical way compared to the current algorithms we are seeing today (Ted 2011). The solution then rests on corporations to revise these systems, approaching data collection and algorithms in a humanistic way. By allowing different points of view to enter our ‘bubbles’ and challenge our own ideas, we are able to learn and grow as individuals and thus be empowered to truly partake in a democratic society.

 To sum everything up, have a look at Eli Pariser’s Ted talk below:

References:

Haim, M Graefe, A & Hans-Bernd B 2018, ‘Burst of the Filter Bubble?’, Digital Journalism, vol. 6, 3, pp 330-343. Pariser, E 2011, The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you, Viking, London. Ted, Beware online “filter bubbles”, 2 May 2011, viewed 6th May 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s&feature=youtu.be>. University of Canberra 2017, Digital News Report: Australia 2017, APO, viewed 7 May 2018, <http://apo.org.au/system/files/95161/apo-nid95161-346236.pdf>.

[101661945-blog]

Social Media and Its Affordances: Politics and Activism

Social Media and Affordances

 The term social media relates to the user-driven Web 2.0 websites and services that we interact with online, they include blogs, social network sites and digital media sharing formats (Halpern & Gibbs, 2012, pp.1159). Since the introduction of social networking sites like Facebook, reddit and YouTube people have utilised the platforms in ways that could never have been expected. Norman (2011) poses that the “value of a well-designed object is when it has such a rich set of affordances, that the people who use it can do things with it that the designer never imagines.” 

Affordances describe the qualities of an object that define its possible usage or make clear how it should be used. Although it is important to realise that certain qualities are not identifiable to all of us and people begin to use these objects in a way that creator had not intended. 

Social Media, Politics & Activism 

 The open nature of social media sites has encouraged users to share and discuss their opinions online, creating communities of like-minded people who are actively contributing to a global forum. This affordance of social networking sites (SNS’s) like Twitter and Facebook has stimulated political debate and plays a big role in how people retrieve information and shape their own opinion.

An article on the NPR website by Sam Sanders (2016) explores how important political debate has become on social media, with people culling friends on Facebook or publicly shaming those with different opinions on Twitter. Sanders makes an interesting point that “we don’t just create political strife for ourselves; we seem to revel in it”. 

The Australian political landscape is not as controversial as it has been in the US in recent times, but I would be lying if I said that I haven’t seen threads of people arguing over Liberals or Labor around election time in Australia. These interactions are not what the platform was designed for but have a huge impact on community values and social interaction. 

Social activism has also been stimulated by SNS’s, giving those with strong opinions about health, welfare, the environment and well practically anything, a forum to share their ideas. The increased scrutiny from consumer activists on how businesses behave in the public sphere has put them on alert that their brands are in danger (Bennett, 2012, pp.31). Clever protests, increased online presence and a good cause can prove to be an incredibly powerful tool for those who seek to push their ideals in order to stimulate change. 

[Screenshot of ‘The Vegan Activist’s’ Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TheVeganActivist/]

A popular cause recently has been vegan activism, with many people becoming more aware of how the mistreatment of animals is a direct result of our eating habits. Vegan activist groups share confronting videos on Facebook and Instagram in an attempt to change people’s ideals, an affordance that is changing not only the way people interact but their entire lifestyles. 

Have a read of this article where activists shut down a piggery in Queensland: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/crime-and-justice/animal-liberation-group-stages-protest-at-sunshine-coast-piggery/news-story/9eafb0168b3d413e9dcb23d64cdb699d. 

The protest attracted huge amounts of attention online and was successful in helping the activists push their agenda on a platform once designed primarily for communication between students. 

These are only two small examples of how social media platforms and their affordances impact our social experiences, but I hope that they illustrate how powerful these tools can be. 

References 

Bennett L, 2012, ‘The Personalisation of Publics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 644, Issue 1. 

Halpern D & Gibbs J, 2012, ‘Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression’, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 29, Issue 3, pp. 1159-1168. 

Norman D.A, 2011, ‘Psychology of Everyday Things’, Allen & Unwin, London

Sanders S, 2016, ‘Did Social Media Ruin Election 2016?’, NPR.org, viewed 17 April 2018, https://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/500686320/did-social-media-ruin-election-2016.

[abefromswinburne]

I enjoyed reading your post and liked the way you linked social media’s affordances with activism. I think one of the best things about social media is that it can build bridges and connect like minded people, that can lead to offline gatherings in order to push social change. I am excited to see how social media platforms evolve to allow users to innovate new ways of interacting. If you’re interested, click here for a link to how our social media apps/sites have changed the way we communicate so far.

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hello, is it me you’re looking for?

