Digital Communities Blog

Hello, I'm Bec! I made this blog for my university class, MDA20009 - Digital Communities at Swinburne. On this blog, I discuss subjects related to digital communities.

[digibeak]

Week 9 Discussion: Social media influencers and the slow fashion movement

Fast fashion is a global and profitable business. The industry is categorised by fast production and distribution on a mass level. Many fashion retailers fall under this umbrella, including Zara, H&M, Cotton On, Shein, Fashion Nova etc. These stores produce a large quantity of clothing, often with little consideration for ethical concerns. For example, these practices have devastating consequences for the environment. Estimates place the global industry as a producer of 10% of the world's carbon emissions. The short lifecycle of fast fashion clothing also means that a significant amount of textile waste is produced. Additionally, due to the industry producing such a massive amount of clothing, resources are stripped from the environment at an unsustainable rate. Furthermore, as Kristen Leo observes in her YouTube video, 'Fast Fashion Explained in Under 5 Minutes' (2018), fast fashion also regularly uses exploits cheap labour in its production cycle, relying on sweatshop labour to fulfil demand at a low price. Workers in these factories are often employed at meagre wages and work in poor conditions.

In response to the ethical concerns posed by the fast fashion industry, the slow fashion movement has emerged. The slow fashion industry acts as the antithesis of fast fashion, focused on using sustainable materials and practices to produce durable clothing in smaller amounts. As Brewer (2019 p. 7) comments, "firms in the slow fashion movement promote sustainability in sourcing, production, and consumption".

The slow fashion movement also relates to broader ideas of digital citizenship. Some people have chosen to use platforms such as YouTube and Instagram to further promote the slow fashion movement. These 'slow fashion influencers' (e.g. Kristen Leo, Tiffany Ferguson, Venetia La Manna, Sarah Hawkinson) use social media to push back against the fast fashion industry, highlighting the fast fashion industry's ethical implications and strategies for sustainable participation in the industry overall. These videos have the intention of empowering viewers with the knowledge and skills to oppose the fast fashion industry themselves both through digital methods and their shopping habits.

However, while these videos promote helpful ideas concerning sustainability, there are still barriers to participating in the slow fashion movement. For example, using ethical production and materials means that often slow fashion garments are produced at a higher cost than fast fashion garments. Consequently, slow fashion garments are often sold at a higher price point, leading to issues of accessibility and a reluctance from consumers to switch from buying cheaper fast fashion items. Lai et al. (2017, p. 93) comment that, for many, when choosing between slow and fast fashion items, price is a key determining factor in decision making. Additionally, convenience also plays a significant role, with many unwilling to search out sustainably produced clothing. The implication is that while fast fashion brands can sell their clothing at a significantly lower price and in a more convenient way, slow fashion will be limited in its reach.

Additionally, while some believe that employing sustainable practices in fashion is a good step towards an ethical industry, others point out that the slow fashion industry still contributes to the textile industry and textile waste. These people suggest that the only ethical way to participate in the clothing industry is to buy clothing secondhand. Clothing resale platforms such as Depop capitalize on this idea, allowing users to trade and sell clothing, extending its lifecycle. Through Depop, a community has formed around selling secondhand clothing between users, often at prices comparable to fast fashion.

Despite the genuine efforts of many to counteract fast fashion with the slow fashion movement and sustainable production, many fashion retailers see sustainability as more of a trend or marketing tactic. Some of these companies will use greenwashing; when companies brand themselves to appear more environmentally friendly or sustainable than they actually are (Hawkinson 2020). For example, H&M has a 'conscious collection' (Farra 2020), marketed as an ethically produced line. However, while this particular collection may use sustainable practices and materials, some point out that H&M still produces many collections which do not. Additionally, these 'conscious collection' items are still produced in mass quantities. While they may last for a longer time, many of these items will eventually contribute to textile waste.

In general, the slow fashion and sustainability influencers act as a positive force against the destructive impact of fast fashion. However, slow fashion is not without its own issues. To improve the effectiveness of the movement, issues such as accessibility must be considered. Additionally, slow fashion influencers must continue to empower their viewers to be proactive digital citizens, using their platforms to advocate and educate.

