Digital Communities Blog

Portions of this site and the works within it are being produced with the intention of critique and/or educational use under Australia's 'fair dealing' exceptions to copyright (Section 40 & 41). However, if you feel your IP is being infringed, please contact my service provider (tumblr) with the appropriate DMCA requests, as I, the single author take full responsibility for the content of this site

[ainsleycoote]

Gaming Communities, Social Gaming and Live Streaming

With the rise of participatory culture has also come the rise of gaming communities and live streaming, which has enabled the industry to be highly monetised and increasingly networked.  

According to Taylor, there has been three ‘waves’ of gaming advancements since the 1970s. The first wave was anchored in arcades and home consoles, follow by a second wave in the 1990s through to 2010, which revolved around the introduction of the internet and its power of enabling multiplayer connections and global networking between individual gamers (Taylor, 2018). The final wave facilitated the growth of live streaming and jump-started the Esports industry into the televisual hybrid gaming and entertainment platform it is today. Around 2010, the rapid trend of different game-making tools, practices, and communities also began to challenge the conventional approaches to videogame production in the triple A industry (Chia et al, 2020).

The phenomenon of live streaming is owed to Twitch, a broadcast platform that hosted 2.2-plus million unique broadcasters per month in 2017, with 17,000-plus members in the Twitch Partner Program and 110,000 “creators” in the Affiliates Program receiving revenue for their streaming, as well as 10 million daily active users (Taylor, 2018). Players have the opportunity to engage with an audience that shares a common interest in “observing, commenting and playing alongside them”, ultimately transforming “private play into public entertainment” (Taylor, 2018). The occurrence of “networked broadcasting”, through audiences being able to interact with streamers in real time through chat window features, has been essential to the creation of digital communities within the gaming world (Taylor, 2018).

Another interesting category of gaming, referred to as social network gaming, has been pivotal in the expansion of gaming culture and usage to formerly excluded demographics within the community, such as females and middle to elderly aged persons. SNGs are played via social networking sites such as Facebook, and utilise a player’s ‘friend list’ to create competitions, in-app messaging and leader boards (Bergstrom, 2021). Due to the leisurely nature of SNGs, typically requiring a player to do short activities, they have been “framed as an easier entry point for girls and women into broader gaming cultures” (Bergstrom, 2021).

Gaming culture has always centred around connecting individuals with common interests, and the explosion of online streaming and various categories of gaming that include broader demographics, has only further contributed to the digitally networked community we see today.

References

Bergstrom, K. (2021) ‘Anti-social social gaming: community conflict in a Facebook game’, Critical studies in media communication, Vol. 38 (1), pp. 61-74.

Chia. A, Keogh. B, Leorke, D. & Nicoll, B. (2020). ‘Platformisation in game development’, Internet Policy Review, Vol. 9 (4), pp. 1-23.

Taylor, T.L. (2018). ‘Broadcasting ourselves’, Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton University Press, pp. 1-23.

[ainsleycoote]

Digital Citizenship and Software literacy: Instagram Filters

The increasing accessibility and normalisation of filters, defined as AR technology that enables virtual objects to be “superimposed upon or composited with the real world”, has produced a collective “Digitised Dysmorphia” within society (Azuma, 1997) (Coy-Dibley, 2016).

With Snapchat pioneering the way in 2015, the quick adoption of filters and advancements in visual technology by other social media apps including Instagram and Tiktok has intensified socially generated beauty standards for females.). Popular beauty filters typically lighten a user’s complexion and eyes, shrink their nose and contour/narrow their face, proving to be a reflection of our current cultural ideals (Barker, 2020). Limited to the “prescribed beauty norms” offered by software designers; a saturation of “stereotypical, white slim, able-bodied” and overtly westernized aesthetics dominate social media feeds, and have also “infiltrated fashion and advertising” (Coy-Dibley, 2016). Under the “guise of beautification”, cosmetic, fashion and wellness brands utilise AR technology and Photoshop to imply the desirability of their products, ultimately suggesting that a customer will appear the same way if they purchase from their brands (Barker, 2020). 

