More than words

Please come along. Pets welcome.

[allthingsdigitalandsocial-deact]

Crowdsourcing in times of crisis

Coined by Jeff Howe and Mark Robinson, the term crowdsourcing can be defined as “an online distributed problem-solving and production model” (Brabham 2008, p. 76). Further to this, there are varying definitions of the term: crowdsourcing exists among diverse categories, but is typically interpreted from either a business or technique domain perspective (Zhao et al. 2016). Luz (et al. 2014) adds that despite its affordances of use, all forms of crowdsourcing are task orientated. Some of the most popular and globally recognised crowdsourcing systems are Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers and Zhihu. Take Wikipedia for example, the system relies on its users to complete tasks through the crowdsourcing process. As a result, Wikipedia “produces the most extensive and up-to-date form of encyclopaedic knowledge” available online today (‘8.2 Crowdsourcing’ 2017).

The Pseudo-ER model: The crowdsourcing process

[image] Zhao et al. 2016, p. 946.

When exploring the impact that crowdsourcing can play in times of crisis; “social media is an effective tool for monitoring and engaging public discourse during the crisis process” (Tinker et al. 2009, p. 25).

[image] Hill, S 2014

Social media proved to be a key influencer in shaping a global understanding following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. As events unfolded in real time, digital citizens were quick to capture what was happening using camera and video functionalities on their smartphones. As a result, media outlets all over the world were able to share information and broadcast attack locations across the city; to ensure that Parisians stayed safe and avoided these areas.

Meanwhile on Twitter, digital citizens self-organised support networks using #porteOuverte, which means open door. The hashtag was used as a means to offer support, help, and love to those in need following the tragic attacks. Similarly, #rechercheParis became the means by which Parisian citizens “tried to find traces of loved ones from whom they hadn’t heard” from (Walter 2015).

[image] CCTVNews 2015

Furthermore, Facebook activated its Safety Check tool, which allowed nearby users in affected areas to let their friends and family know that they were safe (Zuckerberg 2014). You can read more about Facebooks Safety Check tool here (Gleit et al. 2014).  

[image] Kille. W, L 2015

Facebook also made a profile picture filter of the French flag. Users had the ability to change their profile picture to show their support for France and Parisians.  

[image] Strange 2015, ‘Facebook profile picture of French flag following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks’

Gao (et al. 2011) argues that leveraging crowdsourcing for disaster relief and emergency management has three distinct advantages:

1. User requests and data reports are automatically generated, which “allows relief organisations to identify and respond to urgent cases in time” (Gao et al. 2011, p. 11).

2. Data collected can be categorised and structured; identifying the most important relief efforts required.

3. Geo-tagging information and maps, such as Facebook’s Safety Check tool “can help relief organisations accurately locate specific requests for help” (Gao et al. 2011, p. 11).

It is important to note that Gao (et al. 2011) also argue that there are a number of shortfalls in crowdsourcing for crisis and emergency management. That being said, it can be argued that generally, crowdsourcing applications provide organisations with relevant and timely information and data to help and support people in need in times of crisis.

Word Count: 507 words 

References:

‘8.2 Crowdsourcing’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, WEEK 8: Crowdsourcing in times of crisis on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/8-dot-2-crowdsourcing?module_item_id=6789>.

Brabham. C, D 2008, ‘Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases’, The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 75 – 90.

CCTVNews 2015, ‘Parisians launch hashtag’ #porteouverte, meaning “open door”, offering shelter to people after the #parisattacks’ [image], Scoopnest, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://www.scoopnest.com/user/cctvnews/665453402013442049-parisians-launch-hashtag-porteouverte-meaning-open-door-offering-shelter-to-people-after-the-parisattacks>.

Gao, H, Barbier, G & Goolsby, R 2011, ‘Harnessing the Crowdsourcing Power of Social Media for Disaster Relief’, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 10 – 14.

Gleit, N, Zeng, S & Cottle, P 2014, ‘Introducing Safety Check’, Facebook newsroom, 15 October, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/introducing-safety-check/>.

Hill, S 2014, ‘Crowdsourcing’ [image], 5 reasons crowdsourcing is ideal for usability testing, Crowdsourcedtesting.com, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://crowdsourcedtesting.com/resources/crowdsourcing-usability-testing/>.

Kille. W, L 2015, ‘How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks’ [image], How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks, The Conversation, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-shaped-our-understanding-of-the-paris-attacks-50814>.

Luz, N, Silva, N & Novais, P 2014, ‘A survey of task-oriented crowdsourcing’, Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 44 no. 2, pp. 1 – 27.

Strange, A 2015, ‘Facebook profile picture of French flag following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks’ [image], Facebook lets you support Paris in your profile photo with one click, Mashable Australia, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://mashable.com/2015/11/14/facebook-paris-filter/#n5lDtEz298qQ>.

Tinker, L.T, Dumlao, M & McLaughlin, G 2009, ‘Effective Social Media Strategies During Times of Crisis: Learning from the CDC, HHS, FEMA, the American Red Cross and NPR in Crisis Management, The Strategist, Summer, pp. 25 – 39.  

Walter, L 2015, How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks, The Conversation, 17 November, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-shaped-our-understanding-of-the-paris-attacks-50814>.

Zhao, Z & Zhu, Q 2016, ‘Conceptualizing task affordance in online crowdsourcing context’ [image], Online Information Review, viewed 9 January 2018, p. 946.

Zhao, Z & Zhu, Q 2016, ‘Conceptualizing task affordance in online crowdsourcing context’, Online Information Review, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 938 – 958.

Zuckerberg, M 2014, Today we announced the launch of Safety Check on Facebook, Facebook, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101699265809491>.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

What an amazing contribution, Kara. You have provided a great summary of what crowdsourcing means and how is transforming us. There are hundreds of examples of how crowdsourcing is taking our knowledge to the next level. For instance, universities working in collaboration to find the cure to a certain disease, or to improve our understanding of the human brain’s potential (see more about this topic here: https://www.modolabs.com/blog-post/crowdsourcing-mobile-apps-universities-collaborating-students/) In addition, I would like to share a brief TEDx talk with you. It’s only 4-minute long, but its message about how we can help each other is very powerful. It’s called ‘Let's start saving lives by crowdsourcing’. I hope you enjoy it.

[ekazee-creatives-blog]

Social Media and Politics

Social media tools are becoming increasingly employed by journalists, citizens and politicians around the world. Before Twitter and Facebook, the best way for citizens to get in touch with majority of politicians is via email. Now politicians are utilising social media as a medium to support and supplement their political goals.

Social media platforms allow politicians the chance to have a large following, connecting directly with the public and engage in political activities in new ways. Each platform has it’s option for users to share, like or re-tweet political messages and that has made it easier for politicians to reach out to more voters and supporters. There are many examples of how social media has changed the way in which political communication takes place.  

