Untitled @annmaryhanna - Tumblr Blog

#Week 14

This week of Anonymous came at a really interesting time. Lately there have been protests going on in regards to Ferguson and Eric Garner and, though they concern very different topics, just both follow the trend of being angry with an oppressive system and going out and working to change it. It's interesting that such a strong force started from 4chan as a group of internet trolls and pranksters; it's pretty incredible to see them go from that to a group that advocates tirelessly for free speech and uses their hacking power for at least what is their idea of good. The Coleman article describes how they went from trolling the Church of Scientology (their first battle) to turning serious (due to Mark Bunker's pleas) and using legitimate tactics to fight them. Perhaps the most incredible part was their transition from the internet to the streets--all over the globe (this really brings to mind the #BlackLivesMatter protests that are sweeping the nation--people far and near see a major problem and take to the streets to protest). Even though they work mostly from behind their screens, it's amazing that they still work all around the world for people all around the world if that makes sense. For example, as told in the Beyer article, they lent a hand in Tunisia, Syria, Iran, Bahrain, and Egypt. It's mindblowing--they literally challenged the Syrian government when it attempted to control information and hacked their websites. Anonymous is such an interesting concept, in that it managed to exert such influence and have such power, but that they are, as Beyer says, limited by the very tool that gives them power. Overall, in a world that even in the 21st century has not been cleansed of oppression and filled with pure, unadulterated freedom and equal treatment for all as we are seeing with Ferguson and Eric Garner, although they can be a little extreme, it's nice to see a group that fights for overdue freedom.

As an Egyptian, this is highly relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/world/middleeast/03hackers.html?_r=0

An overall short glimpse into what they've done:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20110309

They may hate with an intensity but they really do try to help innocent people who deserve it:

http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-hackers-helping-woman-save-4-year-old-girl-alleged-sex-ring-430736

#week 14

#Week 13

Jonah Peretti, CEO of Buzzfeed and co-founder says about 4chan that it “was a thing that challenged people’s assumptions in the Web industry,” and that “It was just so different from the way other people were thinking about community.” 4chan stands out because of its shocking, often troubling content and the many trolls it brings forth. The root of all of this is a not-often seen aspect of the internet: anonymity. Christopher Poole was inspired by the Japanese, who prefer to be shrouded in a cloud of anonymity. When he brought this idea to the Western world, people became were intrigued by the idea of a site in which they could do or say anything they want without fear of consequences. And the result, at least for this specific site, has been disastrous. It's complete anarchy. Okay, so it has got its benefits. Alfonso says that the memes have led to many successful careers. But weigh that against the myriad of gruesome images, inappropriate images that are a complete invasion of privacy, and the fact that it's a total troll breeding ground, and I'd say it's safe to assume that the pros are absolutely drowning amidst the cons. It seems as though being hidden not only physically but digitally has made it seem totally fine to set about creating chaos. Take the example Alfonso uses about 4chan users trying to convince Justin Bieber fans to slit their wrists. Why in the world is it okay to convince a group that is largely composed of young girls to harm themselves? Alfonso also mentions "doxing" which is the release of personal information online, and has ruined many teenagers' lives. I know this isn't everyone on 4chan, and some people are actually trying to use it for good, but these are things people would definitely hesitate to do if they could easily be found out. It's pretty incredible, what the power of remaining unidentified in a world where everything can be traced can do to a person.

Invasion of privacy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/snapchat-leak_n_5965590.html

Some more invasion of privacy:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/celebrity-4chan-shock-naked-picture-4395155

Life-ruining in general:

http://www.dailydot.com/news/4chan-9th-anniversary-top-9-controversies/

Although I found the last one while looking up "4chan doing good" and in those first paragraphs it listed a couple of good things. So there truly is a group of people using anonymity to do good--it's a minority, but it's there.

#week 13

Come Closer: Digital Media and its Power to Unite

Before this class I didn’t use Twitter or Tumblr. Therefore, I had no idea about the indubitable power of hashtags. Of course we’ve all used them to add single words or short phrases to supplement a longer thought, but I didn’t realize their power as a tool to create unity, to provide a platform that unites people working towards a common goal to improve the world. Tying into this, I’ve always considered myself a feminist. I’m an Egyptian-American female, so believe me when I tell you I know about sexism. But sexism in relation to Middle Eastern countries is no surprise—the overwhelming sexism and misogyny in this country, however, is.

