Digital Communities

Arnee Macdowell's reflection on the readings, concepts and activities covered in MDA20009.

[arneemac-blog]

From personal photography to social imaging

Personal photography begins with the introduction of the Kodak hand camera in 1888, making the practice of photography accessible to the mass market (Vivienne & Burgess, 2013). As opposed to paying a professional photographer a fortune for a still set up family photo.

Fast forward to the future, every single daily activity and family life can now be photographed digitally as a throwaway image. Taking the photo with the location or landscape in mind is far more critical knowing that you will be sharing the picture online. What’s even more concerning are the many privacy concerns around social media images, once you have uploaded the photo online the ownership of the image is no longer yours.

Social media platforms like Instagram rely on photos to operate. This sort of service has been compared to as a personal exhibition, you are curating the images being loaded to your presentation with friends and family in mind, but in fact, the exhibition is available to everyone.

Van Dijck (2008: 59) said:

“While the internet allows for quick and easy sharing of private snapshots, that same tool also renders  them vulnerable  to  unauthorized  distribution. Ironically, the  picture  taken  by  the roommate as a token of instant and ephemeral communication may have an extended life on the internet, turning up in unexpected contexts many years from now ... the increased manipulability of photographic images may suit the individual’s need for continuous self-remodelling, but that same  flexibility  may also  lessen  our  grip  on  our images’  future  repurposing  and  reframing, forcing us to acknowledge the way pictorial memory might be changed by ease of distribution.”

Visual social media is essential in our modern day understanding of ourselves and others. We live in a digital world that enables us to polish our own image to perfection, selectively posting opinions that are considered and edited, images that fit our preferred ideals and stories that meet the persona we wish to project.

Social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram have become the relevant platforms to afford different forms of networked visuality engagement, create our modern digital communities and polish our digital persona.

Reference List

Van Dijck J (2008) Digital photography: Communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication7(1): 57–76.

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

[phoebeditommaso-blog]

Visual Communities & Social Imaging.

This week has explored the idea of visual communities and the networks and groups that are created through the world of ‘visual’ social and digital media.

 I quite liked the quote from Snapchat creator Evan Speigel

“The selfie makes sense as the fundamental unit of communication on Snapchat because it marks the transition between digital media as self-expression and digital media as communication.” It explores the idea of the evolution of communication, what was once seen as visual documentation of where and what you’re up to – to now communicating through visual tools as opposed to calling/texting.

 Something that really resonated with me in this weeks readings / viewings was the YouTube interview of Nathan Jurgssan < Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media: An Interview with Nathan Jurgenson (2014) https://youtu.be/MnPtZ5lKDHo > and the fact that the way in which we now think about activities we participate in or places we visit now has some thoughts as to ‘can this be shared on Social Media’ which I am absolutely a victim of. I think the idea that we consciously have to think about having a ‘digital detox’ or moments in which we escape our phones is a confronting but unavoidable truth in todays world.

 I classify myself in the non you-tuber catergory, and rarely check my snapchat – so for me the idea of communicating through visual is mainly through the use of my Instagram (mainly business/branding) and Facebook, which I primararily use to keep updated/update friends and family I am less connected with on a regular basis. On the flipside – this idea of affinity / belonging / community, I can recognise through my brother and his social media following. My brother (@domtomato) is a Parkour athlete with a large social media following. He utilises his Instagram to ‘talk’ to his followers and communicate where he is and what he is up to. From there, he promotes his YouTube channel, in which his aim is to generate more subscribers to his channel and inturn, build his community. Tying back into the YouTube video interview by Nathan Jurgssan, my brothers world (to a degree) revolves around creating content for his social media and documenting his parkour adventures as well as some day to day activities that he can continue to share with his followers.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3jXR-xcjcf9UTkL-tcg3xw

And for a little laugh – a friend sent me this video yesterday which I feel ties well into this weeks theme, Enjoy!

[sianrhianydd-blog]

Wow! That’s incredible! The Power of Social Media right there. Like you I don’t remember the last time I used Snapchat, in fact I ended up deleting it because I thought it was a waste of time. My cousin also uses social media to promote her beauty vlog which has led to her getting more work as a make up artist. Even though I’m guilty of it, I find the concept of the selfie to be rather empty and unfulfilling as I don’t feel it’s a good representation of what we are doing with our lives but rather a narcissistic tendency.

[arneemac-blog]

Haha! the video is hilarious "Nah I'm not on Facebook, I'm not on any social media". How is he suppose to send a d1&k pic made me lol.

[arneemac-blog]

Guerilla Communication

Culture jamming aka guerrilla communication is a form of activism against the mainstream, generally poking fun at the mainstream consumer culture. Culture jamming adds words to iconic logos to expose something within the company to get you thinking, for example, a simple coke advertisement with some extra words added can change the idea of “love” coke.

