Disclaimer: Portions of this site and the works within it are being produced with the intention of critique and/or educational use under Australia's 'fair dealing' exceptions to copyright (Section 40 & 41). However, if you feel your IP is being infringed, please contact my service provider (tumblr) with the appropriate DMCA requests, as I, the single author take full responsibility for the content of this site.
The ‘West’ is rather arrogant and it’s not altogether surprising that as a culture we are almost painfully ignorant of other cultures. This is no different in social media and countries practices. China is one of the greatest populations in the world as a rather insular country given its government system (ref), so it’s not totally surprising that the west is more ignorant of their social media practices than most.
Contrary to popular- western- belief the online environment of social media in China is booming and growing. The misconception stems from the fact they use their own systems of social media, rather than worldwide sites such as Facebook. Roughly 618 million Chinese citizens used social media as of 2014 accounting to nearly half the population (Qin, Stromberg & Wu, 2017), with a majority of Chinese internet users being young; 79% are under the age of 40, 89% of internet using Chinese use Weixin and other IM apps, 61% use QQ and 44% use Weibo as of 2015 (Ye, Xu & Zhang, 2016).
The online community in China is buzzing, thriving and growing, however, they live in an authoritative state with a controlling government that censors, punishes and silences. Apparently. I’d argue that it is a much more nuanced debate than that. Through studies, we can see that of China’s social media systems Weibo is the most readily available one for political purposes, protests, and voicing political dissatisfaction (Stockmann & Lou, 2017).
Song, Dai and Wang’s (2016) study explores the expressive behaviour of the online Chinese community on the microblogging service Weibo. Their study was designed to look at online patterns of emotional expression through posts made by networked individuals. They found that the prevailing emotions, when engaging in political talk, were sadness, fear and anger. The mere fact they were able to do such a study proves that not all political dissent could be whipped by censorship.
Further, Qin, Stromberg and Wu’s (2017) study on censorship in Chinese online social media explicitly pull up sensitive political data, activism, protests and political dissent within Weibo.
Of course, this isn’t to say there isn’t censorship, Qin et Al (2017) confirm themselves that the government has the tools for total social media regulation. There have been cases in the past that show this; political satire is near impossible and satirists walk a fine line of self-censorship and state-censorship (Luqiu, 2017). Further, lawyers, well-known businessmen and journalists have had posts censored, some legally punished by the government; one man was forced to stop practising law for his words against the state (The Econimist, 2016).
So the question becomes why do some posts sink through the cracks? Is it just something the government misses? Or is it done on purpose?
Qin et al (2017) suggest several possibilities. Specifically that the government’s implementation of social media is used to gain a centralised power as through it they can help shift and change the online discourse through their own accounts. Further, since the forced removal of anonymity, they can use it as a tool for larger plans and censorship instead of just removing a single post.
However, it is important that we acknowledge the constantly changing political climate in China currently and Qin et Al’s study uses a relatively old sample; that of 2013 collection of posts from Weibo. However, their findings and hypotheses still hold merit in the greater debate of Chinese political censorship.
Luqiu, L. (2017). The cost of humour: Political satire on social media and censorship in China. Global Media and Communication, p.174276651770447.
Qin, B., Strömberg, D. and Wu, Y. (2017). Why Does China Allow Freer Social Media? Protests versus Surveillance and Propaganda. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1), pp.117-140.
Song, Y., Dai, X. and Wang, J. (2016). Not all emotions are created equal: Expressive behavior of the networked public on China's social media site. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, pp.525-533.
Stockmann, D. and Luo, T. (2017). Which Social Media Facilitate Online Public Opinion in China?. Problems of Post-Communism, 64(3-4), pp.189-202.
Ye, Y., Xu, P. and Zhang, M. (2017). Social media, public discourse and civic engagement in modern China. Telematics and Informatics, 34(3), pp.705-714.
"Weibo warriors; Social media." The Economist, 2 Jan. 2016, p. 31(US).
This week we’re returning to the wonderful land of the hypothetical with the question are video games ‘social media’?
Social media is a broad umbrella term for places that allow users to create content, share content, socialise with others and link to other spaces to create ‘networks’(Obar and Wildman, 2015). This seems obvious but it’s important. For our purposes let’s assume content can mean ‘narratives’; our own experiences and stories. We can further extrapolate this definition to; “a piece of digital media that allows for sociality,” sociality being the interaction between people and the act of bringing them together (ref).