The way I learned this was through the use of feminist hashtags. Feminist hashtags create, according to Dixon, “a virtual space where victims of inequality can coexist together in a space that acknowledges their pain, narrative, and isolation” (p. 34). They are helping to redefine feminism in our modern age of digital media. It’s an incredible concept, that we can find a way to gather people from all corners of the world to discuss an issue instantly. I was pretty mind-blown by this concept, and so off I went to explore hashtag feminism. On Tumblr I searched up the hashtag #YesAllWomen; I couldn’t stop reading. There were contemplations, personal accounts of abuse and just so many posts that tell the world what it’s like for women in our society. I was able to see the different groups Dixon explained in her article. There were the normative claims which “concern how women should be viewed and treated and these claims draw on the premise of justice and moral position” (p. 36). A very simple example comes in the form of several posts about the real definition of feminism. The definition of feminism has been twisted nowadays, as many ignorant people have this idea that feminists are a bunch of crazy lesbians who want to castrate all males. These real definitions,however, simply state that men and women should have equal rights; they are built on the simple basis of fair’s fair. Another simple one concerns the idea that women have the right to say no, and should never be considered to be “asking for it”. Descriptive claims, meanwhile, “concern how women are viewed and treated, alleging that they are not being treated in accordance with the standards of justice and morality invoked in the normative claims” (p. 36). This is exemplified by personal narratives (which Dixon mentions are terribly important in the feminist hashtag movement). There were many posts about women who were stalked, terrorized, assaulted and harassed by men. I’d certainly say these women are not being treated in accordance with the standards of justice and morality. The feminist hashtag has provided a way for women to share their stories in a world in which their voices can easily be lost. And that’s how I learned the power of the hashtag.

I have a friend who is OBSESSED with Demi Lovato. She posts frequently on social media (Facebook, Instagram) and if it’s not a selfie, it’s a post about an upcoming concert, videos and pictures from old ones, and posts that say how inspiring and strong Demi Lovato is. I didn’t get it. How can a person be so invested in a stranger, and love a person they haven’t met? It was Click, Lee, and Holladay’s article that enlightened me. They mentioned “imaginary relationships”, in which fans display “intense admiration” for a media figure (p. 362). Fans will speak of their idols as though they have a relationship with them, as though they are their sister, guide, friend, and/or mentor, and they function as “an ideal self-image the fan wishes to develop” (p. 362). The authors explain that this identification with a media figure begins with actual social relationships, then develop emotional and patterned behaviors, until they eventually incorporate the celebrity’s values into their own attitudes and behaviors (p. 362-363). I went through her Facebook profile, which was filled with Demi posts: a screenshot of Demi answering her question, a screenshot of a radio station tweet telling her she’s qualified to meet Demi, pictures from concerts, and, most recently, a picture of herself alongside one of Demi in which she has her hair, outfit, and sunglasses mimicking Demi’s with the caption “Twins????”. She wants to be Demi inside and out. She also has posted acknowledging that people think her obsession is strange but that Demi brings her “the most genuine happiness into my life and I’m forever thankful for this happiness that I want to be permanent”. Also, I came across a video on YouTube in which the girl makes her own music video for Lady Gaga’s song “Applause” in which she incorporates Lady Gaga’s looks and mannerisms. What’s compelling about it is that she’s not terribly skinny, yet she’s wearing any clothes or makeup that she wants. For example, in one scene, she’s wearing a two-piece. I think this shows that as a “Monster” she feels comfortable in her own skin. In a sense, she’s empowered when she’s emulating her idol, and she dances however she wants, exploring her creativity.

Dixon, K. (2014). Feminist Online Identity: Analyzing the Presence of Hashtag Feminism.

Click, M., Lee, H., &Holladay, H. (2013). Making Monsters: Lady Gaga, Fan Identification, and Social Media. Popular Music and Society.

