Emerging Media

MC 7019 Blog

[marthakramirez]

Spotify’s Black Box is Darker than I Thought

The explosion of the world wide web and the growth of new digital platforms opened up a sea of data to be discovered. As researchers started to dive in, many were met with strong waves of resistance from big media giants. Companies like Facebook are extremely secretive about their algorithms and the inner workings of their company. This resistance left researchers to fend for themselves to find data. Luckily, digital tools like “scrapers” exist to help retrieve data. Other companies are more forthcoming with their data and collaborate with researchers willingly.

A group of researchers from Umea and Stockholm University found much resistance and secrecy in their attempt to study Spotify, the music streaming giant (though this book revealed that music is only a small component of what Spotify truly is). Initial interviews revealed that Spotify was less than forthcoming when it came to sharing data and information on their algorithms.

The researchers took this challenge head-on and went beyond traditional research approaches. Through mixed-methods, ethnography, and intervention methods, the researchers were able to “crack open the black box” of Spotify. It also helped that they had a million-dollar budget  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

What the researchers found when they lifted the lid was quite alarmingly:

Spotify’s business model was highly skewed toward major artists and record labels, screwing the “little guy” over

Spotify’s sketchy beginnings (beta-versions of the app streaming music without a license) and their relationship to companies like The Pirate Bay

Several privacy issues (like collecting sensor data on whether you are walking or running and the speed of your movements & selling personal data to advertisers)

Researcher’s radio loop experiments to find out why people rarely liked their recommended songs discovered that almost all song loops looked the same regardless of thumbs up or down on songs

Spotify dumping large amounts of “data junk” on people’s SSDs, slowing down storage capacities

Though mood playlists cover pictures were mainly of women (women smiling or exercising), the majority of recommended artists were males – “maintaining male privilege in the music industry”  

“Menu driven identifications” that were not inclusive (they didn’t add a nonbinary option to gender till 2016, and it’s only available in a few countries)

“Too much data” intervention revealed very little personalization occurring though they have more than enough data to make it happen

“Algorithmic system bias”

Secretive on the trading of personal data to advertisers

Though the researchers revealed many of Spotify’s secretive and obscure practices, there are some areas where I wish they’d dug a little deeper. Much of the book focuses on the economic side of Spotify. There were a few references and allusions to the low percentage of money that artists make from Spotify. They mentioned that Spotify’s business model favors major artists and mainly the record labels, but I wish they had elaborated on how much in royalties do artists actually make. In one of their interventions, the researchers released an album to infiltrate Spotify’s inner workings. The researchers said that they didn’t cash any of the royalties made. However, they didn’t disclose how much money they made. I wish they’d released this amount, as it would have been telling on how much money artists make off royalties. 

I feel like artists, especially smaller ones, are some of the most negatively impacted people from Spotify’s platform. This is an aspect I wish they would have explored more. Though they mentioned how Taylor Swift pulled her music from Spotify because she felt that it de-valued it, I would’ve like to have seen interviews with smaller artists to see how they feel about Spotify and its economic impact. 

In conclusion, I knew I was always a Tidal > Spotify person for a reason! (I felt especially proud when the researchers mentioned that Tidal willingly worked with a team of academic researchers and gave them data for their work)

Dr. Porter told us to look at our readings from a dystopian vs utopian perspective. As our weekly blogs come to an end, I have decided that my view of emerging media platforms is mainly dystopian (though I hope in a few years I read some newer blogs from future students that change my mind). 

[marthakramirez]

A Whole New <Digital> World

When I first looked into this book, it surprised me that it was the first “book-length examination of Instagram.” Instagram revolutionized digital culture with its emergence in 2010. It’s no surprise that there are even “Insta-museums” devoted to this phenomenon. I always think of it as what Myspace could have been. Though we’ve seen time and time again that it’s hard for scholarly literature to keep up with new digital trends and platforms, it’s still shocking that it took so long for one of the biggest social media platforms to get an in-depth review (especially with the amount of work that I’ve seen done on Reddit which to me is still arguably a small dark corner of the web).  