The purpose of culture jamming is to convert mainstream iconic logos into more significant questions about the companies responsibilities to consumers. This particular image perfectly describes Coca-Cola’s position to consumers, do they love the consumer or do they love profit.

There are many different techniques to culture jamming here are a few, graffiti, billboard hacking,  street art, hacktivism, clothing and newest of all yarn bombing.

The easiest way of culture jamming aka guerrilla communication is with online memes. You can reach a broader audience and not run the risk of being caught graffitiing private property. Memes are online digital images that can be easily manipulated. Household known brands like Coca-Cola and Nike are easy targets.

Another manner that culture jamming moves desire to make use of subculture jamming efficaciously is by using a meta-meme. A meta-meme is a message that punctures a particular commercial image, however, does so in a manner that demanding situations a few significant component of the political culture of corporate domination. An example would be the "genuine fee" campaign set in movement through Adbusters. "actual cost" forced clients to compare the human hard work value and conditions and environmental drawbacks of merchandise to the sales costs.

This image can quickly go viral on the internet to a global audience causing people to talk about child labour and if they really know where their shoes are made and who’s making them. Culture jamming can open a Pandora's box of complicated questions and answers marketing department probably don’t want to receive.

[arneemac-blog]

Crisis Crowdsourcing

Emergency management around the world is changing rapidly with ‘first informers’ and ‘digital citizens’. There will never be a shortage of disasters around the globe or a shortage of ordinary citizens willing to help. In recent years crowdsourcing has significantly changed emergency operations at all levels.

Crowdsourcing improves disaster and crisis management either man-made (terrorist attack) or natural (flooding). It has been hugely useful in helping casualties to locate a safe place. Crowdsourcing is an easy and fast method to draw in the group in crisis and to accumulate precise ongoing data about the emergency.

The use of crowdsourcing not only makes it possible to have valuable information in one place accessible to everyone, but it also can prepare communities for disaster recovery. For example, global natural disasters that happen the countries less fortunate have the potential for viral outbreaks. In some cases, unofficial discussions on social media platforms reveal viral epidemics in the communities before official health reports are released.

Crowdsourcing instigators can connect officials to communities to the worst hit areas to carry out, for example, makeshift emergency medical zones. Crowdsourcing allows ordinary citizens to become part of the emergency response team. They can also communicate with official emergency services via unofficial sources. 

Although crowdsourcing can be an excellent tool for gathering data, there still can be some problems with the source being accurate and trustworthy. A journalist also needs to be careful with the information they receive to minimise the risk of publishing sensitive information. People can judge if someone is trustworthy via a face to face interview but to judge trustworthiness via a text message can be difficult.

It won't be long until crowdmapping and crowdsourcing when all is said in done turns into a more acknowledged detailing instrument in global reporting. While there are some shallow contrasts, she says the difficulties of verifications by crowdmappers aren't that dissimilar as the difficulties most journalists confront.

Crowdsourcing Crisis Information

CBSNews.com's Shira Lazar talks to Patrick Meier, founder of Ushahidi about the future of crowdsourcing crisis information.

Reference List

CBS 2010, Crowdsourcing crisis information, Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SNmum1oe4

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Shed a little light: in times of crisis.

So far, throughout my previous blogs, despite my best efforts, they have largely been centered around the negative effects of social media and digital citizenship. However, where there is dark there is also light.

Globally, it is becoming evident that social media has been a pivotal tool during emergency situations. This has been true for both those it affects and those trying to help. Emergency services can use social media posts to track badly effected areas, and provide aid to those unable to get through to blocked emergency service lines. On the other hand, users in effected areas can receive an up to date newsfeed in regards to what to be aware of, and what’s happening. This can make the difference between when to flee an effected area or not.

In the Black Saturday fires of 2008, an ABC (Australia’s official emergency broadcaster) staff member effectively utilised social media, and henceforth, setting the precedent for having a profound impact during emergency situations. ABC’s national social media co-ordinator, Ping Lo, reported that we felt it was the ABC’s responsibility to continue to use social media during emergencies thereafter (Posetti & Lo, 2012). Since then, social media has been an important tool during emergency situations in Australia.

