DIGITAL COMMUNITIES

[charluetc-blog]

Step away from the screen

I certainly agree with Hand (2012, p.175) when he says most young people experience ‘degrees of anxiety, concern and fascination with the visual landscapes encountered through Facebook’ (Hand 2012, p. 175). It strange that an online platform, one that is not tangible in a sense, can make you feel so many emotions in the real world.

It’s interesting to break each of these emotions down to see why Facebook or any social media platforms for that matter, can make young people feel the way they do.

Anxiety: I feel anxious when people at my workplace or family members add me on Facebook because the way I am portrayed is through photos posted by my friends - doing things my parents or co-workers or employers may not approve of. Drinking, partying, being stupid or smoking cigarettes. Sometimes this makes me wish I could completely eradicate my existence online. If only that was possible...

This feeling that we need to curate our online existence, or in a way, pretend we haven’t done many of the things we have is bizarre. We are our own personal social media managers.

Concern: I feel concerned when a bad photo of me or an old photo resurfaces that may have been from when I was younger and more ignorant or naive about what was appropriate to be online or be tagged in.

Fascination: I am fascinated by all of the visual content I constantly consume on social media.  But upon thinking about it, maybe fascinated is too nice of a way to put it. Controlled might be a better word for it.

Spending up to eight hours a day online every day means that I am constantly consuming information. Our attention spans as humans are only getting shorter. It’s so easy to get distracted. So hard to focus. We, as humans, are getting better at creating visual content that controls.

This week's subject has prompted me to think about consuming less content online and more in real-life.

References:

Hand, M 2012, Ubiquitous Photography, Polity Press, Cambridge.

[charluetc-blog]

The more the merrier

Crowdsourcing is the practice of obtaining information or services from a large number of people, and with the invention of the internet, a lot of this information comes from the online community. This practice can be especially useful in crisis situations such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters, where communication across distances and even borders is vital and has the potential to save lives.

Crowdsourcing can help to organise relief more quickly, raise money, find others with similar views and allow people to work together to produce useful and extremely powerful sources of information (Ford 2012, p.33).

It’s funny though, however, in a time when flying cars are no longer just in our imaginations and society is so connected and ‘always on’, that life-saving crowdsourcing systems still seems to be lagging behind.

Australia, for instance, is a ‘leader’ in terms of using social media for crisis communication (Bruns & Flew 2015). In the 2013 bushfires that tore across the Blue Mountains in New South Wales (Donegan 2014), for example, over 200,000 people downloaded the NSW Rural Fire Service app known as Fires Near Me, alerting people to the main danger areas and areas to avoid (Bruns & Flew 2015).

While this was a great example of how to prepare and act when disaster strikes, unfortunately, most of Australia's usage of crowdsourcing is still relatively ad hoc and needs to be properly integrated and coordinated with emergency response agencies (Bruns & Flew 2015).

The fact that crowdsourced information needs to be verified is one factor slowing down the process of having a streamlined crowdsourcing procedure. While you wouldn’t expect people to feed false information in times of crisis, unfortunately, this is something that happens regularly. For example, in 2010 during the Egyptian election monitoring process, people tried to cause the Ushahidi system, a valuable crowdsourcing platform, to fail by uploading hundreds of thousands of photos to cripple to the system (Ford, 2012).

References:

Bruns, A & Flew, T 2015, ‘Crisis communication: saving time and lives in disasters through smarter social media’, The Conversation, viewed on 10 January 2018, <http://theconversation.com/crisis-communication-saving-time-and-lives-in-disasters-through-smarter-social-media-50403>.

Donegan J, 2014, ‘2013 Blue Mountains bushfires: Remembering the disaster one year on’, ABC News, 17 October, viewed January 29, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-17/remembering-the-blue-mountains-bushfires-one-year-on/5819100>

Ford, H, 2012, Crowd wisdom, Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4.

[charluetc-blog]

Be a nice human

While bullying in the forms of verbal teasing, social isolation or physical abuse were, on there own, worse enough, the digital revolution has added a whole new layer of bullying into the mix - and that’s known as ‘trolling.’

Trolling is described by Urban Dictionary as “the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or controversial comments on various internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee-jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument.” 

While trolling is not always seen as a malicious act, and can sometimes involve humour or calling someone out for their wrongdoing, in most instances, trolling can have fatal consequences. In my eyes, internet trolls who spread negative comments are just insecure cowards hiding behind their keyboards.

As Boyd (2014, p152, It’s Complicated) explains quite well “Social media has not radically altered the dynamics of bullying, but it has made these dynamics more visible to more people.”

Bullying may have become more visible to people, however, it can be extremely hard to track down a troll who may either use a fake account or troll people who they’ve never met before.