#Analytical Response 2

#Week12

The readings this week brought across a very clear, very important aspect of social media that is under-appreciated by most who utilize social media: its overwhelming power to spark and bring about change. Social media, as detailed in the Wasik reading, has the ability to bring together a disconnected group and connect them. Once a large group of people united by a common goal is united, they become a force to be reckoned with. Wasik explains this point by explaining "flash mobs" and that crowds form shared identities. While the crowds described in his article show the darker side of the dissemination of a message, and how it can spark violence when it translates into physical space, the positive power of uniting via social media is seen in the 2011 Revolution in Egypt, described in Bratich's article. It was Wael Ghonim and his connections to Facebook and his work with social media that helped spark the Revolution that changed the course of history in Egypt. This revolution also helps exemplify the concept of "emergent leadership". No one described themselves as an outright leader, instead disguising themselves online as Wael Ghonim did behind his page "We Are All Khalid Said". There was, as Bratich says, no visual representation. This does not mean, however, that there was therefore no one there. The leaders strategically announced their existence, when it was useful. According to Bratich, it was a "cyber/kyber-revolution". It was guided (the Greek word kyber means to steer/govern") by an "occulted agency". Also, to use a broader example, this concept of uniting a group to a specific cause, "wearethe99percent.tumblr.com" greatly supplemented the Occupy Wall Street movement. They were the actual victims-they were the people who had been affected by Wall Street's mistakes, they were the ones struggling to get by. This group was an example of a "cosmopolitan canopy", as it was a place where people of all races and classes came together--people of all races had been affected and were supporting, as were both rich and poor. They all shared a common belief and a common sympathy, and thus they were united. However, It isn't always easy to use the internet to cause change--it has to be strategic to truly succeed. Doctorow explains succinctly just why and how the social media sites are a great means to at the very least spark dissent. If one just uses a web site that is strictly about the topic they are in support of, it's incredibly easy for that site to get shut down. Then, only the users would be upset. If, however, one uses a huge social media site, first of all, they're not nearly as easy to get shut down by tools such as DDOS. If they ARE targeted, they are much better at surviving the attack. They're also a great means for spreading the message and getting the word out. Overall, there really is no doubt social media gives the common man or woman the power to spark change and change the world.

It, in fact, the online aspect of Occupy Wall Street, the "wearethe99percent" Tumblr slogan that endured.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/we-are-the-99-percent-joins-the-cultural-and-political-lexicon.html?_r=0

This nicely captures the whole spirit of social media and how it ignites revolution and change (it specifically mentions both Arab Spring which included the Egypt revolution and Occupy Wall Street).

http://thesocialmediarevolution.wordpress.com/

#Week 12

#Week 11

The readings and lectures from this week left me fully overwhelmed with a concept I wasn't aware of before: just how deeply invested fans become with their favorite celebrity/media content. Take Bronies, for example. I was blown away not just because I was surprised that grown men liked the show, but also by their passionate devotion to the show. It wasn't a hobby or an interest, it was a way of life. Likewise with Lady Gaga and her "little monsters-- in Click's article, Little Monsters said that "a Little Monster is “obsessed,” “hardcore,”and “dedicated,” and has made their interest in Lady Gaga “a way of life.” Social media has allowed for fandoms to thrive.The fact that people can connect to Lady Gaga has made for a much stronger fan base. Because Lady Gaga shares her life with her fans and actually interacts with them, they feel an intimacy with her that they wouldn't have felt if they'd only been able to hear about her from a distance.

Same with the Brony community, which has been able to grow due to the internet and the forums it provides for fans to meet and interact. The internet allows for people with mutual interests, no matter how far apart they live from each other, to meet and create a community. Fandom acts as a safe haven; although one can still get mocked and bullied, there are thousands out there who are supportive--thousands that they may never have met without the connecting power of the internet. Such forums and communities therefore allow for new ideas to gain power, such as the gender stereotypes that the Brony community challenges. In general, it's easier to find acceptance through digital culture. In the physical world, it's much harder, because you can only reach so far into the world around you to find all kinds of different people who share your interests. Thus, acceptance is growing as diversity of ideas gains popularity.

