doyouknowpang

strictly for assignment purposes

[doyouknowpang]

Tumblr

Tumblr serves as a fitting conclusion to this assignment. Across weeks covering reality television, slow fashion, AR filters, gaming communities, and social media governance, the platform consistently accommodated diverse topics.

Launched in 2007, Tumblr functions as a microblogging platform that combines short-form content with social networking features. Its reblogging system, customisable blogs, and support for pseudonyms distinguish it from real-name platforms. These affordances promote creative expression and identity exploration (Keller, 2019).

The lecture positioned Tumblr as an example of micro-publics within the broader public sphere. Bruns and Highfield (2016) describe how digital platforms fragment the traditional public sphere into overlapping communities. Tumblr enables this through niche groups, fandoms, LGBTQ+ spaces, and activist networks. Its relatively low surveillance and anonymity encourage open participation, particularly for marginalised users exploring gender, body image, and beliefs (Byron et al., 2019).

Empirical studies support this. Reif et al. (2022) analysed the #bodypositive hashtag on Tumblr and found it fostered supportive self-presentation among women rather than competitive comparison. Keller (2019) examined how girls use Tumblr’s platform vernacular for feminist activism, noting its suitability for strategic, low-risk expression compared to Twitter. These characteristics align with digital citizenship goals of participation and inclusion.

For this assignment, Tumblr’s flexible structure allowed movement between serious policy analysis, such as Malaysia’s under-16 social media ban, and my personal reflections on Warframe communities. The platform allowed genuine interest on diverse topics, supporting authentic engagement.

Limitations remain. Issues of content moderation and past censorship highlight ongoing governance challenges (Pilipets & Paasonen, 2022). Nevertheless, Tumblr demonstrates how platform design shapes community formation and self-expression.

Overall, Tumblr exemplifies the potential of digital spaces to facilitate meaningful identity work and community building in ways many contemporary platforms no longer prioritise.

references

Axel Bruns, Bruns, A., Tim Highfield, & Highfield, T. (2016). Is Habermas on Twitter?: Social Media and the Public Sphere. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbø, A. O. Larsson, & C. Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics (1st ed., pp. 56–73). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716299-6

Byron, P., Robards, B., Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., & Churchill, B. (2019). “Hey, I’m Having These Experiences”: Tumblr Use and Young People’s Queer connections. International Journal of Communication, 13, 2239.

Keller, J. (2019). “Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms. Social Media + Society, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119867442

Pilipets, E., & Paasonen, S. (2022). Nipples, memes, and algorithmic failure: NSFW critique of Tumblr censorship. New Media & Society, 24(6), 1459–1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820979280

Reif, A., Miller, I., & Taddicken, M. (2023). “Love the Skin You’re In”: An Analysis of Women’s Self-Presentation and User Reactions to Selfies Using the Tumblr Hashtag #bodypositive. Mass Communication & Society, 26(6), 1038–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2138442

[doyouknowpang]

Social Media Governance

Malaysia’s decision to ban social media access for users under 16, enforced from June 2026 through the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), has sparked strong debate. As someone who started using social media as a teenager, I see both the protective intent and the worrying implications of this policy. While the government aims to shield young people from online harm, the requirement for mandatory ID verification (MyKad or passport) raises serious concerns about freedom of expression and data privacy.

Week 11 lecture on Digital Citizenship and Conflict emphasised that social media governance involves power struggles over speech, platforms, and safety. The Malaysian policy represents a heavy-handed state approach to governance. Platforms must now implement strict age verification, effectively linking accounts to real identities. Supporters argue this will reduce cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content. Haslop et al. (2021) highlight how online harassment disproportionately affects women and gender non-conforming individuals, and Plan International’s 2020 report found that 59% of girls across 31 countries faced abusive language online. In theory, delaying access until age 16 could help young users develop better digital citizenship skills before facing these risks.