As McCosker (2014) explains in the context of Youtube videos, trolling is more often than not, absolutely pointless provocation, and this goes for trolling across any channel I believe. All that trolls want is a reaction.

Wilson, Fuller & Mcrea (2013) believe the way to fight trolls is “Do not feed them.” While I agree that ignoring a troll could eventually lead to the troll getting bored and stopping their interaction, the harm may have already been done to the person on the receiving end.

If the trolling is prolonged or incredibly personal it can have severe effects on people's self-esteem, particularly those with existing mental health issues or those who cannot simply brush off the negative comments.

This has been seen time and time again in the increasing number of suicide cases arising due to trolling. Trolling has allowed bullying to go far beyond the schoolyard or the workplace. It can happen to anyone, anywhere, at any time, and it can make people feel completely worthless.

This was the case for TV presenter, Charlotte Dawson who ended her life at 47 after several years of extreme trolling. After speaking out against those abusing her, instead of support, people began using the horrifying hashtag #diecharlotte which eventually led to her suicide.

Tragedies like that of Charlotte’s reiterate the importance of being careful with what you say online, and how you say it because you never know what someone’s going through or what could tip them over the edge. It’s hard to regret being nice, but if your comments cause someone harm, that guilt will stick with you forever.

References:

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

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.

Wilson, J, Fuller, G & McCrea, C (eds) 2013, Trolls and the negative space of the internet, Fibreculture Journal, Issue 22, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://twentytwo.fibreculturejournal.org>.

Webb, S 2014, ‘Trolled to death: Model Charlotte Dawson bombarded with vile messages over Twitter’, ABC News, 23 February, viewed 28 January, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2565903/Trolled-death-Model-Charlotte-Dawson-bombarded-vile-messages-Twitter-just-hours-death.html>.

[charluetc-blog]

So many voices

Digital Citizenship, referring to our “ability to participate in society online,” (Mossberger et al. 2008, p. 1) has opened up the floodgates, letting us share our voices across the globe like never before, regardless of whether the message we’re sharing is good or bad. However, because of this ‘right’ to share our opinions about what we’re passionate about, social media is (sadly) swamped with hundreds and thousands of troubles and struggles and causes from all around the world.

Like everything though, this has both positive and negative effects. On one hand, being able to share anything online, creates awareness about things that wouldn’t be possible to know about without technology and social media (Teich 2016). But is awareness enough to tackle all of the world's problems? I don’t believe so.

While I don’t like to admit it, because of my increased ‘awareness’ of many causes that need attention, I have, in a way, become kind of numb and desensitized to them. My rational mind would love to help as many people as possible and be involved in helping many more causes, however, realistically it’s all quite overwhelming. I would definitely consider myself as a slacktivist, more often than not. I am aware and I do support many causes, however, I don’t go out and march the streets.

Social media does a great job at making people feel like activists without actually having them donate money or take to the streets. For example, in the recent Marriage Equality campaign, of Facebook, people had the ability to add many different banners over their profile pictures to show their support for the cause. This was the same on Instagram. Unfortunately, these actions don’t help the cause a great deal. However, I do believe every little action online can help to create awareness that can help the cause, and this creates the foundation for change (Rutledge 2010).

I also believe activism coincides with personality type, and how much people are willing to share both online and offline. Personally, I would much prefer to write an article about something I strongly believe, rather than voice my opinion in real life to a group of people, or in a social media post. On the other hand, others prefer the opposite. As Rutledge (2010) puts it, social media has completely re-written the rules on activism.

References

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R 2008, Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Rutledge, P 2010   https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/positively-media/201010/four-ways-social-media-is-redefining-activism

Teich, R 2016 Three Big Problems With Facebook Activism Big Think, viewed 8 January 2018:

http://bigthink.com/praxis/facebook-is-fraying-not-saving-the-world

[charluetc-blog]

Prepare for unforeseen  consequences

While before the Internet age, members of parliament needed to be careful that things they’d done in the past didn’t come back to bite them, it’s now quite obvious that a person’s life online can be equally as detrimental.

Sharing your opinions online can come back to haunt you, particularly if you’re a politician. It certainly can have its benefits too, like increased exposure, especially with a younger audience, but it opens up the arena for the public to share whatever they want, right back at you.

This proves that social media goes both ways, and just as the politician can share their - or their party’s thoughts, members of society can have a say that’s equally, or sometimes even more, influential (Jericho 2013, p. 256), like in the case of Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live impersonation of Sarah Palin creating more engagement than any of Palin’s YouTube clips ever will.

While being present on social media as a member of parliament or political figure definitely has its risks, not being present at all could potentially miss out on engagement that couldn’t be reached any other way.

Donald Trump is the perfect example of a politician with a huge presence on social media, reaching millions of people with his outlandishly blunt tweets and many Youtube montages of his ridiculous behaviour.