This article really gets you an inside look into the history of bronies and their mindset--namely how they don't care about gender roles or age stereotypes, and how they can be themselves.

http://www.9news.com/longform/life/2014/11/01/denver-brony-convention/18346009/

Lady Gaga has such a strong fan base because of how accessible she is:

https://littlemonsters.com/

http://blog.bazaarvoice.com/2012/06/25/engaging-your-superfans-social-lessons-from-lady-gagas-manager/

#Week 11

#Week 10

I'm not in any way, shape, or form a gamer. So, yes, that fits me nicely into the stereotypical category where the majority of society thinks women should be in terms of gaming. As Eklund says, "Women are now a sizable part of the gaming demographic" yet in modern times "Women can however still be considered the odd one out. Stereotypically the man is the hardcore gamer and women are viewed as casual Facebook players". For some reason, despite the fact that we're living in the 21st century, society insists on shunning some women out of activities that used to be considered (well, apparently still is) male-dominated. Society insists on still telling women to be a certain way and that certain activities are only for men. This really ties back to the gender lesson we did a few weeks back. Women are told to act a certain way and to look a certain way. Certain sexist members of general society try to stigmatize women who branch out from these neat little boxes they try to shove women into. As Anita Sarkeesian says during her appearance on The Colbert Report in response to Colbert's talk of sexualized gaming characters, "It reinforces this cultural myth that women are sexual objects and sexual playthings for male amusement...and we're not". This statement can be applied to just about everything in our society. Women are always made to be seen as weaker and are just told to sit there and look pretty. But as Sarkeesian says, and this is just great, "Maybe the princess shouldn't be a damsel and she can save herself". Society's views on women need to change. We can do everything men can do. There's absolutely no reason that an attempt to be more included in an activity women are more than capable of participating and thriving in should be met with death threats.

This is pretty powerful, as it is straight from the mouth of a terrorized victim of Gamergate, Brianna Wu.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/20/rape-and-death-threats-are-terrorizing-female-gamers-why-havent-men-in-tech-spoken-out/

But it's heartening that people are trying to change this attitude and changing the status quo:

http://www.womeningamesinternational.org/

I mean this isn't nearly as serious as women's voting rights or anything but history has shown that, even though it's totally unfair, women have to fight for their equality, and I'd say people like these are doing a pretty good job of battling for what they deserve.

It's being fought all over the world!

http://www.womeningamesjobs.com/?page_id=841

Because women are just great at everything and the world is lucky to have them in the gaming industry.

http://gaming-awards.com/wig/

#Week 10

#Week 9

Of all the things addressed this week, the one that stuck out most to me as a feminist is the discussion concerning Jenna Marbles and the overall effect of gender on perception and reaction on digital media. Wotanis and McMillan explore a very specific example of sexism by exploring the feedback the most popular female YouTuber and one of the most popular male YouTubers each received or their videos. There is not a shred of doubt that Jenna Marbles was subjected to a more hostile environment. The comments she received were "hater" (she has nothing of value to contribute), aggressive, and inappropriate. The latter was not surprising; Wotanis and McMillan mention that females are often judged by how they fit standards of femininity. Therefore, many viewers thought it would be perfectly fine to objectify her. The most positive responses were about her physical appearance. Meanwhile, Ryan Higa barely received any comments about his personality; most were about his personality. People would say because she oftentimes is presented a bit more sexually, she deserves the feedback she gets. No. It's clear she exaggerates gender roles. She parodies men in an exaggerated fashion the same way she also parodies female in an exaggerated way. Ryan Higa, whose videos I've often watched, does the same. The difference is, people rarely think to objectify men. Also, as the article said, difference in content shouldn't mean difference in feedback. And it's clear that content is overshadowed by gender; her social media personality should not be defined by how she looks. No matter what. This whole thing brings to mind the absolutely moronic line of "she was asking for it" that a myriad of men have used to justify rape. They blame the victim. This research on Jenna was important because it captured hostility towards women and exemplified it; the hostility that exists in all realms. I do apologize if I went a bit off track with this topic but sexism is very much an issue in our times, and it's clear in social media. This sexism leads to exclusion , as women are forced to leave online forums to avoid abuse and harassment.overall, as social media becomes more and more an important part of our everyday lives, this overwhelming misogyny becomes an increasingly dangerous concept.