Reference List:

Brewer, M. K 2019, 'Slow Fashion in a Fast Fashion World: Promoting Sustainability and Responsibility', Laws, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1 - 9

Farra, E 2020, 'H&M Takes a Step Toward Circularity With a Collection of Garments Made From Waste', Vogue, 18 November, viewed 25 May 2021, <https://www.vogue.com/article/hm-conscious-collection-recycled-waste-circularity>.

Hawkinson, S 2020, we need to talk about greenwashing ... companies are lying to you, March 10, viewed 24 May 2021, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xaz2-IM4Olo>.

Kristen Leo 2018, Fast Fashion Explained In Under 5 Minutes, 27 September, viewed 27 May 2021, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR7bXsoNwwE>.

Lai, Z, Henninger, C. E, & Alevizou, P. J 2017, 'An Exploration of Consumers' Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion–A Qualitative Study in the UK' in C Henninger, P. J Alevizou, H Goworek & D Ryding (eds), Sustainability in Fashion, Palgrave Macmillian, Cham, pp. 81 - 101

[digibeak]

Week 8 Discussion: Gaming communities, social gaming and live-streaming

For many on the internet, gaming and live-streaming communities provide a place for connection and socialisation. In the past year, new games such as Animal Crossing: New Horizons and Among Us, have amassed large communities of dedicated fans. On platforms such as Twitch and YouTube, some streamers attract audiences numbering in the thousands. Furthermore, on platforms such as Twitter, Tumblr and Reddit, people form fandom communities. These fandoms provide a place to discuss their favourite games and share their own original content, for example, fanart.

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many sought gaming for lockdown entertainment, as a form of escapism or as a means of socialisation. This lead to a significant increase in the size of gaming communities, as well as the online discussion and sharing of content. In 2020, following the release of the game Animal Crossing: New Horizons, a large and active community was formed. Multiple factors have influenced its popularity during the pandemic. Firstly, the cute and wholesome visuals of the game are attractive to a variety of people and give players a sense of escapism from reality.

It also serves a social function, allowing friends and family to interact and play with each other regardless of physical distance. As MacDonald (2020) observes, the game is "played in social groups" and has a wide variety of features that facilitate interaction with other players. For example, the custom designs feature allows players to create their own clothing and furniture patterns. These can then be shared between players on social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit. The game also has a wide variety of items, which can be traded between players. These all culminate in a highly social gaming experience. In this way, New Horizons is an example of the positive potential of gaming communities to connect people.

Nevertheless, gaming communities are not without problematic aspects. While games can bring people together, they can also be divisive. For many, especially those who are not straight and/or male, gaming spaces can be exclusionary. The platform Twitch allows streamers to broadcast themselves (often playing games, but not always) to viewers. In many instances, this interaction between a streamer and their viewers in chat can be positive. Taylor (2018, p. 6) comments Twitch is a 'networked broadcast', allowing the audience to become integrated into the show via the synchronous chat window. This promotes a feeling of community between the viewers, who can discuss the stream content in real-time both with each other and with the streamer.

However, the anonymity of Twitch chat and the internet means that viewers are often able to direct vitriol with little to no consequence. As a result, many streamers (especially those who do not fit into the traditional view of a "gamer") are subject to sexist, racist, homophobic and transphobic abuse. This abuse can lead to many streaming communities being unwelcoming to outsiders. Over the years, Twitch has introduced new policies and guidelines in an attempt to curb harassment (Stephen 2020). But ultimately, these measures are only a bandaid solution to a complex, culturally ingrained problem of exclusion.

Overall, gaming and live-streaming communities have the potential to be either welcoming or exclusionary. As New Horizons proves, games can be a place to socialise and share an experience with others. In some instances, Twitch has the same capability, allowing streamers and viewers to form tight-knit communities. However, gaming and streaming communities can also be uninviting, with abuse and harassment shutting many out. The existence of these exclusionary communities suggests a need for change in gaming culture and for proactive solutions which address the issue rather than react to it.

Reference List:

MacDonald, K 2020, ''It's uniting people': why 11 million are playing Animal Crossing: New Horizons', The Guardian, 13 May, viewed 6 May 2021, <https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/may/13/animal-crossing-new-horizons-nintendo-game-coronavirus>.

Stephen, B 2020, 'Twitch overhauls its rules around harassment and hateful conduct', The Verge, 9 December, viewed 6 May 2021, <https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/9/22165342/twitch-hateful-conduct-harassment-policy-update>.