However, people tend to be attracted to the entertainment and the humour, and even if Trump isn’t sharing a message you agree with, if the other candidate isn’t as entertaining, their potentially more appropriate messages or thoughts could be disregarded.

Jodi Dean (2013) brought up some interesting points in her lecture explaining the negative influence that social media can have over democracy. Dean refers to these effects as ‘communicative capitalism’ in which ultimately, our communication is exploited. 

She reiterates that when we take ‘action’ on social media in regards to a cause, a lot of the time it’s the Facebook or Twitter post that becomes ‘the story,’ “leaving people dying on the streets,” for example.

I believe a political candidate who invests money in campaigning across social media platforms will have a definite advantage over those who choose not to (whether we like it or not). 

However, we must be careful, as ‘digital citizens’ not to let entertainment or popularity of a candidate define our views. On the other hand, we must be aware that simply contributing to democratic discourse (Dean 2013) isn’t always the most effective means to change. 

Being present and protesting on the streets can illustrate a deeper layer of influence, and irrespective of all the magic social media can bring, should not be forgotten.

References:

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

DCU School of Communication 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3 - Jodi Dean, 3 July, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>.

[charluetc-blog]

A new way of being together

Since the World Wide Web’s conception in 1989, we have been continually exposed to the unforeseen consequences of such a rapidly evolving technological phenomenon. In 2004, Web 2.0 emerged, a name was given to the new way in which software developers and regular Internet users, like you and me, began to modify, collaborate and actively participate in online content, rather than simply consuming individually published material (M. Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, pp.61). Also known as User-Generated Content, this shift in the way we are involved in the information we consume has opened many doors to new ways of thinking, learning, as well as the way we live together as a society.

How is it that we can be effortlessly connected through social networks such as Facebook, but at the same time, be so disconnected from the people right in front of us (TED 2013)? That is one of the questions I seek to clarify in the coming weeks of Digital Communities.

Learning about the transformation of sociality: that is, being together with others, is important in answering the above question. Something that particularly resonated with me was the distinction explained by German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, between early communities and modern societies. Early communities were established instinctively, organically and with the natural human will to associate with others. Modern societies, however, revolve around rational will, purpose and are goal orientated. With the introduction of technology, we must now add another layer to this complex development of sociality.

Networked individualism seeks to explain how we are no longer organized based on close groups or networks connecting place-to-place but are now connected person-to-person, through linkages created by individuals based on preferences, skills, knowledge, background etc. (Siarpera 2012, p. 200). These networks are supported by platforms allowing endless communication and interaction (Gillespie 2010, p. 351).

For example, Reddit is a platform for many different networks, such as the particular niche and controversial ‘reddit gonewild’ group. This group, centered on remaining anonymous whilst exposing intimate parts of the body online, highlights one of reddit’s many affordances, a product’s use the designer could have never imagined (van der Nagel 2013). As explained by van der Nagel (2013), this group opens up a new can of worms regarding the pros and cons of anonymity online. On one hand, users are at risk of abuse, bullying, harassment, fraud and illegal activity with no recorded accountability. However, on the other hand, they have freedom of speech, are free from surveillance and free from being personally judged. Do these positives outweigh the risks? Even if the answer is no, it would be impossible to regulate such a thing. Therefore, as van der Nagel (2013) puts perfectly, online anonymity is ‘a dynamic social practice that makes an important contribution to being social online’.

Twitter is another example of a platform supporting a plethora of networks, specifically those of media broadcasting. With the ability to use Twitter without the need for a smartphone, broadband Internet or computer, this service is able to reach even the most underprivileged countries, linking strangers who may have never otherwise been connected (Murthy 2013). Whilst this microblog only permits users to write short messages of feelings and reflections, the global impact and reach of Twitter must not be underestimated. For example, after the attacks in Paris in 2015, Donald Trump, as well as actor Rob Lowe caused major controversy after some extremely insensitive tweets (bshilliday 2015). These tweets show how effortlessly strangers are now connected, highlighting the drastic effects that technology has had on society.

References:

Bshilliday, 2015, ‘Donald Trump Blasted After Insensitive Tweet About Paris Attack Resurfaces’, Hollywood Life by Bonnie Fuller, 13 November, viewed 16 November, <http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/11/13/donald- trump-paris-gun-control-laws-france-terrorist-attacks/>.

Bshilliday, 2015, ‘Rob Lowe Blasted On Twitter After Insensitive Comments About Paris Attacks, Hollywood Life by Bonnie Fuller, 13 November, viewed 16 November, <http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/11/13/donald- trump-paris-gun-control-laws-france-terrorist-attacks/>.

Gillespie, T 2010, ‘The politics of platforms’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Kaplan, AM & Haenlein, M 2010, ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons. vol. 53, no.1, pp. 59-68.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, Polity, Cambridge.

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 26 August 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

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