dotcomwriteon

A blog, a whole blog, and nothing but a blog... except maybe some song lyrics. 

[thoughtsofchanelle-deactivated2]

W5: Social Media in Politics: A help, or hindrance?

Statistically, social media has demonstrated some pretty phenomenal changes over the last few years. As of 2017, our average daily usage was calculated at 135 minutes per day, equating to a whopping 66.6% increase over the last 5 years (Statisa, 2017). That’s almost 35 days of our year spent scrolling through the trending reality TV recaps and videos of cute animals. Although, I’m not complaining #TeamDog #BachelourInParadiseAU.

Trending hashtags aside - social media has developed an incredible power over our political landscape over this time, by providing users with a barrier-free ability to interact, connect and communicate with political parties and influence an immediate nature of civic culture. However - does this help or hinder our political culture?

The ability for political parties to communicate with users and broadcast relative information on policies and campaigns while reaching new audiences such as millennials is certainly a benefit for our political society – I personally however, enjoy the sense of light-hearted familiarity this provides the audience. During the 2008 US election, Barack Obama ‘used the informality of social media’ (Katz, 2013, p. 12) to connect to wider audiences, potentially aiding his success to presidency through digital engagement. Similarly, Kevin Rudd (or #KRudd) utilised Instagram by portraying himself as the ‘average Joe’ through raw (and at times, unflattering) selfies to take the good ole’ Aussie ‘mickey’ out of himself. Relatable much?

Personally, I think its great content. However, there is a downside to this argument, too.

A rise in social media however means an increased level of citizen participation in the context of politics and civil culture (Young, 2010). Digital communication is a two-way medium, and social media acts as a platform for true ‘average Joe’s’ to express their unofficial, amateur and at times – uninformed view of political concepts with the potential for this to be misinterpreted as certified political content, or generally influential to other users which consequently, adds pressure for political parties to act with immediacy. The problem here? Social media users respond to content, not context. The same reason a cute animal video goes viral because it’s cute – no one’s asking why the slow-motioned dog missed the treat thrown at him…

Social Media Users VS Political Party

This was demonstrated when ABC’s Four Corners aired a segment with shocking claims that a detention centre in the NT were mistreating youth detainees (ABC, 2016). Naturally, social media users exploded with backlash against the Government, enabling users to ‘feed off’ each other’s outrage and opinion. This built enormous pressure for the party to act immediately via Royal Commission, only later to realise the sources of the Four Corner’s story were out of date and the content later labelled ‘misleading’ (ABC News, 2017), demonstrating social media users are quick to respond to content, not context and the pressure of immediacy can result in political misjudgements and –in this case – a large loss of tax payer’s funds.  

Political science professor Jodi Dean One is particular media scholar who believes social media may be a hindrance to our political landscape (DCU School of Communications 2013):

Now, over to you.

How do you think social media helps or hinders the political landscape, and why? Share your thoughts by reblogging below.

References

ABC, 2017, Australia’s Shame, ABC: Four Corners, viewed 20th April 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/australias-shame-promo/7649462>

DCU School of Communication 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3 - Jodi Dean, 3 July, viewed 16th April 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>.

Hitch, G, 2017, Don Dale Four Corners report ‘sensationalist, misleading’, NT royal commission hears, ABC News, viewed 20th April 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-27/don-dale-four-corners-report-sensationalist-commission-hears/8475738>

Katz, J Barris, M Jain, A 2013, The Social Media President: Barack Obama and the Politics of Digital Engagement, Palgrave Macmillan US, New York.

Statisa, 2017, Daily time spent on social networking by internet users worldwide from 2012 to 2017 (in minutes), Statisa: The Statistics Portal, viewed 16th April 2018, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-social-media-usage-worldwide/>

Young, S 2010, News, political reporting and the internet, in How Australia Decides, Cambridge University Press, Victoria, Australia.

Images

Instagram, 2017, mrkrudd, viewed 20th April 2018, <https://www.instagram.com/mrkrudd/?hl=en>

News Corp, 2018, Bachelor in Paradise Australia Recap, viewed 20th April 2018, <http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/reality-tv/bachelor-in-paradise-contestant-explodes-a-fking-stitchup/news-story/a9e1e02849d8e6bd00b06b85be0f8905>

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Another great post, Chanelle! Your concept of reacting to content and not context is very eloquently put. I agree. Sadly much like the media cycle online participation has become about reacting first and checking facts later. I try to be vigilant in this area but despite my best efforts even I have been guilty of reacting first only to find the information was outdated later. In my case it was Barilla pasta’s comments on homosexuals. Whoops! I agree social media has a lot of power to communicate with politicians and get constituent messages out there but I wonder how effective they are at achieving real and timely change given the recent Australian Equal Marriage rights debate? Support, campaigning and petitioning for equal rights was abundant on social media platforms and showcased the majority’s view in support of equality. Yet for years the government managed to evade implementing it despite direct online pressure to do so. What do you think? 

[kengalvin-blog]

TV - Twitter & digital civic culture

As a tool for communication broadcast television pulls no punches its purpose, to directly transmit the message to its viewers. On the other hand a platform like Twitter thrives on participation and connection, it’s a platform built through the extension of conversation between users from all walks of life (Jericho 2013, p. 256). Twitter and digital networks like it mark a cultural shift in how we communicate, this deviation in access and transmission of information has not disrupted television, in fact it has breathed new life into how we interact and experience the platform. We have become a civilisation of mediated multitasks that constantly use social media to go beyond the gaze of television becoming “second-screen co-viewing” (Pittman & Tefertiller 2015).

It’s common practice for reality television viewers to sit with phone in hand becoming emotionally invested and directly participate in programs through the use of their phones, social media and hashtags. Let’s face it, we have all used hashtags along the lines of #BacheloretteAU because for some strange reason we felt compelled to project our views on Sophie Monk’s choice of suitor. As television interactions evolve through networked publics can they be used to discuss more pressing topics than entertainment? Can they be used to extend and exercise democratic engagement as digital citizens who discuss political and social issues as a form of digital “civic culture” (Berg-Schlosser & Bertrand 2011, p. 243).

Sophie Monk promotes network interaction (Bacheloretteau 2017)

The answer is yes its already here; one of the most ground-breaking shows on Australian television is ABC’s “Q&A”(ABC 2018). Q&A embraces political and social discourse inviting viewer engagement through networked publics. Q&A takes on a level of civic interaction by presenting political and social issues in an unbiased manner cultivating a synergy between the panel, live studio audience combined with social networks.

“It is driven by interaction: Q&A provides a rare opportunity for Australian citizens to directly question and hold to account politicians and key opinion leaders in a national public forum” (ABC 2018).

Q&A does this by encouraging viewers to send in video-questions through its webpage and comment via Twitter combined with the hashstag #QandA (ABC 2018). Q&A engages networked publics by using television as the central source of content. Its said that social media is constructed by weak ties (Jericho 2013, p. 256); Q&A thrives on these loose connections by using Twitter and its official hashtag #QandA to embrace the platforms ability to connect users and extend political conversations beyond the confided of the program. Political arguments generated by Q&A are reshaped through user discourse which continues on Twitter streams and YouTube comments long after the program has aired.