In 2013, research report by Sauter and Bruns found that social media has increasingly seen as a viable political communication tools for politicians in Australia. The integration of social media and traditional media was widely used as tools for political news reporting. It is becoming evident that these online communication tools play a significant role in setting political agendas and shaping public opinion (Harfoush 2009, Wooley et al 2010). The use of #ausvotes hashtags were organised to cover the Australian federal election in 2010.  Hashtags are simple tools, accessible to all Twitter users, that can be used to coordinate political discussions on the platform (Bruns and Burgess 2010).

In recent proceedings, Australian politician Tony Abbott utilised social media for the ‘No’ campaign during the same sex marriage debate, in an attempt to try and persuade Australians to support the “traditional marriage” between a man and woman. Being a lead spokesman for the campaign, Abbott took to platforms life Facebook, posting numerous “It’s Okay To Vote No” messages, supporting adverts that are against same sex marriage, encouraging his followers to be involved with the campaign and to share this content.

Another politician who has exploited social media platform was Pauline Hanson. Hanson turned to Twitter, in a pursuit to spread her political views and express her goals as a politician. She is currently most known for her political party One Nation, and her beliefs in restricting immigration laws. Due to the unlimited possibilities within social media, it has also allowed Hanson’s passionate supporters and fans to band together and converse in the same political beliefs. This enhances the possibilities of a growing support system and the chances of success as a politician.

Bruns and Burgess (2011) argued that it was not the use of social media by politicians in their campaigning that was important, but it was more of the high levels of discussions and engagement by the Australian public that was noteworthy during their campaigns.

Social media has definitely become limitless and is a venue that politicians will most definitely take advantage of.

References:

Bruns A and Burgess J 2011, #ausvotes: How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture, Queensland University of Technology, 44(2), pp. 37-56.

Harfoush R 2009, Yes we did: An inside look at how social media built the Obama brand, Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.

Sauter T and Bruns A 2013,  Social Media in the Media: How Australian Media Perceive Social Media as Political Tools, Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, University of Oslo, viewed on 25 December 2017, <http://www.cci.edu.au/socialmediainthemedia.pdf>

Woolley J.K, Limperos, A.M, and Oliver, M.B  2010, The 2008 Presidential Election, 2.0: A Content Analysis of User-Generated Political Facebook Groups, Mass Communication and Society, vol 13, pp. 631-652

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

What an engaging post, Nicola. I truly enjoyed it :) As you have pointed out, nowadays a great amount of politicians are making use of social media to maintain direct contact with their supporters. And there is no doubt that they seem to be obtaining a lot of benefit out of this. Nevertheless, because nowadays everything we say will always be kept somewhere in the Internet database (or at least that’s what most people think), politicians know that they have to be extremely careful in their statements. Barack Obama himself warned a group of high school students about this issue when he told them: “I want everybody here to be careful about what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life. That’s number one” (Jericho, 2012, p. 254). ... References Jericho, G 2012, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe, Victoria, Australia.

[ekazee-creatives-blog]

Digital Activism

#Hashtags, Likes, Shares are not only a means to start a discussion online, but also a very useful tool for people to disseminate information and distribute education. Critics always assume that only traditional social movement tactics such as demonstrations and rallies are effective for protesting or pressing for change. Even cultural commentator such as Malcolm Gladwell said ‘Digital Activism is an oxymoron’ and engaging online in ‘Slacktivism’ is a waste of time (Huffingtonpost 2014), the debate was always over which way is the ‘right’ way to protest?

Through informed awareness, by making knowledge public through social media, this democratises societies and is crucial to social movements. (Youmans & York 2012). Social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter and various online blogs have made it easier for people to gather and voice their opinion on a subject of common interest. It is a tool in aiding collective action and shaping social movements’ agendas (Lopes A 2014).

Even if social media is considered as a tool of empowerment and liberation by many, governments are beginning to restrict on free speech even online. Many countries like North Korea, China or Egypt are already pushing for stringent bans on media sites and social media platforms. An example was when bloggers had to take over the position of correspondents and journalists to publish the news in Egypt, against the government’s suppression on news websites, silencing voices of the oppositions and activists. The blog sites coverage of the event helped organise more protest on a broad scale international level.  

Meanwhile, in recent proceedings, which I also took part in, was a successful social movement that first initiated on Twitter after a fan-favourite LGBT character was killed off in a TV show “The 100”. This triggered a harmful trope called ‘Bury Your Gay’ that writers carelessly written in every storyline for almost every single LGBT character created on TV and films . This event set off people to protest against the writers of the show, taking to social media to raise awareness, and holding TV executives accountable whilst fighting for a better LGBTQ+ representation in the industry. In results to this, the fans trended over 150K tweets worldwide with the single hashtag #LGBTFansDeservedBetter and raised over $160K for the Trevor Project Charity.  Fans also placed 4 billboard signs around Warner Bros. studios in Los Angeles, and it wasn’t long before all major media outlets such as CNN, BBC, Variety, Forbes, UN Women and many more.. paid attention.

Social media alone are not accountable for the protest or action, they are simply a tool to organise them. Online support should not be seen as a resentment because of its unconventional method, rather it should be seen as an asset, the ability to mobilise a vast numbers of people.

References:

Huffingtonpost 2014, Malcolm Gladwell: People Are Empowered By Their Lack Of Power, Interviewed by The European, viewed on 4 January 2017, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/gladwell-people-are-empowered_n_4993831.html>

Lopes A  2014, The Impact of Social Media on Social Movements: The New Opportunity and Mobilizing Structure, Creighton University, viewed on 2 February 2018, <https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/CCAS/departments/PoliticalScience/Journal_of_Political_Research__JPR_/2014_JSP_papers/Lopes_JPR.pdf>

Youmans, W, & York, J 2012, ‘Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements’, Journal Of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Great job, Nicola! A very engaging piece of information. I would like to focus on the following excerpt of your post: “Even cultural commentator such as Malcolm Gladwell said ‘Digital Activism is an oxymoron’ and engaging online in ‘Slacktivism’ is a waste of time (Huffingtonpost 2014)” I am afraid I do not agree with Mr. Gladwell at all. In fact, I feel quite disappointed by learning that he considers Digital Activism an oxymoron. Through this statement, Gladwell is underestimating the power of digital communities as a unique powerful source for cultural change. Yes, of course there are people who practice slacktivism – people who probably would never commit to a cause. But referring to Digital Activism as a useless practice is, at least, as pejorative as it is naïve. Perhaps Mr. Gladwell may reconsider his viewpoint if he dedicated 10 minutes of his time to read this article: ‘Digital Activism and Non‐Violent Conflict’ (Edwards, Howard, & Joyce, 2013).