There are arguments out there that posit video games have roots in purely single player experiences and that something is being lost in the supposed ‘death of single-player games’ (Reiner, 2016). With a brief glance it might- for a moment- make sense that their roots are in single-player experiences and thus shunning any possibility of sociality, However, if we look closer we can see this isn’t true. Some of the most fundamental video games were made with multiplayer in mind. The original Super Mario Bros had a 2-player option. And it only takes 2 to tango… or to participate in sociality.
Hell, the entire concept of ‘play’ and ‘games’ are based on the notion of sociality. However, instead of looking back I would like to look forward.
I would like to look to the modern day and at some specific examples that lend credence to the argument that video games are indeed social media; we’ll look at three games quickly all from the recent years where the internet has become widespread and how they interact with sociality.
Firstly my favourite game- explicitly for how it interacts with the notion of sociality. Journey
Journey is a game in which you walk towards a mountain. Great. A+,next. Okay, no. That’s not it. It’s the way you walk towards a mountain.
Seriously though. Journey is a minimalist game in which your only goal is that mountain. However upon your Journey towards it you will encounter another player- providing online is on, with no way of communicating save for a single button that omits a single sound. It is near impossible not to form a friendship with this random stranger as you trek through deserts, forgotten ruins and snow, solving puzzles and gaining collectables. Half of the fun is figuring out how to talk to your companion through a single button. And once you finish you’re sent straight back to the start this time you have the knowledge of your previous adventure. When next you’re paired with a stranger you can be their guide creating a whole new kind of friendship.
Next, a far more traditional game. Final Fantasy 14 an MMORPG.
[img: virtual LGBT pride march hosted by players]
This is probably the most explicit form of video games as social media. As mentioned before ‘content’ or in our case ‘narratives’ are shared with one another through in game text boxes. Communities are formed in groups, parties and guilds, all coming together over the common interests. Networking occurs through events in-game and real-world. It has all the affordances many other social media does and allows for some truly unique communities, such as in-game role-playing.
Finally Pokémon go-
I’m cheating here. Look at the Prezzie I did for another assignment to get the full information on Pokémon Go and its relation with sociality.
[https://prezi.com/view/TxL8yY7bSFFJrNblaYeJ/]
These examples show how video games can fit the above definition of social media as well as interacting, advancing and experimenting with the idea of social media, networking and sociality as a whole (Obligatory Video Games are art comment).
Obar, J. and Wildman, S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), pp.745-750.
Reiner, A. (2016). Single Player Is Dead, Long Live Single Player. [online] Game Informer. Available at: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2016/02/08/single-player-is-dead-long-live-single-player.aspx
Siapera, E (2012). ‘Socialities and social media’, in Introduction to New Media, pp 191-208.
In 1981, the first cases of the illness were reported. By the end of the decade, the World Health Organization had estimated up to 400,000 present cases of HIV/AIDS worldwide.
For a closer look at the 80s AIDS crisis. It deserves more than 100 words in some assignment blog post.
Trans women of color with HIV may lose an important lifeline under Trump’s 2018 budget
Trans women of color living with HIV face a new challenge under Trump’s proposed 2018 budget.
Trump’s proposed budget keeps allotted funding for much of the United States-focused Ryan White Care program, which provides treatment and support services for HIV-positive Americans.
However, it also seeks to eliminate $25 million in funding for a line item called “Special Projects of National Significance.” Part of that line item includes a $3.2 million initiative meant to keep HIV-positive transgender women of color in care.
The grant is divided among nine recipients across the United States, including the Community Healthcare Network, based in New York.
According to Freddy Molano, the vice president of infectious diseases and LGBTQ programs, about 300 HIV-positive transgender women of color access care through CHC’s transgender care program. Read more (5/24/17)
I’ve talked about ‘slacktivism’ before. When I did, I briefly touched on the idea that different issues call for different solutions and public health campaigns are one example of this. Side note: I’m about to get heavy again. So, sit down kids because I’m about to talk about sexual education, or lack thereof, specifically about sexually transmitted infections. Scandalous, I know, well let’s get more taboo. STI’s in the homosexual community. Okay, everyone clutched their pearls? Good. This topic is deeply personal to me as I am part of this ‘community’ (and I can now say that for certain, thanks, MDA20009), further, it’s the perfect topic and example to use in relation to public awareness campaigns.
Some background is required. I won’t focus on it for too long, but one of the key defining characteristics of health, sex and sexuality in the gay community is, of course, the AIDS epidemic. The original outbreak was largely part of the homosexual and bisexual male communities in the 80s. We were the original patients, we were the protestors, we are the victims and we are the silenced. It was literally called ‘the gay disease’ (Clews, 2014). It catapulted the fight for equal rights for the gay community into the limelight, it pushed the talk of public health in America and it helped show just how disgustingly homophobic the government at the time was (Salyer, 2001; Clews, 2014).
