Hi, I'm Hiok Tong.

Journalling for NM3205

[hioktong]

Self-tracking and wearable devices (Hiok Tong)

The article "Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of self-tracking from the weighing scale to the wrist wearable device" is written by Kate Crawford, Jessie Lingel and Tero Karppi and published in the European Journal of Cultural Studies. The article explores wearable technologies alongside its historical predecessor, the weighing scale. Precision in weight measurement travelled from doctors' offices to public squares and finally to the domestic home in intimate spaces like the bathroom, shifting the usage of the weighing scale from medical accuracy to fun, curious discovery and then to a private, personal knowledge of concern, measured against a standard of a 'normal' benchmark. The advent of self-tracking wearable devices enable users to track a variety of health or exercise- related information such as sleep quality, heart rate, number of steps taken and many others. However, it comes with its set of pitfalls both new and old (in relation to the traditional weighing machine). Wearable devices transmit a large about of information, cultivating social communities who use self-tracking devices. While weighing machines involve a uni-directional data exchange from the device to self, wearable devices involve an irreversible provision of personal information to both parent companies and third party data companies. The article questions the reliability of wearable devices on the accounts that different products or companies have different ways of defining and measuring a health construct, and that the standard definition of health does not take into account various bodily circumstances. According to Crawford et al, the advertising of old and new self-tracking devices have rarely changed, both highlighting the accuracy of measurement and its imperative to a better self. Given the unreliability of wearable devices and third party designed 'norms', Crawford et al argues that the use of wearable devices as legally valid evidence are risky. Additionally, the statistical aggregation of health data by device companies is crucial in the creation of a 'biopolitical public domain', said by Cohen (2015) to be designed to ‘assimilate individual data profiles within larger patterns and nudge individual choices and preferences in directions that align with those patterns’ (Cohen, p. 7).

Fundamentally, I believe that the main difference between wearable technology and the traditional weighing scale is the lack of agency that we have with our data, and how they might be used in various circumstances. This concept is conveniently concealed in today's ads about wearables— they are positioned as a 'therapeutic support' system, with the wearer in control. This offers the user a false sense of agency that they are the ones in charge of their lives and the device merely helps them aid them in living their best life. However, this agency is merely a facade when we think about the amount of personal information deflected back to the wearable tech companies.

Additionally, should the legal use of wearables data become a norm, new trends might emerge which can become increasingly intrusive, harboring upon the edge of the relationship between corporations and the private, intimate self. Crawford et al utilise the example of US health insurer Cigna in attempting to use wearable devices to bend the cost curve — this is an extremely applicable example of how companies can use wearables as incriminating, definitive data against individuals. In fact, as I was thinking about how such ideas might develop down the road, it is not difficult to imagine a world where: before signing up for insurance, individuals are mandated to login intimately personal health details from their wearable devices, from which the premium costs for insurance plans will be personalized and adjusted accordingly. While it may not be considered 'unfair' since insurance has always been managed against individuals' health risks, the thought of having that level of intricacy and intrusiveness in private data is quite absurd — not even accounting for the issue of unreliability in measurements that Crawford et al discuss.

While the article seems to imply that the idea of self-knowledge being prized is an ideology constructed by ads for weighing machines, wearable devices and others — the important of self awareness in body has been praised and preached about in many cultures. In religions including buddhism, a deep understanding and consciousness of the body and mind is imperative to achieving states of enlightenment. Surely then, the ideal that self-knowledge and awareness brings about a better human has already been ingrained in people, and wearable devices merely aid in being part of achieving that ideal.

Wearable devices, of course have its own advantages too. My parents are acutely aware of their approaching old age and are conscious in monitoring their health— taking more walks when they have not accumulated 'enough' steps in a day and monitoring their blood pressure carefully have become some amongst various good practices in their self-care. I cannot deny being happy about that. We are rarely mindful about our health, especially in a fast-paced society that values productivity, and wearable devices aid in building a generation that can translate that knowledge into greater care for our health.