However, I argue that the policy goes too far and undermines core principles of digital citizenship. First, it threatens freedom of expression. Young people often use social media to explore identity, voice opinions, and participate in activism. By forcing early restrictions and ID linking, the ban may discourage open participation and create self-censorship. Marwick and Caplan (2018) show how networked harassment thrives, but restricting access broadly punishes the many for the actions of a few.

More critically, mandatory ID verification creates major data privacy risks. Linking social media accounts to national identification documents enables greater tracking of individual posts back to their original authors. This level of surveillance could chill free speech, especially on sensitive topics, and raises fears of government overreach. In a country where online expression is already monitored, tying real identities to every post creates a chilling effect on dissent and personal expression. Privacy advocates rightly worry about data breaches, misuse of information, and long-term surveillance infrastructure.

A cautionary example is China’s highly developed surveillance state. Through its real-name registration system and integration with the Social Credit System, the Chinese government links online activity to citizens’ national IDs, enabling extensive monitoring and punishment of dissenting speech. This model demonstrates how identity verification can evolve from a safety tool into a powerful mechanism for social control and suppression of expression (Human Rights Watch, 2022; Mozur, 2021). While Malaysia’s policy is not yet at this level, it risks moving in a similar direction if not carefully limited.

The lecture reminded us that digital citizenship involves balancing rights, responsibilities, and safety. While the Online Safety Act 2021 in Australia focuses on content removal, Malaysia’s approach seems to lean heavily on identity control. This may reduce some harms but at the expense of privacy and expressive freedom. Effective governance should prioritise education, stronger platform accountability, and targeted protections rather than blanket bans and surveillance.

Malaysia’s policy highlights the difficult trade-offs in social media governance. Protecting youth is essential, but we must not sacrifice young people’s rights to privacy and free expression in the process.

As digital citizens, we need policies that address harassment without creating a more controlled and less open internet.

References

Haslop, C., O’Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). #NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide in a UK student online culture. Convergence, 27(5), 1418–1438.

Human Rights Watch. (2022). China’s social credit system. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/12/chinas-social-credit-system

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559.

Mozur, P. (2021, December 30). China’s ‘Big Brother’ surveillance system is getting even more intrusive. The New York Times.

MCMC. (2026). Enforcement of age restrictions on social media platforms. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission.

Plan International. (2020). Free to be online? Plan International.

[doyouknowpang]

About Gaming Communities

I have spent over 900 hours playing Warframe, and I still log in regularly. What started from just trying the game has become one of the longest relationships I have with any digital space. This lecture on gaming communities made me realise why I keep coming back. It is not just the gameplay, but the community that surrounds it.

According to Suits (1978), playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles. Warframe embodies this perfectly. The grind is real, such as farming resources, mastering weapons, and chasing new frames. Yet the challenge feels meaningful because of the social layer around it. The lecture highlighted how gaming communities function as social communities. In Warframe, this is extremely visible. Players move between different smaller groups: trade chat, clan chat, Discord servers, Reddit threads, and the official forums. These spaces are built around shared knowledge, expertise, and mutual help.

One of the strongest aspects of Warframe is its knowledge communities. As Jenkins (2006) describes, these are voluntary, temporary, and tactical affiliations where members exchange knowledge and emotional investment. In Warframe, new players constantly ask for build advice, veterans share complex guides, and everyone debates the best ways to approach new content. I have learned more from random players explaining drop rates and optimal farming routes than from any official tutorial.

Warframe also challenges some aspects of the stereotypical gamer image. While broader games culture is still often seen as masculine-dominated, Warframe has developed a reputation for being relatively welcoming compared to many other online games. The developers at Digital Extremes actively support inclusivity through year-round Pride initiatives, including customisation palettes, glyphs, and donations to organisations such as Rainbow Railroad (Digital Extremes, 2022; 2026). Many players, including those from LGBTQ+ communities and neurodivergent backgrounds, describe the game’s community as friendly and supportive, with dedicated clans such as Spectrum Syndicate (The Guardian, 2024). Players from different backgrounds come together around shared goals such as completing Railjack missions or fashion-framing (customising appearances). The lecture reminded us that gaming communities are assemblages. People flow in and out depending on their needs and interests. This perfectly describes my own journey with the game.