Even today the community lives with the HIV sword of Damocles hanging over their head. A prime, real world example is gay dating apps, by contrasting Grindr- an app explicitly made for MsM (men Who have sex with men) to Tinder- an app used by MsM but not made exclusively for them. The former has options specifically for HIV including when you were last tested, if you’re positive or negative, and FAQs, whereas the latter has none.
We’re still living with this danger in our lives, it’s ever present and a wide portion of our community; especially MsM youth are uneducated. Institutionalised homophobia helps spread and is part of the cause of HIV and AIDS (Halkitis, 2012) through its reinforcing of ignorance. With the Australian government making no consorted effort to make sure that non-heterosexual health is included in health education, and the recent takedown of safe schools (ref) as evidence of the government moving against any form of non-heteronormative teaching- much less explicitly validating sexual lives and health of the community, it falls to public campaigns of private citizens and organizations to help educate.
For once I’d like to end on a positive note; we’re seeing more and more public health campaigns (ENDING HIV, 2014), and the rate of HIV and AIDS has started to decrease (Vac.org.au, 2017). But we’re still a long way off. Recently there have been outstanding breakthroughs in drugs such as PrEP and PEP that help those without the disease protect against it, and those who have been exposed to it become ‘undetectable’ or quell it completely if caught early enough.
This is huge. HIV might be a horrible nightmare of the past with continued work. And awareness through public health campaigns is a big reason for this.
Salyer, D. (2001). A Look Back at the History of AIDS in the U.S.. [online] TheBody.com. Available at: http://www.thebody.com/content/art32382.html [Accessed 29 May 2017].
ENDING HIV. (2014). 6 Iconic condom and safe sex campaigns | ENDING HIV. [online] Available at: https://endinghiv.org.au/nsw/blog/6-iconic-condom-and-safe-sex-campaigns/
Clews, C. (2014). 1980s. HIV/AIDS: Why was AIDS called 'the gay plague'? - Gay in the 80s. [online] Gay in the 80s. Available at: http://www.gayinthe80s.com/2014/04/1980s-hivaids-why-was-aids-called-the-gay-plague/
Ganga, M. (2016). The first lady who looked away: Nancy and the Reagans' troubling Aids legacy. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/11/nancy-ronald-reagan-aids-crisis-first-lady-legacy
Hakitis, P, N. (2012). Discrimination and homophobia fuel the HIV epidemic in gay and bisexual men. [online] Available at: http://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2012/04/discrimination-homophobia.aspx
Vac.org.au. (2017). Pre Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) | Victorian AIDS Council | VAC. [online] Available at: http://vac.org.au/hiv-aids/pre-exposure-prophylaxis-prep
Good crowdfunding pitch: “I invented something, and now I need money for refining the details, production, and distribution.”
Bad crowdfunding pitch: “I have an idea for an invention, and now I need money to do the actual inventing part.”
Even worse crowdfunding pitch: “I have an idea for an invention, and now I need money to hire someone who knows how to do the actual inventing part.”
RED FLAG RUN AWAY AAAAAAA crowdfunding pitch: “Let’s not talk about where I am in the invention process, or how I got there, or what’s even inside this thing. Let’s just look at these fantastically tasteful case and UI designs. It’s going to sync with your smartphone!”
SPECIAL RED FLAG CATEGORY: “I invented something to assist disabled people. I’m not disabled, and I didn’t focus-group this with anyone who is. But my heart’s in the right place. Give me money if you support disabled people!”
Crowd funding has had a few interesting new changes in the modern digital era. Digital media, social networking sites and mobile devices has allowed all kinds of topics reach new demographics. Today we’re going to talk about the wonders that is crowd sourcing and crowd funding as a new form of financial income. Okay so this week is about crowd funding in a time of crisis. And while capitalism is still a crisis and the root of all our problems, it’s not exactly what is meant by the topic title. But here me out… THINK OF THE STARVING ARTISTS!
But, also I think this new form of financial income that merits discussion.
Let’s back up, firstly; community in a digital era is less about physical space and more about groups brought together by similar interests (Siapera 2012). Recently it has been redefined as ‘networks’, digital networks are online communities based off of the idea of a give-and-take notion of individualization- the process of forming an individual identity through participating with external narratives. When individualisation is done through the networks it becomes networked individualisation (Siapera 2012).
