Untitled

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Online Gaming of Belonging

Video games are more widespread and commonplace than ever before. The revolutionary emergence of the modern web 2.0 has given rise to the awesome collaborative, interactive sensation that is online gaming. If one has an electronic device, chances are that it has multiple games preinstalled, ready to connect to a network of online games which offer users choices and creativities in a sophisticated, modular fashion. Massive multiplayer online (MMOG) games give participants a way to construct their own virtual realities (Downing 2010). Games such as EVE Online, enable users to pick and choose from sets of interoperating components and build something that meets their needs. Theses most intellectually arresting games consist of sophisticated frameworks that interpolates gamers into the existence of the game, building emotional ties and thus fostering a deeper connection between gamer and game (Kirriemuir 2005).

Games also facilitate in the forming of identities and provide a framework for complex sociality. Some of the most practical benefits of online gaming are, sharing, communication, group work and trust in community (Kirriemuir 2005). Pargman and Jackobsson cited in de Zwart suggest that players of online games develop sophisticated skills in framing their realities, shifting from real-person to the role of commenter to character or avatar in a seamless fashion (2014, p. 81). Thus, sophisticated online gaming platforms and subsequent data retention therein may according to Kirriemuir, translate to a deeper awareness of digital communities and their characteristics (2005). Giving observers,

clues as to how people can and do use online systems.

inspiration for new or improved methods of providing access to digital information holdings.

Examples of what is technically possible for complex online services with many simultaneous users.

However, social gaming is often an albeit, obscure mode for achieving corporate objectives. The revenue from online games is often ultimately the driver for the games existence rather than for achieving some kind of cyber-spiritual ethos that supports the identities of its users (Grubb 2014). Indeed, online games are bound to a set of rules and regulations. If not incorporated into the game as part of the user-reward framework designed to extrapolate cash from gamers, then they are constrictions defined by the physical limitations of the platforms themselves. For example, you may not be able to explore what’s outside the spirit realm of Vega due to the developers’ not having created it, rather than it being against the rules. However, at the end of the day, it may not matter that the user is restricted in their creative expression or indeed has contributed to some a wider, possibly slightly diabolical corporate objectives as long as gamers have got something in return. In many cases, gamers play a part in a wider community and find a sense of belonging and achievement that forms a sophisticated mode of interactive entertainment. Indeed, this has proven to be the case. A large part of interactive gaming is spent communicating and nearly 30% of gamers surveyed have reported spending significant time with other gamers offline (Addict00tech 2015).

The internet and the emergence of web 2.0 has given rise to the sensation that is online gaming. Those successful in negotiating their realities in the most interactive and multifaceted modes of entertainment, if nothing less, are developing sophisticated intellectual skills shaped by competitive, social, cultural and commercial exchanges. These interactions define online gaming. In context, the mode itself, is an example of the intricacies and seemingly infinite possibilities of the modern web 2.0.

References

Addict00tech 2015, The Rise in Popularity of Online Gaming, Additct00tech.com, viewed 2nd February 2016, http://www.addictootech.com/the-rise-in-popularity-of-online-gaming/

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.

Downing, S 2010, Online Gaming and the Social Construction of Virtual Victimization, Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture. Viewed 22nd January 2016, http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/viewArticle/vol4no2-11/190

Grubb, J 2014, 10 online PC games that made more than $100M in microtransaction sales last year, VentureBeat Inc., viewed 2nd February 2016, http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/20/10-online-pc-games-that-made-more-than-100m-in-microtransaction-sales-last-year/

Kirriemuir 2005, Parallel Worlds : Online Games and Digital Information Services, D-Lib Magazine, December 2005, Volume 11 Number 12, viewed 21st January 2016,

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december05/kirriemuir/12kirriemuir.html

ll(th�c�4o�

[arielblogstuff-blog]