Overall, this article was certainly illuminating in highlighting some of the implications of wearable technologies and how the messages behind self-knowledge and measurement in fact, has rarely changed throughout the years from the popularization of the weighing scale to the introduction of wearable technologies. Wearable technologies certainly have their pros and cons, and it is likely that the use of wearable tech as evidential information will continue to be contested in spite of its growing popularity.

[hioktong]

Liquid Love (Hiok Tong)

The article "liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy" is an article written by Mitchell Jobbs, Stephen Owen and Livia Gerber and published in the Journal of Sociology. The article prefaces Zygmunt Bauman's arguments in Liquid Love (2003 and 2012), which mainly posit that the solidity and security of life-long partnerships have been 'liquified' by individualisation and technological change, that romance is now transformed into a commodified form of entertainment, and that life-long monogamous partnerships are "eroded by the extensive 'networks' of romantic personality". Through surveys and interviews, Jobbs et al seek to explore the ramifications of digital dating apps, whether the use of these apps indeed erode traditional ideas such as monogamy, commitment and romantic love, as well as the affordances provided by the technology. The findings concluded that traditional views on dating, relationships and monogamy are still largely prevalent— a great majority said they were just as inclined, or even more inclined, to seek a monogamous relationship since using dating apps. majority also preferred traditional ways of meeting a romantic partner. However, the findings also showed that to a certain extent, the technology encouraged and facilitated infidelity of its users. On the other hand, dating apps also provided users with greater agency and control over their romantic or sexual lives. Ultimately, many believe that technology merely enhanced desires and abilities to find a date — Jobbs et al believes that dating apps award its users the idea of networks of romantic possibility, which enhances a person's social capital, and brings various new opportunities along with new anxieties.

I believe the main advantage of dating apps is the wider social network that it provides. Contrary to Bauman's view on the security of relationships being compromised by dating apps — without dating apps, people might not be able to secure a relationship in the first place! Amidst friends in my social circles, the use of a dating app in looking for a partner is almost always a reluctant necessity. My single friends often retort their fears that upon graduation from university, they would find it extremely difficult to find a partner — without any fun student life facilitating the creation of new relationships, and with the added burden of work, there becomes less and less opportunity to meet a romantic partner in the traditional 'face-to-face' manner. In these situations, dating platforms help to connect people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to be connected.

Dating apps are also, on many accounts, better than traditional forms of matchmaking that it is said to replace. Dating apps give users much greater agency in being able to choose prospective partners whom they like and connect, and fundamentally accords them individual freedom and choice. These factors are, in my opinion, greatly important in ensuring one has more meaningful and fulfilling relationships. On the other hand, traditional matchmakers are used in certain cultures as intermediaries for parents to dictate and 'approve' of their child's romantic choices. There has been a great history of parents forcing their children into marriages of which they are totally unwilling — and as such, the shift towards dating apps is also emblematic of the shift towards free will in intimacy and the right to hold the reins to one's own romantic life. Additionally, dating apps also provide a sense of 'anonymity' in that it typically involves a prospective partner outside of one's social circle. To a certain extent, I believe that the process of meeting a new stranger and venturing into the dating process is more comfortable without the presence of other social ties — having to deal with rejection or non-ideal circumstances when being matchmake-d by someone in one's social circle can undoubtedly be awkward, as the repercussions of a failed date might be felt in one's social life.

At the end of the day, I believe that dating applications rarely change deeply ingrained personal beliefs; they merely act as intermediaries that provide new capabilities for people. Illuminating this with the example of people using dating apps as means to gain transient sexual encounters — dating apps do not create desire, but simply provide the ways in which people can act on them, and in so fulfil needs that are already present in peoples' lives.

[hioktong]

Interactivity or Interpassivity (Hiok Tong)

The article "Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play" was written by Laetita Wilson, who introduces the concept Interpassivity as a better alternative to oft-used term 'Interactivity'. Wilson quotes Aarseth's argument, positing that interactivity implies humans and machines have an equal and reciprocal exchange— however, this is inadequate in describing our digital experiences. Interpassivity instead involves the consensual transferral of activity or emotion onto another being or object who consequently 'acts' in one's place. Wilson emphasises on the role of individual agency in this concept, where the ‘surrogate self’, or ‘interpassive object’, serves as a locus for extended agency, displaced from the facticity of real self and allows users to construct a plurality of shifting selves. Wilson believes that in a pre-programmed digital world, we cannot truly be interactive, and no meaningful communication can emerge from programmed technology. Wilson also argues that this same interpassive technology creates not only an outward extension of self, but also an inward one, exercising control over our corporeal existence.