Q&A discussion on right for Indigenous Australian (Abcqanda 2018)

Q&A is a unique example of how networked publics can be used to generate meaningful political and social conversation in a new and multi-dimensional public sphere. As much as I have a soft spot for tweets regarding The Bachelorette, social networks have the ability to service a much larger pressing reality.

Reference list

Abcqanda 2018, Q&A Highlight - “We want to be authors of our own destinies”, 19 February, viewed 19 April 2018, <https://youtu.be/ikPa3pi1leY>.

Bacheloretteau 2017, “I love getting likes” [image], giphy, viewed 19 April 2018, <https://media.giphy.com/media/l378cszpEeAeCXnsk/giphy.gif>.

Berg-Schlosser, D &  Badie, B 2011, ‘Civic Culture’, D Berg-Schlosser & Badie Bertrand (eds), International Encyclopedia of Political Science, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), pp. 243-248

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

Pittman, M & Tegertiller A. 2015, ‘With or without you: Connected viewing and co-viewing Twitter activity for traditional appointment and asynchronous broadcast television models’, First Monday, vol.  20, no. 7>.

Q&A 2018, About the show, ABC, viewed 19 April 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/about.htm>.

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Great post, Ken! I love watching Q&A but I’m always disappointed when some of the panellists skirt actually answering the question and try to dance around the issue with their answers. I agree networked publics have a lot of power to get messages out there, but issues like Australian Equal Marriage rights really had me wondering just how effective this power really is. Support, campaigning and petitioning for equal rights was abundant on social media platforms yet the government managed to evade implementing equality for years despite the online pressure to do so. What do you think?     

[thoughtsofchanelle-deactivated2]

W6: Social Media & Modern Activism

It has been argued that new technologies in our modern world facilitate and encourage a freedoms agenda through the enhancement of one’s digital rights (Cammaerts, 2015). With the affordances of social media, it’s really no wonder these new technologies are being embraced by activists for protest movements. However, it begs the question; has social media empowered activism? Or, has activism been so heavily impacted by social media, that pre-digital activism methods are now ineffective?

Recent studies have revealed a positive link between social media and political participation (Valenzuela, 2013), which leads to the term ‘digital citizenship’; the benefits which are associated with the ability of social media tools to ‘facilitate the membership and participation of individuals within society’ (Mossberger et al. 2008, p. 1). Social media is no longer simply used as a promotional tool by activists. In fact, evidence suggests that social media has in fact revolutionisedactivism (Lafi Youmans & York, 2012), and in many cases, activism through social media has lead to local efforts evoking a powerful global influence (Bakardjieva 2009, pp.100- 101) where prior to social media, it may not have.

Let’s reflect on the powerful link between social media & modern activism

Ask yourself what information you are privy to on a Facebook event that influences your attendance. If a friend invited you to a protest via Facebook, where you can see information including the amount of people going, the organisational cause behind the movement, the impact the protest is due to have – and hey, it looks like you can even see images of a similar protest from last year, too.

Now, compare this to a time where 25 years ago, that friend may simply have asked you to attend the protest they heard about through another friend, however they’re unsure of the organisation behind it, the amount of people due to attend, or what kind of atmosphere the protest will present. How would this influence your decision on whether or not to attend – and would it inspire you to make change before you even turned up?

I know my answer; and it certainly proves social media has revolutionised events of this nature. In the context of activism, social media enables us to digitally connect with other passionate individuals, contribute with the click of a button, and become inspired through powerful content even prior to attending.

Share YOUR thoughts, including a recent example of modern activism you either involved yourself in, scrolled past, or simply heard about through social media. Most importantly, however - would you have heard about this if social media did not exist?

References

Bakardjieva, M 2009, ‘Subactivism: Lifeworld and politics in the Age of the internet,’ The Information Society, vol.25, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Cammaerts, B 2015, ‘Social Media and Activism’, The International Encyclopaedia of Digital Communication and Society 1, John Wiley & Sons

Lafi Youmans, W & York, J 2012, ‘Social Media and Activists Toolkit’, Journal of Communication, pp 315-329.

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

Valenzuela, S 2013, ‘Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information, opinion expression and activism’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol.57, no.7, Sage Publications

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hey Chanelle, interesting perspective on the role of social media and specific effects on participatory consideration. There’s no denying social media has completely revolutionised (pun intended) activism and protest, but what’s your response to individuals who believe social media networks should remain exactly that - social - and that activism and political issues should be kept off the space and on separate platforms? 

[bradarnoldt-deactivated20180705]

Week 7: Trolling and social media conflict

I went to school a good while before the internet, trolling and social media conflict were in our lives.  At school I was bullied and, I’m not proud to say, did my share of bullying.  I don’t now.  I’m a different person.  Back then I was trying to fit in.  Be part of the ‘cool gang’.  The same ‘cool gang’ that at various stages bullied me. I had “frenemies” - friends who are sometimes enemies when faced with competition, jealousy and mistrust (boyd 2014). It was a vicious circle of acceptance and rejection that I stayed in during my high school days.  Looking back I can see exactly what was going on but at the time I would turn up every day wondering which way things were going to go.

This ‘face to face’ bullying has become anonymous, faceless online bullying in most cases now. Aggression, repetition, and imbalance in power (boyd 2014) are the 3 major components in bullying according to Swedish psychologist Dan Olweus.   The Australian Government goes on to pinpoint 7 main online bullying tactics which you can read here

 https://www.acorn.gov.au/learn-about-cybercrime/cyber-bullying 

 If caught and convicted, there’s a $30k fine (ACORN 2017).  

There, of course, is not only bullying in the school yard and online amongst school peers but throughout the adult world.  “Posting hurtful messages, images or videos online” is number 1 in the 7 points made by ACORN in regards to online bullying (just in case you didn’t click on the link above!).  Celebrities of course cop it all the time and a number of them have quit various forms of social media as a result.  Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran, Justin Bieber among many who’ve received bullying and turned off their Twitter and/or Instagram accounts. (Stark 2018) Some, after a while, have turned theirs back on after the heat had died down though!

People react to online threats and bullying in various ways.  Some laugh it off as you may have seen in The Late Shows “Mean Tweets.  

Check out some more mean tweets below

Sarah Silverman went one step further when one particular troller sent her a mean tweet.  She went out of her way to find out why he said what he said.  The result was moving and life changing for both parties. Check out the story here:  

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/sarah-silverman-troll-medical-treatment-san-antonio-insurance-slipped-discs-a8141491.html

References:

Boyd, D 2014, ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp. 128-52.

Jimmy Kimmel Live 2018, Mean Tweets - Avengers Edition, 30 April, viewed 2 May 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrnpSe4OChM>.

Loughrey C, 2018,  Sarah Silverman responds to troll by befriending him and paying for his medical treatment, Independent, viewed 3 May 2018, <https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/sarah-silverman-troll-medical-treatment-san-antonio-insurance-slipped-discs-a8141491.html>.

Stark J 2018,  Celebrities who’ve quit social media: Kanye West, Adele, Justin Bieber, more, Newsday, 15 February, viewed 2 May 2018, https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities/celebrities-who-quit-social-media-1.12706108

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hey Brad, thanks for the thought provoking post. As someone who was bullied a lot at school let me say this. To me, your admissions to being a bully show strength of character and obviously demonstrate how much far you’ve come and your moral fibre. So good on you for being big enough to discuss it. Many would have glossed over it and just written a generic post. Personally, I think that whilst there were certainly some nasty kids out there who just wanted to be destructive, bullying before cyberbullying was a lot about playground survival. Similar to how lots of TV shows demonstrate inmates needing to show and assert their strength by going on the attack or risk being perceived as weak and becoming a target. The cyberbullying penalties you referenced are interesting. I wasn’t even aware they existed and frankly I don’t think I’m the only one. Frankly their a toothless tiger if no one is going to enforce them and I agree more needs to be done. What’s your opinion on restricting online accounts to over 18s and platforms requiring verifiable IDs for account creation? Too far? Or the wrong approach?    