References Edwards, Frank and Howard, Philip N. and Joyce, Mary, Digital Activism and Non‐Violent Conflict (2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2595115 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595115

[alookintodigicom-blog]

How much is too much?

About a week ago, a friend of mine mentioned that one of her work colleagues was spending just under 2 hours of her week scrolling through her Instagram feed. Surprised and quite perplexed, she explained how she couldn’t understand how someone could spend so much time on social media over a week. “But how did she get that final number?” I thought. Oblivious and obviously not overly tech-savvy, my friend began to explain to me that in the iPhone settings, you can see which Apps your battery is using the most in the last 24 hours and also over the past 7 days. After saying our good-byes I couldn’t help but wonder and question how many hours out of my week was being taken up by mindlessly double-tapping, liking and tagging my friends in funny memes. I jumped on straight away, and I’m glad I didn’t in front of my judgemental friend. 2.9 hours! How could this be? Sure a scroll here and there, a scroll before I hit the pillow, another scroll sitting on the tram passing time. I started to question whether or not this in fact was too much time and if I was starting to have an unhealthy addiction.

Boyd (2012) outlines that to an outsider, wanting to be ‘always-on’ is all too often labelled as an addiction and may seem even pathological. It is assumed, that it is the technology we are addicted to, but on the contrary humans want to interact, connect with others, and are always curious. They take advantage of the affordances that these social media platforms (such as Instagram) provide to their sense of being part of a community, belonging and feeling connected (Boyd 2102).

An Australian documentary by Eva Orner called “It’s people like us” was released in September this year, to expose the dependence Australians have on smartphones and questions how they have developed into an extension of ourselves. The documentary follows five young Australians who agree to be filmed over a week period whilst driving, and the results are more than alarming. Each participant is filmed being drawn to their screens, staring down at their phones with several near-misses caught on tape. Taking selfies, sending snapchats, checking Facebook are all activities these participants were guilty of whilst driving. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnJqHhkvtNs Orner (2017) explains that the film aims to start a community conversation about using mobile phones at inappropriate times, and argues that it is people like us who are doing it, and people like us who can also decide that it’s not okay. Although the concept of being ‘always on’ has many benefits such as connectedness and a sense of belonging, it is key to find a balance between when and how we should use social media and how it is going to affect others. References: Boyd, D 2012, ‘Participating in the always-on lifestyle’, in M Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76 Kuss, D 2017 ‘Social Networking Sites and Addiction: Ten Lessons Learned’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 14, no.3, pp.311  Omer, E 2017, It’s People Like Us Documentary, Positive Ape, viewed 1 December 2017, < http://www.itspeoplelikeus.com.au>.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

“It is key to find a balance between when and how we should use social media and how it is going to affect others”. This is a great question, but don’t you think that this may surely vary from person to person? I mean, I know people who love social media and spend a lot of time reading their Instagram and Facebook feed, and this does not seem to be affecting their ‘real’ social life. I am aware, however, that the tendency to be ‘always on’ may have detrimental effects in certain populations. For example, Chak and Leung (2004) found that shy people are more at risk for addiction to social media. I strongly recommend you to have a look at this article, which sheds light on this issue.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Social Gaming

Just when I thought I had seen it all, I come to learn about a whole new world which takes place exclusively within digital communities: The world of social gamers. I certainly knew about the existence of network games, but I must say that what I was completely unaware of was the extreme passion (and sometimes fanaticism) that this practice awakens among so many people, mostly young people. To me, playing online games was pretty much trying to reach a certain level of the so-called Candy Crush so as to rank better than that lady from Tokyo, or perhaps joining a counter terrorist team and chase baddies until I got bored. To social gamers, however, playing online can be a serious matter. Indeed, gamers do not just ‘play’. When they join a game, for example ‘EVE online’ (2014), they are adhering to a code of practice made of certain rules and norms specifically crested for this end, just like golf clubs have their own (and strict) code of conduct (see also Zwart & Humphreys 2014). 

Essential facts about the computer and video game industry (2016) <https://goo.gl/images/Uie4TD>

INSIDE THE WORLD OF GAMMERS Let’s start by getting familiar with some of the most recurring terms used in the social gamers world. Massively Multiple Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPG) refers to those games which combine role-playing video games and massively multiplayer online games. Essentially, this modality involves a very large amount of players encouraged to interact with one another (Stavropoulos 2017). Examples of popular MMORGP include Warcraft, EVE, Osiris: New Dawn, Black Desert, and Wildstar (Games Radar 2017). It is worth noting that while many play MMORPG with their computers, a great deal of people prefer to engage on social gaming through consoles such as Playstation or Xbox. Choosing a computer or a console will depend on many factors, but generally speaking for games which are rather complex (Resident Evil, as opposed to Candy Crush), gamers recommend using a dedicated console for a better experience. 

RULES AND NORMS As it has been suggested, gamers have their own code of practice. And while some of these rules and norms are common to most social games (i.e., the penalisation for offensive or inappropriate chat, or hacking or using 3rd party software), some of them vary significantly from game to game. Reference 2 explains that a code of conduct is much more than a set of rules to be observed. In their own words, it is “an integral part of the game’s social discourse” (p. 354). 

Some even believe that engaging on social gaming can make us better people. Does this sound exaggerated? Well, American game designer Jane McGonigal is convinced that this is the case. Watch her TEDx talk and see if this challenges your viewpoint about gaming (just like it did to me!).

References

De Zwart, Melissa and Humphreys, Sal. The lawless frontier of deep space: Code as law in EVE online [online]. Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, Mar 2014: 77-99. Availability: <https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=225934593111540;res=IELHSS>.

EVE Online, 2014, viewed 15 January 2018, <www.eveonline.com>.

Games Radar 2017, ‘The best MMORPGs to play right now on PC and console’, viewed 15 January 2018, <http://www.gamesradar.com/best-mmorpg/>.

McGonigal, J 2010, ‘Gaming can make a better world’, TED, viewed 15 January 2018, <https://youtu.be/dE1DuBesGYM>.

Mulligan, J & Patrovsky, B 2003, Developing Online Games: An Insider's Guide, New Riders Games, USA.

Stavropoulos VA, Daria J, Kuss, B,. Griffiths MD, Wilson, P and Motti-Stefanid, F 2017, MMORPG: Gaming and hostility predict Internet Addiction symptoms in adolescents: An empirical multilevel longitudinal study’, Addictive Behaviours, vol. 64, pp. 294-300.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

What’s behind a ‘Selfie’?

In December of 1998 I was able to taste, for the first time, what it felt to ‘chat’ with another person through a computer. This was only possible because of the Internet of course, but also because of the chat rooms that were created for this end so that people could connect and ‘talk’ without using their voices. It’s been almost 20 years and I can still remember my fascination for talking to someone in Philadelphia or Johannesburg whom I had never met, and whom I would probably never meet either. It felt as if the future had finally arrived.

