Shadowy Dreamer

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Let’s Play

The extent of my gaming involves solitaire card game on my laptop.  I cannot honestly say that I can understand the online gamer, but I do understand the community aspect of getting together with people to play games.   Maybe a tad old fashioned but I get together with my friends and family for game nights on a regular basis in the real world.  The benefits of these events are the social re-enforcement and building of relationships that happen during the night.  True we do already have a standing relationship, but this gives us a chance to connect and strengthen the bonds.  I assume that online environment games such as EVE Online serve pretty much the same purpose but on a larger scale.

Amanda’s comments in the discussion gave me a more in-depth understanding of online gaming communities with her explanation about the support and validation from the individuals involved and how they have carried these relationships into the real world.  In marketing these are considered our reference groups and they are people we either aspire to be like or have an influence over our behaviour. With things like gaming our peers would have a greater influence on us than any other reference groups such as our families.

Further reflecting the real world, online games facilitate bonding and conflict between players in the actual game environment.  The gaming environments have several levels of governances and as described in ‘The lawless frontiers of deep space (2014) paper they consist of the rules implemented by the designers of the platform when constructing it and include the contract that the players have to agree to if they wish to participate.  Secondly the actual rules of the game and lastly the conduct of the players within the gaming environment, all these will influence the players perspective of the game.

According to the 2016 Video Game Statistics & Trends Who’s Playing What & Why (Lofgren, 2016) 48% of women and 50% of men play online games, and 49% of all Americans play games.  Interestingly in the same report 58% of adults (32% game players and 26% gamers) who play games think that there is too much violence in the games, pointing out one of the negative aspects of the gaming environment and presenting a concern about children’s involvement.

However, despite common beliefs, most gamers are fully grown adults, the average Australian gamer is 32 years old, and a significant portion of them have been playing for over a decade.  The number of men and women involved in the gaming environment is approximately a fifty-fifty split.  Whether you are for it or against it, with 95% of the Australian households having a gaming device the future for gaming is only going to get better as the next generation grow up with gaming in their life. (Dominguez, 2012)

References:

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

Lofgren K 2016, 2016 Video Game Statistics & Trends Who’s Playing What & Why, <https://www.bigfishgames.com/blog/2016-video-game-statistics-and-trends/>, Viewed: 25 Jan 2018

Dominguez J 2012, New statistics reveal the face of Australian gaming, The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, <http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/blog/screenplay/new-statistics-reveal-the-face-of-australian-gaming-20120801-23g49.html>, Viewed: 25 Jan 2018

Images:

Benji 2016, One thing everyone needs while online gaming, Image, <http://uac.ac/one-thing-online-gaming/>, Viewed: 26 Jan 2018

Tech Crates 2012, Modern Online Gaming as Social Interaction, Tech Crates website, Image, <http://www.techcrates.com/modern-online-gaming-as-social-interaction/>, Viewed: 29 Jan 2018

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

To Post or Not to Post that Image

They say that a picture speaks a thousand words, and it is obvious that many people believe that because posting of photographs onto social media platform of your choice is increasing at a staggering rate. Many platforms use visual components to facilitate connection between their users, this development is known as networked visuality.

It is believed that availability and quality of photography and video equipment has afforded the proliferation of this medium on social networking sites.  It is no longer a ‘sometimes event’ commemorating special occasions but an everyday occurrence used to mark moments of interest.  The central subject of this movement is the selfie photograph.

As far as selfies go, they are nothing new.  In the old days people still took selfie photographs, so that is not so much the issue.  The issue is the purpose and use of these photographs then and now.  In the 'Videos of Affinity' (Lang, 2009) paper it refers to people using these videos and photographs to change opinion, try and improve acceptance for all individuals, being part of an activist movement.  However, most selfies are not used in that way.

So, the question then, is why are we taking and uploading selfies today?  Nathan Jurgenson in the YouTube video ‘Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media’ (2014) states that we all act as curators in the museum of our lives taking a record of everything that comes along to preserve it through documentation.  However, do we really feel like that or is it like he further states that it is so that we can get more social or cultural capital through our social media accounts and faux value to our lives.  Do we diminish the value of our existence by recording everything and anything that comes along?