The Reality of Space

From Facebook to YouTube to Instagram, the proliferation of content across social platforms is vast. Cyberspace, like the reaches of the galaxy are seemingly limitless and akin to the capacity of the human brain... Leading to such rhetorical ponderings as, ‘how useful is this information anyway?’ and ‘how much can I fit in there?’. Parallel to such philosophical thought experiments as "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around…? – If a selfie is without an audience may it reverberate the vast ether of digital cyberspace? (free for GPL ;) For work or play, human attention may well be the aim of the social game. Lange describes attention as a gift rather than an economic manifestation of capitalist value (2009, p. 73). Possibly an idealistic view when one considers that corporate interests underpin the motives behind the major social applications themselves (Sevignani 2016). Moreover, when one considers that the average human in the western world is subjected to over 5000 advertisements every day, the perceived control of attention over which media we consume is a matter for debate (Johnson 2014).

The social media sphere has been termed as the identity merger of our personal and professional personas (Vivienne & Burgess 2013, p. 296). The immediacy of modern media and forming of weak relational ties through ‘followers’ and ‘back-links’ allows for the prolific dissemination of personal information, ‘oh no my personal information has just gone viral!’ (shock). In a way, sharing content becomes a mode of personal development and thus, advertisements for our identities which may or may not be an accurate depiction of reality (Wilken & McCosker 2008, p. 293). But again, the ‘reality’ of online content falls back to the context of the situation, the energy of attention afforded to the mode which validates its existence. Lang describes the process of securing attention as one that requires negotiation (2009, p. 71). In person, or through the traditional modes of face-to-face interaction, attention is to the individual a complex negotiation of rules and interpretations of verbal and non-verbal modes influenced by our identities. This is a naturally and inherit-ably complex process. The human brain is conditioned by our sociability, adept at storing and archiving seemingly infinite complex social interactions, recalling them verbatim (Foulger 2004). Indeed, the primary stimulative process of interaction, gestures and framing, present in face-to-face communications are simply not possible online. The competition for stimulation must be elevated, in the digital world they say you have 15 seconds for a viewer to decide if the content is worthy of attention, maximum (Rigney 2015).

Indeed, information regarded as worthy of attention must have some relevance or value to our lives. This, according to scholars is termed as the attention economy, where originality may be key to captivating brain cells amid a vast and competitive informational universe (Lang 2009, p. 73). No longer are the selfie, the status and the online video mere records of our existence to be viewed by a select few, but rather a mode to transmit a feeling of a particular moment in the creators’ life and thus to compete for attention in the cyberspace.

References

Johnson S, 2014, New Research Sheds Light on Daily Ad Exposures, SJ Insights, LLC, Viewed 19th January 2016, http://sjinsights.net/2014/09/29/new-research-sheds-light-on-daily-ad-exposures/

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.

Rigney, B 2015, ’15 Statistics on How Critical Attention Span is Your Digital Marketing’, Marketing Tech Blog, viewed 19th January 2016, https://www.marketingtechblog.com/15-statistics-on-how-critical-attention-span-is-your-digital-marketing/

Sevignani, S 2016, Privacy and Capitalism in the Age of Social Media, Routledge, New York.

Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014, 'Social Selves’, in Cunningham & Turnbull (eds), The Media & Communications in Australia, Allen and Unwin pp. 291-295.

Vivienne, S & Burgess, J 2013, ‘The Remediation of the Personal Photograph’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 279-98.

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Outsourcing Web 2.0 Style

Crowdsourcing, coined in 2005 is defined as ‘the process of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people, and especially from an online community, rather than from traditional employees or suppliers’ (Merriam Webster, 2012). From creative and informative projects to mobilizing a lynch mob, crowd-sourcing has been one of the more compelling examples of group interaction in the social space since the emergence of web 2.0 (Diana, 2010). One infamous example of the informative, sprawling community based content systems that fall under the crowd-sourcing umbrella is Wikipedia. However, a more poignant use of interactive technologies is through the mobilization of social action groups in times of crisis and community need (Ford 2012, pp. 33-39).