‘Do you have a photo of yourself’?  

Millennials may be surprised, but this question was a commonplace in most conversations during the early years of chat rooms – just as frequent as its equally anachronistic answer: ‘Sorry, I don’t have a scanner’. Almost twenty years later, not only do we have the possibility to take as many photos of ourselves as we pleased, but we have turn this practice into a real cultural thing.

NETWORKED VISUALITY The growth of the selfie culture – an arms-length self-portrait taken with a smartphone or a webcam with the purpose of being share in social media (Selfiecity 2014) – has led to a new level of online interaction in social networks. Indeed, a large amount of social media users – particularly adolescents and young adults – are nowadays using images as a way of building and sharing their life narratives (Vivienne and Burgess 2013). This phenomena is known as ‘Networked Visuality’ (Hjorth 2011), and its impact is such that a number of social media platforms such as Pinterest and Instagram were created specifically to foster (and take advantage of) this trend. Of interest, according to Selfiecity women take more selfies than men.

For another perspective on the Selfie issue, watch this very engaging TED Talk called ‘Me, my selfie and I’. 

  PRIVACY: THAT THING FROM THE PAST One of the major issues associated with the sharing of images photos and videos is privacy. Or I should say, the lack of privacy. Indeed, not everyone is happy about showing themselves in social media, with the potential of being seen my countless of curious friends of friends. In this respect, one may feel tempted to say something like ‘Well, then do not share those photos’. Fair enough, but what if it was not the actual person who uploaded that photo, and it was rather a Facebook friend? Moreover, what if you do not even do social media but you attend to a party, have lots of fun, and then you are tagged in a number of photos shared on Facebook? 

In a focus group aimed at exploring the social media privacy issue, Besmer and Lipford (2010) found that incriminating evidence was one of the main concerns among participants. Specifically, people’s main fear was being caught by the camera when drunk. In a less serious fashion, people were also urged to delete photos of themselves uploaded by others where they were in an ‘unfavourable light’ (AKA ‘I look terrible!’) (Besmer and Lipford 2010). Interestingly enough, this focus group found that no participant related the lack of privacy with perceive unsafety (i.e., strangers stalking their profiles to gather information for potential crimes). Yet, it is worth noting that this last finding is not consistent with previous studies (see Athern et al. 2007). Finally, you may also want to watch the following social media experiment by Jack Vale (2013), which has a very powerful message for all social media users.

References

Ahern, S, Eckles, D, Good, NS, King, S, Naaman, M & Nair, R 2007, ‘Over-exposed?: Privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing’, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 357–366, San Jose, California, ACM.

Besmer, A & Lipford, HR 2010, ‘Moving beyond untagging: Photo privacy in a tagged world’, Univerisy of North Carolina at Charlotte, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1563.pdf>.

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.

Jack Vale Films 2013, ‘Social Media Experiment’, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://youtu.be/5P_0s1TYpJU>.

Papadoupoulos, L 2015, ‘Me my selfie and I’, TEDx White Hall Women, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdOeP6d3pQ>.  

Selfie city, 2014, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://selfiecity.net/>.

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

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Crowdsourcing: That helping hand.

In the digital world, the term ‘Crowdsourcing’ refers to the non-commercial collective effort aimed at developing or contributing to the making of tools or information that help solving a given issue (Kietzmann 2017). Wikipedia, which is perhaps the most popular online collective effort, is a good example of crowdsourcing. Social media platforms, on the other hand, are also a form of crowdsourcing and particularly essential ones in times of national emergencies. In this entry, I will focus on this last topic.

If there is something that characterises the Internet, that’s the limitless information we all have access to. You may know this already, but let me remind you that that rectangular device you have in your pocket is your gate to virtually all human knowledge – from the lyrics of Despacito to less frivolous things such as live information of bush fires in your local area. This sounds pretty amazing, isn’t it? However, there is tiny problem associated with this sea of information: Its credibility.

Sure, you may get upset if you read fake news about a seemingly romance between celebrities, but you can live with that for sure. However, when it comes to emergencies, accessing the right information becomes a matter of life or death. As Ford (2012) suggested, inaccurate or incorrect information may be as harmful as no information at all and that is why emergency services authorities often show a great deal of mistrust to crowdmapping. Just imagine living in an area where tornados are not uncommon. These people tend to be aware that sometimes a refuge may not be enough to resist a natural disaster and thus an evacuation is imminent. While often the mainstream media gives reliable information as to how to proceed in such situations, sometimes people cannot afford to wait for these instructions and they need to make a call by relying on alternative sources such as social media. It is then when crowdsourcing credibility becomes of major relevance. In Ford’s (2012) words, “verification can be relatively straightforward when a single team with similar views is working together, but when different stakeholders are involved the process is greatly challenged” (p. 38). 

Digital humanitarianism: Watch this TED talk by Paul Conneally (2011), who shares a powerful message of how we can all contribute in times of crisis.

Nevertheless, despite the credibility issue, the evidence suggests that the contribution of crowdsourcing – and big data – as a collective effort is of immense importance. Examples of extreme situations in which this practice has been of great help include the 2011 earthquake in Japan, the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, the Queensland floods in 2011, and a number of equally devastating scenarios in USA involving hurricanes and tornados. As such, the fact that crowdsourcing faces the inevitable issue of credibility should not discourage us. After all, we humans have long demonstrated that each and every tool we have built can (and will) always be improved. In fact, crowdsourcing seems to be quite close to be taken to the next level, or at least that is what Ford (2012) believed when he once said: “In the future the trend is towards using ‘big data’ to automatically verify reports by semantically analysing each report for key phrases and action verbs and developing clusters of similar statements. According to pundits like Patrick Meier, director of Social Innovation at the Qatar Foundation’s Computing Research Institute, this kind of computing analysis could enable verification of masses of data at digital speed” (p. 39).

References

Conneally, P 2012,  ‘Digital humanitarianism’, TED, viewed January 11 2018, <https://youtu.be/L9_c1j9VRwE>

Ford, H 2012, 'Crowd Wisdom', Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 33-39.

Kietzmann, JH 2017, ‘Crowdsourcing: A revised definition and introduction to new research’, Business Horizons, vol, 60., no 2, pp. 151-153.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Let’s talk about ‘Cyberbullying’

Everyone perceives offense in different ways, and humour may serve as a good example. For instance, John crack ups when being told a joke about disabled people but Helen finds the same joke extremely offensive. However, when Helen tells John a joke about Jews that she found hilarious it is now John who feels infuriated. So, is it that we should not joke with certain topics? I do not think so, as you will always find someone who will get offended by virtually anything. Nevertheless, when there is a deliberate intention to hurt someone we are no longer talking about jokes; we are talking about harassment. In the digital world, harassment (and other similar practices equally disturbing) can take many forms. In this post I will focus on ‘Cyberbullying’ – a behaviour that has been studied by a great deal of researchers.