Putting non-descript selfies among the sea of other non-descript selfies seems like a cry for attention and nothing more.  A good reason for existence is missing for a lot of the pictures and videos that are uploaded to everyone but the person posting it. It has been pointed out by Jurgenson (2014) that the availability of an audience is the main reason for social media existence and in turn I think that lends itself to the selfie as an extension of that process.

But are we oversharing.  In my opinion unless you have obtained my permission to share the photo or video with me, yes you are overstepping your bounds.  The real problem is that everyone can see the photographs and in most part, they become junk mail or advertising, a bother, a waste of my time.  The issue is not the technology, it falls back on the people because sharing of any sort, including visual, is a privilege not a right, we need to learn to respect that and each other.  You want to take selfies, go for it.  You want to share them with me, ask me first.

Links:

Photography, Self Documentation & Social Media video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnPtZ5lKDHo

 References:

Jason Farman 2014, Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media: An Interview with Nathan Jurgenson, 16 June, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnPtZ5lKDHo>, Viewed: 8 Jan 2018

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

Images:

Erwin T 2016, Tim Erwin reviews How To See the World, Critical Enquiry website, Image, <https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/tim_erwin_reviews_how_to_see_the_world/>, Viewed: 26 Jan 2018

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Who Is Speaking

The World Health Organisations deals with crisis regularly and in their Strategic Communications Framework brochure they state that effective, integrated and co-ordinated communication is integral to their work.  They further state that there are six pillars to their communication strategy whether through mass media, online or on the ground.  They are:

Accessible – that the right people can reach the information when and in a way that suits their needs

Actionable – that the audience will be moved towards whatever action is needed

Credible and Trusted – that the information is seen as credible and that the organisation is speaking with once voice

Relevant – that the information provided is relevant to the situation and the audience

Timely – that the organisation communicates what they know early and build the conversation themselves

Understandable – use of appropriate language specific to the audience and to build a story if necessary

I think these pillars of communication are important to this week’s learnings, as many of the examples studied proved that emergency organisations were either overwhelmed or left behind in the tidal wave of crowd sourced information resulting from a crisis.

Although communication during crisis situations is critical, the availability of communication channels and the credibility of the sources of information make this process complicated.  As demonstrated through the learning material, there are several channels that are available for communicating in a crisis, however the relevance and effectiveness of these channels and integrity of the information shared varied greatly.

Social media as a platform for sharing information both about what is happening and what resources are available to those affected by the crisis are proving to have value.  However, as previously mentioned the credibility of the information is paramount to the effectiveness of this process.  All the readings alluded to the fact that as channels of communication social media platforms were useful but would still require a lot of development, particularly in strategy and skills of the official bodies using them.

The Queensland Police proved that social media could be used effectively in both disseminating information and guiding the conversation through their Twitter account during the 2011 Queensland floods.  They strongly lead the conversation between Twitter users and the media in spreading the right information, sidestepping misleading or incorrect information and focusing on the issue at hand rather than sensationalism of the crisis (Bruns et al, 2012).

However, the involvement of various social media platforms during the Boston Marathon bombing proved to be disastrous.  Because the information dissemination was led by the public, false information flooded the social media, accusations and misinformation were rampant and the emergency authorities were not in control of the information flow.

As examined in the ‘Crowd Wisdom’ (Ford, 2012) article, the Ushahidi platforms effectiveness and relevance was dependent on cultural drivers of the population where it was being used and whether the people trusted it as a source of information.  Heather Ford further stated that verifying the information for accuracy was a critical factor and was depended on the teams who were at ground level, their experience at gathering data and evaluating it for verification.

All this proves that there are many potential uses for crowd sourcing of information in emergency situations, however, there are still many problems that need to be addressed, particularly the one of strategic development and ability of the emergency organisations involved.