[florenciablogs-blog]

Indecent (E)xposure

Society is in disarray and it seems cyberbullying is the trending offender. Parents, teachers and workplaces alike have absorbed this term as an all-encompassing umbrella with which to label any kind of negative remark. An issue which boyd (2014) affirms “has become a national obsession”.

While cyberbullying is a major concern, is bullying really worse today? or are we all under individual spotlights that manifest in this new transparent social environment?

Many are quick to fault this new generation as callous but I beg to differ.

Same youth, different weapons.

Bullying has forever been a prominent issue within group environments, particularly education and predictably nothing has changed. The social hierarchy the education system fosters, sits within a hormonal and developing group of individuals creating a tumultuous setting. Our parents recall getting picked on and no one really speaking out about it. They refer to instances of neighbourhood disagreements, attested mainly to sports like soccer or rugby. In Australia, it’s also common to hear of verbal or physical abuse between ‘Aussies’ and ‘Wogs’, a wound born from racial divide and slow integration of nationalities. Often unreported and seen by few peers, these abuses have been concealed or forgotten. In today’s age of transcribed online activity this is impossible. Facebook chats, Instagram images, e-mails and WhatsApp audios are all embeded, recorded and stored to ensure every last detail is kept and used as potential ammunition. boyd discusses social medias role in “amplifying the visibility of bullying”. This digital visibility assures others can see, participate or be sent content of virtually anything.

Make no mistake, there is no place in our society for bullying nor should there be but to attest cyberbullying as a novel tendency would be a gross misconception. The battle continues to be ‘hands on’ just in a different way.

Context is everything and in the microcosm that is the internet this is rule number one. This transparency inherently involves a wide array of actors whom, coming from different cultural backgrounds and tech competencies can perceive situations in very different ways. One cannot compare their perception on a topic to that of their parents or grandparents. The younger the generation in question, the faster the technological advances move. This is a direct product of the breadth of information available on the web. These differing views and opinions have been a propeller for the misuse of the cyberbullying term. There is little public understanding or general knowledge about cyberbullying and its characteristics but nonetheless it a term consistently used to label online activity. Generational gaps cause adults to often misinterpret what boyd labels ‘drama’, a digital Chinese whispers if you will, with gossip. The internet becomes frightening only to those who do not understand it.

#staywoke

References

boyd, D 2014, ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp. 128-52.

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

Mouffe, C (2005), Chantal Mouffe: Agonistic Democracy and Radical Politics, [online] Pavilion Journal for Politics and Culture, Available at: http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/ [Accessed 1 May 2018]

Image references

Cartoon Movement (2016), Facebook: A misleading weapon. [image] Available at: https://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/27473 [Accessed 1 May 2018]

SBS (2013), Looking for Alabrandi, [image] Available at: https://www.sbs.com.au/movies/review/looking-alibrandi-review [Accessed 1 May 2018]

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hey Flo, there are so many interesting aspects of this post I don’t even know where to begin. As a ‘wog’ of Greek origin who grew up in Australia I received a lot of the type of bullying you discuss. Personally I’ve always hated that term despite attempts by figures like Nick Giannopoulos to reclaim and re-connote it. It seems the connotation of the word lies not in the attempts to transform it but rather in the intention of the person using it. But I guess there are just some things you cannot change. What I find interesting about cyberbullying is the majority of the demographic effected by it are students between the ages of 10-15 (Bullying No Way 2018). Yet the individuals mainly responsible for designing ways to address the issue are mainly adults. In the same way that many older generations don’t fully understand the nuances of social media culture and interactions. Could a significant part of the problem be that adults are too out of touch with cyberbullying to know how to solve the problem? I know when I was a kid my parents used to tell me to tell the bullies “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”. This was so outdated all it resulted in was being laughed out of the school yard in tears and only made things worse. What do you think?   

[digitallyamelia]

Online Trolls

The Internet is a wondrous world in which all different types of people are able to come together and have the freedom to share all their ideas and opinions. This has enabled many content creators a platform to share their creativity, humour and/or ideas with an audience that will listen. Such an open forum for feedback allows audiences to respond to and critique these creators, however, negative feedback is not always constructive, and there are those on the internet that “deliberately try … to distress” others “online” (Nicol, 2012 p. 3), also known as the trolls of the internet.

Trolling is quite similar to cyberbullying, however, the cyberbully often knows the victim and has harmful intentions (Nicol 2012, p. 3). Online bullying is quite common in Australia, with ‘approximately one in five young people under 18 report[ing]’ (Bullying No Way! 2018) that they had experienced cyber bullying in any one year.

Keep reading

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hey Amelia, great post! I love the picture you included of actual trolls too. The 90s child in me is getting all nostalgic. I never owned one but still loved those funny looking things. Anyway, you touched on blocking out haters and social media trolls and it got me wondering what you think about the current blocking functions on platforms like Facebook and Instagram? Do you think they go far enough to address the problem? Or does the weakness of human emotion and not always being able to just ‘block and forget’ render it ineffective?

[frangolive]

Standing out from the shadows...

MDA20009: Week 6: Digital Citizenship 2: activism and protest

Once a cause has got a networked individual or community’s attention via a social media platform, how are you going to frame your message to best support your cause?  In the cases of Egypt, Spain and the US since 2009, you use the most powerful platforms of Facebook, Twitter and Youtube to set dates, share logistics and show the world your agenda (Gerbaudo 2012, p.3). Growing the nodes of activist networks means getting your audiences to conquer the fear of putting their voices out there and increasing visibility of political alignment (Gerbaudo 2012, p.1).

15 Public art projects advocating social justice can be found at https://mashable.com/2016/09/24/public-art-social-good/

Privileged countries have the advantage of high levels of connectivity and access to digital platforms that disseminate protest and activist causes and afford societies a habituation of physical gatherings in public spaces (Gerbaudo 2012, p.2).  But do we really capitalise on this liberty apart from evidence items of selfies or clicks to show ‘I was there’ (Gerbaudo 2012, p.3)?

 With so many causes lined up on the platform of the social media train, it is possible to feel like you are getting overwhelmed from all the posts in your various inboxes soliciting financial and emotional support.  With activist use of social media so prevalent, diverse and impactful, which journalist, citizen or professional do you engage with first (Gerbaudo 2012, p.3)?

The Sunday Age on the 22nd of April this year runs an article called ‘The Secrets of their success stories’. Straight away the headline is effective as it uses signifiers in the words ‘secrets, success, stories, and most humans from a sociological standpoint like all three of these elements, especially rolled into one semiotic bundle (Feldman & Hart 2015, p.101).  The publication presents the situation of several African – Australians who work between their ethnic, cultural and wider communities to lobby society and government in support of integration strategies that enable increased opportunities for socioeconomic assimilation into their Australian life (The Sunday Age 2018, p.13).  I found it an encouraging example of the three main message modalities that Lauren Feldman and P. Sol Hart describe in their study of ‘efficacy information’ that motivates activism (2015, p.100).