Taylor, T. L 2018, Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton University Press, Princeton

[digibeak]

Week 7 Discussion: Software literacy and social media filters

From Instagram to Snapchat to Facebook, multiple popular social media websites include face filters as a prominent feature of their platforms. In recent years, their usage has become pervasive. These filters using Augmented Reality (AR) technology, alter the user's face and add or subtract features to achieve a certain appearance. While filters come in many forms, the most popularly used are beauty filters, which change the subject to appear more conventionally attractive. Beauty filters do vary but tend to include a few common features (e.g. skin smoothing, skin brightening, enlarged eyes).

While initially used for entertainment purposes, filters (especially beauty filters) have become commonly and widely used on social media for aesthetic purposes. In the YouTube video 'Filters Ruin Our Self-Perception (Snapchat Dysmorphia)' by tiffanyferg (2019), Ferguson discusses how filter use over time can affect one's self-perception. As Ferguson mentions, when comparing our own face to the "perfect filtered version", we can often start to prefer the latter. This anxiety caused by the disparity between the real and filtered is sometimes referred to as 'Snapchat Dysmorphia'. Snapchat Dysmorphia may have potential impacts on self-esteem and self-worth, especially for those who frequently use filters. Barker (2020, p. 215) suggests that filters have caused some users to become detached from their natural faces and that daily use may result in people internalising their insecurities.

Filters also have implications for how women and femininity are perceived by society. Beauty filters tend to emphasise certain features to achieve a more 'feminine' look (e.g. large eyelashes, plump lips, large eyes, small nose). The intensification of these features by beauty filters reinforces traditional Western female beauty standards and exclude those who do not align with its version of an 'attractive female'. Coy-Dibley (2015, p. 9) comments that these digitally altered images narrow female beauty standards and that consequently, certain groups (e.g. women) are marginalised. This can also be seen in the negative implications filters have for how darker skin is viewed by society, with filters tending to lighten skin. This reinforces the harmful idea that dark skin is less attractive than lighter skin and has the impact of marginalising people of colour.

The pervasiveness and potential negative effects of filters suggest a need for better education on both the technology involved and the cultural influences which affect how they are programmed. With more software literacy, users may be able to understand how these filters can change their self-perception and resist harmful self-esteem effects. It also indicates that we need to question the role which social media plays in our own lives so that we can both improve our self-perception and hold social media platforms accountable for the technology they introduce into society.

Reference List:

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

Coy-Dibley, I 2015, '“Digitized Dysmorphia” of the female body: the re/disfigurement of the image', Palgrave Communications, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1 - 9

tiffanyferg 2019, Filters Ruin Our Self-Perception (Snapchat Dysmorphia), 2 February, viewed 4 May 2021, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8tt6NQpJyM>.

[digibeak]

Week 6 Discussion: Body modification and public health on visual social media

As social media has grown, so has its ability to affect and influence the actions of others. The current digital age has seen the rise of influencers, micro-celebrities as well as the migration of celebrities to social media platforms. Among these people, body modification and plastic surgery have become commonplace. This is especially true for Instagram, where celebrities and influencers regularly vie for attention to their profiles. Women such as Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner, Gigi Hadid and Emily Ratajkowski sit at the top of this pecking order and set the tone for what behaviours and appearances are considered desirable.

The emergence of the 'Instagram face' is one result of this influencer culture (Tolentino 2019). The Instagram face is synonymous with certain features; full lips, a small, straight nose, contoured cheeks, flawless skin and large eyes. Anyone who has been on Instagram has likely come across this type of face. In celebrities and influencers, this type of face has become desired, with many undergoing plastic surgery or other body modification procedures (e.g. lip fillers) to achieve a similar look.

The Instagram face is one of the multiple aesthetic templates which have become standard for any influencer or micro-celebrity looking to make it big on Instagram. Those who do succeed are perceived as acquiring status and influence. To do this, influencers must establish their 'brand' while adhering to aesthetic standards. Some women will use Instagram to present a sexualised version of themselves, using suggestive posing, strategic editing and Instagram face to achieve a certain look.

The sexualisation (or 'pornification') of women on Instagram is divisive. On one hand, it could be considered an empowering practice. For some people, the practice is one that allows women to take ownership over their own sexuality and femininity. While traditional media has often been primarily directed by men, women are able to take control of their own Instagram accounts.