Influencer (p. 106):

Someone who engages with positive self-branding strategies

Manages public visibility that is sustained and stable

Grooms followers to consume their content aspirationally

Can turn their high internet visibility into an income that is lucrative enough for a full-time career 

Personally, one of the most interesting aspects of Instagram has always been the influencer culture that it bred. To think that people can genuinely earn a living (a pretty big living for some), by simply posting pictures of their lives is something that still surprises me. The fact that there are even kids now that want to grow up and be an influencer shows just how much this platform truly has reshaped society. In the author’s definition, it is telling that they chose the word “groom” their followers to consume content since many influencers have super devoted fans and fan pages that will eat you alive should you dare make any comment against the influencer. 

It’s almost become like a cult. 

The authors mention how some influencers turned to calling their followers “friends” instead of a follower for authenticity. This seems ironic to me as I always found it to be very unauthentic. Though I still don’t get much of the influencer culture, this book took a scholarly  approach to examining influencers and thinking of them in a way that I had never thought of before.

Parts of the book highlight how all sorts of businesses have redesigned their services, marketing and advertising strategies to be “Insta-worthy.” Things like picking the perfect aesthetic mood to hashtags and captions can make or break an Instagram post. Back in February, before COVID-19 overtook life as we know it, my aesthetician began having problems with her marketing guy. He was essentially charging her close to 2,000 dollars a month to occasionally post crappy stock pictures with misspelled captions to Instagram. They had a huge falling out and she had to fire him. Unfortunately for her, she didn’t know the first thing about Instagram. She begged me to be her marketing and social media manager.

I thought I was pretty well versed in Instagram and knew I could at least do better than my predecessor. What I didn’t realize was how much work it actually takes to run a business account on Instagram. I went from passively scrolling, watching stories, and very occasionally making posts to having to actively create content everyday and engaging with our audience to help sell this small business. Ironically enough for me, I had to work with local influencers and bloggers to promote our brand and do giveaways.

The authors argue that Instagram isn’t just about taking pictures; it’s best understood “as a conduit for communication” made up of visual images, videos, stories, and text to create a message. I can truly attest to this definition. Though I learned much about aesthetics, color, lighting, fonts, and more, I also learned a lot about communicating with an audience in a very different way.  Photography is only a fraction of what Instagram does and has to offer. It truly is its own little world with its own culture and rules, much like the book describes. 

With the current pandemic forcing much of our lives to go digital, it’ll be interesting to see how businesses, influencers, and regular users utilize digital platforms like Instagram to stay connected or, in some cases, stay in afloat. 

[marthakramirez]

Culture & Digital Platforms

In this week’s book, Massanari’s describes Reddit as a platform that “enables the sharing of original and reposted content from around the web, and provides a platform for like-minded individuals to commune around topics of interest.”

My issue with this definition is that you can easily replace the word Reddit with Facebook or Twitter, and the definition would still be pretty accurate. The definition lacks specific qualities that are unique to Reddit. The voting aspects and karma points that determine what content is more popular seem like overly complicated “likes,” similar to how content gets pushed more if it receives more likes or views. 

Massanari explains that much of the culture on Reddit revolves around “play and humor,” but the same could be said for Twitter and Instagram, where meme culture thrives on play and humor as well. It’s hard to learn how culture is created on Reddit when those creating it seem to be racist, homophobic white guys.

The author argues that users from hundreds of countries use Reddit, and it has even caught the attention of mainstream media outlets. However, I never understood the appeal of Reddit. Many other Americans don’t either as only 4% of the population uses Reddit according to Pew, compared to sites like Facebook that include 69% of the American population. It always seemed like the toxic, misogynistic, racist corner of the Internet. This book pretty much confirmed these notions. Though I was surprised to see that some good charitable actions do occasionally occur on the platform, there was an overwhelming amount of cases presented in the book that support my previously held beliefs. Reddit always reminded me of the bad side of Twitter where the trolls lurk. It’s the problematic side of participatory culture platforms.

I share Massarani’s concerns on how social media studies lack “meaningful archives,” making the “reconstruction of interactions after the fact nearly impossible.” This concern, I think, applies to all digital platforms. When I was in school, Myspace was the big thing. Every day we used to check each other’s “top five friends” before school. This feature was the cause of many makeups and breakups of friendships and relationships that defined mine and many of my friend’s adolescent years. When I read ethnographic work on digital platforms, it always makes me wish there was some way to go back in time and study Myspace when it was actually a thing. 