Wilson insists that users are subjected to the machine and severely compromise their agency with the negation of freedom to exercise choice — exceptions being games that rely on a user's creativity (eg Sims). I don't think this is necessarily true. While I agree that many functions are predetermined and therefore our agency is limited to the allowable actions in digital gameplay, this does not mean a clear removal of agency. This leads us to the question in the start of the article, "how do people fight for agency in a pre-determined world"? Playing a pre-programmed game will not completely remove the user's ability to think and feel in their own ways, and users will usually attempt to express this in many unique forms. For example, in the game Grand Theft Auto (GTA), players complete missions and progress through an overall story, with activities mainly revolving around driving and shooting. Users often intentionally engage with non-playing characters (NPCs) even if this does not contribute to the game objective, and this has lead to a variety of humorous content eventually being spread as memes (see: this link for an example on the "GTA memes" subreddit). Evidently, I think that human agency can never truly be eradicated, and the creative spirit and ownership of users will find its channels to shine.

Nonetheless, indeed, many games allow us to create versions of our self that we cannot experience in our own lives, making Wilson's point of 'loss of agency through a lack of integration of the multiplicity of selves' an apparent one. I grew up on games like MapleStory and AuditionSEA, and took a lot of joy in 'trying on' all sorts of accessories and attempting to embody a sort of 'look' that I may not have the resources to achieve with my real self. I did not experience any dissociation or dissatisfaction from not being able to achieve my in-game identity, because I was fundamentally contented with my own life and identity, and saw the engaging with a surrogate self as a mere plaything. I believe that whether or not game players with virtual selves feel the “cost” of plurality depends on the satisfaction they presently have with their physical, owned self, and the extent to which they are using the surrogate self as a means to imagine their owned identity. In other words, the plurality of self through a virtual mediating object is harmless and can be fun and enriching, as long as players are not using it as an escape from an undesirable present reality that concerns a dissatisfaction with the owned self.

All in all, I believe that while interpassivity is a useful concept to imply the lack of agency of players in certain digital spaces, it cannot be used to encompass all of digital technology, as the level of agency in various gameplay differs greatly from one to another — and regardless of how predetermined a game is, humans often find a way to allow their agency to seep through.

[hioktong]

E-commerce in China (Hiok Tong)

"What China Reveals About the Future Of Shopping" is co-written by Biggs, Mercier, Wang and Zou from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) with assistance from Chande and Matthews from Alibaba. The article mainly explores the key features of the e-commerce universe in China, and draws upon the main differences between e-commerce in China versus in the West. Detailing a short history on China's mobile e-commerce boom, the authors note several characteristics of China's e-commerce landscape that differentiate it from that of Western countries, namely — consumers' eagerness to spend, innovation as a result of intense brand competition, as well as seamless platform integration that makes shopping easy and fun. The authors then use Alibaba and Amazon as benchmarks of e-commerce players representing the East and the West respectively, and compares its differences. Lastly, the author introduces Alibaba's concept of 'new retail' which otherwise refers to the full integration of consumer experience and behaviour in determining business operations, engaging customers through personalized content and constantly developing capabilities across the board to adapt to customer needs.