Links:

WHO Strategic Communications Framework for Effective Communications Link: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/communication-framework.pdf

Wikipedia - Boston Marathon bombings in 2014: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings

References:

Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Crawford, K & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods, Arc Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, pp. 7-10, <http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf>, Viewed: 3 Jan 2018,

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

 Images:

Berke PR 2017, Why is Houston so vulnerable to devastating floods?, BBC News website, Image, <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41107049>, Viewed: 24 Jan 2018

Day J 2016, How Crowdsourcing Can Benefit Education, Ideascale website, Image, <https://ideascale.com/how-crowdsourcing-can-benefit-education/>, Viewed: 24 Jan 2018

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Freedom of Expression

My personal beliefs are that some people are held in check by their own beliefs and character and others by societies rules, regulations and restraints.  Have you ever moved to another city or state with an extended family member or friends and found their behaviour changed?  I have, and I remember everyone who knew them asking why they are so different, they used to be so much nicer.  These people were held in check by societies boundaries and suddenly felt free to express who they really were without inhibitions of their surroundings. Imagine this person on the internet. This is represented perfectly by the graphic found in section 7.2 Trolling and Provocation (Digital Communities, 2017).

A book written by philosopher Plato called the ‘Republic’ examines this theory.  In which his character Glaucon poses a question what people would do if they knew they would never be caught or made ashamed of.  Believing that the natural tendency of the human being is towards inappropriate behaviour but because people who experienced inappropriate behaviour didn’t like it, social rules were created to govern citizens behaviours (LaBossiere, 2009).

However, not all cases of inappropriate behaviour on the internet can be classified as trolling, hate or flaming.  In my previous post I pointed out that people pursuing social or political change through activism and social jamming are often voices of compassion and reason in our society, however they would also be seen as antagonists and possibly trollers and flamers.   It is also likely they may be made ridicule of or maybe even abused for their beliefs.  In the article ‘Trolling as Provocation’ McCosker (2014) points out that we need to examine these behaviours in terms of context, that internet content may create lively debate on a particular subject and that it also forms part of freedom of expression that the internet provides, we should not want to curb that behaviour.

As pointed out by Danah Boyd (2014) in the case of teenagers, bullying has always existed, it is just the fact that the audience is so much larger now.  She also points out that what one generation sees as bullying another sees it in context of their social existence and that sometimes people on the social media are friends and at other times they are enemies, but it is never permanent but situational.  We need to understand what we are faced with in this respect before we rush forward to implement rules and regulations that might prove to be ineffective.  

Further to that argument most people behave decently on the internet and social media platforms.  The evidence points to the internet being a spotlight that highlights people’s true nature and just like in real world society there is a spectrum of behavioural patterns which are generationally focused.  Therefore, the destructive nature of the trolling behaviour on the internet needs to be looked at contextually and appropriate resources need to be created to govern such behaviour if necessary.

References:

Boyd D 2014, Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, USA, pp.128-152

Digital Communities 2017, 7.2 Trolling and Provocation, Learning Material on Canvas, Swinburn University of Technology, 18 December, Viewed: 30 Dec 2017

LaBossiere M 2009, Summary of Plato’s Ring of Gyges, A Philosopher's Blog, <https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/summary-of-platos-ring-of-gyges/>, Viewed: 30 Dec 2017

McCosker A 2014, Trolling as Provocation: YouTube’s Agonistic Publics, The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, Volume 20(2) pp.201-217

Images:

Murphy A n.d, Freedom of speech, human rights, freedom of expression, censorship concept - icons set, Image, Dreamstime website, <https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-illustration-freedom-speech-human-rights-freedom-expression-censorship-concept-icons-set-s-right-to-communicate-their-opinions-ideas-image74050091>, Viewed: 22 Jan 2018

Trulioo 2013, What’s the difference between a Cyber-Bully and a Cyber-Troll?, Innovations in IdentityBlog, Image, <https://www.trulioo.com/blog/is-there-a-difference-between-cyberbullies-and-cyber-trolls/>, Viewed: 22 Jan 2018

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Productive Activism

We as human beings are great at leaping without looking, not associating consequences with actions we take, and to some extent maybe that is what was required to become the dominant species on this planet, but, as usual, at what cost.  We have seen many cases of our own invention coming back to bite us, particularly when economic factors are involved such as described in Social Media Revolution video.