I largely agree with Massarani in the assertion that we are losing “important cultural aspects of our collective cultural heritage,” and there’s really no good way to solve this issue. Anthropologists have so many tangible artifacts that give them an insight into various aspects of previous societies. Since much of our culture has moved online (the coronavirus is perpetuating this, I’ve received invitations to an online baby shower and a gender reveal), how will our culture/society be remembered or studied if much of it is ephemeral on social media?

[marthakramirez]

Multi-tasking in the Digital Age

Multi-tasking has a new meaning in the digital age: second screening.

This relatively new trend has already impacted the way that users interact with the media. In response to Gil de Zúñiga, Perdomo, and McGregor’s findings, it makes a lot of sense that people who engage in second screening would be more likely to participate in politics and be politically engaged. As many scholars have suggested, the increase in media choices, especially in entertainment choices, can decrease people’s political knowledge because they avoid this type of content and switch channels. Someone who is not only tuned into political tv channels but is also using a second screen to “obtain more information about or discuss the program they are watching” seems intuitively like someone who would be politically engaged (p. 793). Hence, the link between these two seems almost natural.

It also made a lot of sense that young people “appear more willing to second screen to discuss news” (p. 805). After reading this article and Gil de Zúñiga’s second article with Liu, in the least stereotypical way, it makes sense that young people tend to second screen more than older people. Though many point out that digital natives aren’t all that digitally savvy, it is still true that older people often struggle with technology. Many older folks have a hard time working a smartphone or tablet and even struggle to work their televisions. I think they would have an incredibly hard time second screening shows.

The researchers also found that minorities are more likely to engage in second screening. This relationship also makes sense because these groups tend to have tightly knit communities where they constantly share information about experiences that are unique to their group.

Williams and Gonlin found similar results, specifically with African Americans second screening How to Get Away with Murder on Black Twitter. As minority communities continue to be underrepresented in the mainstream media, studies will continue uncovering how these communities are creating their own spaces online. Similar to the article from a few weeks ago about the Trans community on Twitter, this study argues that Twitter facilitates conversations about race on television. It allows African Americans to “connect with their own community members online,” and create a space with others whom they can identify with (p. 984).

I don’t know if it makes me sad or hopeful that minorities are still so underrepresented and face so many stereotypes, as this study pointed out that the only place where they feel heard, appreciated, and accepted is in these “online microcosms” that they have had to create. While it’s good that they created these safe spaces, it’s sad that there is still so much underrepresentation, racism, and stereotyping in the media and throughout society.

McGregor and Mourao found an interesting caveat with Trump playing a moderator role in second screening and political participation. For those that don’t like Trump, second screening during news leads to a decrease in political participation online and offline. They found that when people disagree with the news media and social media, second screening leads to political disengagement. I feel like this decrease in political participation mirrors real-world interactions. When face-to-face conversations turn political, and people start disagreeing, the disagreement often has a silencing effect that also leads to political disengagement because people want to avoid conflict, leading them to shut down from politics. It’s interesting to see a similar dynamic play out in social media and second screening.

Ultimately, second screening has had many unintended and fascinating effects. S. Kazakova et al. found that second screening’s effects go as far as affecting cognitive processing. Second screening changes the way media viewers process media content from perceptual to conceptual processing. As more individuals participate in second screening, we will continue to discover its effects and implications.

[marthakramirez]

The feel-good, do-good side of social media

Rieger and Klimmt (2019) studied eudaimonic media through memes instead of Youtube or movies. It was fascinating to see an academic study on meme and meme culture. It's almost rare to see scholarly work on digital media that is still relevant when it's published - like memes. It'd be interesting to see a similar study on podcasts. As an avid podcast listener, I would argue that podcasts also have beneficial effects. Podcasts contain similar eudaimonic aspects like human connection, human struggles, encouragement, and even hope.  It would be interesting to study the inspirational and meaningful aspects behind them as Rieger and Klimmt studied in memes. Jackson et al. (2018) are doing important work by examining advocacy and community building of transgender women on Twitter. I loved seeing how the fight for human rights can be pioneered by social media activists like Laverne Cox online through hashtags on Twitter. Trans women of color don't have many spaces where they feel accepted, celebrated, and welcome, so they created their own space online. This article gave me hope that social media doesn't have to be this bad dystopian thing. It can still do good things, like creating safe spaces for marginalized groups to feel empowered and heard. Since many don't see themselves represented in the media, they are turning to social media to create their own spaces. This reminds me of how Black Twitter or Latinx Twitter evolved into communities for minorities that cross geographical boundaries to  bring marginalized groups together.