Consequently, the implications of Photoshop and society’s hyper-fixation on the ‘Instagram’ standard of female body has had a widespread impact on the population, and though difficult to diagnose, it is believed that 1 in 50 australians suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder (ABC, 2019).

Viewed through a certain lens, one could argue that digital filters provide females with the agency to “express a self” that would be overlooked offline, yet they also “accentuate the disparity” between normal female bodies and the unattainable images woman feel they must embody, an issue that is especially poignant for women of colour (Coy-Dibley, 2016). Furthermore, Rettberg argues that filters are a way of “heightening our own daily experiences” wherein which a “de-familiarisation effect” occurs on the user once they have edited their image (Rettberg, 2014). However, the novelty of “digital adornment” is pervasive to the point where a ‘de-familiarity’ with one’s own appearance online has led to mass dissatisfaction and the previously mentioned phenomenon of ‘digitised dysmorphia’ (Barker, 2020).

Though the technological potential and advancements of AR and filtering applications have been celebrated for their ability to extend an individual’s sense of self and empower females in a post-feminist context, women should not have to “feel ugly” without a filter.

References

Azuma, R. (1997) “A Survey of Augmented Reality”, MIT Press Direct, vol.6, no.4, pp.355-385.

Barker, J. (2020) “Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of snapchat, Fashion, Style & Popular Culture”, vol.7, no.2,3, pp. 207-221.

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016) ‘“Digitised Dysmorphia” of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image’ Palgrave Communications, pp. 1-9.

Jones, R. (2019). “Body dysmorphia: when you can't trust the way you see your own body”, ABC: Triple J [online].

Rettberg, J.W. (2014). “Filtered Reality, Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs, and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves”, Palgrave Macmillan, London.

[ainsleycoote]

Digital Citizenship and Health Education: Body modification on Visual Social Media

The increasingly visual aspect of social media can be attributed to a new standard of ‘aesthetic’ for bodies that is becoming normalised through its’ promotion from influencers and brands on platforms such as Instagram and Tiktok.

Instagram is home to a large digital community of cosmetic surgeons, patients and potential clients, who consume and post both educational information and business promotion of past surgery.  A sample study of 1,789,270 posts linked to 21 cosmetic surgery related hashtags found that the three most popular hashtags were #plastic surgery (523,361 posts), #facelift (224,235 posts) and #rhinoplasty (138,259 posts) (Dorman et al, 2017). 67.1% of the overall posts within the sample were considered “self-promotional”, which aligns with 2017 statistics where 42% of surgeons reported that “their patients are seeking aesthetic surgery to improve their appearance on Instagram… and other social media channels (Dorman et al, 2017). Evidently, the increase in popularity of plastic surgery has enable surgeons to utilise Instagram for marketing opportunities and gain outreach to new clients, however the motives behind clients choosing to undergo procedures being to appear a certain way for their own social media platforms is conflicting and a concerning paradox.

This culture of desire to look a certain way for social media influence, even to the extreme of cosmetic surgery, alludes to a new form of monetisation and social economy via visual social media platforms, which can be achieved through the commoditisation of one’s body. According to Carah and Dobson, a critical part of nightlife promotion is the attention a venue can attract through “curating flows of hot body images” on their social media feeds (Carah & Dobson, 2016). Viewers are believed to “make judgements about the desirability of locations” based on the aesthetic of the females that attend such locations and though this may appear to be an “empowering” form of post-feminist digital self-representation, it continues to reinforce and regulate new standard of gendered aesthetic (Carah & Dobson, 2016).