Cyberbullying has been described as the persistent and deliberate act of using an electronic device to intimidate, humiliate, or harm another person (Stopbullying.gov n.d.). This may take place in a direct form (i.e., by sending an SMS) or, as it happens most often, within a social media platform (i.e., Facebook) (Dredge, Gleeson, Garcia 2014). Cyberbullying can also be performed anonymously, which far from lowering the impact it can result in more damage to the victim. Of particular interest but perhaps not surprisingly, cyberbullying has been found to be more prevalent in adolescents than in any other population (Bullying Statistics n.d.). Watch this short movie about cyberbullying called ‘I am truly sorry’. Although fiction, it illustrates the extent to which adolescents can be harmed by cyberbullying.

It is undeniable that cyberbullying has the potential to cause a lot of harm. Yet, there seems to be less consensus as to whether this relatively new way of harassment is nowadays more common than the traditional bullying. In her book It’s Complicated, social media scholar Boyd (2014) argues that unlike popular belief, bullying behaviour has not drastically increased since the arrival of the Internet. She does not ignore that cyberbullying is a common practice that may lead to serious consequences, but rather than blaming technology for encouraging this practice she argues that we should use this means to help those children who are in need for attention (Boyd 2014). Click here to see a related, although provocative article called: ‘The Exaggeration Of The Cyberbullying Problem Is Harming Anti-Bullying Effort’.

On the opposite side, many claim that teen bullying has significantly increased since the appearance of social media and that this, in turn, have led to higher rates of depression and suicide among adolescents (Pappas 2015; Luxton, June, & Fairall 2012). Although plausible, data supporting this statement is most of the time inconsistent. Still, it could be argued that because cyberbullying can be anonymous this may contribute to more despair in the victim, as they may find it more difficult to track the source of the bullying (as opposed to traditional bullying, in which the bully somewhat takes pride in harassing the victim). Likewise, the fact that cyberbullying can be performed in a matter of seconds (for example by sharing a compromising photo that will embarrass another person), this may also be an extra ingredient that makes cyberbullying more frequent than its predecessor.

Regardless of whether cyberbullying has surpassed traditional bullying, one thing is certain: Both parents and children should be aware of the consequences of this awful behaviour that can cause a lot of farm.

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.

Bullying Statistics n.d., ‘Cyber Bullying Statistics’, Anti-Bullying Help, Facts, and More, viewed 7 January 7 2018, <http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html>.

Cushing, T 2013, ‘The exaggeration of the cyberbullying problem is harming anti-bullying efforts’, Techdirt, viewed 7 January 2018, <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131010/09444124826/exaggeration-cyberbullying-problem-is-harming-anti-bullying-efforts.shtml>.

Dredge, R, Gleeson, J, Garcia XP 2014, ‘Presentation on Facebook and risk of cyberbullying victimisation’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 40, pp. 16-22.

Emotional 2016, I'm Truly Sorry (Short Bullying Movie), 11 February, viewed 7 January 2018, <https://youtu.be/qcvTsFqptS8>.

Luxton, DD, June, DJ, & Fairall JM 2012, ‘Social Media and Suicide: A Public Health Perspective’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 195-200.

Pappas, S 2015, ‘Cyberbullying on Social Media Linked to Teen Depression’, Live Science, viewed 7 January 2018, <https://www.livescience.com/51294-cyberbullying-social-media-teen-depression.html>.

Stopbullying.gov n.d., ‘What is cyberbullying’, Cyberbullying, viewed 7 January 2018, < https://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/what-is-it/index.html>

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Did someone say ‘Digital Activism’?

A few weeks ago I performed a little study on social media. I wanted to know how often my friends from Facebook would share posts related to activism and protest (as opposed to posting photos, jokes, or any non-political material). My prediction had been that this would happen in 1 out of 10 and I was pretty close: A bit more than 20% of the content that showed on my feed was associated to these matters. However, after learning about these figures I soon realised that my curiosity for this topic was just awakening. Now I had other questions, which I believe were much more meaningful: What was beyond each and every post intended to raise awareness about a certain cause? Were my Facebook friends conscious of the causes they were supporting? And more important: By sharing posts aimed at protesting, were they really contributing to the cause they were seemingly supporting? 

Even though there is no single way to answer the above questions, interestingly enough I have found that the online activism issue has been long studied over the last years. Indeed, this topic has attracted such a great deal of interest among scholars that they have coined the term ‘digital activism’ to the use of electronic communication people give aimed at protesting or performing activism of any kind (Edwards, Howard, & Joyce 2013). Nevertheless, while some researchers remain optimistic about its potential for a true cultural transformation (see Youmans & York 2012), most researchers investigating this phenomena are aware that sharing Facebook posts or retweeting critical information about, for example, the breach of human rights in a random country may not be enough to make a real change. Watch the following TED talk by sociologist Zeynep Tufekci (2014) to learn more about the dichotomy that digital activism sets out.

But because we humans are great at polarising ourselves, there is a third group who also has something to say about this issue – those who believe that digital activism is nothing but an ephemeral practice; a real waste of time. 

This group of critics often referred to those who engage in protests that only take place online (mainly on social media) as ‘Slacktivists’ or ‘Subactivists’ (see Bakardjieva 2009; Asian Research Institute 2012). Their rationale is that supporting a political or social cause requires much more effort than simply sharing a post or signing a petition. However, while this may be true in some cases, as in the #icebucketchallenge (Kosinski 2014), there is evidence that a number of online petitions have actually achieved their purpose, thus transforming – at least in part – certain aspects of our society (Stark 2016; Sommers 2015). 

References

Asian Research Institute 2012, ‘Methodological and conceptual issues in cyber activism research’, National University of Singapore, viewed January 6 2018, <https://ari.nus.edu.sg/Assets/repository/files/publications/InterAsiaRoundtable-2012.pdf>.

Bakardjieva, M 2009, 'Subactivism: Lifeworld and Politics in the Age of the Internet', Information Society, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 91-104.

Edwards, F, Howard, PN, & Joyce, M 2013, Digital Activism and Non‐Violent Conflict, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2595115 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595115

Kosinski, B 2014, ‘#IceBucketChallenge: Why You’re Not Really Helping’, Huffpost, viewed January 6 2018, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-kosinski/icebucketchallenge-why-yo_b_5656649.html>

Sommers, J 2015, ‘Change.org's 10 Biggest Victories As Petition Website Celebrates 100 Million Users’, Huffpost, viewed January 6 2018, <http://www.smh.com.au/national/people-power-14-online-petitions-that-changed-australia-in-2015-20151222-gltgyb.html>.