The authors of the Ushahidi program, meaning ‘witness’ in Swahili was one example of the power of modern media to oppose political oppression. Authors of the Ashahidi system in partnership with mobile phone operators were given a means to post reports using an SMS short-code system and thus were able to circumvent the governments media ban (Zuckerman 2008). Indeed, Kenyans’ demonstrated to the world how technologically sophisticated their communities were in response to a government who sought to rig elections and coordinate violent attacks upon social action groups (Zuckerman 2008). 30% of Kenyans’ used social media, a 33% increase on Africa’s aggregate and Hershman reports that 75% of Kenyan blogs were linked to Ushahidi by January 10th of 2007 (2008). The platform is best known as a collaborative form of citizen journalism, supplanting the hegemonic role of the countries morally defunct media powers, enabling ordinary citizens to,

·         Report what they saw

·         Develop a database of events

·         Enable the understanding of events at a macro level

As well as SMS messaging, citizens of Ushahidi were able to submit details of geographic locations, supporting information, photos and video. Whilst administrators attempted to verify information against mainstream and citizen media reports and to resolve information’s into an interactive map. Ushahidi provided citizens a powerful informational tool to map the complexities of peacemaking efforts in the Kenyan electoral conflict (Zuckerman 2008).

One of the main criticisms of crowd-sourcing is the validity of information. Amongst other issues, the sheer number of individual informative sources make the validation of content a logistically daunting task for moderators of crowd-sourcing platforms (Hershman 2008). The fact that Ushahidi content moderators published unverified reports, or on in a case closer to home the usage of Wikipedia being academically frowned upon by most Universities being cases in point. However, in many cases, reports are verified and scholars do indeed support and contribute to Wikipedia (Ford 2012). Thus, effective crowd-sourcing is a prudent example of the 5th estate. In the case of the Kenyan uprising, information was power, Ushahidi gave a voice to the people in a time when they needed it most.

References

'crowdsourcing entry' 2014, Merriam Webster, viewed 13th January 2016, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crowdsourcing.

Diana, R 2010, Crowdsourcing Is Outsourcing Web 2.0 Style, Regular Geek, viewed 13th January, 2016, http://regulargeek.com/2010/05/14/crowdsourcing-is-outsourcing-web-2-0-style/

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

Hershman 2008, Activist Mapping Presentation at Where 2.0, White African .com, viewed 13th January, 2016, http://whiteafrican.com/2008/05/15/activist-mapping-presentation-at-where-20/

Zuckerman, E 2008, Kenya: Citizen Media in a time of crisis, My heart’s in Accra, viewed 13th January, 2016.

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Flame the Troll and online prank!

Trolling, flaming, online pranking and cyber-bullying are all forms of digital antagonism designed for provocation. Whilst cyber-bullying, a form of harassment carried out in a deliberately hostile manner is probably the more mentally afflicting of cyber activity, its affect is largely dependent on framing through cultural and geographic context (McCosker 2014, abstract.) Whilst the ability of cyber antagonism to affect and provoke is dependent on circumstance, the consequences are not necessarily negative.

According to McCosker the highly contextual, relational and active modes of provocation specifically designed to antagonise are often initiated as a game of sorts (2014, p. 202). Trolling for example, those out to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else, may seek an adversary for a bit of, albeit often obtuse, intellectual jousting (Cheezburger 2016). In this way interactions may form participatory modes of agonistic pluralism, democratic sociality, which, to be effective, are always and necessarily contested (McCosker 2014, p. 205). Like two sides of an argument, social platforms and trolling may allow space for passion and contested interactions among adversaries.