The 2011 Queensland Floods (10-16 January), is a prime example of effective use of social media during times of devastation. The hashtag #qldfloods became the principle communicative tool for flood-related news. Whilst I’ve spoken in the past about hashtags being a way to label yourself, in this respect it acts as communication mechanism to bring people together. The community it creates is one of support and information. During January 10-16, there were more than 35,000 tweets containing the hashtag, #qldfloods; and more than 15,500 Twitter users participated in #qldfloods (Bruns et al, 2012). Of these tweets, 50-60% of them were retweets in an effort to further spread the flow of information (Bruns et al, 2012). What’s more, emergency services and media organisations were amongst the most visible participants in #qldfloods (Bruns et al, 2012). As a result, Twitter became a primary source of news regarding the flooding. Furthermore, it also allowed a platform for those affected or involved to share their own experiences, which hence further widened the reach of coverage on the disaster.

In the hope not to bring anything dark to this light blog post, it is also worth mentioning as a side note, that there is a relevant argument toward the authenticity to user-generated posts.

Despite this, the increased use of social media does have a positive influence in such situations, and has proven so on multiple occasions.

References:

Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Crawford, K. & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation.

Posetti, J. & Lo, P 2012, ‘The Twitterisation of ABC’s emergency and disaster communication’,

Australian Journal of Emergency Management

, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 34-39, viewed 3 January 2018, < https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/fullText;dn=046926063833158;res=IELAPA>

[arneemac-blog]

Super positive blog. Great examples of how social media are becoming a vital tool for emergency services. I like the photo of the volunteer firefighter giving water to the koala; his priority is to save lives. The media's preference is to saves lives via hashtags.

[arneemac-blog]

Trolling

“The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue”. (Urban Dictionary, 2018)

The mythical creature of a troll is ugly, dirty and angry and lives in dark places like underneath a bridge, waiting for someone to pass by for a quick meal. The internet troll is a modern version of the mythical creature. The present-day trolls hide behind their computer or mobile devices and actively go out of their way to deliberately piss people off.

Being a jerk on the internet, just because you can apparently have damaging effects. People that have been affected by ongoing trolling or online shaming are self-harming themselves or even committing suicide.

The internet and social media platforms provide a media that can be spread far and wide way past the schoolyard. YouTube as a social media platform is known to have the worst comments on all platforms. Internet users call it "the trailer park of the internet.” The more popular the video, the more troll comments it will attract. Misuse of “online privilege” is becoming a free pass to tear apart anybody we choose to. We are losing our capacity for empathy and for distinguishing between serious and unserious transgressions.

Free access to media online is better informing people, it is also giving the voiceless a voice. The digital age is empowering people and trolling people can easily turn in to a mutual approval machine. We surround ourselves with people who feel the same way we do, and we approve each other. Social platforms complicate the direction of social sharing and gossip because it provides a platform for information to be spread far and wide. Trolls are often motivated to deliberately embarrass people because others find it interesting.

Watch this video by James Veitch for some light humour on the subject - Ultimate troll!

Reference List

Urban Dictionary. (2018). Trolling. Retrieved Jan 3, 2018, from https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling

Boyd, D. (2014) It's complicated : the social lives of networkedteens. Bullying : is social media amplifying meannessand cruelty?, 128-152

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Can we truly afford the affordances of social media?

In my previous post, I spoke in the defense of social media and the affordances it provides for connecting us globally, and henceforth affording us a wealth of knowledge and opportunities.

Conversely, I also spoke of how social media sites are merely a platform to construct your ideal self. This is then how the digital world judges you, thus separating us from vulnerability. Therefore, we henceforth become controlled by maintaining this image and our ability to keep up with our companions (Turkle, 2013). Tim O’Reilly (2005) has termed this particular increased use of the Internet as Web 2.0; whereby user generated content has led to an era in which users are gravitated toward producing content then thus became controlled by its story.

Pariser (2011) highlights that given the open platform that a Web 2.0 era has left, has allowed for media platforms to seize upon this vulnerability. In December 2009, the biggest change in Internet’s history occurred… personalisation for everyone (Pariser, 2011). Google began using various signals, in fact, 57 at this time, to predict what pages you were most likely to click on, and hence, individually tailoring your search based on those signals. Pariser termed this phenomenon as “filter bubbles”. A Filter Bubble is this unique universe of information that these search engines have come to personalise and filter for each of us. As Pariser believes, this will fundamentally alter that way in which we encounter ideas and information.

So thus, by hiding our vulnerabilities for meaningful human interaction, we have made ourselves more vulnerable to be controlled and constructed by another. This time, in the digital world, by a computer, by algorithms.

So whilst we are off thinking that we are able to construct our ideal self through these platforms, these platforms are now constructing us. The algorithms control the content we are shown, and thus limit the connectivity of users (our companions) and information available (positive affordance). Ultimately, these algorithms are watching what we watch, click on and connect with and then constructing these platforms based on those preferences. So simply, we are sacrificing our privacy and our right to our own realities in the wake of the affordances of social media. Is it worth it?