However, others argue that this sexualisation upholds, rather than subverts, heteronormative standards of beauty and femininity. Rather than taking ownership of their own bodies, some suggest that influencers are actually positioned as objects, further contributing to hegemonic standards of beauty. Furthermore, Drenten et al. (2018, p.61) comment that while overt sexualisation on Instagram may lead to more opportunities for influencers, they also may receive more sexual harassment.

There are also implications for the followers of these influencers and celebrities. The incongruity between one's own appearance and images on social media may result in lower self-esteem and self-worth. Some of these women will seek out body modification procedures to fix any perceived flaws and adhere to Instagram beauty standards.

Dorfman et al. (2018, p. 336) suggest that this increase in social media related surgery has ethical implications for how plastic surgeons promote and talk about procedures on their platforms. They suggest that a focus on education, rather than self-promotion would be more beneficial in the age of Instagram and other visual social media.

This expectation of transparency could also be extended to influencers, celebrities and to platforms such as Instagram. By understanding the difference between reality and posts on social media, there is the potential that some appearance-related anxiety could be relieved.

Reference List:

Dorfman, R. G, Vaca, E. E, Mahmood, E, Fine, N. A & Schierle, C. F 2018, 'Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing', Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 332 - 338

Drenten, J, Gurrieri, L & Tyler, M 2018, 'Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention', Gender, Work and Organisation, vol. 27, no.1, pp. 41 - 66

Tolentino, J 2019, 'The Age of Instagram Face', The New Yorker, 19 December, viewed 1 May 2021, <https://www.newyorker.com/culture/decade-in-review/the-age-of-instagram-face>.

[digibeak]

Week 5 Discussion: What is digital citizenship?

Digital citizenship is centred around the idea of how one uses digital technologies to engage with society and participate in the political process. This is inclusive of several behaviours including participation in elections, activism, discourse, and the use of social media. A good digital citizen knows how to effectively engage in these behaviours by using technologies positively and safely.

Most internet users are digital citizens in the modern world, using social media to engage with social and political issues. People use the internet to post about their favoured causes, sign petitions, participate in events, discuss political issues in groups, and buy items that align with their values. These activities are all considered acts of digital citizenship.

There are barriers to being a digital citizen. Some, especially the older generations, struggle with digital literacy. This means these people may miss out on participation in any political or social activity online. Some may also not have access to the technologies or platforms needed to be an effective digital citizen.

This new form of citizenship is more individualised and fragmented than traditional forms of citizenship. Vromen (2017, p. 3) comments that citizens engage with issues in a personalised way, choosing their preferred method of expression as opposed to joining structured political groups. This individualised form of political and social engagement has implications for the mobilisation and organisation of political movements, which now must adapt to the digital world to gain popularity.

The formation of publics via hashtags is an example of this. Publics will congregate on social media platforms via hashtag keywords to share thoughts, experiences and discussion about certain issues. Examples of this include #auspol and #March4Justice on Twitter which are used for political discourse and the mobilisation of social movements.

Some politicians have also adapted to this new digital world, using social media to interact with digital citizens. Enli (2017, p.55) comments that in 2016, Donald Trump was able to exploit social media to his advantage using a personalised and amateur style of social media posting. This style worked well in combination with his populist politics. Consequently, Trump's engagement with digital citizenship meant that he could form a considerable digital movement.

Reference List:

Enli, G 2017, 'Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election', European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no.1 , pp. 50 - 61

Vromen, A 2017, Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement The Challenge from Online Campaigning and Advocacy Organisations, Palgrave Macmillian, London

[digibeak]

Week 4 Discussion: Digital Community & Fandom - Reality-TV

Despite many expressing their contempt for reality television, it remains one of the most popular forms of television. Beyond the criticisms that the genre is superficial or contrived drama, many people find value in its existence, whether it be through simple entertainment, identity, community or its ability to promote political discourse. While reality TV encompasses a wide range of genres, many people associate specific programs with reality TV, for example, Married At First Sight (MAFS) and Ru Paul's Drag Race. These programs seem shallow on the surface, but for many they serve a social function.