Ahmed Hassan, operations manager at Activating Youth based in the Brunswick.

Photo: Chris Hopkins, courtesy of the Sunday Age

Firstly, it evidenced the ‘internal information’ of the self and the individual’s agency and steps they could take themselves, working over two years on a plan to present to government.  Secondly, it showed the ‘external (systems) information’, explaining how the presentation of the plan to State Multicultural Affairs minister’s office outlined a 12 year plan of 5 essential goals that sought government and representative agency.  Thirdly, it included ‘response efficacy information’ showing how implementing the activist policy would give young and disadvantaged people a voice and diminish citizens falling through the cracks in society and community (Feldman & Hart 2015, p.100).

A Somali-Australian who now lives in Footscray, Halima Mohamed, works to empower African women by helping them establish businesses.

Photo: Chris Hopkins, courtesy of the Sunday Age

The use of these three ‘efficacy messages’ had the effect of making me fearful for peeps who fall through the cracks, angry that in such a privileged country it should happen to anyone, but ultimately hopeful due the solutions enthusiasm of approach to protest, activism and networking (Feldman & Hart 2015, p.101).

I definitely will not be culture jamming this cause (Dery 2010)…

REFERENCES:

 Dery, M 2010, Culture Jamming: Hacking, Slashing, and Sniping in the Empire of Signs, Shovelware, viewed April 2018, <http://markdery.com/?page_id=154>.

 Feldman L, Hart P. Sol 2015, ‘Using Political Efficacy Messages to Increase Climate Activism: The Mediating Role of Emotions’, Science Communication, Vol 38, Issue 1, pp. 99-127, viewed 19.4.18 <https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/10.1177/1075547015617941>

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

 Hinchcliffe Joe 2018, ‘The Secrets of their success stories’, The Sunday Age, April 22, 2018, p. 13, viewed 22.4.18, < https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-african-australian-success-stories-you-ve-probably-never-heard-20180421-p4zay1.html>

The Art Assignment 2016, PBS ‘The Art of Complaining – The Guerilla Girls’, PBS Digital Studios [online], viewed 21.4.18, <https://youtu.be/5i5cEhd6Vt8?t=2s>

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

This is such a great post, Frances! I really enjoyed reading it and I love that you included art and the powerful role it can play in activism and protest both on the street and on social media. I became a fan on Banksy many years ago before he was so well known. I loved finding little bits of him all around London. Early in your piece you touched on users aligning their social media accounts with issues. we’ve seen that social media platforms can have a huge effect on activism, but what is your response to those that say political or civil issues should stay off platforms originally meant for socialising as the name implies?      

[digitallyamelia]

Disasters, the Internet & Crowsourcing

Social media has led to huge developments in both the speed and way in which communities can respond to natural disasters. It is believed that official news has the ability to spread much faster and reach a greater audience on social media as compared to traditional media (Spiro et al. 2012, p. 275-276). Social media allows people facing similar situations to come together to offer advice and support in times of crisis. Communities have the ability to unite as active publics to inspire hope and support for those facing natural disasters, this is where crowdsourcing can come in.

Hammon and Hippner (2012) define crowdsourcing as:

‘the act of outsourcing tasks originally performed inside an organized, or assigned externally in form of a business relationship, to an undefinably large, heterogeneous mass of potential actors’. 

Keep reading

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hey Amelia, interesting post on Crowdsourcing. You’ve pointed out a lot of positives but I really would have liked to also hear more of your thoughts on the criticisms and weaknesses of crowdsourcing. I agree the immediacy of crowdsourcing and its role in natural disasters has been hugely beneficial at times, but the clutter created by immediacy and lack of credibility and verifiable fact has also caused massive issues in identifying the truth and not perpetuating misinformation. What do you think? Do the flaws in the system outweigh the benefits?

[thoughtsofchanelle-deactivated2]

W9: Social imaging and what strangers know about you

If you’re a 90’s kid, like me, you may remember trying all too aggressively to fit your large disposable or digital camera in your backpack ready for school camps and shopping trips. Trust me – the struggle was real. But oh, how times have changed.

Now, new innovations have enabled these cameras to be integrated into our beloved smartphones to a point where at times, they can be considered an extension of our limbs – always within an arm’s ready and ready for any moment to be captured.  Where we would usually only share with close friends weeks later, we now share instantly with the world. Whoever is interested can view these photographs just by searching your name if they so desire. We are now visual beings, and quite frankly; no longer make our first impressions in person. I know, it’s scary.

The way that we capture – or remember – the moments in our lives, how we share these and who we share these to has been revolutionised. Personal photography is now a part of our culture. But, how does this influences our digital footprint, or change what strangers can know about us before they even know our name? Turns out – a lot.

Being ‘tagged’ in a photograph is an ubiquitous affordance of social media, and one which has enabled connectivity and interaction among users – we tag businesses, locations, other users, and can check into locations, events, and even our own home with a detailed map given to anybody who wishes to view it. Clearly, it’s a crafty innovation, however it also makes us scarily searchable via images – which is particularly problematic when tagging is made publicly visible through social media channels without ones consent, with young people reportedly expressing concern and degrees of anxiety when considering their own visual landscapes among social media channels (Hand, 2012, p. 175).

‘Tagging is thus both a way of finding and being found’ – Swinburne Online, 2018.

Network visuality is a term used to describe the way images have become vital to the formation and maintenance of our digital communication (Swinburne, 2018), and selfie culture is a term used to describe the notion of self-portraits typically taken in a fashion which plays on particular representational desires (not that I really need to explain that one). Both are prominent concepts in the rise of social imaging, and something I touch on in an earlier blog post here.

Ever wondered how easy it is for strangers to know more about you, based solely on the information and images you post on social media? Take a look at this confronting social experiment:

Clearly, social imaging leaves little privacy. 

How would you feel if you were approached by a stranger who knew your dog’s name, the colour of your bedroom walls, or even the type of TV you purchased over the weekend? Would you reconsider the images you post online after watching this?

References

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

Swinburne Online, 2018, ‘9.2 Ubiquitous photography’, MDA20009: Digital Communities, Swinburne Online, viewed 16 May 2018, Link 

Vale, J, 2013, Social Media Experiment (online video), YouTube, November 2018, viewed 16 May 2018, Link

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hey Chanelle, I really enjoyed reading your blog this week. I was born in ‘89 but still consider myself a child of the 90s and boy do I remember the camera struggle. Honestly though, my struggle was less about trying to fit it into my backpack and more about trying to figure out how many rolls of film I would need or worse, trying to sort through the hundreds of photos I had developed and what to do with them! You made some really interesting points about ubiquitous photographic affordances, privacy and the control or lack there of over our digital foot prints. I wanted to explore this, this week but didn’t have the word count. I’m someone that likes to take photos, post them on my Facebook or Insta but within reason. I’m also someone who likes my privacy and doesn’t want my whole life online. It can be really difficult to control your digital footprint when even interactions like finding a job are increasingly linked to platforms like LinkedIn. I resisted making a LinkedIn account until a few months ago when, despite already knowing it, a HR friend of mine drummed in just how many job opportunities I was missing by not having an account. It seems these days if you want to get most things done you have to have a digital account. Heck, even to complete this assignment we HAD to create Tumblr accounts further increasing our digital footprints. Given we know that even with the highest account privacy settings anything that ends up online can be accessed in some form. Do you think it’s ethical for practices like finding work and even completing assignments to be forced online? Is forcing some of us to increase our digital footprint thereby obstructing our privacy?       