Stark, J 2015, ‘People power: 10 online petitions that changed Australia in 2015’, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed January 5 2018, <http://www.smh.com.au/national/people-power-14-online-petitions-that-changed-australia-in-2015-20151222-gltgyb.html>

Tufekci, Z 2014, ‘Online social change: Easy to organise, hard to win’, viewed January 6 2018, <https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_how_the_internet_has_made_social_change_easy_to_organize_hard_to_win>

Youmans, W, & York, J 2012, 'Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements', Journal of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Digital citizenship, and a new paradigm of democracy.

In April, 2012, a group of Argentinean young adults founded ‘El Partido de la Red’ (The Net Party) (Serna n.d.), a project that was soon replicated in a number of countries. Based on the foundations of ‘liquid democracy’ (Blum & Zuber 2016), this revolutionary party proposed a new – online – form of collective decision making that aims to grant voters full decision control. In essence, the idea is that rather than limiting the involvement of lay people in politics to only voting times, this alternative type of democracy encourages everyone to participate in everyday political decisions, thus transforming our civil societies.

(Watch the following video to learn more about Net Party and its open source technology)

The ‘Partido de la Red’ case is a good example of the shift we are experiencing in terms of how we interact with our political system, but certainly not the only one. Indeed, perhaps less organised but equally passionate, millions of people worldwide have been increasingly participating in heated conversations about politics that only take place online, mostly on Twitter (Jericho 2012). This online involvement, motivated by the need to access to immediate information and to be heard by politicians and the like is what scholars refer to as having a digital citizenship (see Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal 2008), and the reader may not be surprised that it is the youth who is often the most vocal in the social media platforms.

Similarly, political parties are also trying to take advantage of social media platforms to influence voters. And once again, the most recurring channel for this practice seems to be Twitter (Jericho 2012), where politicians can observe on live and further analyse the impact of their statements through the comments (and likes) people make. Politicians, who are well aware of how a right speech can severely influence voters, play this game of chess with cautious and often with a great amount of professional advice (see Hartley & Pinder 2010). Not for nothing Obama himself warned a group of high school students to be careful about what they post on social media, as everything one ever says in the internet will contribute to their digital identity (Jericho 2012). 

Much like in every transformation process, however, there is always a group of detractors ready to point out the damaging effects. For instance, in a plenary session exposing the affordances of the social media and its crisis, professor Dean (DCU School of Communication 2013) calls into question the assumption that online political involvement can only be beneficial for our democracy. Rather, she suggests that this practice is more likely to numb our civic culture. Dean is not alone in her criticisms towards this shift in our democratic system. Indeed, a number of scholars have echoed her viewpoint and are now warning about the detrimental effects of this very cultural change (see Foth et al. 2016). 

References

Blum, C & Zuber, CI 2016, ‘Liquid democracy: Potential, problems, and perspectives’, Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 24, no 2, pp. 162-182.

DCU School of Communication 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3 - Jodi Dean, 3 July, viewed 2 January 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>.

Foth, M, Tomitsch, M, Forlano, L, Haeusler, M & Satchell, C 2016, 'Citizens breaking out of filter bubbles: urban screens as civic media', Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Symposium on pervasive displays 20-22 June 2016, ACM New York, NY, USA, pp. 140-147.

Hartley, J & Pinder, K 2010, ‘Coaching political leaders’, in Leadership in Coaching, Koganpage, London, United Kidgdom.

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

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

Serna, A n.d., ‘Partido de la Red and DemocracyOS’, Americas Quarterly, viewed 2 January 2018, <http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/partido-de-la-red-and-democracyos>.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Social Media: You can afford it!

Some time ago, I came across an interesting article which suggested that many people use Facebook because they want ‘to belong’ and because they feel the need to self-present themselves (Nadkarni & Hofmann 2012). While this made sense to me, I remember wondering if these people were aware that this social media platform, much like many others, enables you to do much more than just sharing photos or posting ‘happy birthdays’. As a matter of fact, over the last few years Facebook has been releasing a number innovative tools such as Facebook Video, Facebook Live, and several others that are really useful for businesses.  

The many ways in which users interact with social media interfaces is known as ‘Affordances’. The term, which was invented decades before the arrival of the Internet, was coined by psychologist Gibson (Greeno 1994) and referred to the countless ways in which one can interact with their environment. Later, cognitive scientist Norman (1999) utilised the term to describe the potential uses that an object can have. Since social media somewhat involves these two definitions, it is not surprising that their platforms are now being analysed in terms of their affordances.

Social Behaviour Many scholars hold that social media influence our social behaviour (Butcher & Helmond 2016; Hughes, Rowe, Batey & Lee 2012). Specifically, that a user’s behaviour in any given digital community is the result of the affordances that the corresponding social media platform present. The following are two examples illustrating this scenario. Twitter Soon after its launch in 2006, this revolutionary platform quickly skyrocketed and positioned itself as one of the most popular social media sites. It was revolutionary because, while all sites encouraged users to post as much information as they wished, Twitter decided to limit each post to 140-characters. As a result of users being forced to write posts (or tweets) rather briefly, alternative ways of social interaction emerged. For example, facing the impossibility of elaborating on an idea, users often sought to convey a vehement message. Unfortunately, sometimes vehemency comes with a dose of antipathy, and when this occurs the original message can be misinterpreted.

YouTube There are enough examples to suggest that this social media platform also produced an unprecedented shift in terms of social behaviour. Among them, the possibility for users to access material that they had never seen before, such as interviews, documentaries, or even back stages of their favourite band. Likewise, it allowed users willing to share this material to express themselves through the videos they shared (as opposed to written communication). As such, by affording this salient aspect of YouTube people of this community developed an alternative way of interaction.

As it can be appreciated, each social media platform encourages a unique way of interaction, and this in turn generates certain social behaviours that are inherent to such community. If you want to learn more about this topic, I encourage you to watch the following Standford Seminar.

References

Bucher, T, & Helmond, A 2016. The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, & A.

Hancock, J 2016, ‘Affect, affordances and the psychology of social media’, Standford Seminar, viewed November 28 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VklQ6NKlyPU>. 

Hughes, DJ, Rowe, M., Batey, M, & Lee, A 2011, ‘A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol 28, no 2, pp. 561-569.

Greeno, J 1994, ‘Gibson's affordances’, Psychological Review, vol 101, no 2, pp. 336-342.

Nadkami, A, & Hoffmann GF 2012, ‘Why do people use Facebook?’, Personality and individual differences, vol. 52, no 3, pp. 243-249.

[amandafelb09-blog]

Social media platform affordances and social experiences

Throughout history, public discourse was attributed to those who had power or education. A professional journalist could have significant influence over the public and a ‘one to many’ communication avenue was common (Grunig & Grunig, 2000). The introduction of digital communities has been a major change in society, resulting in social media becoming a type of custodian of public discourse (Gillespie, 2010). Professional journalism is now decreasing (Cross, 2011) challenged by an online community providing a voice for amateurs and a ‘many to many’ approach with no formal leader (Siapera, 2012).