Why is this important? Well, some of these networks are made up around a person. On YouTube, for example, consistent content put out by a YouTube star fosters a community by participating in watching videos and commenting, liking, subscribing, ect. This isn’t an overly new concept, in the past, this was seen as a past time for the YouTube stars. However, now YouTubedom is a viable career. Well… as viable as a career one can get being a millennial in an unstable economy of continually casualising workforces, lack of benefits and support… stop me before I tangent again.
YouTubers can make a relatively healthy living off of their videos, and in some cases have multi-million dollar incomes (Edwards, 2015). Further, the YouTube and online entertainment is steadily on the rise as entertainment for younger generations (Spangler, 2017).
A majority of the high-income you tubers have earned most of their money from ad-revenue. I don’t have time the word count to go into the nuances of it. But it boils down to, every ad you watch a few cents go to the YouTuber who’s video that ad plays on. This monetization method worked well for big YouTubers, but the continued growth of middle-low viewer you tubers channels being able to support themselves shows that there’s a new trend.
This is where crowdfunding comes in. sites like Patreon, Kickstarter, Indiegogo and others provide an alternative revenue source, coupled with merchandising sites like the Yetee, for these lower tier YouTubers.
The premise behind it is, of course, simple and genius. It’s capitalising on networked individualisation. It’s materialising and monetising the give and take relationship of digital networks. The YouTuber get’s your money and you get to be part of their community, we see this in effect by how some YouTubers names for their audience have and streamers interact with chats- chats which more often than not you pay to use.
This isn’t a criticism of it. I think crowd funding is the way of the future, an exchange of capital for putting participating in the narrative, politically or artfully. Especially as menial labour is taken over by robots. But that’s sci-fi talk.
Edwards, J. (2015). The biggest stars on YouTube make huge incomes ... yet they can't keep the vast majority of it. [online] Business Insider Australia. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/money-youtube-stars-actually-make-2014-2?r=US&IR=T
Siapera, E (2012). ‘Socialities and social media’, Introduction to New Media, pp 191-208.
Spangler, T. (2016). Younger Viewers Watch 2.5 Times More Internet Video Than TV (Study). [online] Variety. Available at: http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/millennial-gen-z-youtube-netflix-video-social-tv-study-1201740829
Note: out of respect for the topic I will not post comedic pictures or make light of it. It deserves to be approached with a level of seriousness memes detract from.
The first question one must posit when talking about cyber conflict and harassment is; how do we do it in a polite and respectful manner?
I, personally, would love to curse out every last perpetrator of today’s topic. Nah. That’s not good enough… I’d like to find them, and let everyone who they know, know what they did. Why? Quite simple. Because the law is useless when it comes to cyber-bullying and trolling.
Firstly, we’re going to delve into reasons why it is so hard to hunt down prosecute and punish people who do such terrible potentially life-threatening acts. Then we’re going to talk about why this creates such a dangerous echo-system.
Once again we’re doing some defining.
The problem begins with the definition. Many scholars have argued over the definition of ‘bullying’. Physical bullying in the real world is a muddy mess as it stands, but then to extrapolate it to the digital world, it becomes even harder to define as a concept. Many adults outside of an academic concept struggle to properly define it further, (Boyd, 2014). This is perhaps why legal definition of cyber harassment and online conflict is yet to be cemented. Further, no set legislation has arisen for it, nor has a set guideline for punishments ( Arntfield, 2015).
Of course, this all takes place over social media, which is such a nebulous term. What is social media? Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, all of them have different affordances and issues in of themselves. Essentially social media is a site in which people can cultivate and grow their social capital and form online communities through mutual interest (Wilken & McCosker, 2014). Further, the problem becomes that some social media sites are built in such a way that harassment is easily fostered.
Moderation is near impossible as mentioned above there’s little that can be done legally. So social media sites are left with one option; banning, which does little other than sending people to other sites or have them make their own.
Why am I talking about this?
Because its freaking dangerous.
It’s so freaking dangerous. Firstly studies show that anti-social behaviour rises with the use of mobile media (Groshek & Cutinom, 2016). With younger generations being brought into a situation a context like this, the vulnerable will be targeted and the cruel will have a perfect way to do this. There are so many stories out there about the dangers of cyber-bullying; about kids taking their own lives.
Until the law figures out a way to properly educate and moderate cyber bullying there is a large danger when interacting online with others. We’re stuck trying to educate kids, which is an important step, bringing awareness to the issue, but this is close to victim-blaming.
More work needs to be done.
If you’re being bullied there’s help out there.