Of course, not everything is perfect. Toxicity exists in some corners, and the grind can feel overwhelming. Yet the sense of belonging and collective knowledge keeps me engaged after all these hours.

At last, all i want to say is, Play Warframe.

References

Digital Extremes. (2022). Digital Extremes supporting Pride year-round: Our commitment to inclusivity and sexual diversity. https://www.digitalextremes.com/news/digital-extremes-supporting-pride-year-round-our-commitment-to-inclusivity-and-sexual-diversity

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.

Keogh, B. (2021). The Melbourne indie game scenes: Value regimes in localized game development. In P. Ruffino (Ed.), Independent videogames: Cultures, networks, techniques and politics (pp. 209–222). Routledge.

Sotamaa, O. (2010). When the game is not enough: Motivations and practices among computer game modding culture. Games and Culture, 5(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412009359765

Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. University of Toronto Press.

The Guardian. (2024, February 28). In a toxic online world, Warframe is a refuge for my son and millions of others. https://www.theguardian.com/games/2024/feb/28/in-a-toxic-online-world-warframe-is-a-refuge-for-my-son-and-millions-of-others

[doyouknowpang]

AR Filters

Filters have become so normal that I barely notice them anymore. Open Instagram Stories or Snapchat, tap a button, and suddenly your skin is flawless, your eyes are bigger, and your face fits some invisible standard of beauty. What started as playful experimentation with augmented reality (AR) has quietly turned into something much more powerful.

AR filters overlay virtual elements onto the real world in real time. As Azuma (1997) described it, they let us see the physical world with digital additions composited on top. Since Snapchat popularised face filters in 2015 and Instagram followed in 2017, these tools have exploded in use. Millions of people engage with them daily, especially through Instagram Stories.

At first glance, filters seem harmless or even fun. They “add” features such as sparkles, butterfly wings, smooth skin, and some funny overlay rather than just removing flaws. Rettberg (2014) uses the coffee filter metaphor brilliantly: technically it blocks the grounds, but its real purpose is to add flavour. AR filters work the same way. They block “imperfections” while adding idealised beauty.

But here is where it gets complicated. Beauty filters often promote a narrow, homogenous standard, particularly for women. They contribute to what Coy-Dibley (2016) calls “digitised dysmorphia,” where the pressure to alter digital images of ourselves becomes overwhelming. This is not just about fun anymore. Research shows heavy filter use links to lower self-esteem, increased self-objectification, and negative upward social comparison (Tiggemann & Zacardo, 2015; Fardouly et al., 2018).

The phenomenon even has a name: “Snapchat dysmorphia.” People now bring filtered selfies to cosmetic surgeons, asking to look like their augmented selves in real life (Rajanala et al., 2018). Barker (2020) argues that what began as an authentic, ephemeral space on Snapchat turned into another beauty pageant once filters arrived.

Beyond self-image, these filters raise serious privacy concerns. AR face filters require real-time facial tracking, which means they collect highly sensitive biometric data such as your facial geometry, expressions, and unique features. In 2022, Snapchat (Snap Inc.) agreed to pay $35 million to settle a class-action lawsuit in Illinois for allegedly violating the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting and storing users’ facial biometric data through its Lenses and Filters without proper consent (Boone et al. v. Snap Inc., 2022).

As Rettberg (2017) warns, filters prime us for biometric observation. The technology is increasingly sophisticated, yet requires almost no skill from users. This “deskilling” creates imbalances. The real creative and economic power stays with platform owners and designers (Fisher, 2020).

So are filters purely harmful? Not entirely. They can be tools for creativity, play, and exploring identity. But we need to stay critical. When filters become ambient and normalised, they quietly shape cultural beauty standards, self-perception, and even our data privacy on a massive scale.