Boyd identifies are darker side to the competitiveness of cyber-communicative provocation as vying for social statuses and online prestige. Those victorious amount more popularity through likes, shares and twitter peeps, forms of attention that become commodity (2014 p. 151). The struggle to participate often involves drama, pranks with indefinable values which can be intentionally or accidentally hurtful to others. Often leading to feelings of seclusion, lack of identity support and self-esteem statuses (Boyd, 2014 p. 152). On the flip side, those social-cyber champs may claim shallow victories. Such as YouTube and Instagram sensation Essena O’Neill, amounting over 750 000 followers across the visual based platforms only to give up her royal statuses claiming, ‘she was totally unhappy’ and ‘wasn’t living an authentic life’ (McNeal 2015). Indeed, O’Neill experienced a darker side of social success, forming superficial relationships and identity support predicating a fractured reality.

Whilst there are those critical of the unrestricted moral cyber activity often leaving victims with meagre avenues for retribution on most social platforms. Boyd notes that online forms of antagonism have not radically altered the dynamics of negative communications and intent, rather just made them more famous. This also makes the victims of negative antagonism famous too. Boyd states we must use this visibility not to justify punishment but to recognise who needs help and understand why others engage in acts of meanness and cruelty (Boyd, 2014 p. 152). Burgess and Green cite the work of Drotner (2008) and Jenkins et al. (2006) who identify participation in antagonistic modes of online interactions as experience in criticising media, predicating the 5th estate (McCosker, 2014 p. 203). Identifying criticism as a vehicle for democracy, the freedom to write without fear of retribution.

References

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.

Cheezeburger 2016, Trolling, Cheezeburger.com, viewed 7th January 2016, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/trolling

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

McNeal, S 2015, An 18-Year-Old Instagram Star Says Her “Perfect Life” Was Actually Making Her Miserable, Buzzfeed Inc., Viewed 7th January 2016, http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/a-teen-instagram-star-is-editing-her-photo-captions-to-show#.ms2Yk1gkR

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Digital activism?

“There’s a big difference between ‘simple crime’ like holding up a 7-11, and ‘creative crime’ as a form of expression…Creative crime is…uplifting to the soul…What better way to survive our anthill society than by abusing the very mass media that sedates the public?…A prank a day keeps the dog leash away!” – Jello Biafra

Social activists are criminals? At the very least, social activism has been elevated up the political nuisance barometer through the modern media sphere. Ideas surrounding collective intelligence, creative commons, hashtag activism, crowdsourcing, flash mobbing and culture jamming have evolved from forms of new wave activism (Khan-Ibarra 2014). Ultimately, the goal of new wave activism is to mobilise ideologies, to support community and world values, to criticise political rhetoric, offer alternatives to media conglomerates and challenge societal powers. Some propose that the modern interweb is supplanting the medias spurious socio-political rhetoric, giving birth to the notion of the 5th estate (Jericho 2012). However, the power of new wave social activism has been criticised as being shaped and sanctioned by governments and from the corporations in which they exist (Youmans & York, 2012, pp. 316-317). Furthermore, Morozov proposes widespread ‘slacktivism’ or ‘feel good activism’ arising from passive modes of interaction with little intent on reality (Gerbaudo 2012, pp. 7-8).

Idealist activists turn to social media in the hope of spontaneous and unrestrained participation in support of socio-political issues of the day. However, according to Gerbaudo, influential Facebook admins and activist tweeps become soft leaders bent on setting an emotional space for action which may be no more than a fictional hypothetic (2012, p. 5).  Indeed, at some point people have to put boots on the ground to get things done. As summed up in the infamous Cairo graffiti formula ‘the revolution will not be tweeted’ (Gerbaudo 2012, p. 5). Indeed, social platforms may function as a tool to illicit response rather than as a one-stop-shop for changing the world. In the cases of the uprising in Tunisia and Egypt this is indeed what unfolded. Social media did play an integral role in the immobilisation of public opinion and rhetoric of the masses which underpinned the publics democratic voice and ultimately led to old school grass roots activism. If nothing else, social media facilitates rapid communication and thus to the speed of group action (Shirky 2008, p. 161).