Contact Samaritians a free crisis support line- 135 247
If you are having suicidal thoughts.
Lifeline Australia is there for you- 13 11 14
To donate, volunteer or help the fight against cyber harassment and bullying.
http://www.upstand.org/
https://www.digitallicence.com.au/
http://www.endcyberbullying.org/
Arntfield, M. (2015). Toward a Cybervictimology: Cyberbullying, Routine Activities Theory, and the Anti-Sociality of Social Media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 40(3), pp.371-388.
Groshek, J. and Cutino, C. (2016). Meaner on Mobile: Incivility and Impoliteness in Communicating Contentious Politics on Sociotechnical Networks. Social Media + Society, 2(4).
Boyd, D. (2014). ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, pp 128-52.
Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014 ‘Social selves’, Cunningham & Turnbull (1) The Media & Communications in Australia. 291-295
Last post we talked about my misgivings with a global digital citizenship. Well hold on to your seats kids we’re about to go on a bumpy ride through the wonders of Slacktivism. They’re related I promise. Activism is one of the ways we express our digital citizen ships, but sometimes constraints make regular activism impossible so we turn to other forms, ie ‘slacktivism’.
So, first off, what exactly is slacktivism?
Let’s take any connotation and bias out of the definition, which is hard considering the term is a hybrid of ‘slacker’ and ‘activism’ (Glenn, 2015). Ignoring this, the actual process of slacktivism can be distilled down to when a person on social media ‘likes’, ‘shares’ or ‘posts’ about an issue without taking any further action such as donating, volunteering or protesting about said issue (Knibbs, 2013).
The main criticism of ‘slacktivism’ is obvious upon a tertiary glance at the definition; that being that there is no ‘meaningful’ engagement or support of the issue (Kristofferson, White & Peloza, 2014). It’s considered self-aggrandizing, feel-good and lazy (Knibbs, 2013).
Let’s ignore the fact that the criticisms of Slacktivism are inherently ableist; it can be very difficult for those with disabilities, mental illness and financial insecurities to volunteer/donate/march/ect. A larger issue with this criticism is that it’s an oversimplification and a generalization.
Firstly it’s directly contrasting ‘traditional’ activism with ‘slacktivism’ without acknowledging the interlinking dynamic between the two. The use of ‘Activism’ within this criticism is far limiting as it ignores the fact that different issues call for different forms of combat (Knibbs, 2013). There is evidence that shows that slacktivism provides awareness and while it’s a minute effort on the part of the ‘slacktivist’ there are compounding and positive effects. A study done by Kristofferson, White and Peloza reveals that is an increase of meaningful interaction (defined as traditional activism) with an issue when the process of ‘slacktivism’ proceeds it (2014). This shows that Slacktivism can be seen as a gateway into digital activism, that it is used to bring awareness to an issue so that those with the means to engage are more likely to. Further, it can be considered as a bridge to digital activism and used as a tool to mobilize a group (McCafferty, 2011).
Secondly critics of ‘slacktivism’ ignore the issue of the global context. As talked about before, thanks to modernity and our ‘global digital citizenships’ we exist within an interconnected global context. To recap my misgivings about ‘global digital citizenships’; they give the illusion of being interconnected, important and an agent within a global sphere while providing no such power that a physical citizenship gives. Activism acts upon the same rules; people using the power that their citizenships provide to make changes and fight for rights. So when that power and physical location is taken out of the equation what are we left with? Digital Activism. When Digital Activism is put into a global world where our citizenships hold no weight we’re left with nothing. This is where ‘slacktivism’ comes into it. Sometimes all we can do is provide moral support and broaden awareness of issues.
Slacktivism shouldn’t be condemned, it has its place and it has its uses. I believe the issue comes from the lack of goals that modern activism often has. We’re angry, but we’re not sure why so we shout and yell and very rarely have an end goal. That is far more dangerous than pressing the ‘like’ button on a facebook page.
Glenn, C. (2015). Activism or “Slacktivism?”: Digital Media and Organizing for Social Change. Communication Teacher, 29(2), pp.81-85.
Knibbs, K. (2017). Slacktivists, unite! Social media campaigns aren’t just feel-good back patting. [online] Digital Trends. Available at: https://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/slacktivists-unite-social-media-campaigns-arent-just-feel-good-back-patting/ [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Kristofferson, K., White, K. and Peloza, J. (2014). The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), pp.1149-1166.
McCafferty, D. (2011). Activism vs. slacktivism. Communications of the ACM, 54(12), p.17.
ellievsbear
baratheonpilled
kaledo-art
romaincrisis