The industrial revolution that polluted our air, water and land and deteriorated our environment.  The efficient monoculture farms that produced copious quantities of one variety of grains, plants or livestock, and eventually deteriorated the quality of our food supply.  Pharmaceutical industry that was going to solve all our diseases with their various medicines and created the superbugs that they are struggling to control now. Don’t get me wrong I would not want to live at any other time than now with all our modern conveniences, but we need a social conscious that will curb our self-destruct mode and guide us on future developments.  These voices of reason or agents of change are the activists and social jammers.

Activism, the action necessary to bring about social or political change, as a process is most powerful when it is applied locally. We may want to change global issues, but we need to look at how we can do this locally, within our country, state, city or suburb.  However, that doesn’t mean that social media has no use for these activities on the contrary as a means of unification, co-ordination and communication the internet and social media are vital to activism and social jamming.

I hear the term ‘think global, act local’ a lot in reference to business activities, but I think it equally applies to social and political change.  If we are ever going to become citizens of a true digital community, then we cannot focus on only our problems but look at the many layers of this digital community and try to be effective in this global environment.  As stated in section 6.2 Local Digital Activism (Digital Communities, 2017), social media allows activists a cost-effective voice, higher potential for spreading the message and gaining support from the community whether they live locally or on the other side of the world.  When an organisation can effectively organise their message globally and enlist supporters to show up in the real world, change is possible.

When team C asked what is an example of successful jamming that I am aware of I thought of Gandhi and how he changed the power base of India.  I wondered how he would have done it today and realised the extra power of a unified world through social media that would have been behind him, co-ordinated protests happening in various cities around the world.  Yes, there is power behind these platforms, but it is driven by human beings on the ground and in the real world.

Links:

Social Media Revolution Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFYPQjYhv8&feature=youtu.be

References:

Digital Communities 2017, 6.2 Local Digital Activism, Learning Material on Canvas, Swinburn University of Technology, 11 December, Viewed: 20 Dec 2017

Images:

Armano D 2017, 5 Types of Activism Every Brand Should Prepare for, Even If You’re Not Taking SidesHow to balance value and values in the activist economy, AdWeek website, Image, <http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/5-types-of-activism-every-brand-should-prepare-for-even-if-youre-not-taking-sides/>, Viewed: 20 Jan 2018

 Day P 1949, ‘I may not be alive’, A visit with Mahatma Gandhi, PULITZER website, <http://www.pulitzer.org/article/visit-mahatma-gandhi>, Viewed: 20 Jan 2018

[branuworld-blog]

Blog #3 Politics and civic cultures

Social media, politics and the young

A Youth Electoral Study conducted in 2011 by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) showed that parents were the greatest source of information for youth with respect to voting in elections (Australian Electoral Commission, Youth Electoral Study 2011). However, in the space of only a few years, it appears that other sources have captured the attention of politically inclined youth.

A 2014 study of youth from Australia, the US and the UK suggests a strong link between social media use and political engagement (Xenos et al. 2014, p. 155). Today’s youth engage less in traditional types of citizen participation, and engage more in volunteering, digital networking, and consumer activism (Xenos et al. 2014, p. 155). Through these modern types of citizen participation, today’s young people appear to be more politically astute (Xenos et al. 2014, p. 155). Consider the 2017 same sex postal survey, and the surprisingly high percentage of young people aged 18-19 and 20-24 who participated in the vote (81 percent and 76 percent respectively) (Sisson & Baker 2017). These results show a level of political engagement that has not been seen amongst this demographic in the past (Packham 2017).

Whilst it may simply reflect young people’s passion for equality, it cannot be denied that it also reflects the extent to which young people were targeted by and engaged in this voting campaign, for which social media has surely played a significant part.

The emergence of social media has provided politicians with an opportunity to talk directly to their constituents and, in particular, young people who have in the past been somewhat politically indifferent (Packham 2017).

Are politicians exploiting their social media reach?

Social media presents an opportunity for politicians to engage with the public without having to campaign on foot or kiss babies.

Constituents can contact any willing politician with a social media account and ask them all manner of questions regarding their political campaigns, or spark debate over certain policies and decisions. However, it appears few politicians utilise social media in this way, instead they simply broadcast, and this does little to engage people or change their votes (Jericho 2012, p. 262-263).