The widespread impact of Body Dysmorphic Disorder on young females directly stems from social media and the carefully curated digital presentation of influencers and their appearance. Female influencers accentuating specific features of their body through cosmetic surgery, Photoshop and poses, “positioning themselves as objects” alongside the products they promote has concerning implications for public health (Mavroudis, 2022). BDD has been linked to young people struggling to manage their expectations between an “offline” body and who they aspire to be on social media.

The proliferation of naturally unattainable bodies on social media is an ever-growing health issue that will not be resolved until greater regulation of digital media and transparency around online appearances becomes a greater priority.

References

Carah, N., Dobson, A. (2016). ‘Algorithmic Hotness: Young Women’s “Promotion” and “Reconnaissance” Work via Social Media Body Images’, Social Media + Society, October-December 2016: 1 –10, DOI: 10.1177/2056305116672885

Dorfman, R. G., Vaca, E. E., Mahmood, E., Fine, N. A., Schierle, C. F. (2017). ‘Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3, March 2018, pp 332–338

Mavroudis, J. (2022). ‘Digital Citizenship and Health Education: Body modification on Visual Social Media’, Swinburne University: Digital Communities, MDA2009, lecture 6

[ainsleycoote]

Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance

The omnipresence of social media and the ever-evolving landscape of networked digital communities has resulted in a unique online experience for the individual. But is it for better or worse?

Social media governance is a key element of digital citizenship, taking place on all levels of online activity, from macro to micro. The many positive affordances of social media and its ability to facilitate the connection of individuals and enable their contribution to society beyond traditional realms have unfortunately also resulted in the potential and means for conflict to occur online. State actors and governments, social media companies, educational institutions and moderators of independent online communities such as Facebook groups or discussion threads have all been forced to adapt with codes of online conduct and regulations to ensure digital citizenship is upheld, whilst still serving their own interests.

Consequently, online harassment can be difficult to define and almost impossible to govern at all levels of internet usage. Referred to as “networked harassment”, Marwick and Caplan argue that new forms of cyberbullying including “doxing, revenge porn, social shaming and intimidation” were “pioneered” by members of an online controversy known as ‘Gamergate’ in 2014 (Marwick & Caplan, 2018). The high profile harassment that took place during the anti-feminist and right-wing campaign within the video gaming community have since been leveraged by other individuals and online communities, as well by governments and other state actors to enact similar forms of online abuse (Marwick & Caplan, 2018). 

Similarly, the term “gas-lighting” has become a key phrase in contemporary online culture, utilised as an umbrella for techniques of harassment that typically surround women being manipulated by their abuser. Members of #MeToo movement suffered online gaslighting when survivors stories were dismissed, and former president of the USA, Donald Trump, has been accused of gaslighting the American public through his claims of “fake news” (Gleeson, 2018).

Prior to the passing of The Online Safety Act 2021 which became part of Australian law in January 2022, there was only grey areas of law that could be utilised to protect individuals against online text and image abuse, as well as generally harmful online content. Nonetheless, cyberbullying “persists as a dominant category of digitally mediated violence”, and McCosker claims that the expectation of all online users to engage in digital citizenship is “aspirational” (McCosker, 2016). 40% of all internet users in America report having experienced a form of online harassment, and as the ubiquity of social media continues to extend, one can expect that online hate will only become more pervasive and refined in its nature (McCosker, 2016).

References

Gleeson, J. (2018). Explainer: what does ‘gaslighting’ mean? The Conversation, 6 December. [online]. Available at: https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-gaslighting-mean-107888

Marwick, A.E., Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), pp.543–559.

Managing Digital Citizenship: Cyber Safety as Three Layers of Control

McCosker, A. (2016) Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture Managing Digital Citizenship. Chapter 1, (forthcoming, 2016, Rowman & Littlefield Int., London).

[ainsleycoote]

Digital Citizenship: the slow fashion movement’s inception in a fast fashion world

Brewer states that “fashion is inextricably woven with time, finding its essence in current, fast-moving trends and its inspiration in emerging styles” and there are arguably two factors have exacerbated this fast moving trend cycle (Brewer, 2019). Both the prevalence of social media and the fast fashion model of rapid production, distribution and marketing have fuelled the virtually instantaneous movement of trends within communities globally.