[florenciablogs-blog]

Show, don’t tell.

As the saying goes, a picture says a thousand words.

And in a time where there is no time that could not prove truer.

As technology morphs we grow less impatient while our capacity to concentrate withers. Like children, we focus on the bright, bold and loud shifting to the new craze that will stimulate our senses.

Our forms of communication through technology have become so broad that we have replaced much of them with images in the form of selfies, gifs, memes, bitmojis and emojis. There is virtually nothing an image can’t express and if anything using them adds layering words cannot. This human expression or emotional depth an image can provide is the fuel that has propelled its everyday use. 

These visual references allow for common associations, ones that transpose geography, language and age groups to lace individuals together with affinities. An affinity is a point of interest where we find a common link, “network users that share an affinity with the ideas that are being visually projected" (Vivienne & Burgess 2013).

In an interview with Jason Farman, Nathan Yugensou discusses the conceptual change of meaning behind a picture. Where before the photo would be the ends today the photo is the means to communicate a message. The photo itself often becomes secondary or unimportant, mere symbolism driving an idea further.

This ephemeral communication has allowed Instagram to grow to universal status and birthed snapchat.

The means of a picture is such that often we feel we need this image to validate our social encounters.

Remember the most beautiful place you last visited? When you arrived, did you have the urging desire to grab your phone and take a picture, video or story? A need to capture the moment, to share it with your friends? So then, why did this picture not simply stay in your camera roll, for you?

Why did you share this?

To some degree knowing/unknowingly we do this to cement social stance, to remind people that we’re out there living? Because fundamentally if this was not true, we wouldn’t share it on social media platforms. That is not to say this is good or bad- humans are social animals and as such we crave communication but when we are posting faster than we are thinking we need to pause and restart. 

Time to read more Dalai Lama quotes instead of posting them.

 References

Hjorth, L 2011, ‘Mobile spectres of intimacy: the gendered role of mobile technologies in love – past, present and future’, in R, Ling & S, Campbell (eds) The Mobile Communication Research Series: Volume II, Mobile Communication: Bringing Us Together or Tearing Us Apart? Transaction Books Edison, NJ , pp. 37-60.

Jason Farman 2014, Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media: An Interview with Nathan Jurgenson, 16 June, viewed 14 May 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnPtZ5lKDHo>.

Lange, P 2009, ‘Videos of Affinity on YouTube’, in P, Snickars & P, Vonderau (eds), The YouTube Reader, National Library of Sweden, Stockholm, pp. 70-88.

Mizuko, I 2008 ‘Introduction’, in K, Vamelis, ed. Networked Publics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-14.

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

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hi Flo, brilliant post! I really enjoyed reading your perspective and I completely agree users need to be more mindful of why they post instead of incessantly clicking away every moment of their lives. I see so many quotes posted by friends that I know don’t live by them and wonder what the point was. Is it a sort of mea culpa of previous lifestyle choices and a public declaration to try and live by it in the future? Is it about showing support for the quote irrespective of personal conduct? Or is it just about being being part of a conversation and subsequent networked public and not feeling left out of the digital chatter? I explored this in my week 9 post on Paper Magazine’s 2014 #BreakTheInternet covers. Much as it pained me to write about oxygen thieving Kardashian, it was one of the best examples I could think of that showcased how social media use has become largely about being a part of the conversation and less about the detail of the user’s specific contribution. What do you think?     

[kengalvin-blog]

Online gaming and the magic circle

When I think about online gaming I think about escape, I think about how players can be transported and exist in a world where gaming platforms are used to interact and fulfil their wildest fantasies of becoming a Starfleet captain, an outlaw in the wild west or tend to a herd of virtual animals on your own pixelated farm. Massive multiplayer online (MMO) games like as “Farmville” (Zynga 2018), and massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) such as “EVE Online” (Zwart & Humphreys 2014, p. 77) and the recently released “Wild West Online” (playwwo 2018) afford users the ability to interact with fellow users through networks exploring at times their own sense of self as much as the virtual world created for them.

EVE Online - Titan Kill (Everything EVE 2016)

In MMORPG’s such as EVE players are asked to participate in deceit, fraud, theft, and even murder, acts which go against the rules of society (Zwart & Humphreys 2014, p. 78), at times MMORPG’s asks participants to go outside the boundaries of acceptability of everyday standard, allowing players to interact in situations outside of the moral codes of real-world scenarios. So how do online players switch hats so to speak, how do they change from being a father, mother or office worker during the day to becoming a ruthless outlaw within online worlds antagonising fellow users?

Become an outlaw in the west (Wild West Online 2016)

Technological advances have allowed users an affordance to explore alter egos and escape reality through social networked interaction but how do users know where the borders and rules of the online world begin and end (Young & Whitty 2010, p. 1230). The magic circle theory developed by Johan Huizinga in 1939’s describes how a playing field is physically marked out “allows for the change of everyday rules and the transformation of acceptable behaviour rules” (Zwart & Humphreys 2014, p. 91), in traditional terms these are the white lines of a football pitch but online gaming networks like EVE are governed by terms and conditions which are designed to enforce the magic circle. However, participating in a game with other real-world users where the narrative explores  murder, deceit and provocation the digital lines of the magic circle can become extremely blurred at times.

Racist Trolls Online (Tech Insider 2018)

Gaming Technology affords connection and a majority of players verbal interact through headsets blending their real and gaming environment together. Above is a video narrated by Terrence Miller where he discusses his experiences as a black gamer and the abuse he’s been subjected to online. During the video, Miller talks to Kishonna Grey, a scholar from Arizona State University who discusses the normalisation of racism gamers of colour feel due to ongoing verbal assaults By other users (Tech Insider 2018). Network gaming affords escapism from reality but at times they raise moral questions about how far some players push its pixelated borders. I can only wonder as these online networks expand how far will technology and societies morals be pushed? Although seen as science fiction, Westworld (HBO 2018) which see’s networked cyborg experiences blended with reality have already begun through network gaming platforms.

Westworld (Lousolversons 2018)

Reference List

De Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014,’ The Lawless Frontier of Deep Space: Code as Law in EVE Online’, Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99.

HBO 2018, Westworld, HBO, 28 May 2018, <https://www.hbo.com/westworld>.

Lousolversons 2018, ‘These are all just roles’ [image], tumblr, 28 May 2018, <https://lousolversons.tumblr.com/post/174118225401/you-feel-free-to-command-everyone-else>.

Tech Insider, Racist Trolls Are Still Dominating Video Games, 11 April, viewed 23 May 2018, <https://youtu.be/vPspkEB6l18>.

Wild West Online 2017, Sneak peak on BIG upcoming, 17 May, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdXL9PdVAAAwxUJ.jpg>.

Wild West Online 2018, Wild West Online, Wild West Online, viewed 26 May 2018, <https://www.playwwo.com>.

Young & Whitty, 2010, ‘An Exploratory Study of Trolling in Online Video Gaming’, International Journal of Cyber Behavior, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 17-33.