One politician who has taken full advantage of social media in engaging with the public is New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. On the eve of the New Zealand election, Twitter users were afforded the opportunity to ask questions directly to Jacinda live on Twitter, using the #AskJacinda hashtag. Jacinda responded by tweeting back and, in some cases, by video. What differed in this scenario was that the conversations on Twitter were guided not by Jacinda, but by the people themselves. It showed a willingness on Jacinda’s part to listen to the public rather than to simply promote the talents of her political party (Jericho 2012, p. 264). If anything is likely to strengthen young people’s political engagement, it is the heady mix of modern citizen participation via social media and politicians with communication skills to match Jacinda Ardern’s.

References:

Australian Electoral Commission, Youth Electoral Study (YES) 2011, Report 1: Enrolment and voting, Figure 5 <http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/youth_study/youth_study_1/page03.htm>

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

Packham, C 2017, ‘Stirred by same-sex marriage vote, Australia’s youth gets serious’, Reuters, 6 October, viewed 22 January 2018, <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-politics-youthquake/stirred-by-same-sex-marriage-vote-australias-youth-gets-serious-idUSKBN1CB07D>

Politicians kissing babies, n.d., image, viewed 22 January 2018, <http://swartdonkey.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/kissing-babies.html>

Sisson, S & Baker, P 2017, ‘What the numbers say (and don’t say) in the same-sex marriage survey’, The Conversation, 15 November, viewed 22 January 2018, < https://theconversation.com/what-the-numbers-say-and-dont-say-in-the-same-sex-marriage-survey-87096>

Twitter, n.d., image, viewed 22 January 2018, <https://twitter.com/jacindaardern?lang=en>

Xenos, M, Vromen, A & Loader, B 2014, ‘The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies’, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 151-167, viewed 22 January 2018, via Routledge.

Yes equality, n.d., image, viewed 22 January 2018, < http://www.equalitycampaign.org.au/home>

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Great account of younger generations involvment in politics due to social media use

[samanthalaurablog-blog]

#8 Social Gaming...Social Impact

What do you think of when you first hear the words social gaming? A young boy on his play station with a headpiece talking to his game friends, a man on his PC playing Warcraft games or a middle aged women addicted to Farmville…. In reality it refers to gaming that allows those playing to interact with others they know in real life (JustNuclear 2015) There are several factors that differentiate social games from normal games: It has the ability to take turns, without being able to do so it can be harder to be social, awareness of other’s actions in a game, whether it be their level in the game or online game gifting and finally that it is based on some form of social platform i.e. Facebook. (O’Neill 2008)

With the market for social gaming continuing to grow over the last decade, it is certain that it is a success as both an easy past time for those using a digital device that allows for both stimulation and interaction. Judging by the number of Facebook fans alone, social gaming is commanding great attention by consumers, in 2017 the social online fames market was worth 2.15 billion US dollars……that’s a lot of people playing games together. (Statista 2017)

So it may seem these social games are straightforward and pointless but a revolution of creating real change through social games is present online. Social app developers such as Sojo Studios, WeTopia and Joy Kingdom create games that turn players’ points into monetary donations to benefit not-for-profit causes. WeTopia as an example had encouraged gamers to play not just for enjoyment themselves but for a cause, in 2012 the game provided 1 million days of school for children in Haiti, 7 million litres of clean, safe drinking water in Haiti as well as 32,000 hours of nutrition and literacy programs for U.S students, 45,000 meal for children in Las Vegas and 700 thousand hot meals for children in need. (Swallow 2013)

(Huffpost Facebook Game 2011) 

Once we know the kind of social impact social gaming can have, it can be hard to still just envision the stereotypical gamers, it becomes an image of an effort from everyone to not only be social online but to contribute to doing good in the world.