Whilst we may not dispute social medias disruptive potential. According to Youmans & York, the major social platforms are large corporations driven by profit, therefor their ability to withstand pressure from organisational and political forces are at least partly diminished. In this way social media is framed by the very hierarchical and ideological impetuses that social action groups may seek to challenge (2012, pp. 216-217). For example, the removal of Ghonim’s pseudonymous Facebook account pre-Egyptian parliamentary elections. Or Tunisian activist Rafik Dammak who found his account disabled in mid-2010 after reportedly requesting too many friends. In both cases social platforms have failed activists, inhibiting democratic voices and their efforts to appeal to as many people as possible (Youmans & York 2012, p. 322). Considering this should activists start their own platform? Maybe a topic for another article…

References

Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets : Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Pluto, London.

Jericho, G 2012, The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe Publications, Viewed 10th December 2015, https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/the-rise-of-the-fifth-estate/

Khan-Ibarra, S 2014, The Case For Social Media and Hashtag Activism, The Huffington Post, Viewed 10th December 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sabina-khanibarra/the-case-for-social-media_b_6149974.html?ir=Australia

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: Penguin.

Youmans, W, & York, J 2012, 'Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements', Journal Of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Politically Social

Digital citizenship is gaining momentum around the world. As an individual online, successful belonging may mean creating trust in social networks. According to Heaton, trust is the product of reputation and action (2015). Whilst this may sound like a marketing pitch for every self-proclaimed life coach that ever lived, let’s consider ALP candidate Peter Watson for a moment, whose homophobic comments on social media as a teenager led to his political demise a decade later. Or Barak Obama’s response on how to become president which started with being careful of what you say on social media (Jericho 2012, p. 254). Indeed former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s own public relations strategy invested $4 million in social media research in an attempt to gain a portion of the social status pie. This is nothing new in the political sphere however, there is indeed a broad based political and organisational recognition and understanding that media consumption, discussion and engagement is shifting from traditional forms of large media entities into the living rooms of individuals (Jericho p. 255).

The shift to social media has been termed as a democratisation of the media, in a political sense giving a new dimension to debate and an increased power to voters (Heaton 2015). The power of our digital voice according to the Edelman Trust Barometer for 2015 lies in the credibility of the individual. According to the barometer, a politicians’ credibility sits at 38%, while an ordinary individual is at 63% and an industry expert is at 70%. Considering this it is no wonder that politicians are justifying significant expenditure in their digital personas (Heaton 2015). Whilst investigating the case of our former captain, Abbott’s demise may mean considering the possibility of trusts pretty cousin likeability. For indeed there was a visual foray of text overlays, the creation of imaginary conversations between Abbott and other well-known political players staged purely for mockery and entertainment value, cementing our fallen leader as the cat meme of the political scene. So it appears that $4 million in social media may not be enough to sway public opinion, an example in itself of the platforms democratic credentials. However in evaluation of democratic potential Dean questions the criteria of sheer abundance of messages as amounting to communicative capitalism, whereby ‘[m]essages are contributions to circulating content – not actions to elicit responses’(2005, p. 58). Dean proposes Habermas’s model of communicative action in support of this position, suggesting that ideas valued in sheer numbers does not equate to validity nor indeed that a message is received or understood (2005, p.59). As such, the status or hype of a topic supersedes its pragmatic value and cultural substance in a societal context.

Those critical of social media as the embodiment of democracy propose a proliferation of weak ties supported by a sea of undefinable rhetoric and spurious connections. According to Gladwell cited in Jericho, ‘[t]hat’s why you can have a thousand friends online as you never could in life’ (2012, p.256). However, the terms ‘twitter revolution’ and ‘Facebook revolution’ predicating the rise of unprecedented social change have in part been realised. The effective mobilisation of millions through successful social action groups and campaigns across the world on social media being cases in point (Gingerich 2013). Social media is giving power to the people and force to their democratic voices.

https://mikegingerich.com/the-rise-of-social-media-stats-infographic/

References

Heaton, G 2015, With Social Media We Are All Swinging Voters Now, Servant of Chaos, viewed 02/12/2015, http://servantofchaos.com/2015/02/with-social-media-we-are-all-swinging-voters-now.html

Gingerich, M 2013, The Rise of Social Media [STATS INFOGRAPHIC], mikegingerich.com, viewed 2nd December 2015, https://mikegingerich.com/the-rise-of-social-media-stats-infographic/

Jericho, G 2012, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe, Victoria, Australia.