Indeed, China's e-commerce landscape and its integration into customers' lives is an extent of immense vastness that we likely do not understand until we ourselves engage in it. Throughout my childhood, I used to have the impression that China was a backward, undeveloped rural country, and continued this mindset until I visited a relative in 2016 — I was shocked to discover digital mobile payments systems utilized everywhere (even on roadside fruit carts!), as well as the integration of functions like transportation (booking a cab) or restaurant reservations on social messaging platforms like WeChat, and many others. This was completely unheard of at that time, and digital mobile payment only began in Singapore around mid-late 2018. Given the speed of technological innovation in China, one can only imagine the extent of growth from 2016 til now. In fact, one interesting feature is the integration of social networks into the shopping experience. "Livestream shopping" has become a popular activity, where social media celebrities review or talk about products online; direct links to product purchase are typically provided, and viewers can buy products concurrently while celebrities are talking about them. According to a report from Alibaba's Taobao Live platform, live streaming accounted for over $3 billion USD of total sales in 2019. Other imaginative e-commerce innovations include introducing gamification as a key part of the reward system, or "team purchase models" (see link to find out more about Pinduoduo, a rising force in China e-commerce).

However, I often find the extent to which shopping and consumerism are integrated to the social lifestyles of the Chinese rather disturbing. Tech giants in China are innovative in adding social, interactive aspects to consumerism — but what happens if we evolve to habitually associate social lifestyles with consumerism? Consequentially, the need to purchase may eventually feel like an essential part of what it means to be social in China's digital landscape. In fact, this is suggested within the article, whether authors retort that "China's young people are the most 'spend friendly' in the world: 42% feel the need to buy more things". I found it quite amusing that such a euphemism would be used to describe or encourage a culture of consumerism — 'spend friendly', in other perspectives could also be rephrased as 'shopping addiction'. Is it really a good thing for 42% of young people to be feeling the need to buy more things? It is strange that the compelling need for consumerism to fulfil one's lifestyle would be put in such a positive light. Additionally, the integration of our social world with e-commerce would take away the authenticity of social platforms, where platforms are less about interacting with people genuinely than they are trying to sell something, be it a product, service, or trend.

Overall, I think that the advancement of e-commerce in China has undoubtedly opened up a world of digital interactivity that is almost beyond our understanding. While it has revolutionised and improved many processes of payment, these systems have their trade-offs (eg privacy in a interconnected digital web, being trapped within a spiral of consumerism culture...) that are not addressed in this article. The article is written by BCG consultants from a profit-generating perspective, and cowritten with Alibaba — therefore likely to be biased in favour of Chinese e-commerce systems.

[hioktong]

Skill-makers as brokers in the digital platform economy (Hiok Tong)

The article "Digital labour in the Philippines: emerging forms of brokerage" by Soriano builds itself on the fundamental concept of 'brokerage', which involves of pulling together relevant information, organising relationships between entities (clients and workers, workers and platforms et cetera), while presenting information in a way that clients gain value and achieve certain aspirations. The article explores the digital labour economy and the transactions that arise from it, mainly 1. platform intermediation, 2. skill-making, and 3. re-outsourcing in the context of Philippines.

In the article, Soriano recognises 'skill-makers' as an emerging broker in the digital labour economy. Skill-makers coach aspiring workers and facilitate online communities while making gains from social transactions. Soriano considers them brokers because they put together useful information for freelancers to navigate the labour platform, and capitalise on their experiences, translating them into narratives and skills while monetising training packages and other forms of educational material. He argues that one of the main reasons why skill-makers are essential are because there are insufficient 'mechanisms for assisting workers to navigate the ambiguity of platform labour'— some ambiguities including strategic portfolio building, the absence of cleat standards for acceptable rates, and many others.

These issues for freelancers are certainly ubiquitous, though not just for digital platform labourers, but for freelancers everywhere. The need to judge one's value (rate) based on personal skillsets, experience et cetera is a common struggle and dilemma for artists. In the local dance community, questions like 'How do I decide what is my rate?' are very common for fresh professionals, unless they are managed by an agency or a studio. People eventually learn by consulting other artists in their interpersonal network, and strategising on positioning their skillsets to be worthy of their rate. However, since experience and advice are typically exchanged in kindness through interpersonal networks, there is no such nature of monetization from 'skill-makers', and therefore the barrier or bridge that a new local dance professional might face in combating these ambiguities are typically not financial, but of the lack of interpersonal networks. Nevertheless, the need for skill-makers as brokers in the freelance economy is indeed a necessary tool that workers require in order to survive and thrive.