 References:

Huffpost 2011, ‘WeTopia Facebook Game InfoGraphic’ [image], in article by Heinz, E, viewed 5 February 2018,<http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/wetopia-facebook-game-charity_n_1117549>

JustNuclear 2015, ‘Social Gamer’, Urban Dictionary, 29 July, viewed 5 February 2018, <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Social%20Gamer>

O’Neill, N 2008, ‘What Exactly are Social Games?’, Adweek, 31 July, viewed 5 February 2018, < http://www.adweek.com/digital/social-games/>

Statista 2017, social gaming – Statistics & Facts, The Statistics Portal, viewed 5 February 2018, < https://www.statista.com/topics/2965/social-gaming/>

 Swallow, E 2013, ‘How Social Games Are Changing the World’, Forbes, 23 March, viewed 5 February 2018, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaswallow/2013/03/23/social-games/>

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Excellent account of the gameing world

[cadenamckenzie]

Cyber bulling and Trolls

When you think of social media you think of selfies and trolls. Anonymity allows for people to feel disconnected from the consequences of their actions. As such cyber bullying has become epidemic among younger social media users. The natural inclination of teenagers to push boundaries and see if they hold becomes dangerous in the minimally accountably cyber worlds that they inhabit.

No longer do you need to see the real-world consequence of your words such as tears or even a fist flown in retaliation, children are finding that they can say whatever hurtful things they want from the safety of their own rooms, knowing it will be hours if not days before they need to see that person again.

Just recently in New Zealand, an Auckland intermediate school (years 7-8) is encouraging parents to deny students access to Facebook in attempt to combat bullying over social media. Despite the age minimum of 13, Facebook struggle to police the ages of its users meaning many younger than that have accounts.

Because of the primarily solo activity of social media interaction the bullying through its platforms can feel isolating and like there is no support for the victims. Children are facing sometimes multiple people creating and sharing negative comments and content about them while not having friends nearby adding the support in numbers. It can make the whole experience feel overwhelming.

According to the Megan Meier Foundation 34% of students experience cyber bullying during their lifetime. Considering ‘cyber’ anything didn’t really exist more than 10 years ago that’s a terrifying statistic. Studies have shown that cyber bullying is linked with higher rates of self-harm and suicide.

Trolling a more common, adult version of cyber bullying. It is usually someone saying purposefully inflammatory remarks to incite anger, outrage or simply insult the audience or individual. Unfortunately, a troll can always turn around and simply say it was for the laughs, I was playing devils advocate etc and wipe their hands of the situation.

On the odd occasion, trolling the internet has become a job. There are many cases of people being paid to say inflammatory things that will drive traffic to the website through people trying to defend their ideals, fandom or stance. By purposely undermining a beloved idea, the troll invites people to defend the stance, utilizing the full passion of those who hold it. As many people express their outrage, sharing and spreading the post/article/tweet further through the network, the page hits start racking in and the page therefore starts getting more money from advertising, better page ranking on google etc. Insulting and hurting people has become a tool to advance one’s algorithmic profitability.

Causing psychological and emotional damage to another person for fun or profit is an appalling abuse of the internet. And yet it is on the rise. Lets just hope when we see it we can let the victims of cyber bullying know they are not alone. And let’s cut the demand off for inflammatory remarks. As they say:

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Exceptional account of bullying and trolling.  All parents should be concerned.

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Politics Not as Usual

The Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.) states that civil society is a noun and defined it as ‘society considered as a community of citizens linked by common interests and collective activity’.  The pillars of civil society are said to be reason, fairness, justice and freedom of expression which should promote respect that people have for each other and harmonious relationships between the citizens of a diverse society (Burns 2014).  One of the main points examined this week was that the internet afforded everyone those aspects, but particularly the freedom of expression of persons political views, valued as a democratic entitlement.

Exploring what it means to be a ‘digital citizen’ in a global environment such as the internet made me wonder if I am taking a responsible enough position and keeping my countries politicians in check. Very few of us realise that the politicians are called public servants for a reason.  They act on our behalf; therefore, they serve us.  We need to hold them accountable for their promises as well as actions and with the internet we have greater opportunity to do just that.

Political parties and individual politicians are using websites and various social media platforms to connect with the voters, but are they connecting on what is really important or just spurting campaigning propaganda.  I know that when I read the question posed by team B, if I was a social media follower of any political party or politician, the answer was, no.  I thought about my actions and found that I was guilty of mostly ignoring the political parties and their activities assuming that I had very little power to influence their behaviour.  As was noted on the discussion board by a couple of people it is a personal choice if you wished to be involved in political issues and I was finding that I fell short.