The democratisation of fashion, which essentially refers to the increase in amount and accessibility of fashion goods globally, as well as the increase of fashion related media and voices, has spurred the production of cheaper garments and mass marketing. Though a decrease in fashion authorities has enabled fashion media communities to thrive, this new business model of ready to wear clothing contributes to a throw-away culture and insatiable consumer demand for the latest knock-offs of the season’s “it” pieces (Brewer, 2019). There is a paradoxical relationship between the fashion industry’s imperative to continually evolve to satisfy consumers and the consequent loss of a garments exclusivity as said consumers acquire them. Evidently, this relationship is diametrically opposed to sustainability.

The proliferation of online social media and growth of influencers has only furthered the consumer desire to remain “in fashion.” This phenomenon requires a constant supply of new styles since once a new fashion goes mainstream, it becomes obsolete, losing its allure and encouraging trendsetters to search for the next fad. Influencer marketing is now very favourable among advertisers, who capitalize on an influencer’s popularity to expand brand awareness and influence consumers’ purchasing decisions (Harrison & Jacobson, 2022). Due to the Parasocial relationship between an influencer and their followers, their ads are perceived as more trustworthy in comparison to celebrity or studio created ads.

In terms of digital citizenship, the debate surrounding fast and slow fashion grows exponentially with increased media exposure has enabled virtual communities have formed on platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Tiktok. Twitter was used as a case study to conduct research on sustainability discussions around green washing and CSR through hashtag usage. Essentially the “modus operandi” of the platform, hashtags allow users to incorporate their posts into wider discussion and join “communities of interest” on Twitter (Grigore et al, 2018). The study found that the top hashtags to which #sustainability is linked on Twitter were constant throughout all data collection periods as; #csr, #green, #environment and #innovation. The digital community also had a strong focus on the triple bottom line model, choosing to measure sustainability of brands against three factors; their environmental impact, their economic impact and their social equity impact on local communities.

More sustainable practices are necessary to reorient the fashion industry and consumers away from the fast fashion model toward more sustainable production, distribution and marketing practices. Companies that adopt such slow fashion practices should provide a template for the future of the global fashion industry.

 References

Adi A. #Sustainability on Twitter: Loose Ties and Green-Washing CSR, In: Grigore G., Stancu A., McQueen D. (eds) Corporate Responsibility and Digital Communities. (Palgrave: 2018)

Jacobson, J., Harrison, B. (2022) Sustainable fashion social media influencers and content creation calibration, International Journal of Advertising, 41:1, 150-177, DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2021.2000125

Mark K. Brewer, ‘Slow Fashion in a Fast Fashion World: Promoting Sustainability and Responsibility’, Laws 2019, 8(4), 24

[ainsleycoote]

What is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism

There has been a “membership decline” in traditional action-orientated political parties and unions that is synonymous with the 21st century rise of social media and consequently, an increase in citizens’ “ad hoc involvement” with local, environmental and human rights organisations via online communities has also occurred (Vromen, 2017). The affordances and “ubiquity” of social media as a space that fosters personalisation over “traditional, dutiful allegiances to politics” has resulted in the development of digital citizenship (Vromen, 2017). In its essence, digital citizenship refers to the participation of citizens online in dimensions of democratic participation, engaged activism, appropriate user behaviour and access to the online public sphere (Law et al 2018).

The increasing hybridity of social media has caused a major shift in the political landscape, evident through a study on the importance of online platform based interaction between candidates and constituents during the 2015 Finnish parliamentary elections (Nelimarkka et al, 2020). An analysis of stakeholders’ online activity found that opinion/information sharing and seeking from constituents occurred primarily on Twitter, whereas formal campaigning and expression of support occurred primarily on Facebook (Nelimarkka et al, 2020). Platformed interactions have provided an “effective channel for voter activation” and enabled mass democratic participation in informal and personalised spaces, which can be "directly reflected in election results" (Nelimarkka et al, 2020).