I almost never use filters, but even with near zero use I see how they shape beauty standards and identity. The bigger issue is how they normalize expectations while collecting biometric data. Filters are not just playful, they reshape self‑perception and raise serious ethical concerns.

References

Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.

Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty and ugly implications of Snapchat filters. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

Boone et al. v. Snap Inc. (2022). Class action settlement. (Case No. 3:21-cv-00499, Northern District of Illinois).

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). “Digitised dysmorphia” of the female body: The re/disfigurement of the image. Palgrave Communications, 2, Article 16040. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.40

Fardouly, J., Willburger, B. K., & Vartanian, L. R. (2018). The impact of appearance comparisons made through social media, traditional media, and in person in women’s everyday lives. Body Image, 24, 31–39.

Fisher, E. (2020). The smooth life: Instagram as a platform of control.

Rajanala, S., Maymone, M. B. C., & Vashi, N. A. (2018). Selfies—Living in the era of filtered photographs. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 20(6), 443–444. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0486

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Filtered reality. In Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2

Rettberg, J. W. (2017). Biometric citizens: Adapting our selfies to machine vision. In A. Kuntsman (Ed.), Selfie citizenship (pp. 137–145). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45270-8_10

Tiggemann, M., & Zacardo, M. (2015). “Strong is the new skinny”: A content analysis of #fitspiration images on Instagram. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(1), 86–99.

[doyouknowpang]

Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship often feels like something taught in lectures like rules about safety, etiquette, and responsible posting. But when I really think about it, it is much more raw and powerful than that. It is about how ordinary people turn platforms into tools for justice, connection, and change. In our hyper-connected world, where so much of our time is spent on TikTok, Instagram, and X, digital citizenship has become one of the most important ways we exercise our voice and responsibility today.

As the Week 6 lecture explained, digital citizenship is about using technology to participate positively in society, not just staying safe, but actively contributing, engaging in activism, and navigating platform affordances responsibly. It links directly to traditional citizenship but plays out through hashtags, shares, and collective storytelling.

One framework that helps make sense of this is Mike Ribble’s Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship. These elements cover everything from digital access and communication to law, rights, and wellbeing. They remind us that being online carries real responsibilities: how we speak, what we amplify, and how we protect ourselves and others (Ribble, n.d.).

Few movements illustrate this better than #BlackLivesMatter. What began in 2013 as a simple response to injustice quickly exploded into one of the largest digital activism movements in history. After the killing of George Floyd in 2020, the hashtag became a global rallying cry. People used it not only to share personal stories but to organise protests, demand policy changes, and hold institutions accountable. It showed the true power of hashtag publics. Those fluid, searchable communities that connect people across borders around shared issues (Theocharis et al., 2023).

Through #BlackLivesMatter, individuals practised digital citizenship in powerful ways. They created and shared visual evidence, educational threads, and calls to action. Platforms enabled “distributed participation”, turning passive users into active contributors who could amplify marginalised voices, donate, or join real-world demonstrations. It also revealed the complexities of platformisation: algorithms helped spread the message rapidly, but they also created challenges like misinformation, backlash, and emotional burnout (Poell et al., 2019; Choi & Cristol, 2021).

The movement highlighted the shift in political engagement the lecture discussed: from traditional organisations to flexible, issue-based online activism. People engaged by posting, commenting, educating others, and reshaping narratives, often while navigating digital ethics and safety.

Of course, it was not perfect. The movement faced criticism, some people used the protest as a chance to loot stores, even the death of George Floyd is controversial . Yet its lasting impact proves that when used thoughtfully, digital tools can drive real societal change.

#BlackLivesMatter reminded me that digital citizenship is not abstract. It is about using your voice to stand for something bigger. In a world increasingly shaped by platforms, learning to engage responsibly and courageously may be one of the most important skills we can develop.