I would therefore, question if the social media campaign Kevin Rudd ran was more oriented towards popularity and destroying the opposition than about his policies.  The YouTube segmented focused on the social media campaign rather than on the policies. In fact, the small story by-line was that there was a slight hitch in the governments PNG solution to refugees, which we now realise was a huge mistake in policy for the then government and an incredible humanitarian disaster.  Would things have been different if we held the government accountable, examined the policy and contributed to the conversation on that policy and possibly alternatives, one can only wonder.

In her video Jodi Dean (2013) talks specifically about this aspect of social media and politics and discuss that when we focus on the platforms specificity we lose the power that that medium has to affect real change.  I know that both Greg Jericho (2012) and Sally Young (2010) from our reading list discussed in depth the aptitude of the politicians to use the internet in general and social media in particular but even they both focused on the platforms, powerplays of various contributors and the economic sustainability of these, but absolutely no one focused on what the voter could or perhaps should do as a ‘digital citizen’ to affect real change in Australian politics leading to a more tolerant and democratic Australia, I think it is time we did.

Link:

Kevin Rudd Campaign YouTube video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtN-ffRFccI

References:

Burns K 2014, The Rule of Law and Civil Society, <https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/rule-of-law-and-civil-society/>, Viewed: 5 Jan 2018

Dean J 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3, DCU School of Communications, speech, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>, Viewed: 15 Dec 2017

Jericho G 2012, Chapter 9 How Many Votes Are There on Twitter? pp 254-278, Rise of the Fifth Estate - Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politics, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd. Australia

Oxford English Dictionary n.d., Civil society phrase, <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/civil_society>, Viewed: 5 Jan 2018

Young S 2010, Chapter 10 NEWS, POLITICAL REPORTING AND THE INTERNET pp 203-228, How Australia Decides - Election Reporting and the Media, Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Images:

Financial Review 2015, How well do you know Australian politics?, Image, <http://www.afr.com/news/politics/how-well-do-you-know-australian-politics-20150826-gj7w6b>, Viewed: 6 Jan 2018

Sheales R 2013, Policy over politics?, The Age newspaper, Image, <http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/voice/policy-over-politics-20130704-2pe5v.html>, Viewed: 6 Jan 2018

Winsor B 2016, Recap: The last five years in Australian Politics, SBS website, <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/article/2016/06/20/recap-last-five-years-australian-politics>, Viewed: 6 Jan 2018

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Social Media Affordance

Affordances are frameworks that create environments that allow different stakeholders to come together and enable the relationships between them.  Stakeholders could be divided into human, including end-users, developers, researchers and advertisers; and non-human such as algorithms, application programming interfaces (API) and the social media platforms themselves. (Helmond et al, 2016)

The affordances are multidirectional, continuously flowing between all the participants in the framework.  The environments are dynamic and have a continuous feedback loop between the various users through developer designed interfaces.  “When Twitter implemented new algorithmic timeline function, it did not only afford end-users to receive relevant content first, but this relevance is in its turn established by those same end-users liking, replying and retweeting content thereby affording things back to the algorithm and the platform.” (Helmond et al, 2016)

According to Emily van der Nagel’s article ‘Faceless Bodies’ (2013) there are two kinds of affordances associated with social media, the cultural and the technological.  Cultural affordances are interactions between human users on the platforms, and with the platforms themselves.  They include things such as posts, tweets, shares, hashtags, commentary, voting or liking of the posted material.

Through social media interaction we can form new relationships or maintain existing ones such as discussed by dana boyd in her article ‘Participating in the Always on Lifestyle’ (2014) of the HIV patient that found liberation in blogging about his condition and treatments.  He believed that it gave him freedom of expression about what was happening to him, while allowing his friends the freedom of consumption of this information as they wished.  However, most new online relationships form due to rational will which is goal oriented, in other words we form relationships with people who have similar interests or goals as us.

van der Nagel explains social media cultural affordances to be driven by standards that drive normal society such as societal stereotypes and what is deemed as acceptable behaviour.  She specifically looks at the practice of anonymity, exploring how removal of identity and elimination of accountability facilitate freedom of expression and exploration of practices that might not be tolerated in real world society.