Dean, J 2005, Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics, Berg Publishing, United Kingdom.

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Digital communities and social stuff...

Science and technology revolutionize our lives, but memory, tradition and myth frame our response. – Arthur Schlesinger (Historian)

Technology presents society with the means to break down the geographical barriers of traditional communications. Today, one may connect almost instantaneously across the world with a few strokes of the keyboard, a child may scare a corporation with a tweet and Kim Kardashian-West may well be the most followed figure of social times. Ok, so maybe technology has some questions to answer. However according to some, more fruitful online interactions may be found in communities which share an affective cultural commonality through the facilitation of social and political ideas/changes and the rapid dissemination of information. Conversely, those critical of online cultures hail claims to time wasting (keeping up with the Kardashians), inhibitions of real-world interactions effecting communication skills and the dissemination of misleading information. For the moment let’s just entertain the idea that both sides may hold sway before we consider the digital dividing cultures argument through scholarly perspectives.

Saipera explores the freedom of networked individualism that is no longer confined to geographic localities, but rather on the basis of preferences, skills and knowledge that fosters social connectedness and the forming of relationships (2012, p. 206). Wellman explores this idea further, suggesting that digital networking may provide sociability, support and belongingness. Values that are akin to that of traditional communities (2012, p. 23). Whereas according to Boyd, a significant level of time spent online keeps individuals feeling connected, ‘as humans are curious, social critters with an urge to understand and interact and technology introduces new possibilities for doing so’ (2010, p. 42). Rheingold is also in support of the positive modes of virtual communities based on shared interests which promote democracy and egalitarian roles within (2013). So there are plenty of credible testaments to the virtues of online communities and there is indeed a proliferation of practical examples. Notably, Malala Yousafzai promoting her ‘books not bullets’ #, mobilising hordes of humanitarian sentiments in an affective campaign for human rights across blogs, twitter and Instagram (Yin, 2015). Or the # I’ll ride with you campaign, in support of Muslim sentiment following the Sydney siege (BBC 2014). However Boyd notes the limitations of time and attention required to sift through the heap of Kardashian-esque content in an attempt to satisfy the need for social connectivity and understanding. A primary concern being that often the need for social satisfaction and gratification online can formulate instances of information overload and an augmented reality (2010, pp. 44-46).

Wilken & McCosker explore issues of social networking online that impacts directly on how self-identity is formed. Specifically the distance that social networking sites place between the reality of our interaction with the world and ourselves through controllability. For example, one may use social networking sites to choose, construct and negotiate how we are to be perceived. These concerns are tantamount to a virtual identity crisis of social connectivity, the dissolution of boundaries between private and public personas and the availability, visibility and localability of our personas online (2008). Turkle supports these concerns in that social networking presents issues of ‘authenticity’ whereby participation, content creation and interaction may be filtered and sanctioned and so too our identities (TED-Ed 2013). The idea being that if our communications lack authenticity then there is the grave possibility that we are individually adding to the pile of Kardashian content or at least to spurious content with indefinable values of public and personal interest.

In short, digital communities and social media presents us with sophisticated tools that amplify traditional modes of connectivity and information which may enable the construction of meaningful relationships. The downside being the noise and calamity of irrelevant themes with spurious, indefinable levels of public interest and credible voices that may impede self-development and identity. Considering this, our scope for communication is heightened within the modern modes of technology, the challenge may lie in how we shape our online selves through memory, tradition and myth. ��N

References

BBC 2014, BBC Trending, Sydney cafe: Australians say to Muslims "I'll ride with you", British Broadcasting Corporation, viewed 21st November 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-30479306.