Furthermore, digital citizenship is able to “facilitate the membership and participation of individuals within society” beyond election processes, which is referred to as activism and can be observed through hashtag usage on social media (Mossberger et al, 2008).. The power of hashtags has never been more evidenced than in the #MeToo movement that was sparked by the Weinstein scandal, with the hashtag tweeted more than 500,000 times by October 16 and used by 4.7 million people on Facebook in 12 million posts during the first 24 hours after the new broke (Peters & Besley, 2019). Following Harvey Weinstein’s dismissal from Hollywood in 2017, 42 other men have also been accused of sexual assault and forced to resign from their positions in Hollywood.

Digital platforms have provided citizens with the power to voice their opinions and enable change through engaging in political activism that was traditionally far beyond their standing.

References

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: the internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, ISBN : 9780262134859

Nelimarkka, M., Laaksonen, S. M., Tuokko, M., Valkonen, T. (2020). Platformed Interactions: ‘How Social Media Platforms Relate to Candidate–Constituent Interaction During Finnish 2015 Election Campaigning. Social Media + Society April-June 2020: 1–17

Peters, M. A., Besley, T. (2019). Weinstein, sexual predation, and ‘Rape Culture’: Public pedagogies and Hashtag Internet activism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51:5, 458-464, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1427850

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: the internet, society, and participation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, ISBN : 9780262134859

[ainsleycoote]

Digital Community and Fandom: Reality TV

Reality TV has gained increasing popularity over the last 10 years and according to 2019 Roy Morgan data, it was the second most watched TV genre and viewed by 41% of Australians in an average week (Roy Morgan, 2019). In their essence, “reality TV formats are about publicizing the private” and are typically structured around ordinary people engaged in unscripted interactions, usually framed within the context of a competition or challenge (Graham & Hajru, 2011).

In March 2021, the Australia Talks National Survey collected data from 60,000 people and their viewing habits, which unearthed quite surprising results when compared to Australia’s TV ratings. Only 2 per cent of Australians said they watch reality TV more often than any other genre, which greatly contrasts data that four of the 10 top-rating shows of 2020 were reality TV. Evidently, reality TV brings about an audience paradox, which can be linked to our public perception of the genre as “junk” due to its “low production values, gossipy content and superficiality” (Watson, 2021). Furthermore, Dr Rosewarne claims that "reality TV is disproportionately consumed by women, and things that women like are usually culturally devalued,” which may further suggest why some individuals surveyed chose to fabricate their viewing habits (Watson, 2021). However, the frameworks of Reality TV have indeed shifted towards their stigmatic representation in recent times and Kavka claims that reality TV has now become “synonymous with camera-ready people (over)performing themselves in situations brimming with emotive drama, itself guaranteed by semi-scripted formats” (Kavka, 2018). Commercialisation opportunities for TV participants are now prevalent, and though Reality TV stars “used to be aggressively framed as ‘ordinary people’”, they now hold a celebrity status in society and are motivated by ‘attention capital’ (Kavka, 2018). As a result, one could argue that Reality TV has lost its status as being an unscripted form of entertainment, as producers continue to actively manipulate their participants for the best ratings.

One area of consideration for Reality TV and its contribution to public spheres is its political dimensions and potential for the creation of open discussion. A study conducted on forum spaces for ‘Big Brother’ and ‘Wife Swap’ found that the shows hosted a variety of political discussions ranging from health and the body to politicians and the government (Graham & Harju, 2011). 