References

Buchanan, L., Bui, Q., & Patel, J. K. (2020, July 3). Black Lives Matter may be the largest movement in U.S. history. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. Theory Into Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Helmond, A. (2015). The platformization of the web: Making web data platform ready. Social Media + Society, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115603080

Hill, E., Tiefenthaler, A., Triebert, C., Willis, D., & McCann, A. (2020, May 31). How George Floyd was killed in police custody. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-investigation.html

Poell, T., Nieborg, D. B., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425

Ribble, M. (n.d.). Nine elements of digital citizenship. DigitalCitizenship.net. https://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html

Theocharis, Y., Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2023). Platform affordances and political participation: How social media reshape political engagement. West European Politics, 46(4), 788–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2087410

[doyouknowpang]

Body Modification

Hey people, let's discuss something that has been going around in TikTok and Instagram feeds in recent times: looksmaxxing. The term has not been familiar to everyone, but it is simply the internet's version of the extreme approach to boosting your looks. Think mewing (the way of resting your tongue), skin care products more expensive than rent, jaw exercises, and in a few darker corners, even cosmetic procedures and peptide injections. We get exposed to these "aesthetic templates" on visual platforms everywhere we go throughout the day, and they all claim that they have the magic formula for confidence, likes, and potentially even clout. How healthy this 'pursuit' really is?

Dr Jonathan Mavroudis' lecture on body modification in visual social media is just right. He says that social media fosters "aesthetic labour" labour done by us to build our bodies, and our images, according to popular templates. They're not just any templates, but ones that incorporate improved highlights such as fuller lips, sharper jawlines, contoured cheeks and exaggerated waist-to-hip proportions in women, and strong, well-defined masculine features in men. Much of these trends have a "pornification" they are very sexualised and heteronormative and seem to have come right out of commercial pornography.

Looksmaxxing goes the next step. The initial idea behind the TikTok videos has turned into communities dedicated to “maxxing” every feature. Men advocate for “mewing” to acquire a better jaw or hitting the gym for that V-taper and there is lots of content that promotes filters, editing programs or even surgery consultations. The scary part? These platforms make us all into “prosumers”, we are creating and using these ‘celebrated images' at the same time. In keeping with Marwick (2013), making a branded self on Instagram involves adhering to these templates to gain visibility on Instagram. You are not taking a selfie, you're taking a selfie for personal marketing without getting paid.

The frivolity (and the tragedy) is that some of it is so silly. You're all doomscrolling, and then you realize that having a “hunter eyes” max on your entire life will be great. They are the next thing you know, the next time you're looking at your side profile you will see that you are looking at a “filtered” influencer with likely a whole team behind them. However, this constant comparison exacerbates actual issues. These aesthetic pressures, Mavroudis argues, are connected to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and “identity dissonance” – the uneasy disconnect between who we are in real life and the “cool” persona we want to portray online, in order to sell ourselves. No matter how many procedures or edits you do, the online template always moves the goalposts.

What can we learn from us digital natives? These templates must be understood as cultural artefacts and not the gospel. Social media influences us and we influence it, too. This loop could be a source of anxiety that leads to looksmaxxing extremes if you're not aware of it. Perhaps it's time to learn to unplug every now and then and...

Touch grass, pal.

References

Marwick, A. E. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.

Mavroudis, J. (n.d.). Digital citizenship and health education: Body modification on visual social media [Lecture notes]. Swinburne University of Technology.

[doyouknowpang]

Abit On Slow Fashion

Have you ever seen a post denouncing fast fashion for its hidden cost, or extolling a garment that will last for many years? That is, digital citizenship in action, in real time, in the fashion world. Digital citizenship is the set of rules and guidelines that govern the use of digital technologies, which include the safe, respectful and thoughtful use of technology, and participation in digital spaces (Ribble, n.d.)