That being said, I believe that the digital platform economy brings brokerage processes into more open, public spaces. Ultimately, while still retaining the ideological functions as brokers, digital labour platforms hold much more public accountability than the traditional extensive labour migration system that often exploits and charges workers exuberantly because of the reliance of workers on these labour brokerage systems.

[hioktong]

Online fan communities have political interests too (Hiok Tong)

Fuchs's Social Media as Participatory Culture defines participatory culture as designating the involvement of users, audiences, consumers and fans in the creation of culture and content.

Fuchs believes that participation is a political science term that is strongly connected to participatory democracy theory, and therefore participatory culture cannot be analysed without understanding and incorporating participatory democracy. He therefore believes that Jenkins has a reductionistic understanding of participation, and does not take into account "questions about the ownership of platforms/companies, collective decision-making, profit, class and the distribution of material benefits" and others.

Fuchs follows by discussing the various aspects of participatory culture mentioned by Jenkins, including online fan culture and politics, social media as well as the concept of digital labour. On the topic of fan culture as politics, Fuchs critiques Jenkins as 'idealizing the political potentials of fan communities', and retorts that while fan communities have the ability to lobby and speak back to producers, they do not have a similar interest in external political issues like 'protesting against racism, neoliberalism, wage cuts, the privatization of education or welfare, lay-offs in the companies, etc'. Fuchs also appears to have some disdain for fan communities, quoting Toby Miller who reduces fan communities' behaviour to "interpret(ing) texts unusually or chat(ting) about romantic frustrations?".

Fan communities are formed on the basis of together similar collective interest, just like every other group from grassroots to swimming clubs — obviously, its content will revolve around the topic of interest. But it would be extremely myopic to remark that these communities have no interest whatsoever in politics that exist outside of their fan self. Each individual is multifaceted in their own way and an interest as a fan is but only one of the many parts of each person's identity. One could be interested in academic theories and political issues, etc and still be part of a fan community, say for a pop idol. In fact, there are many situations of which these parts or interests overlap - especially when fans utilise the power of their community to act on a pressing urgent need outside of their realm. One example would be how kpop fan communities hijacked hashtags such as #WhiteLivesMatter or #ImpeachJoeBiden filling it with kpop videos and content such that twitter and instagram algorithms categorized these hashtags as kpop or fan content, both mocking and erasing its fundamentally political intent. These incidents show evidently how the collective force of fan communities participating in politics external to the fanbase interest is effective in not only erasing dangerous hate speech, but enforcing a political agenda.

In these scenarios, unlike Fuchs, i agree with Jenkins — fan communities have huge potential for participating in political debate and with their large volumes, disrupting conversations entirely. Participatory culture forms the fundamental base of communities online, and will continue to provide as a voice that can create change.

[hioktong]

Borrowing Dance Culture (Tey Hiok Tong)

"Reflections on the Amen Break: A continued History, an Unsettled Ethics" is an article written by Nate Harrison, which attempts to use his experiences to illuminate the difference between copyright and plagiarism. Harrison argues that copyright is a legal violation, while plagiarism is an ethical misconduct with the fundamental act of taking another's idea without giving due credit to its historical significance. He detailed a series of experiences from his documentary installation of "The Amen Break" being put up on YouTube, to having his content copied by an article in The Economist. His experiences demonstrated that while there was no legal violation made, it is undeniable that the act of plagiarism was committed by way of his content being used, and is therefore ethically unprincipled. Harrison emphasises that a “semiotic integrity” to source material is maintained, where every act of borrowing should credit source material.

What stood out to me about this article is how relevant his thought processes were to the perennial dilemma of artists whose work have been shared or 'appropriated widely' — the simultaneous joy of knowledge being shared and resentment of not reaping the attribution, or harvest for it.

With intellectual property in social media, where memes and TikToks are reposted, it is common to give credit — on such pages, it is normalised practice for the original creator of the content to be tagged and credited, otherwise page administrators would face berating from social media users. In these contexts, it is clear that most share the view that it is a basic responsibility to provide credit.

However, it is upon the borrowing of ideas, of inspirations, and of culture that often blur the boundaries of owned content. A relevant example would be debate surrounding the ownership of dance culture.