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Hi Ken, I loved your point about “how far some players will push pixelated boarders”. Very eloquently put. I agree that a big draw for players is the affordance of escapism (see my blog this week). But it was your point about the blurring of lines both of a game’s code of conduct and between virtual and real worlds that got me thinking. Given the complex web created by some of these issues and the significant financial investment and commitment of many players to their virtual realities, I wonder if one day we might see virtual courts developed specifically to sort out these issues? Something akin to a more sophisticated virtual version of Judy Judy if you will?

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

What’s the name of the game?

This week let’s talk about social gaming. Now before you go clicking away because gaming ‘isn’t your thing’, let me say, it’s not mine either. In truth, I’ve never actually played one and the closest I’ve come to social gaming was slamming Tazos in my primary school yard. Who remembers these bad boys?

But I digress. As a non-gamer frankly, I’ve always struggled to see the appeal of regular social gaming. In the past, I’ve asked some of my WOW playing buddies, ‘What’s so interesting? Isn’t it just repeating the same thing over and over?’ They usually launch into a tirade about “defending the alliance“, yadda yadda yadda. Around about the time I hear the word ‘Orc’ my eyes glaze over and regret sinks in. 

And then this week (Zwart & Humphrys 2014) provided that elusive ‘uh-huh’ moment. Gaming isn’t about the vanquishing of trolls or passing another level. It’s all about Ferdinand Tönnies’ sense of community. Sure those details make the game interesting and might be the difference between throwing something else into the console. But the draw is the natural will to be a part of something greater by achieving objectives with likeminded individuals thereby forging bonds (Tönnies & Loomis 2017, p. 33). 

For too long gaming has been confined to the stereotype of a bunch of nerdy teenage boys, sitting in dark rooms wasting their time getting lost in virtual fluff. Research conducted by the Entertainment Software Association shows that whilst most gamers are males, females are well represented and only 29% of all gamers are under the age of 18 (Lavandier 2016). 

The figures clearly illustrate much myth still surrounds not only the perception of gaming but also of gamers entirely. I can’t help but wonder, is the draw for all these demographics escapism? With our increasingly demanding day-to-day lives we all need an outlet of escape and satisfaction. Is it possible the attraction lies in the opportunity for players to control their ‘destiny’ and manufacture a virtual existence which satisfies them more than reality? After all, the real-world places limitations on us all. We can’t always control the direction  our jobs take; financial constraints can dictate time and leisure activities. In virtual worlds, players must abide by codes of conduct yet are afforded the opportunity to assert authority through self-governing bodies in a way which simply isn’t possible in real life (EVEOnline, 2014).

Who wouldn’t be tempted to forget being a desk jockey by-day and be a total bad-ass by night?

But is there a stronger force at play? 

Neuroscientists at the Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health have found compulsive gaming activates the brain’s rewards system. By levelling up, unlocking new status features or completing tasks, the brain releases dopamine resulting in an exciting, addictive rush, mimicking the neurological patterns of drug addiction (Lauder 2017). Even one of virtual realities’ fathers, Jaron Lanier, has admitted many in his field are regretting their technological contributions, likening the predicament to a psychological experiment on rats gone wrong (Aiello 2018).

Posing the question, ‘Gaming - friend or foe?  

References

Aiello, C 2018, ‘Most people in Silicon Valley “have regrets right now”, says Microsoft’s Jaron Lanier’, CNBC, 28 March, 25 May 2018, <https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/jaron-lanier-most-people-in-silicon-valley-have-regrets-right-now.html?recirc=taboolainternal>.

de Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014, ‘The Lawless Frontier of Deep Space: Code as Law in EVE Online’, Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99.

EVE online, 2014, Home: EVE online, viewed 25 May 2018, <www.eveonline.com>.

Lauder, J 2017, ‘How your brain gets hooked on gaming’, ABC News, 31 March, viewed 25 May 2018,<http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-your-brain-gets-hooked-on-gaming/8401616>.  

Lavandier, A, M 2016, ‘Debunked: The “Gamer” Stereotype’, Medium, 7 October, viewed 25 May 2018, <https://medium.com/the-nerd-castle/debunked-the-gamer-stereotype-69be0e4ee0d7>. 

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Let me take a selfie

Older generations have notoriously condemned social media and image sharing as both a cause and symbol of the self-absorbed, narcissistic and entitled affliction from which millennials suffer (Moses 2018). 

But they’re missing the bigger picture. With the day-to-day integration of mobile cameras and image sharing platforms like YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram etc., a new method of communication has formed. These tools allow new visual modes of expression, sharing and community discourse. True, they require some control measures as they have raised many ethical and legal issues surrounding visible publics, ubiquitous photography and immediacy, and the power of content affinity. But the draw of this medium is its affordance for users to interact with images which are inextricably part of personal life and self-representation and weigh in on larger events (Hand 2012, p. 5). 

Photographic sharing through social media has reached such a speed allowing conversations around posts to attract immediate interaction and shape communities around them with constant access. I believe this is where the mislabeling of ‘narcissistic’ stems from. Communicating in this way isn’t about self-obsession, it’s about participation and joining publics. That is the “reactors, [re]makers and [re]distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception” (Mizuko 2008, pp. 2-3). 

Take the 2014 Winter covers of Paper Magazine featuring a stark naked, oiled up Kim Kardashian recreating photographer Jean-Paul Goude’s famous “Champagne Incident” portrait balancing a precariously placed glass on her derriere and other provocative images. The caption on all read,  “Break the internet Kim Kardashian”. Paper magazine and Kardashian tweeted the covers with the hashtag #BreakTheInternet to their sizeable follower base generating a heated and varied global conversation. Many criticised the covers for their public display of nudity and poor role modelling. Some condemned the photos as blatant self-promotion by Kardashian and a shameless, base attempt by the magazine to increase their circulation, and manipulate consumers for gain over the holiday season (Finn 2014). 

The caption was also criticised as its actual meaning was dubbed, ‘Make a meme, internet... make a meme’ and deemed to be nothing but a desperate grab for attention aimed at increasing both the magazine and Kardashian’s social and cultural capital (Gruttado 2014). 

The covers went viral with Paper’s website traffic hitting 6.6 million views, 5 million of which were new visitors. Kanye West’s retweets of the images alone amassed 76,000 retweets and 85,000 favourites almost immediately (Adweek 2014). It seemed anyone with a social media account was denigrating or celebrating the photos with status updates, tweets, retweets and parody. The photos drew so much attention a new networked public emerged. The #BreakTheInternet network. Sub-networks also began to form as supporters shared the content, critiques attempted to fight the craze by posting alternative images with the hashtag, and meme enthusiasts began appropriating the content into their own social commentary with new memes and gifs. 

The post was still making headlines two weeks later, with much of the world drawn to its affinity both on social media and real life. 

Individual opinions of Kardashian, Paper Magazine or any other aspect were inconsequential. 

You were either a part of the conversation, or you were left out. 

References

Adweek 2014, ‘Check Out Paper’s Staggering Traffic From Its #BreakTheInternet Kim Kardashian Cover’, Adweek, 14 November, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://www.adweek.com/digital/10-big-digital-marketing-stats-week-nov-10-14-161318/>.

Finn, N 2014, ‘Naked Kim Kardashian and Paper Magazine Attempt to “Break the Internet”’, NBC Chicago, 12 November, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Naked-Kim-Kardashian-Break-the-Internet-Paper-Magazine-282358241.html>.