Graham and Harju claim that “political communication today is going through a time of decentralization” and Reality TV show politically orientated forums contribute to “the web of informal conversations that constitutes the public sphere”. In regards to Big Brother, the study found that thirty-eight threads containing 1479 postings, representing 22 percent of the initial sample, were engaged in or around political talk. Furthermore, 42 percent of these discussions dealt with issues on bullying, sexuality and gender, the role of reality TV in society and discussions on the Iraq War and performances of British MPs also emerged. Evidently, Reality TV and its tendency to focus on regular people and their behaviours has resulted in a public sphere for “talk outside the realm of traditional politics” and enables scholars to gain a better understanding of the “linkages people make between their everyday lives and society” (Graham & Harju, 2011).

Reality TV is ultimately a multi-dimensional form of media, that has come far closer to other genres in bridging the gap between audience relatability and content. Both positive and negative implications come with this style of television.

References

Graham, T., Hajru, A. (2011). Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere. European Journal of Communication. Vol.28:1 pp.18-3

Kavka, M. (2018). Reality TV: Its contents and discontents. Critical Quarterly 60(4): 5-18; DOI: 10.1111/criq.12442

Roy Morgan. (2019). News and Reality TV are the most popular TV genres. [online] Roy Morgan. Available at: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7969-top-tv-genres-december-2018-201905060240

Watson, M. (2021). These are the shows Australians are ashamed to watch - ABC Everyday. [online] ABC Everyday. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/why-are-people-embarrassed-to-love-reality-tv/100186256

[ainsleycoote]

How does Tumblr Function as a Digital Community?

Tumblr is a microblogging and social networking website that launched in 2007, offering users a platform to post multimedia such as text, images and GIFs to a short-form blog. As of July 2019, the digital community of Tumblr spanned across 472 million active blogs globally and 69% of users were within the ‘millennial’ demographic (Petrov, 2019).

Tumblr and its digital community structure has proven an interesting case study for academics, due to its characterisation as a platform used solely to share and discuss personal interests, typically with some level of anonymity. According to Brennan, Facebook is the platform to “connect to your friends”, Twitter is the platform to “connect to the news” and Tumblr is ultimately the platform where one connects “over the thing [they] love the most”, hence its online function differs greatly from other forms of social media (McCracken, 2020). The platform does not centre itself around personal profiles or friend networking, enabling individuals to “revel in anonymity” and join many niche communities; “one for each slice of your personality” (Reeve, 2016).

The affordances of privacy on Tumblr have fostered the creation and empowerment of marginalized groups, who can find a place within a digital community through the use of “self-identifying” tags that algorithmically connect like-minded individuals (McCraken, 2020). In fact, Keller argues that the function of Tumblr is less obvious than a typical digital community structure, with the site instead consisting of “digital socialities” which are not “distinct, bounded groups that can easily be identified” as is evident on other platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (Keller, 2019). Case studies suggest that minority groups such as asexual identifying persons, young feminists and POC all view Tumblr as an online space that removes “searchability” and grant them a sense of freedom to be themselves and experiment through “pseudonym” identities (Keller, 2019).

Tumblr is an entirely different digital space to its ‘personal promotion’ orientated counterparts such as Facebook and Instagram. A very complex overarching community has been created on Tumblr as a result of their privacy features, user vernacular and algorithms.

References

Keller, J. (2019) “Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms”, Social Media + Society Volume: 5 issue: 3.

McCracken, A. (2020) Chapter 3 ‘Going Down the Rabbit Hole: An Interview with Amanda Brennan, Head of Content Insights and Social, Tumblr’ in a tumblr book: platform and cultures eds Allison McCracken, Alexander Cho, Louisa Stein, and Indira Neill Hoch (University of Michigan Press) https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11537055

Petrov, C. (2019). “60+ Stunning Tumblr Statistics - How Big Is The Platform In 2021?” [online], TechJury. Available at: https://techjury.net/blog/tumblr-statistics/#gref.

Reeve, E. (2016) “The Secret Lives of Tumblr Teens” [online], New Republic. Available at: https://newrepublic.com/article/129002/secret-lives-tumblr-teens