Slow fashion is a direct challenge to the fast-fashion trend of low-cost and trendy clothing that is created at a high environmental and human cost. It focuses on slow production, high quality, fair working practices, longevity and people and planet respect (Fletcher, 2007, cited in Domingos et al., 2022). Though it dates back to previous ethical and counter-culture movements, the concept has now grown into a dynamic and continuous discussion that extends to the masses via social media.

The numbers in the fashion industry are astounding. Around 10% of global carbon emissions come from it alone, which is more than international transportation by flights or shipping at sea combined, and it is a source of huge textile waste, as millions of tons of clothing get thrown into garbage dumps annually (Earth.org, n.d.; Niinimäki et al., 2020). But that is why digital activism around slow fashion is important, to help change the mindset from “buy more, throw away sooner”, to “buy better, keep longer”. Influencers serve as pivotal digital citizens who not only provide honest and transparent reviews of brands, but also offer insights on thrifting, shed light on supply chain problems, and offer guidance on pieces worth investing in. They are a connection between awareness and action, prompting followers to examine the choices they make when they choose their clothes.

There are several designer brands that have a slow fashion approach, such as a focus on craftsmanship and durability and an attention paid to the production process. In 2024, Acne Studios was certified as a B Corp for its practice of high social and environmental standards, such as the preferred materials and design for longevity it uses (Acne Studios, 2025).

Other words that can be heard in this discussion are avant-garde and independent labels that tend to take a quality, high end, small batch or artisanal approach. Carol Christian Poell is one of the few material-oriented makers, who approach his work with an anti-fashion approach, questioning mass production and overconsumption.

Conceptual and timeless design is always the top priority for Comme des Garçons (under Rei Kawakubo's main brand). Mowalola, LGB (Le Grand Bleu) and 14th Addiction are great examples of brands that offer a strong sense of artistry and enduring designs, which defy the disposable mentality of fast fashion.

The 2000s era of Christian Dior and 2024 Maison Margiela Artisanal line under John Galliano have been of interest to the archival industry, not for a trend that would fade, but for those that would endure.

These brands demonstrate that slow fashion isn't just a commitment to the organic basics, but also investing in a well-made and bold design that makes a wardrobe staple or a collector's item. The influencers aid them by styling these pieces in normal scenarios and discussing the construction of them and how to think before buying them.

There are of course challenges to be faced. Better quality items tend to be more expensive, and may not be able to be purchased at once. The digital community is where it's valuable, as it helps with clothing repair, swapping, thrifting, and brand pressure for better Corporate Social Responsibility. Collective learning and accountability spaces are provided through hashtags, comment sections and shared reviews.

No one wants to be a perfectionist when it comes to being a good digital citizen in Fashion. It's sharing the awareness, asking where the clothes have come from, supporting brands who believe in longer lasting and ethical clothing and sharing good habits on your own platforms. Little things collectively make a big difference such as buying one long-lasting item instead of a number of inexpensive items, or sharing an article on repairs, etc.

Slow fashion has become a new trend that has been embraced by many people, thanks to social media. All of us can do our part in thinking about how we can demand a less wasteful, fairer fashion industry, one good garment, one thoughtfully engaged conversation at a time.

References

Acne Studios. (2025). B Corp certification. https://www.acnestudios.com/us/en/company/sustainability/b-corp.html

Domingos, M., et al. (2022). Slow fashion consumer behavior: A literature review. Sustainability, 14(5), 2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052860

Earth.org. (n.d.). 10 concerning fast fashion waste statistics. https://earth.org/statistics-about-fast-fashion-waste/

Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Salmenperä, M. (2020). The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1, 189–200.

Ribble, M. (n.d.). Nine elements. Digital Citizenship. https://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html

[doyouknowpang]

I had an opportunity to join a photography workshop hosted bu SUT on 16 April 2026. My team and i shot and edited some photos, listened to an inspirational speech by Dr Mark Finn, it was a wonderful experience. Shoutout to everyone there for making this event fruitful, big love.