Diverse platforms offer different affordances to their users and many overlap. For example, although Facebook and Twitter seem somewhat similar because one could create a profile, upload a picture, link, comment or read the news, a comparison of their affordances reveals that Facebook has a broader range of functions, in a semi-public sphere where friends are mutually accepted. Most posts on Facebook are seen by small communities of friends and acquaintances. On the contrary, Twitter allows people to follow those of interest to them in a public manner (Murthy, 2013). This is an interesting concept in that, for the first time, the public could directly contact untouchable people like celebrities and politicians. To some degree, Twitter provides an even playing field across socio-economic communications, where once a ‘one to many’ approach dominated the market and public opinion was only spoken to small group of people at local events. Gossip, opinion and informal conversation, whether credible or not, seem desirable to be a part of, blurring the line between fact and fiction. Whilst some argue that digital communities have allowed true democracy to flourish, others believe that online commentary has shown the true vulgarity of human kind; ‘when ignorance, meets egoism, meets bad taste, meets mob rule’ (Cross, 2011).  

Initial digital platforms offered users a neutral playing field where anyone could view information and make comments, whilst choosing to be anonymous if desired (Gillespie, 2010). With time, some platforms began to use algorithms to determine a number of subjective factors about users and the information they view. This is known as technical management of a platform and it could be performed for many positive reasons such as fitting in with societal moral expectations or streamlining a way to view the most popular/relevant comments on a post. For example, the ABC removes comments online if they deem them to breach their Online Conditions of Use (ABC, 2017). This could however contribute to social discourse in negative ways too. If a platform appears neutral, but removes and edits comments, the entire contents become subjective (Gillespie, 2010), potentially distorting reality and promoting bias. Amazon’s best-selling book was managed with algorithms rather than actually being the best seller (Gillespie, 2010) and Reddit uses algorithms to sort popular content to the top, exposing the user to a filtered experience of each topic. If a teenager watches amateur fights online, YouTube will continue to suggest similar videos, which may result in that user having a distorted view of violence in the world. These are factors for the public to consider as the digital world expands rapidly and their social experiences are bound within the affordances of each platform.

References

ABC, 2017, ‘Comments’, viewed 28 November 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/about/comments.

Cross, M 2011, Got Blog, in Bloggerati, Twitterati: How blogs and Twitter are transforming popular culture, Praeger, Santa Barbara.

Gillespie, T 2010, 'The politics of platforms’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Gillespie, T 2010, Tarleton Gillespie on The Politics of Platforms, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, viewed 22 Spetember 2014, <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheon/2010/01/gillespie>.

Grunig, J.E & Grunig, L.A 2000, ‘Public relations in strategic management and strategic management of public relations: Theory and evidence from the IABC Excellence project’, Journalism Studies, 1 (2) (2000), pp. 303-321, viewed 20 November 2017.

Interaction-Design.org 2011, Affordances (Don Norman, 1994), 15 February, viewed 19 November 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Zb_5VxuM>.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, Polity, Cambridge.

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

��:1�#

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

What a great post, Amanda. Seriously, a very engaging piece of information. One of the concepts that really stroke me was the idea that, because of the algorithms they use, digital communities can influence negatively in certain populations by creating a distorted image of the world. You illustrated this concept very well with the adolescent that enjoys watching amateur fights and is therefore suggested with more violent content. This makes me wonder if certain aspects of the so-called algorithm should be regulated. But if so, what would be the criteria? While I do not have the answer (nor a stance yet), I think it is a matter that we societies must discuss at some stage.

[allthingsdigitalandsocial-deact]

An overview of the theory, approaches and general ideas about ‘digital communities’ and ‘social media’ covered in weeks 1–4 of MDA20009

Social media is widely defined as “the many relatively inexpensive and widely accessible electronic tools that enable anyone to publish and access information, collaborate on a common effort, or build relationships” (‘1.2 Statistics’ 2017). Modern definitions of communities are commonly influenced by Tönnies; who distinguishes a community to be “formed around an organic, natural will” (‘2.2 Communities’ 2017). Commonly referred to as virtual communities, digital communities are defined as “social aggregations that emerge from the Internet and come together on the basis of sharing information, ideas, feelings and desires” (Siapera 2012, p. 194).

In the 20th century, Weiser (1991, p. 104) proposed that due to the rise of globalisation, technology in the 21st century would help to redefine human connection, drawing us closer to one another and with hopes that new technologies may reverse users’ unhealthy technology habits, in our personal lives and in the workplace. Fast forward to 2013, Sherry Turkle (TED-Ed 2013) counteracts this viewpoint and instead raises “her concerns about people becoming connected only through technology, and therefore disconnected from their inner and outer lives and personal real-world contexts” (‘1.3 Is technology redefining human connection?’ 2017). You can watch Turkle’s discussion here.

Although generalised, it is remarkable to hear of the high expectations that society had for technology in Wesier’s 1991 article. Interestingly, this brings us back to Turkle’s comment in 2013 – “we expect more from technology and less from each other” (TED-Ed 2013). It is interesting to learn that society appears to have always trusted technology, even in its earliest developments.

Due to the introduction of emerging technologies such as email, instant messaging applications, virtual meeting programs, social media platforms, online forums and more, evidently, we are always connected with one another. Over time, a lifestyle that thrives on constant digital connection, communication and collaboration with others may contribute to feelings of digital overload. This can lead us to feel disconnected and isolated from each other in ‘the real-world’, encourage a sense of loneliness and also, diminish our sense of belonging. As a result, technology has helped us to “become accustomed to a new way of being alone together” (TED-Ed 2013).

For more information, please see this article on conquering digital distractions in the 21st century – it is very interesting.

Because technology can be “so psychologically powerful that it [they don’t] doesn’t only change what we do, it changes [they change] who we are” (TED-Ed 2013), I believe that society should be better informed of the role and its impact that digital communities and social media can have on our lives. By practising frequent self-reflection regarding our personal online and digital usage, we can control if and/or how technology changes us and/or our behaviour in the real-world. By doing so, we may also fight against the status quo and challenge Turkle’s assumption that "we expect more from technology and less from each other” (TED-Ed 2013).

 479 words

References

- ‘1.2 Statistics’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Modules: WEEK 1: Introduction to digital communities and social media platforms on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 19 Nov 2017, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/1-dot-2-statistics?module_item_id=6740>.

- ‘1.3 Is technology redefining human connection?’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Modules: WEEK 1: Introduction to digital communities and social media platforms on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 19 Nov 2017, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/1-dot-3-is-technology-redefining-human-connection?module_item_id=6741>.