This week’s focus was on Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor and psychologist, Sherry Turkle’s, question “Are we connected, but alone?” (Turkle 2012) asserts that whilst social media and technology offers greater connectivity, the quality of connectivity is poorer than ever. Its influence has changed not only what we do, but who we are for the worse as our attention and interpersonal skills are diminishing. Early in her talk Turkle made an interesting point when she described the text her daughter had sent her as “like getting a hug”. This little statement offers some key insight into her question. How can an individual feel like they have received a hug, without the person even being in the same room as the sender? Sure, the content of the message plays a considerable role but there is something larger at play here. I believe it is dopamine addiction. Numerous studies have found that technology and social media can become addictive in a very real, medical way. This is largely due to the dopamine the brain receives that makes us feel rewarded and gives mental pleasure when we engage with technology positively (American Marketing Association 2015). In Turkle’s case for example, hearing your phone alert you to a text making you feel sought after and popular = dopamine hit. Seeing a photo you uploaded was commented on and liked by friends = dopamine hit. So, if engaging with technology is giving us dopamine hits, and the dopamine hits are making us feel good, then what’s the problem? Doesn’t this mean technology users’ lives are better? Happier? Well not exactly. Author, motivational speaker and marketing consultant Simon Sinek gives some insight into how this technology is not only failing to make our lives better, it is destroying them. 

(Sinek 2016) likens technology and social media to other controlled activities like alcohol and gambling. The premise of Sinek’s assertions are similar to Turkle’s in that he argues the issue with technology and social media is not that it is inherently bad, but that it is being abused and needs regulation. Unfettered access is wreaking havoc not only on our mental health but also on our relationships, and ultimately destroying the fabric of society by altering the norms of social behaviour. I experience this personally on a daily basis. It is now considered acceptable by many to not only have phones on a dining table but for entire groups of friends to be glued to their screens messaging with others whilst ignoring or splitting their attention between those next to them and those on the other virtual end. Hardly conducive to even basic let alone meaningful connection.        

Are we connected, but alone? I say, yes. More than ever. 

Are you addicted to social media? Take the quiz below and find out! 

https://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/personality/quizshow.php?title=mtc4mdc3oq0e9g&q=3

References

Sinek, S 2016, Addiction to technology is ruining lives - Simon Sinek on Inside Quest, 12 December, viewed 13 April 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL8AsaEJDdo>.

Soat, M 2015, ‘Social Media Triggers a Dopamine High’, American Marketing Association, 1 November 2015, viewed 13 April 2018, <https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-what-dopamine>.

Turkle, S 2012, Connected, but alone?, February 2012, viewed 13 April 2018, <https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together#t-33053>.

[abefromswinburne]

Thanks for sharing this thought provoking post. I had never considered the chemical reaction that engaging on social media can have on our minds and bodies. While I can see how social media can definitely become an addiction for some people affecting their relationships, communities and mental health, I feel this is somewhat dependent on the user; there is accountability on how the user chooses to experience social media. Furthermore, I feel as if social media hasn’t entirely diminished social interaction, but instead moved it online.  Sinek’s argument came across as a little underdeveloped and a bit of an overreaction. Social Media has not been around that long, yet he has attributed negative effects on society as a whole. I think there is value in waiting for our Gen Z babies aka digital natives to grow up and then we can truly measure social media’s affects on us. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts, great work :)

[abefromswinburne]

Affordances & Anonymity

By the end of the 20th century, Web 2.0 emerged empowering users with the ability to use the Internet in dynamic ways, never seen before (Harrison & Barthel 2009). Web services and applications became more engaging, simpler and easier-to-use allowing those with minimum technological capabilities to explore and manipulate the new technologies (Harrison & Barthel 2009) leading to users to creating and sharing their own content (Harrison & Barthel 2009). The dissemination of information across borders allowed interaction and connectivity between like-minded individuals forging online communities. Eventually, social media arose as a result of these online tribes, in where social networks capitalised on the idea of creating personal spaces for individuals while simultaneously connecting them to others (Shah 2016). Today, social media is prevalent in daily life as we are constantly exchanging information and consuming content (boyd 2012). Our networks are rooted both locally and globally, with varying content produced by both ordinary citizens and corporations. Social media websites and apps are constantly evolving bringing forth new ways of online interaction. The Internet allows affordance for users to create and innovate new ways of communicating (boyd 2012) and existing. At the same time, there is inequality in online participation existing in social media. This concept has been called the 90-9-1 rule.