[doyouknowpang]

Reality TV, MasterChef

Reality television maintains a prominent position in contemporary media by merging competition, personal storytelling, and perceived authenticity. Among its most successful global formats stands MasterChef, a cooking competition program that has significantly influenced public interest in culinary arts, career aspirations, and food culture. By placing amateur cooks in high-pressure professional-style environments, the show transforms everyday cooking into compelling drama while encouraging viewer participation and personal aspiration.

MasterChef first aired in the United Kingdom in 1990 and was successfully revived in 2005 with a format focused on amateur contestants. The program expanded internationally, with notable success in Australia from 2009 onward. Versions now exist in numerous countries. The format features home cooks and hobbyists, rather than trained professionals, competing through timed challenges that test technical skills, creativity, innovation, and mental resilience under strict judging. This structure creates high-stakes drama rooted in contestants' genuine emotional responses, failures, growth, and triumphs (Kirkwood, 2014).

A core strength of MasterChef lies in its hybrid nature. Although producers design challenges, apply editing techniques, and shape narratives, the contestants' reactions and personal journeys remain authentic. The show frequently highlights underdog stories, family motivations, cultural backgrounds, and themes of self-improvement. These elements turn cooking competitions into vehicles for broader human drama, allowing audiences to form emotional connections with participants (Murray & Ouellette, 2009).

Audience engagement extends far beyond passive viewing. Henry Jenkins' (2006) framework of participatory culture explains how MasterChef viewers actively discuss episodes, recreate featured dishes, debate judging decisions, and share content on social media. This participation builds online communities and prolongs the show's cultural impact. Fans often produce their own cooking videos or engage in fan edits, demonstrating the shift from consumers to active cultural participants.

Academic research documents measurable societal effects. Di Pietro (2016) identified the "MasterChef effect" in Italy, where increased viewership of the program correlated with higher enrollment in vocational hospitality and catering schools. Specifically, a one percentage point rise in audience share associated with a 0.25 to 0.35 percentage point increase in students choosing these programs. This finding illustrates how reality television can influence teenage career aspirations by portraying culinary professions as exciting and achievable. Similar impacts appear in other contexts, including heightened interest in food trends, restaurant dining inspired by episodes, and greater public appreciation for culinary skills (Gajdzik, 2023).

Scholarly analyses further explore MasterChef Australia's role in democratizing food culture. The program makes high-end culinary knowledge accessible to mass audiences while empowering contestants through visibility and skill development. It reflects and reinforces values of meritocracy, perseverance, and self-transformation. Researchers also examine representations of class, ethnicity, and gender, noting how the show negotiates multicultural identities within national food narratives (Kirkwood, 2014; Bonner, 2015).

Critics, however, raise valid concerns about the gap between the show's glamorous portrayal and the realities of professional kitchens, which often involve long hours, high stress, and precarious employment. Despite this, MasterChef continues to attract large audiences by balancing aspiration with relatable human struggles.

In conclusion, MasterChef exemplifies reality television's power to shape cultural values and individual behaviors through competitive formats and emotional storytelling. Its influence on career choices, food consumption patterns, and participatory practices underscores the genre's broader societal role. As media evolves, continued scholarly attention to such programs will enhance understanding of their long-term effects on industries, identities, and audience expectations. Greater media literacy can support more critical engagement with these influential formats.

References

Bonner, F. (2015). The mediated Asian-Australian food identity. Media International Australia, 157(1), 103-114.

Di Pietro, G. (2016). The impact of television programmes on teenage career aspirations: The 'MasterChef effect'. IZA Discussion Paper No. 9804.

Gajdzik, B. (2023). Gastronomic curiosity and consumer behavior: The impact of television culinary programs. Foods, 12(23), 4115.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press.

Kirkwood, K. (2014). MasterChef Australia and vicarious consumption. ePrints Queensland University of Technology.

Murray, S., & Ouellette, L. (Eds.). (2009). Reality TV: Remaking television culture (2nd ed.). New York University Press.