Boyd, d 2010, ‘Social Network Sites as Networked Publics’, in Papacharissi, Z, A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Routledge, Hoboken, pp. 39-58.

Rheingold, H 2013, Network Literacy Mini-Course, viewed 24th November 2015, <http://rheingold.com/2013/network-literacy-mini-course/>.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media', in Introduction to New Media, pp 191-208

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 14th November 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Wellman, B & Rainie, L 2012, Networked : The New Social Operating System, The MIT Press, London.

Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014, 'Social Selves', in Cunningham & Turnbull (eds), The Media & Communications in Australia, Allen and Unwin pp. 291-295.

Yin, M 2015, Malala Yousafzai Launches the #BooksNotBullets Hashtag, Galley Cat, viewed 21st November 2015, http://www.adweek.com/galleycat/malala-yousafzai-launches-the-booksnotbullets-hashtag/106362

[arielblogstuff-blog]

Socially Public

Think about what people are doing on Facebook today. They're keeping up with their friends and family, but they're also building an image and identity for themselves, which in a sense is their brand. They're connecting with the audience that they want to connect to. It's almost a disadvantage if you're not on it now – Mark Zuckerberg

Technology has changed the way we function in the media sphere, as people. Modern media breaks down the barriers of physical space and time. It is a powerful tool to be used for gaining information and contributing to the media sphere though active participation. When we engage in this way we become contributors to and audiences of a wider story and reality. This reality is a complicated network of information and ideas which blurs the lines of public, private and professional identity.

Warner proposes that modern forms of media presents a public discourse that is self-creating and self-organising. And that the inorganic mode of information transmission is both powerful and strange (2002). The power of social media through mass exposure is explained in Granoveter’s theory of weak ties (Rettberg 2014). The idea is that there exists a greater chance for the dissemination of information through association in numbers. Social media does this especially well, many users have a proliferation of weak ties which enables the spreading of information and making of connections. Take for example the spread of second hand ties, a friend shares a post and it spreads to other networks enabling further contacts to be made. This is a mode of inter-connectivity, the proliferation and power of social media to disseminate information and grow audiences and relationships.

Conversely, if we consider the strangeness of the situation, Wasik proposes that the best way to attract audiences is to stir up controversy, evoking the powers of meme, or oft-linked-to, pass along cache of information (Cross 2011, p.44). This may lead to a proliferation of ‘kitty content’ or soft stories with undefinable values which the internet has been widely criticised for. In addition, there is the monetisation of content creation, whereby corporate interests pose as individual personalities online. The power herein lies in the ability of blogs and online content to infiltrate our personal worlds as first hand, or ‘friendly’ information. According to Cross corporations may create a web of interconnected arrangements which are designed to harvest audiences[r1]  (2011, p.46). Furthermore, Warner describes the corporate agenda setting as masquerading under the guise of interpersonal roleplay and thus undermining our public and political confidence, committing us as contributors and audiences to strange and uncertain destinations. As public and as audience we can only produce a sense of belonging and activity if it is self-organized through discourse rather than through an external framework (2002, pp. 51-52).

The social and cultural value as audiences in the modern media sphere may vary from extremes. There is no restrictions or regulations on blogs like other forms of media and thus in totality we have a mess of indefinable values and motives. As Cross notes, a blog can spread rumours and gossip with little regard for facts or rationality, conversely a blog can speak the truth to power irrespective of status and authority (2011, p.38). As audiences our power may lie in being able to read between the lines, uncover motives and biases. And one may do well to consider the anonymity and guise of technology that covers or masks identity through the act of balancing professional and social personas online.

References

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

Rettberg, J 2014, 'Blogs, Communities and Networks', in Blogging, Polity Press, MA.

Warner, M 2002, ‘Publics and Counterpublics’, Public Culture, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49-90.

��:%�

 [r1]