Gruttado, A 2014, ‘Kim Kardashian Tried to #BreakTheInternet with Her Butt - Here’s How Everyone Reacted’, Complex, 13 November, viewed 28 May 2018, <http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2014/11/kim-kardashian-butt-paper-magazine-internet-reacts/>.

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

Moses, M 2018, ‘The Truth About Selfie Culture’, The New Yorker, 30 April, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-truth-about-selfie-culture>.

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

Come together, right now, over me.

Crowdsourcing - the practice of cooperating and collaborating with the public to gain ideas, skills, money or experience to solve a problem or complete a task (Brabham 2013, p. 3). Or simply put, practicing the old adage, ‘many heads are better than one’.

Such a brilliantly simple idea, yet such potential for disaster, particularly if your wallet or personal wellbeing are at stake.

There’s no doubt one of the internet’s greatest affordances is providing a platform which harnesses the power of collective digital citizenship, and allows individuals to collaborate across traditional geographic barriers toward a great a greater good without needing to invest a single dollar.

Kraft Foods certainly thought so in 2009 when they opened up the naming of their new cream cheese and Vegemite spread to the public. Unfortunately, the strategy backfired when consumers seized the opportunity to mock the contest and dubbed the new product, iSnack 2.0 (Saint 2009).

Entertaining? Certainly! Dangerous? Not really. But what about when this power is corrupted and people’s wallets and even lives are put at risk?

Who remembers Belle Gibson? The fraudulent wellness blogger who duped her readers into believing she had an inoperable brain tumour which she cured through alternative therapies and nutrition.

Through her social media empire, bogus cook books and apps, she conned $420,000 off of innocent contributors. Worse still, much of the funds were donated due to Gibson’s promises to donate a large portion of her profits to charities, and $150,000 to the family of Joshua Schwarz, a young boy with the same inoperable brain tumour she claimed to have. Joshua lost his cancer battle in January 2017 at age 9. His family still have not received a cent from Gibson despite a court order (Percy 2017).

Whilst the funds would not have saved Joshua, the damage is even greater. By embroiling Joshua and his family to bolster her own bogus cancer claims, Gibson cast doubt over the legitimacy of Joshua’s illness and the donations the Schwarz’s had received through their own crowdsourcing site, Joshua’s Journey. The Schwarz’s, like many families fighting cancer, relied on fundraising and the sale of their home for his ongoing treatment (Cavanagh 2015). The greatest cost of Gibson’s lies is the speculation that will forever taint any future cancer patient’s crowdsourcing and fundraising attempts.

Gibson’s con highlights the central flaws in crowdsourcing - verifiability and credibility. Whilst manipulation of crowdsourcing remains uncommon, the lack of reliability and credibility is concerning as it is used for for much more than just fundraising.

Amateur contributions of disaster details have played a crucial role in alerting citizens and aiding emergency services with response and recovery in natural disasters, politically volatile areas, and even informing journalists and the greater media. However, the increased ubiquity of user generated content makes finding authentic reports and choosing which information to highlight or ignore increasingly difficult. (Varshney, Vempaty & Varshney 2014, p.3) suggest coding could increase credibility and verifiability. However, the anonymity and immediacy afforded by the internet limits the success and still threatens the future success of crowdsourcing.

References

Brabham, D, C, 2013, Crowdsourcing, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, London, England.

Cavanagh, R 2015, ‘Family of desperately ill boy fear health guru Belle Gibson used their son to bolster her cancer claims’, Herald Sun, 21 March, viewed 28 May 2018, <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/family-of-desperately-ill-boy-fear-health-guru-belle-gibson-used-their-son-to-bolster-her-cancer-claims/news-story/9ebcb455afb10bf59465cf812450a32b>.

Percy, K 2017, ‘Belle Gibson, fake wellness blogger, fined $410,000 over false cancer claims’, ABC News, 28 September, viewed 28 May 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/disgraced-wellness-blogger-belle-gibson-fined/8995500>.

Saint, N 2009, ‘The 5 Most Entertaining Crowdsourcing Disasters’, Business Insider, 30 September, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-5-most-entertaining-crowdsourcing-disasters-2009-9#ifail-20-1>.

Varshney, L, R, Vempaty, A & Varshney P, K 2014, ‘Assuring privacy and reliability in crowdsourcing with coding’, Information and Theory Application Workshop, pp. 1-6.

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

U.G.L.Y you ain’t got no alibi. You UGLY!

In episode 1 of the documentary, Cyberhate, an unidentified Cyberbully claims “online abuse is getting worse because the proliferation of the internet has democratised trolling” (ABC 2017). 

Could the problem really be that simple? Or does cyber bullying seem more prevalent because the interactions are broadcast on the media stage? Recent statistics show students aged 10-15 are most likely to be involved in online bullying and 1 in 5 young Australian students reported experiencing online bullying in one year (Bullying No Way 2018). Yet a review of international bullying data found incidence has declined by as much as 10% globally (Rigby & Smith 2011, p. 442). 

Despite this, there’s no denying social media affords trolling and online bullying, but no more than driving a car affords the ability to drive safely or endanger others. Some platforms like Facebook work hard to delete fake profiles and encourage reporting inappropriate and offensive use, but the ease and speed with which a new account can be created makes this a never-ending battle. Others such as YouTube, choose to exclusively play the role of content provider and refuse to assume the responsibility of caretaker (Gillespie 2010, p. 353). Which begs the question, ‘Is it ethical for social media creators to provide access to a platform if they are not prepared to assume responsibility of its use or safeguard against its weaponisation?’ If so, how much responsibility should they be required to assume?

In addition to monitoring use, platforms like Facebook attempt to minimise their role as moderators by empowering users to control their platform experience and protect themselves with the blocking function. However, even this feature is flawed as it simplifies bullying, assumes it exists in a vacuum and that users, particularly minors, are strong enough to simply click and forget. It also does nothing to stomp out bullying practices as account constructs can afford complete anonymity thereby failing to hold users accountable for their conduct which is a considerable draw for trolls and cyber bullies (Sky News 2017). Perhaps the time has come for social media sites to demand verifiable forms of identification, so administration and law enforcement can hold wrong-doers accountable.

(Carter 2013, p. 1306) also suggests witnesses of cyber bullying can be the link between victims and the platform by reporting the behaviour to administrators and supporting victims instead of ignoring the bullying.

With the increasing role of the internet in day-to-day life, it is time we realised that just as the inventions of alcohol and cars needed control measures to minimise their use for harm, so too does social media. Our increasing acceptance of digital citizenship affords us many positives, but cyber bullying and trolling are the associated costs. The question is, ‘How long are we prepared to keep paying before we develop a better system?’ 

References

ABC 2017, Cyberhate with Tara Moss - Episode 1 In The Beginning, 2017, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://iview.abc.net.au/programs/cyberhate-with-tara-moss/DO1528H001S00#>.

Bullying No Way 2018, Facts and figures, Bullying No Way, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/WhatIsBullying/FactsAndFigures>.

Carter, M 2013, ‘Third Party Observers Witnessing Cyber Bullying on Social Media Sites’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 84, pp. 1296-1309.

Gillespie, T 2010, Tarleton Gillespie on the Politics of Platforms, Berkman Centre for Internet & Society, viewed 27 May 2018, <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheon/2010/01/gillespie>.