The second affordance type is the technological. These are the user interfaces, the algorithms, the API’s and the platform programs. These control actions of users, gather information on user’s preferences and activities, connect them with other platforms and set limits on the interactions the users can have with each other.  The technological affordances can either be perceptible or hidden such as the algorithms that operate in the background without the user’s awareness.  Some of the end-user relevant affordances included the like buttons and tracking cookies.

The adaptability of interfaces and accounts give the technology a personalized touch for its users. However, this customization is always within the specified structure of the program, limiting the user’s interaction with the technology. Today’s technologies are increasingly adaptive, they continuously learn from the users.  “This means that the digital environment does not merely offer something to its users, users’ needs and individual likings and behaviours increasingly play a generative role in producing those very offerings in the first place.” (Helmond et al, 2016)

Technological affordances do not exist in isolation and have human perceptions and interpretations, these are dependent on who the user is.  End-users will have a different affordance of Facebook for instance than the developers who develop apps for it, or the advertisers who want to utilise it to sell products or services.

  Refrences:

Helmond A Bucher T 2016, The Affordances of Social Media Platforms, <http://www.annehelmond.nl/2016/08/01/the-affordances-of-social-media-platforms/>, Viewed: 6th Dec 2017

MuleSoft Videos 2015, What is an API?, YouTube Video, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7wmiS2mSXY>, Viewed: 8th Dec 2017

Nagel vd E 2013, Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild, Journal of Media Arts Culture, Volume 10, No. 2, 2013

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Social Media – Utopia or Destruction

Digital Communities unit explores various aspects of social media – what it is, how we use it and how it impacts our lives.  There is no question that we have unprecedented ways of connecting with each other and sharing information.  However, does that improve our lives, and what legacy are we leaving our children.  Is social media the utopia we have been looking for or is this the beginning of the end.  

dana boyd states in Participating in the Always on Lifestyle that all people are wanting is to be part of a network, to connect with each other. That this modern technology gives us a choice of who, how and when we connect and helps us mediate difficult social situations in new ways that are resetting social boundaries.

However, the danger we are facing is in the young, inexperienced people of our society setting the boundaries of societal development before they have fully discovered themselves and how to be human. For the first time in history it is the teenagers and young adults who are setting the boundaries of social existence because they invent the technology and they know more about its use then their parents.

Knowledge historically was passed from experienced adults to the young in proportion deemed suitable for the age.  Today, I hear parents saying if you need help with technology ask a teenager.  But what does that mean to our society and to our young people who don’t necessarily know how to associate consequences of always being connected.

According to Actuaries Institute paper on Mental Health and Insurance “One in five Australians aged over  15 will be affected by a mental health condition in any 12 month period.”    The same report states that 3 million Australians will suffer conditions such as anxieties and phobias, depression as well as substance abuse as shown in the graph below from the report (page 9).

The Australian Bureau of Statistics in their 2007 National Survey Of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Summary of Results defines mental illness as “‘A clinically diagnosable disorder that significantly interferes with an individual’s cognitive, emotional or social abilities”.  The scariest statistics of the report are the age groups that are affected by mental illness. As shown in the graphic below from the same report (page 9) the largest group is 16 to 24-year-olds.

Dr Jean Twenge, professor of psychology and author of the book ‘iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood’ (link to exert) told ABC’s Lateline program that the iGen was more cautious but less optimistic and confident and are more likely to experience mental illness because they are less prepared to be an adult than previous generations.

Dr Twenge’s study found that they are more withdrawn from society, they don’t get together with their friends or go to parties, which makes them physically safer but less prepared for life experiences and less resilient.  There is a higher reliance on parents and less independent thinking all pointing to increased rates of mental illness and suicide amongst that age group.

Our belief system is our map to life and it can be scary to redraw lines of the map.  But what happens when you map is incomplete?  Is that the legacy we are leaving our children because as adults we cannot seem to construct maps of where this innovative technology positively fits in that our children can follow.

[itsshadowydreamer-blog]

Starting Point

This is my first post ever.