Dance genres are typically categorized by their 'basic' or 'fundamental' techniques that are born from a particular place and culture eg. Hip Hop starting from The Bronx in New York or Dancehall from Jamaica, amongst others.

As these dance genres became popularized, knowledge and love for its culture spread to different corners of the world, increasingly through the rise of social media and its ability to share to large networks of people. Gradually, many different dancers of different cultures practiced a particular genre and identified with it. Dance cultures were also increasingly commercialised in adverts, music videos, performances and many more—at times drawing ire about the lack of education about the origins of a culture (see: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50536970 for an example). During last year’s Black Lives Matter Movements, heavy discussions were made in the Singaporean dance community about how important it is for us to be vocal on our digital media, given that we “profited off Black culture” as dancers who practised Hip Hop. This raised many questions: Culture as a fluid and dynamic concept takes on different shapes and forms to people everywhere. Can we concretely say that we own a particular culture even as it adapts itself to people around the world? Then what if that culture was ‘remixed’ and localised to another culture?

Personally, I take on a stance that is in agreement with Harrison – there is integrity in giving credit where credit is due. In the context of my example, it is commonly agreed upon that while dancers are free to practice and spread the love of culture, it is important to educate others and attribute credit to the originators of the culture. After all, practising a culture or creating content would be blind without real knowledge of its roots.

[hioktong]

Portable Media and its cues

In Ito, Okabe and Anderson's "Portable Cities", portable media are examined as technosocial modes of engaging with urban space, creating several "genres of presence" or behavioural frameworks for acting in public spaces. They came up with three ways that involve the "combination of portable media devices, people, infrastructures, and locations"— namely, cocooning, camping, and footprinting.

The paper also emphasises how these actions are purposed to involve a "set of negotiations that take into account the presence of others in the vicinity" — indicating that our behaviour also functions as cues and signals for the others in our urban space. Citing 'cocooning' as an example, the paper quotes how participants carry out cocooning to shelter themselves from local social and spatial interactions, or to send the message that they are unwilling to communicate/interact. The use of portable media, therefore, when applied accordingly to these genres, allow others to categorize behaviour into the genres.

In my own everyday, for example — while I go “camping” at cafes to study often, this is not always welcomed by cafe staff, who are often motivated to bar students from taking up space to study. Some time ago, when I sat myself down at a cafe and began taking out my laptop, I was almost immediately approached by cafe staff who told me that I would not be able to study during peak hour periods. It is rather shocking how the staff could immediately categorize me as a student, patronizing the cafe for the purpose of studying, simply by noticing me taking my laptop out. Evidently, the use of bulkier items such as laptops at places of choice, as the paper suggests, has become a recognizable and almost characteristic cue for encampment, and signals that the user has the intention of appropriating the space as a desirable personal destination which will be used for an extensive amount of time.

On the other hand, while the genres set aside by Ito, Okabe and Anderson are indeed extremely applicable to our current mediatized world, some behaviours (eg 'cocooning' and 'camping') are not new to our societies. Before digital mobile media (such as smartphones, laptops etc) came into existence, people also carried out 'cocooning' or 'camping' in trains and in coffee shops with other items like newspapers, books, tapes, etc. This debate can often be seen online in Singaporean Facebook comments and memes — with older generations critiquing the current reality of having a 'whole row of people staring at their phones' on the train, and the younger generation humorously replying with a dated picture of a whole row of passengers staring at their newspapers in the 1990s. This effectively points out that there is little difference given that in both pictures, passengers do not interact with one another — implying that the state of cocooning should not be attributed to the rise of digital mobile media. Furthermore, even with the appearance of digital media, there are some forms of resistance pushing against subconsciously following such behaviour. For example, the idea of 'people-watching'— the act of intentionally watching the people in one's surroundings — encourages people to break out of the cocooned state, to instead connect oneself with the urban space in the vicinity.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that portable medias create different modes of engaging with our space— as mobile technology continues to see advancement, behaviours like footprinting will be more extensive.