Rigby, K & P, K, Smith 2011, ‘Is school bullying really on the rise?’, Social Psychology of Education, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 441-455.

Sky News 2017, ‘Prince William: Online anonymity “dangerous”’, Sky News, 16 November, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://news.sky.com/story/prince-william-online-anonymity-dangerous-11128284>.   

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

I predict a riot! I predict a riot!

Activist social media use today is what newspapers, posters and leaflets were to the labour movement (Gerbaudo 2012, p. 4). A way of spreading a message and garnering support to affect change. By utilising Facebook groups, tweets, and even Instagram posts, activist leaders are able to easily create groups of likeminded individuals who can participate across geographical boundaries and coordinate them to undertake collective action (Shirky 2011). 

But is it actually achieving change?

The 2012 Kony movement certainly didn’t. It cleverly used a post akin to a music video to create a sense of social norming, and incite a call to action to have Kony captured and stop the Lord’s Resistance Army. Additionally, it placed deadlines on participation, fostering a culture to ‘act now or miss out’ (Burrowes 2012). This pressure resulted in both slacktivists liking or commenting to demonstrate support for the cause with minimal effort, and clicktivists who despite their supportive stance, could do little more than like and share the post. Neither party could contribute anything toward actually capturing Kony besides funding the movement through donations and purchasing merchandise. I myself fell into the clicktivist category. I experienced the intended shocked response. I did feel bad about Kony’s exploitation and endangering children. I wanted to help and make it all stop. But I didn’t see how giving money to an organisation I had never heard of just so I could wear a red t-shirt was going to help.

This was the central problem. Invisible Children had done a terrific job viralising the issue and gaining support, but they left supporters like myself with absolutely no practical avenue to effect change and facilitate Kony’s capture. Despite raising $28 million nothing was achieved and no progress was made as Kony remains at large and the LRA is still in operation (Taylor 2014). 

Unfortunately the failure of the movement was not enough to stop new slacktivist trends immerging. Plastering Facebook filters over profile pictures quickly became the next wave of slacktivist participation, with the practice going viral after many terrorist attacks like the 2015 Paris attacks. Whilst this did much to create a global sense of unity and afford bystanders the sense of having ‘done their bit’, it did nothing to change the victims’ reality. In fact, the filters recieved much backlash with many accusing Facebook of ranking human suffering as no filters were created for victims of the attacks in Lebanon and Syria (Bondarenko 2017).

This year, Greek activists successfully harnessed social media’s power to organise protests against compromising with Macedonia over naming rights. Whilst police officials and protest organisers disagree on attendance numbers, what stands out is organisers’ success in bringing citizens from all over Greece together in Athens to show their support. In response to the pressure from protesters, the government has remained strong and knocked back Macedonian proposals deemed to be appropriating Greek heritage (ABC News 2018). 

So, can social media activism achieve lasting change? I think so. But only if those truly motivated to effect change are given a viable avenue to do so.  

References

ABC News 2018, ‘Greek hold massive rally in Athens to protest over Macedonia name dispute’, ABC News, 5 February, viewed 18 May 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-05/greeks-rally-in-athens-to-protest-use-of-the-name-macedonia/9395502>.

Bondarenko, V 2017, ‘Facebook has quietly stopped offering flag profile picture filters after terrorist attacks’, Business Insider, 8 June, viewed 18 May 2018, <https://www.businessinsider.com.au/facebook-stops-offering-flag-profile-picture-filters-after-terrorist-attacks-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T>.

Burrowes, T 2012, ‘Kony 2012: The biggest social media experiment in history ends in failure - so why is no one talking about it?’, Mumbrella, 23 April, viewed 18 May 2018, <https://mumbrella.com.au/kony-2012-the-biggest-social-media-experiment-in-history-ends-in-failure-so-why-is-nobody-talking-about-it-86939>.

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

Taylor, A 2014, ‘Was #Kony2012 a failure?’, The Washington Post, 16 December, viewed 18 May 2018, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/16/was-kony2012-a-failure/?utm_term=.caf370d6127f>. 

[dotcomwriteon-blog]

That’s just the way it is

Since time immemorial community leaders have utilised everything from smoke signals to cave drawings to disseminate their message to the broadest audience possible (Gibbens 2018). Thankfully the invention of social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have eased and expedited the process considerably. Through these platforms messages are highly spreadable, accessible and generate engagement particularly from younger demographics. 

This is a good thing, right? Well, not exactly. The way in which social media is used needs to be handled carefully as the messages put out can attract just as much backlash as praise. Take Queensland MP George Christensen’s gun-toting, Dirty Harry wannabe post from this past February. Just days after 17 youths were gunned down at a U.S. high school the federal MP posted a photo of himself aiming a gun with the caption, “You gotta ask yourself, do you feel lucky, greenie punks?” (Choahan 2018).  

The post sent shockwaves around Australia, and no it wasn’t at his terrible grammar. Two camps formed around the post. Those shocked and appalled over the impropriety from a federal representative; and those who either didn’t see a problem with the post or believed people were overreacting. What was interesting was it brought the topic of gun violence to the fore, and brought supporters together to be heard. Almost as if someone had opened an official virtual culture club for gun enthusiasts to meet and exchange ideas. If there are any neigh sayers to social media’s power to create supporter culture, here’s your smoking gun. 

One of the most recent examples of social media’s power to affect politics was the 2016 campaign for president of the United States. There is no denying campaign publicity and candidate promotion was extensive for both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump. Updates on both parties were provided so regularly across multiple media platforms that it felt like the whole campaign was constantly being experienced in real time. In fact, sometimes it was. The difference was the was in which Clinton and Trump used social media to communicate with constituents and drive media attention. Clinton’s communication strategy followed the more conventional method of providing voters with a platform for interaction and frequently disseminated Clinton’s stance on issues and even rebuttals to Trump’s arguments. This approach wasn’t bad per se, but it did little to attract publicity of the same calibre of Trump’s campaign. 

Throughout the campaign Trump remained active on social media with Twitter being his favoured medium. His constant tweets not only allowed him to constantly interact with voters but to attract attention. Trump used Twitter to disseminate messages which were largely highly controversial at best. However, constantly supplying the media with attention grabbing posts resulted in disproportionate media coverage in his favour which often drove the news cycle and diverted attention from Clinton (McCaskill 2017). In fact, at times whole panels were dedicated to interpreting Trump’s most recent 140 characters or less. 

Ultimately, we all know how this particular story ended. Trump won the election and Clinton slunk away in shock and disbelief. So, what’s the message here? Sometimes the message isn’t always as important as what the message does. In this case it created a culture of mass Trump consumption that saw the world hanging on his every last word. It appears sometimes being the loudest does win the argument. That’s just the way it is.

Thanks for reading guys. Now indulge your ears with a lighter political note. 

References

Choahan, N 2018, ‘Photo of Nationals MP George Christensen with a gun reported to police’, Sydney Morning Herald, 18 February, viewed 8 May 2018, <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/photo-of-nationals-mp-george-christensen-with-a-gun-reported-to-police-20180218-p4z0r3.html>.

Gibbens, S 2018, ‘Ancient Cave Drawings and Early Human Language Linked in New Study’, National Geographic, 21 February, viewed 8 May, <https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/acoustic-caves-rock-art-language-origin-spd/>.