I actually read an article about Gamergate that captures the extent that the abuse can reach. Their lives were literally threatened because of their gender, as some narrow-minded people believe women don't belong in certain roles. This is an example of the effect misogyny and exclusion in social media can have on people's lives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/anita-sarkeesian-the-colbert-report-gamergate_n_6074808.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/22/what-gamergate-means-for-women_n_6028294.html

#Week 9

Week 8

I'd like to address the question Professor Murray emphasized in class today about immaterial/affective labor and social media being problematic. I firmly believe it's semi-problematic for those doing the work, as they both benefit and don't benefit. On one hand, people contribute their content/do the advertising for a company and they do this for personal gain (Professor Murray mentioned "intrinsic rewards and pleasures of participation and creativity" and social capital as rewards). I hope I understood this right, but it seems it plays into the whole concept of "the attention economy". On the other hand, they are, in a sense, being exploited. They put the work and the creativity in and corporations are the ones who reap the profits. Such injustice is what leads to issues like the Huffpost lawsuit (bloggers sued Huffpost because they receive no monetary compensation for their work which profits Huffpost).

MSNBC News Services. (2011). AOL, Huffington Post sued by unpaid writers. [ONLINE}] Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42557983/ns/business-us_business/t/aol-huffington-post-sued-unpaid-writers/#.ULdt1odTzpw[Last Accessed November 29, 2012]

One could argue that these people know what they're getting into. Fine. Except that corporations don't give us any leeway. I mean, they're pretty hypocritical with the whole issue of free content. Corporations tend to HATE the idea of user-generated content. They don't want us taking any ideas. They don't understand that as the speaker in the video mentioned, technology has changed us and we can no longer be passive consumers. I recently watched a Ted talk video about this and it goes very much into detail about the issue, specifically in regards to the bills SOPA and PIPA that they are trying to pass in hopes of further restricting us from accessing content.

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea

So essentially, yes, we have a problem. It isn't fair that corporations don't hesitate to take the content we generate and use it to further their success while they fight us tooth and nail in order to stop us from taking their content, and call pirates and trespassers when we do. They really shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

#Week 8

Analytical Response 1

On the Surface: A Guide to Modern Day Friendships

My experience on social media is not a particularly exciting one. I have largely taken a back seat to interaction on social media. In fact, I’d say that my most regular form of activity on social media would be best described as “passive engagement”--in general I just check other people’s activities, and browse through their profiles and pictures. Something I’ve learned, however, is that it’s pretty hard to ever be free from social media once you create it and put yourself out there. By creating a social media account, you are, in a way, committing to being accessible to the public.

The moment I truly realized how the internet had changed the nature of friendships and relationships is when I received messages from people I’ve never met before. But somehow, with the invention of social media, the term friendship has taken on another meaning. The term is used to describe everything from your “relationship” with someone you met once to the relationship you’ve built with a person through years of sacrifice, support, mutual interests, etc. Rather than work to have that, we have all these relationships with people we’ve met for a moment or never even met at all. I don’t agree with it, but most of these random guys who messaged me thought they had a right to just because we had mutual friends

The change in friendship dynamics has raised many questions that touch on various schools of thought. One of the best things I came across in the readings was in “What Are Friends For?” Aristotle believed that people really only had time/the capacity for a few core friendships. We’re not programmed to have the large network of acquaintances that we spend our time on. When we waste our time on these shallow relationships, we take away from the time we’re supposed to spend “getting to know the characters of a few trusted individuals” who are supposed to guide us and have “the responsibility of directing our moral course” (Bloor, p. 153). The entire nature of friendship has changed, and our friendships are less about the content of the people we’re interacting with and rather the amount. We barely know each other on social media--it’s not a social networking requirement. Thus, the quality of friendship decreases. In “Faux Friendships”, Deresiewicz (2009) describes friendship in ancient times as “precious and hard-won”, a “high calling, demanding extraordinary qualities of character” (p. 2). In our day and age, even if such people with these “extraordinary qualities of character” exist, we don’t take the time to get to know them to find out if it’s true. These guys who messaged me didn’t want to get to know me because I’m me. They probably just thought my profile picture was pretty.Truly, we seek relationships that are resemblant of friendship but without the, you know, friendship aspect. To use an example given by Professor Murray, friendships are like purses. A real purse and a knockoff that you buy in Chinatown look the same on the outside--the difference, though not immediately visible on the surface, is significant: the quality of the knockoff is significantly inferior to that of the genuine purse. This is much like the quality of online relationships. You have the knockoffs (the social network relationships) and the genuine friendships, whose quality is in the depth of the friendship, in the “nature of connection/sharing” two friends share (Murray, 2014).