[hioktong]

Television in Singapore (Hiok Tong)

Spigel's chapter on TV and The Spaces of Everday Life argues that the television played a large part in the mediatization of the domestic space, and in many ways have changed how people experienced various facets of life from religion to gender norms, or even as an apparatus in creating different types of domestic intimacies.

Building on Silverstone (1994)'s suggestion on television being not just related to particular suburban histories, “but is itself suburbanizing “and has been central to the “suburbanization of the public sphere— Spigel suggests that the rise of television has its links to racist geographies entailed in US migrations. In particular, the ability to create an illusion of a social space that could exclude the diversity of races ensured that programmes were focused on only white social groups.

As the modernized, cosmopolitan city-state, Singapore certainly is no stranger to the effects of television existing in the domestic space. In fact, much of Singapore's housing interior is influenced by the western construction of the family space, with the TV holding its space as the centre of the living room and of family socialisation. It is also interesting to see how the racial implications of television play out in a country with multi-ethnic populace. 

While the messages of ‘racial harmony’ and ‘peaceful diversity’ are institutionalised and echoed to Singaporeans from a young age, the sphere of televised local entertainment in Singapore seemingly lacks this reflection. Entertainment channels are typically divided into the different language mediums (eg. Channel 8 for Chinese, Suria for Malay, Vasantham for Tamil etc), likely to appeal to the older generation of consumers who can only speak a certain language. With the language medium being a criteria, typically actors under each channel are of one homogeneous race—creating distinctively race-segregated ideas of the social world in each channel, broadcasted to the respective racial groups. Adding on to that, the emphasis (or perhaps budget) accorded to each channel were viewed as a potential issue indicative of racial discrimination based on televised representation in Singapore – on one such occasion, some take to social media to pinpoint the unequal 'fame' accorded to celebrities from the Chinese channels, whereby only Chinese celebrities are represented in digital media as celebrities to be recognized in SG's local scene, leaving the Malay and Indian channels (eg Suria, Vasantham) paling in comparison. It is apparent, therefore that the television has its influences on racial diversity in Singapore—by segregating the Singaporean community and creating a homogenized worldview while giving unequal representation to each race, it is no doubt that our idea of race intertwined with local entertainment has been mediatized.

[hioktong]

Mediatization & our social realities

In the reading, Couldry and Hepp mainly argue that the social world (an intersubjective world produced by everyday realities and differentiates into domains) is mediatized— changed in its dynamic and structure by the role that media continuously plays in its construction, and therefore posits that mediation of the communication practices at every level contributes to the construction of the social world.

In our time, the assimilation of technology in our lives over time builds an internet culture that is infused with our everyday social realities. The idea of an 'etiquette' or certain rules that govern how we should act on social media can be extrapolated from Durkheim's idea of 'social facts', which was described to be "any way of acting ... which is general over the whole of a given society whilst having an existence of its own, independent of its individual manifestations"— in other words, certain ideas or forces that influence the ways individuals act and the kinds of attitudes people hold. One such unspoken 'rule' would be that it is unacceptable to like a person's post if it is a rather dated one — liking someone's picture posted a long time ago is almost always an excruciatingly painful mistake, and brings about the awareness that you are intentionally looking through the person's old photos. This 'rule' was never explicitly discussed, but is often universally felt and agreed on— articles have even been written about the 'SOP' when such unfortunate incidents happen! Some instructions include unliking the picture immediately, liking one of their latest pictures etc— funnily enough, I have actually done these exact steps before, in a desperate attempt to conceal my 'stalking', and I am rather amused to find out that a stranger possibly from across the other end of the world would react in the same way. (check out this article for reference) More importantly, such examples emphasise how social media creates new norms and conventions that have become a part of our social reality, and materialized into new 'procedures' or 'routines' — thus continuing to reinforce and reproduce mediatized norms.

source: https://en.dopl3r.com/memes/dank/when-stalking-someones-instagram-and-you-accidentally-like-a-pic-from-140-weeks-ago/436654

Therefore, to say that our social world is mediatized is undoubtedly true — new dynamisms, new forms of social interaction, and alongside it, new norms and conventions are continually being created as we evolve alongside the changes in the media age.