The 90-9-1 rule posits that of all social media users, 90% are passive lurkers who merely observe content. 9% occasionally participate, while only 1% of users will heavily contribute (Nielsen 2006). The large discrepancy between those that post and those that observe may be due to the intimidating nature of social media’s publicness (boyd 2012). Perhaps we are more reluctant to fully express ourselves for fear of rejection or worse, a damaged reputation (boyd 2012). It is because of this social threat that many users opt to interact on social media anonymously or pseudonymously (i.e. under a different name or with a different avatar). Users will opt to post anonymously as it allows behaviour detached from their true identity; free from judgement and often, repercussion (van de Nagel 2013).

There have been both positive and negative attitudes towards online anonymity. As the Internet is largely unregulated (Cross 2011), anonymity has allowed users to act in negative ways be it of an illegal, offensive, sexual, immoral or reckless nature (van de Nagel 2013). This can be seen in the ongoing issue of social media bullying. On the positive side, anonymity has allowed users to share information and research away from surveillance, while also protecting their identity (van de Nagel 2013). As seen in the social media antics of ‘hacktivist’ group Anonymous (Click here for a list compiling the times Anonymous used their powers for good).

Whether or not we choose to stand behind our social media posts using our true identities or instead use a negotiated identity through anonymity, as netizens we must not take for granted the innovative potential available through the Internet to create social change.

  References:

Boyd, D 2012, 'Participating in the always-on lifestyle', in M Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

Cross, M 2011, Got Blog, in Bloggerati, Twitterati: How blogs and Twitter are transforming popular culture, Praeger, Santa Barbara.

Harrison, T Barthel, B 2009, ‘Wielding new media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products’, New media & society, volume number 11, issue number 1 & 2, pp 155 - 178.

Nielsen, J 2006, The 90-9-1 Rule for Participation Inequality in Social Media and Online Communities, Nielsen Norman Group, viewed 16 April 2018, <https://www.nngroup.com/articles/participation-inequality/>.

Shah, S 2016, The history of social networking, Digital Trends, viewed 16 April 2018, <https://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/>.

van der Negal 2013, 'Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild', Scan Journal of Media Arts Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, Macquarie University.

[abefromswinburne]

The Internet VS. Social Capital

Social Media and the Internet have allowed individuals to participate in digital communities increasing their social networks and social capital (Saipera 2012). Social capital are the potential resources available through our relationships and connections with other people (Saipera 2012) that have a valuable and positive effect (C-SPAN 2000) and can be a catalyst for success. In the age of information, how has the Internet shaped social capital and has this diminished our capacity for social interaction? In order to answer this question, we must first look at how social capital has evolved.

There are three prevalent different attitudes regarding the Internet and social capital:

1. The Internet is taking people away from their friends and families due to the portability of devices and the wide range of information and entertainment readily available (Quan-Hasse & Wellman 2004). In this view, the Internet can obstruct the accumulation of potential social capital.

2. The Internet is transformative allowing social interactions free from geographical and time constraints in an easy-to-use manner (Quan-Hasse & Wellman 2004). Social capital can therefore be gained through these conversations with different types of people outside immediate proximities.

3. The Internet is supplementary to social capital (Quan-Hass & Wellman 2004), opening up possibilities for face-to-face social interaction with socialization beginning in online communities (Quan-Hasse & Wellman 2004).

Here are my thoughts on these attitudes:

1. I disagree that the Internet diminishes social capital. While people may be physically taken away from friends and family when using the Internet, this is often momentarily; physical life continues beyond the confines of the Internet. Even through the Internet networking and socialisation still exists through online interactions.

2. One of the biggest benefits of the Internet is the potential to move beyond one’s own spatial limitations and build global networks through social media. Many of our friends and followers on social media can consist of acquaintances, which can be considered as “weak-ties” in a network (Saipera 2012). However, it is through these weak ties that we are bound to larger networks, thus increasing our social capital (Saipera 2012).

3. The Internet has been used by online communities to organise meet-ups, bringing people together under a common interest and strengthening relationships in one’s social capital. Furthermore, we have seen how social media has been used to assemble public protests and rallies to enact social change (Click here for a link to a slideshow on social activism borne from social media).

While critics argue that the lack of physical gatherings in communal spaces is evidence that society is now fragmented (Quan-Hass & Wellman 2004), the Internet has afforded new ways of interaction and communication and thus, people are shifting to online modes of sociality that can lead to face-to-face interaction (Quan-Hass & Wellman 2004). Social capital has not been weakened due to the Internet, rather it leads to even larger and stronger outcomes.

  References:

C-SPAN 2000, Robert Putnam - Bowling Alone, 28 September, viewed 16 April 2018, < https://www.c-span.org/video/?159499-1/bowling-alone>.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media', in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

Quan-Haase, A Wellman, B 2004, ‘How Does the Internet Affect Social Capital?’, in Editor's V Wulf & M Huysman (eds), Social Capital and Information Technology, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Ebook Central (Proquest).