Speaking of Black Twitter, Brock (2016) developed CTDA, a "multimodal analytic technique for the investigation of the Internet and digital phenomena, artifacts and culture" (p. 2028). CDTA incorporates critical theory and marginalized group theories like critical race, feminism, and queer theory. It is so good to see a technique developed to analyze cultural and social phenomenon across technology as marginalized groups try to find their voices on social media.  

The internet's impact on the music industry was unexpected and but not surprising in Haynes and Marshall's (2018) study. It seems like nowadays, new artists rise to prominence from going "viral." Social media tools like Youtube, Spotify, and Soundcloud helped open the door for more independent artists to enter the music scene without traditional gatekeepers like big record labels. The internet provides a multitude of opportunities for independent musicians. Though it has some disadvantages, there are still many benefits. 

Looking ahead to the upcoming election and the threats of Russian interception, Vargo et al. (2018) gave me hope when they found that fake news websites "do not exert excessive power" (p. 2028). It was also a relief to see that emerging news media are somewhat responsive to the agendas of fake news. Some of the guests at the Breaux Symposium echoed the sentiment that fake news and bots aren't as big of a threat to democracy as some make them out to be. However, after the symposium and this article, it's clear that fake news is still a prevalent issue, especially among emerging media. This is an issue that fact-checkers and social media sites alone can't solve. 

I was very excited to see the return of ethnographic fieldwork articles in our readings. Costa's (2018) article was by far my favorite reading of the week. The people of Mardin, Turkey are context collapse warriors. The lengths that they go through to keep their different social spheres separate was fascinating. I thought having a Finsta was a bit excessive, but that seems like nothing compared to the Mardinites who have multiple Facebook profiles under fake names and pseudonyms, especially the one man that had over 12 different Facebook accounts! I always thought it was typically women who have multiple accounts, and they usually use them either as a Finsta or to stalk other's accounts. To see an entire town of people who can so effectively change their privacy settings and accounts to separate their social spheres is absolutely fascinating. I just wonder how they keep all of their passwords straight?

[marthakramirez]

Social media’s profound effects on society

This week's articles pushed me toward a dystopian view of social media.

Kleemans et al. tapped into every parent's biggest fear: social media manipulating and having a detrimental effect on children. One of the biggest criticisms of social media is that it creates insecurity among some of its most vulnerable audiences, like teenage girls. Social media became inundated with retouched images. These images, though largely misleading, are seen as the standard for beauty. This standard is entirely unachievable without photoshop. The problem gets worse when girls don't recognize that these images are retouched. Many of the girls in the study could spot filters and effects, but couldn't tell apart reshaped bodies. Research has been tapping into the profound effects of these "idealized images" on society.

A recent article by the New Yorker, The Age of the Instagram Face, examined this phenomenon of "idealized images." They describe a new "cyborgian face" has emerged as the new standard of beauty on Instagram. The face has "catlike eyes and long, cartoonish lashes; it has a small, neat nose and full, lush lips." One of the most interesting features is that it is "distinctly white but ambiguously ethnic." The face plays on human aspirations of perfection that were unattainable before social media. The article also talks about how the world is becoming more visual with social media, so people are finding ways to "upgrade" themselves to be more visually appealing. The scariest part of all, which Kleemans et al. alluded to, is that young girls can't tell the differences between retouched pictures and real ones. They think the heavily photoshopped images are realistic. 

As these "idealized images" continue to gain popularity and people continue to edit themselves, the effects of these practices will certainly be felt by society's most vulnerable, from low self-esteem to body dysmorphia and beyond.   