But it’s not really a surprise that friendship has turned out this way; that merely seeing someone’s photo should be enough to establish a relationship. As Sarachan (2010) explains in “Profile Picture, Right Here, Right Now”, we use images to make us real. So we put a whole lot of thought and effort into our pictures so that they will achieve maximum “punctum”--we want our photos to leave the viewer emotionally impacted in a single glimpse, we want something that “sticks” (p. 53). We craft the picture to look a certain way because we want the viewer to get a sense of our “air” in that one moment. We build identities with a series of images that capture immediate moments. Somehow our efforts to communicate our air leads to a distorted view of ourselves--how can we lead people to know what we’re made of if we’re too busy trying to communicate an image of ourselves that we’re constantly adjusting? This manipulation of our self image to make us come off a certain way shows why it’s so hard to have a friendship of depth. We don’t know who the other person really is. Social media has largely made for a culture of superficiality that is made up of people who carefully craft how the world sees them and form ingenuine, surface relationships and friendships with one another.

Works Cited

Murray, D. P. (2014). Friendship in the Age of Facebook. [Powerpoint Slides]. Retrieved from Rutgers University Sakai site.

Bloor, C. What Are Friends For? pp. 147-157

Deresiewicz, W. 2009. Faux Friendship. The Chronicle of Higher Education. pp. 1-13.

Sarachan, J. 2010. Profile Picture, Right here, Right Now. pp. 51-64.

#response1

Week 7

Professor Manivannan's lecture on minorities actually taught me several things about social media I hadn't before realized; namely about two different topics I hadn't previously thought much about. The first was minorities in social media. Truly social media has allowed for the dissemination of racial stereotypes and messages but with a hint of humor. Still, humor or not, the message gets across. As Professor Manivannan explains, in Twitter, black users come off as less interested in serious issues and more with the less important issues, while white users come off as the opposite. The message communicated then, though indirect, basically implies something about their intelligence or priorities. Also, I had never previously used Twitter in any way, shape, or form. While learning about the use of hashtags to create communities and ambient affiliation (essentially, hashtags bring people of all types from all over together to unite on a common platform, even if only for a little while), I got to see it in action when using the "#smcf14" hashtag. By simply searching it up or clicking on it once, I was able to see the whole class's thoughts and to easily interact if I wanted to. So bottom line: social media actually deeply influences our perceptions of society and also, in a way, allows us to contribute to society/ create one of our own by uniting people from all over so easily.

Here's an example of how the hashtag can be used to influence/connect on a small scale: http://www.youvisit.com/virtual-tours/articles/the-power-of-the-hashtag-how-to-promote-virtual-tours/

And here's how the hashtag influenced the world: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24802766

So, really, is it any wonder such a powerful tool that can gather strangers and information from around the world can even influence the way we look at minorities and other people around us?

#Week 7

Week 6

I loved the topic in class this week about how gender is portrayed in media. The idea of "post-feminism" in which everyone believes that now equality has been achieved so it's fine to just use women's bodies because, well, we're all equal wonderfully explains the way our society thinks (so very, very wrongly). Femininity truly is treated as a bodily property. To paraphrase something Professor Murray said that was amusing and on point is that through their bodies women are defined as "feminine"--they're not defined as people with brains or anything.It's the bodies people look at. Women who don't meet the physical ideas of this age are treated with disdain, and women feel this pressure to transform as society is currently watching them. Through sexuality, through showing off their bodies is how women are told they will feel empowered. The idea of self-branding was also interesting--the idea that women so heavily rely on a product or feel such an attachment to it that they "align their identities with the corporations products". It has been made to seem that consumerism=power. The terrible part about all of this is how it affects women--I mean, little girls feel the pressure and feel vulnerability, such as that eleven year old in the video who asked the entire internet if she was pretty.