References:

O’Reilly, T. 2005, What is Web 2.0, viewed 8 September 2016, <http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>

Pariser, E., (2011) The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you, London: Viking, viewed 10 September 2016, <http://onlineres.swin.edu.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/1023084.pdf>

Turkle, S 2012, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.

Please watch this for more information of filter bubbles:  

[arneemac-blog]

You had me hooked quickly on your engaging writing style, I was particularly interested in the invisible shift of algorithmic editing. Eli said in the talk “there is no standard Google anymore.” The Google search results are no longer what we want to see, it shows us what it thinks we want to look at.

I agree when you wrote “we are more vulnerable“ these social media platforms are constructing us. I think we need the internet moderated by human gatekeepers and not the filter bubble moderated by algorithmic ones

[arneemac-blog]

Digital citizenship: Politics and civic cultures.

‘how are our social experiences in each of these contexts bound up with social media platforms and their affordances, and how we make use of them?'

Political campaigns are investing more money into social media use and who they can strategically target. Social media allows people to feel more connected to politicians and policy via trending topics.

Digital citizenship and online participation in politics can be fraught with danger. An American student asks President Barack Obama “what do I need to do to become the President one day” Obama replied “I want everyone here to be careful what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age whatever you do, it will be pulled up somewhere later in your life. That’s number one” (Jericho 2012).

This week's readings introduced me to a new term 'public sphere' my understanding of this is very new. The question was asked, “Would we agree that in the age of a digital citizenship we have now reached an age of an ideal public sphere as according to Habermas's theory?” My response was, I don't agree we have reached an age of an ideal public sphere, particularly if the discussion is online. For example, the quality of participation would be very low for people without access to the internet. If it's a real source of public opinion, I think it could easily discriminate.

Originally, Jürgen Habermas and the Public Sphere idea was conceived pre-internet, in saying that, the public sphere idea really does translate very easily to the age of digital citizenship. Public opinion, whether it is on the internet or not can still shape the landscape of political power and politics.

Reference List

Jericho, G 2010, Rise of the fifth estate : social media and blogging in australian politics, viewed December 10, 2017, <https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/swin/reader.action?docID=1020873&ppg=261>

Habermas, J 2017, Jürgen habermas and the public sphere, viewed December 10, 2017, <https://www.media-studies.ca/articles/habermas.htm>

[arneemac-blog]

‘digital communities’ and ‘social media’

Are we connected but alone? - Week one

We explored some of the terminologies of social media, for example, virtual communities, smart mobs, digital communities, networked publics and digital society.

We reflected on your personal use of social media. I use Instagram for business purposes and Twitter for business purposes.

The positives and negatives of social media, is technology redefining human connection?

One prominent criticism of the way we are increasingly connected through networked digital technology and devices is summed up by pioneer internet research and psychologist Sherry Turkle in ‘Connected, but alone’

My comments on the TED talk,

I thought this part of the talk captured Turkle's central message well.

When I ask people "What's wrong with having a conversation?" People say, "I'll tell you what's wrong with having a conversation. It takes place in real time and you can't control what you're going to say." So that's the bottom line. Texting, email, posting, all of these things let us present the self as we want to be. We get to edit, and that means we get to delete, and that means we get to retouch, the face, the voice, the flesh, the body -- not too little, not too much, just right.

Connected, but alone.

A new kind of community - Week two

The gaming/virtual reality industry is slowly shifting towards a multiplayer future, but as mentioned by Siapera (2012), "virtual communities are characterized by lack of physical proximity, they are based on shared interests rather than shared location". This describes as more of a society (goal-oriented membership) than a community (tight-knit association bonded with families and neighbourhood).

Gaming seems to be much like Putnam's bowling metaphor, more and more people are gaming, but fewer people are gaming in leagues.

Reference Siapera, E. (2012). Understanding new media. Socialities and social media, 191-208

…the term affordance refers to the perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used. […] Affordances provide strong clues to the operations of things. Plates are for pushing. Knobs are for turning. Slots are for inserting things into. Balls are for throwing or bouncing. When affordances are taken advantage of, the user knows what to do just by looking: no picture, label, or instruction needed.

—   

https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computer-interaction/affordances

 Comparing two platforms’ affordances - Week Three

Facebook vs Twitter

What they do and don’t allow you to do with and through them - Facebook is for posting comments to your friends and family. Twitter is for tweeting conversation that can be categorised by a hashtag to broader themes, specific people and groups.

What’s public, what’s private - Facebook has many settings you can change to make your account more private. Twitter is very open.

Features they have, including interactive elements, visual, textual - Twitter until recently was restricted to 140 characters, its a more textual media. Facebook is more visually interactive with more options for movies and photos.