Reality shows such as Drag Race and Queer Eye have contributed to a fundamental shift in the perception of marginalised LGBT people. As Kavka (2018, p. 13) comments, the hypervisibility of the queer (particularly male queer) community helps to propel the LGBT community from the margins of society and into the mainstream of mass media reality television. These shows serve the function of challenging the hegemony of heterosexuality and gender.

Additionally, many reality shows facilitate the discussion and debate of political discourse. Under hashtags (for example, #MAFS) digital publics form to talk about social and political issues. The situations portrayed in reality TV, while not always genuine, do reflect many of the gender, sexuality and political divisions within society. This depiction of these situations gives audiences an opportunity to discuss using examples from the reality TV show and relate it to their own experiences and the world around them. Graham et al. (2011, p. 27) suggest that reality TV can be a trigger for political discussion crucial to the public sphere. Through this genre of television, audiences become deliberating publics, discussing their identities, views and experience.

Reality TV also provides a basis for multi-platform engagement. Under the hashtag #DragRace on both Twitter and Tumblr, a thriving community of fans discuss anything and everything relating to the show. As of writing, the Ru Paul's Drag Race Twitter Account has over 1.1 million followers. Reality TV shows are not limited by their television format, but rather are comprised of both the content itself and the community surrounding it. Brennan et al. (2017, p. 9) also note that social media spaces help in constructing queer discourse forums among fan bases.

Ultimately, reality TV serves a purpose in creating and maintaining digital publics. These shows form a basis for identity and political discussion and allow the audience to relate their experiences.

Reference List:

Brennan, N & Gudelunas, D 2017, Drag Culture, Global Participation and RuPaul’s Drag Race, Palgrave Macmillian

Graham, T & Hajru, A 2011, 'Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere', European Journal of Communication, vol. 26, no.1, pp. 18 - 30

Kavka, M 2018, 'Reality TV: Its contents and discontents', Critical Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 5 - 18

[digibeak]

‘How does Tumblr function as a digital community?’

Tumblr provides a platform on which participants can socialize, discuss, collaborate, and engage in discourse about a number of subjects, from TV shows to politics. In this way, Tumblr as a whole functions as a digital community, allowing connection between users who otherwise would not interact with each other. 

Hashtags and topics on Tumblr help to form sub-communities, where people of similar interests can create posts and connect with each other in a relatively unmoderated environment. Under these hashtags, ‘fandoms’ take shape relating to specific forms of media (e.g. TV shows, web shows, video games). Within these fandoms, participants will often share fan theories, original content (e.g. fanart, fanfiction) and discussions, forming a sense of community between users.  As Byron et al. (2019, p. 2243) note, Tumblr provides “easy access to ideas and communities beyond one’s visible and existing networks”.   

The option for anonymity on Tumblr means that the sharing of opinions is not limited by outside social circles. Consequently, users can form a new digital identity within these digital communities. 

Historically, it is through this anonymity and ability to find people of similar interests that Tumblr has become a space for the marginalized (women, POC, the LGBTQIA community) within society to gather. This discussion and formation of community between marginalised people has allowed for the emergence of new movements, such as ‘Tumblr feminism’ and the propagation of older movements. As Keller (2019, p. 8) notes, the relative anonymity and privacy of Tumblr provides a safe space for users, especially young girls and women to discuss feminism, sexism and patriarchy. These discussions are less hindered by existing social relations and structures often more prevalent on Facebook and Twitter, allowing the formation of new digital feminist communities. 

It is important to understand that these communities are not composed of a set number of permanent participants, but rather characterized by a flow of contributors in and out of the community. Byron et al. (2019, p. 2245-2246) observe that while Tumblr does provide a space for the marginalized to gather and interact, it also functions as a more fragmented and impermanent community in comparison to a platform such as Facebook, where connections are usually already established. 

Fundamentally, Tumblr functions as a mostly anonymous community, where it is not defined by a set group of people but rather by the collection of discussions and similar interests. These digital communities also provide a safe haven for many marginalized groups to relate their experiences and develop movements.

Reference List:

Byron, P, Robards, B, Hanckel, B, Vivienne, S & Churchill, B 2019, ‘“Hey, I’m Having These Experiences”: Tumblr Use and Young People’s Queer (Dis)connections’, International Journal of Communication, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2239 - 2259

Keller, J 2019, ‘“Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms’, Social Media + Society, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1 - 11