The whole issue of gender in media and how incredibly sexist it is is really interesting. In Consumer Media Culture last semester we did in fact discuss women in advertising and we read a piece by Jean Kilbourne that accurately approaches the whole topic of gender in advertising and what it does to females.

http://www.aef.com/industry/news/data/hot_issues/1361

#Week 6

Week 5

On the topic of intimacy this week, I really liked what was said concerning cyber dating. With sites like Tinder increasing in popularity, it was nice to learn about the appeal in such seemingly non-intimate interactions. So the idea of cyber-dating as emancipating made sense. One is not confined to being judged based on their appearance (and thus one can focus on actually just interacting as human beings with personalities). Also, there's the authority that comes with being behind a screen. You have the power to say whatever you want. You can make yourself come off however you want, even physically. Thus, some people, as was mentioned in class, develop or convey a "new physical personae".Social media relationships changed the rules of the game for dating, allowing people the freedom to become whoever they wanted to be, and thus giving them the confidence they sometimes need to embark on their relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julie-spira/online-dating-vs-offline-_b_4037867.html

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765574196/Clicking-for-love-The-perks-and-perils-of-online-dating.html?pg=all

Although in light of tales of catfishing like that of Nev and Angela, it's always good to keep some things in mind, as cyber-dating can very easily go wrong..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-mirza-grotts/online-dating-etiquette_b_1305530.html

#Week 5

Week 4

The theme of faux friendships raised up many interesting thoughts on modern day friendships. One is the "quickness" to it and the lack of time taken and effort put to generate a connection; these days you just friend someone on social media and that feeling of connection is enough. This did not used to be the case, but to use a term I heard in class today, this is an example of "creeping normalcy"; things are changing bit by bit, and slowly these social media friendships and interactions are becoming completely normal. Also, I've never really thought about faux friendships so much in terms of pros--it always seemed like a negative concept and largely, it is. Nothing beats a real friendship built on mutual adventures and interests. However, sometimes, faux friendships can be useful; for example sometimes you just need a distraction from the harsh realities of life, and you don't want to get into a serious conversation with a close friend. Also, they're safe; because you don't go past the surface, you'll probably never lose them (as in have a huge fight and never speak again; there's not enough emotional investment for that) However, overall, these faux friendships and shallow relationships built by social media could and should never replace those friendships built on shared experiences and knowing each others stories--THAT is true friendship.

This is actually a great link that explores social media relationships (largely their lack of depth in many ways).

http://www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-tools/social-media-pretend-friends-and-the-lie-of-false-intimacy/

#Week 4

Week 3

I was honestly just blown away by the documentary, Catfish. Talk about being able to create how you're perceived. It reinforced the idea of micro-celebrity; the part of the definition that especially stood out to me in terms of this documentary was "self-presentation is carefully constructed to be consumed by others". The person behind the entire Pierce family carefully crafted the members of the family, giving them whole personalities, complete with flaws, talents, and relationships, to come off as real people; especially Megan. The whole family was made to appeal to Nev, who was the audience and the "fan base". The woman was careful with Goffman's idea of Impression Management, as she adjusted the "family members" to appeal to Nev and his perceptions of the family (especially as he grew suspicious). I was pretty mind-blown just by the degree of anonymity and how much the internet makes it possible for someone to control people's perceptions.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catfish

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/dont-be-a-stranger/

#Week 3

Week 2

The Frontline video on the dangers of Internet shows how the introduction of internet into society and culture disrupted lives in an unprecedented way. It was revolutionary to be sure, but was also perceived as a threat by adults who realized that the bubble of safety in which they kept their children was now punctured by the internet that brought the world and all its predators into their home. A key point in the Frontline video was that the total anonymity of the internet enables children to also be participants in inflicting damage. Unfortunately this led to the internet being used as a weapon for bullying, soliciting, and as a general means of bringing previously avoidable crimes right in your bedroom.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/story-index/cyber-crimes

http://nobullying.com/three-real-life-stories-of-cyber-bullying/

http://www.carnegiecyberacademy.com/facultyPages/cyberCriminals/operate.html

#week 2

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Untitled