- ‘2.2 Communities’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Modules: WEEK 2: Social theory and social media on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 19 Nov 2017, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/modules>

- Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and social media’, in Understanding new media, SAGE, London, pp. 191-208.

- TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone? - Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 25 November 2017, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

- Weiser, M 1991, ‘The computer for the 21st century’, Scientific American, vol. 265, no. 3, pp. 94 – 104.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

The following quote really made me think: “By practising frequent self-reflection regarding our personal online and digital usage, we can control if and/or how technology changes us and/or our behaviour in the real-world”.  As much as I love interacting in digital communities, I agree we do owe ourselves some time to reflect on how this new way of interaction is transforming us.

[amandafelb09-blog]

Digital Communities

Prior to social media, people primarily congregated together via proximity within their home town and managed their image via their dress, language, choice of career, social circles, family stature and hobbies (Wilken & McCosker, 2014). There was no manner in which to erase something that occurred in real time and socialising generally occurred face to face.

People crave empathy from others yet friendships are often disappointing (Turkle, 2013). Following the invention of the internet in the 1990’s, digital technology allowed a new form of socialising to unravel that connected people far beyond proximity. Social media is an electronic tool that allows the public to distribute and access information, chat online and develop relationships. Social networking platforms allow the public to maintain a public or partially public profile whilst connecting with other users (Murthy, 2013).

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms allow people to participate in a type of online democracy, connected by their beliefs, values, interests and sub-cultures with no formalised leader (Siapera, 2012). They provide companionship without the negative aspects of friendship and allow people to manage their own perceived image online (Turkle, 2013).

Personalisation, customisation and portability of membership creates networked individualism for users (Siapera, 2012). One can log on 24/7 to the same place from any location, reveal as much or as little as they wish to and operate within any groups of interest they want to (Siapera, 2012). Unexpected benefits were seen when a man with HIV was able to blog about the details of his illness which allowed his friends and others to properly understand HIV, in turn decreasing social awkwardness and stigmas about his medical condition (Boyd, 2012).

With these benefits comes a number of disadvantages. For example, digital communities can facilitate conversation that leads people to polarised groups of like-minded people who then miss out on hearing diverse and contradictory ideas (Gillespie, 2010). Platforms often don’t allow people to represent themselves across different parts of their lives, such as professionally and socially (Siapera, 2012). Up to 34% of employers said they did not hire a candidate after scanning them on social media (Forbes, 2017) and numerous people have been fired after comments they made on social networking sites (Price, 2016). There is also privacy to consider when personal details are volunteered by users, or expected as part of membership terms (Gillespie, 2010). It is difficult to estimate the negative impact social media has on society. For example, knowing people in one’s local community can lower the crime rate (Putnam, 2012) and yet this form of neighbourly friendship has dropped dramatically since social media’s inception. Digital communities have ultimately added a layer to the presence and accessibility people offer the world resulting in positive and negative impacts that are still unfolding (Wilken & McCosker, 2014).

References

Boyd, D 2012, ‘Participating in the always-on lifestyle’, in M Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

Forbes, 2013, ‘How social media can help or hurt your job search’, viewed 13 November 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/04/16/how-social-media-can-help-or-hurt-your-job-search/#1c5ce6ce7ae2.

Gillespie, T 2010, 'The politics of platforms’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Price, L 2016, ’20 tales of employees who were fired because of social media posts’, viewed 16 November 2017, http://people.com/celebrity/employees-who-were-fired-because-of-social-media-posts.

Putnam, R 2012, Robert Putnam - Bowling Alone, 19 December, viewed 13 November 2017, <http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4236758/robert-putnam-bowling-alone>.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media’, in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 9 November 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014, 'Social Selves’, in Cunningham & Turnbull (eds), The Media & Communications in Australia, Allen and Unwin pp. 291-295.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Here is a very good description of what Digital Communities are.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

Of communication and technologies.

Did you know that living in social isolation has been associated with unhealthy habits and higher rates of mortality?1

                To fully function, we humans need social contact as much as we need a healthy diet and a good sleep. Historically, we were only able to interact physically, and while the invention of the telephone in 1876 made it possible to speak with one another at any given distance, the Internet has completely revolutionised the concept of human interaction. Of particular interest in this new paradigm of communication is the role of ‘Social Media’. This recent new way of socialisation, which skyrocketed with the arrival of Facebook (some time between 2007 and 2008), lead to the creation of communities that only exist in the virtual world – known as ‘Digital Communities’.

There are currently more than 100 Social Media websites (including online dating sites)2. It is worth noting that although ‘Social Media’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘Social Networks´, they do not represent the same concept. Indeed, while ‘Social Media’ is a broad term that encompasses the electronic tools that people use to share information (i.e., Websites, apps)3, ‘Social Networks’ are the actual platform that facilitates and encourages users to create a profile so that they can interact with other individuals or groups of interest (i.e., Facebook). 

Although Social Media was initially aimed to connect individuals for socialisation purposes, nowadays its proliferation is such that a great amount of business rely on this ‘new digital world’ for advertising, sales, and ultimately to provide customer service. Not surprisingly, a recent report4 has shown that eight in 10 Australians are social media users.

CRITICISMS TO SOCIAL MEDIA It is characteristic for every big shift in humanity to entail criticisms, and the arrival of ‘Social Networks’ is clearly not the exception. For example, in a very popular TED Talk5 Sherry Turkle warned that a constant use of social networks will be likely to disengage us from what really matters – the human (physical) contact. Turkle’s viewpoint is by no means an isolated critique, but it reflects the concern of many sociologists, psychologists, and scholars from various fields6. Nevertheless, there is another group of scholars who have been studying the social media phenomena who seem to have a less pessimistic yet critical view about social networks. Instead of assuming that these will sooner or later lead to the apocalypse of natural human interactions, researchers like Siapera7 focus on how this new technology will transform us as societies, without rushing to draw conclusions. Personally, I believe that this viewpoint is way more constructive than the one which reduces social media to a mere problem which requires urgent intervention. 

After all, do humans possess a unique and intrinsic way of communicating, or is this rather a feature that is constantly evolving?

References

Gillespie, T 2010, 'The politics of platforms', New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Mehra, G 2017, ‘105 Leading Social Networks Worldwide’, Practical Ecommerce, viewed November 18, <https://www.practicalecommerce.com/105-leading-social-networks-worldwide>.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age, Wiley, New York.

Sensis 2017, ‘Social media report 2017’, 22 June, viewed 12 November 2017, <https://www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis_Social_Media_Report_2017-Chapter-1.pdf>.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media', in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P. and Wardle, J., 2013, ‘Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, no 15, pp. 5797-5801.

Turkle, S 2013, ‘Connected, but alone?’, TED-Ed 2013, viewed 7 November 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

[insanjuniperowetrust-blog]

What are your thoughts?