McGregor et al looked at self-personalization - when candidates highlight their personal lives over their policy positions, in digital campaigns. They argued that people are voting for people and not policies. They also argued that "personalization is something politicians do to themselves" (p. 266). However, I argue that previous literature suggests otherwise. The media often apply gender roles and stereotypes to candidates without their consent. It is not a choice. A pilot study that I conducted supported the long-held assertion that media outlets apply gender roles and stereotypes in their coverage of candidates. When covering female candidates, the media focuses on feminine policies like education while they focus on masculine policies like the military for male candidates. These gender roles also apply to the way media describe candidates: women are described as motherly while men are described as strong. The media also focus more on female candidate's appearance, like their clothing or physical characteristics. When covering male candidates, they focus on their policies. The data from my study and previous literature suggests the media are the ones that force candidates into these gender roles and stereotypes.

The fact that some of these candidates are choosing to embrace these stereotypes reminds me of when minorities take back offensive words or slurs and reclaim them. McGregor et al. found that women candidates see more of an advantage in showing "themselves explicitly as caregivers to their children." If the media is going to continue to force these roles and stereotypes on candidates, many have no other option than to take them back and use them to their benefit. It's easier to embrace and capitalize on them than continue to fight an uphill battle to overcome them. It will be interesting to see how social media, which tends to be liberal and progressive, will play into how these gender roles and stereotypes affect candidates. 

Instead of studying traditional selective exposure, Dvir-Gvirsman put a twist on her research by examining audience homophily in media websites. While most research looks at how audiences choose media outlets because of their partisan content, Dvir-Gvirsman focused on the audiences of the websites because it could "be a way to establish belonging to a political group." 

It was smart of the researcher to tap into the primitive human need to belong. This intrinsic psychological need to belong is a strong motivating factor that is often ignored in research. It's like when people will pretend to like a certain type of music so they can fit in and "belong." Opposites don't always attract; people often seek out those who are similar to them. The rise of "online network society" made it easier to find like-minded people where one can fit in. There are no geographical barriers; you just log in and find a whole community of people who think just like you. Group identity theory is way overlooked; people vastly underestimate the power of "belonging."

Groshek and Koc-Michalska looked at the relationship between support for populist candidates like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump and social media use. The circumstances of this election presented the perfect setting to study two populist candidates. This reminds me of the governor race of 1928 in Louisiana, where Huey Long, a fiery populist, ran against another populist candidate. It is funny to see history repeating itself almost a century later. Newspapers were essential to Huey Long's campaign success. This time, Trump and Sanders are capitalizing on social media. Though the medium has changed, this study shows how the media still plays an important factor for anti-establishment candidates. Interestingly, the study found that traditional media has minimal effect on support for populist candidates. Since Huey Long won with the help of traditional media, I wonder how he would have marketed himself on social media today. 

I enjoyed reading Saviaga and Savage's article on social media conversation around the Latino community. As a Latina, I don't often see myself represented in scholarly work in communications or digital media. However, from personal experience, Reddit doesn't seem like the best outlet to study. Though I understand the researchers chose Reddit because it played an important role in the dissemination of false information during the 2016 presidential election, I still don't feel like it was a good choice. After visiting the website Statista, only 7% of news users are Hispanic, however they don’t have numbers for how many of those 7% are active current users. Personally, I don't know a single Latino that uses Reddit; most of the Latino community uses Facebook. So even if there were a lot of trolls spreading false information, I'm not sure how profound the effects could have been on the Latino community. I think Saviaga and Savage underestimated how unrepresentative this study is of the Latino community. I also didn't like how there were no numbers or references to how many Latinos are on Reddit, to see how many were affected by the posts. 

Either way, it was disappointing to see how trolls are attempting to capitalize on data voids to spread fake news to vulnerable communities. It is still good to see some representation in the literature shedding light on these issues, though we have a long way to go. 

References:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/decade-in-review/the-age-of-instagram-face 

[marthakramirez]

Social Networks in Action

Protests and social movements far precede the technology of today. People have formed organized groups and rallied the masses in the name of change for decades. However, the development of technology, specifically social media, has added an interesting aspect to social movement groups and protests. The unfortunate circumstances of the Ferguson protests provided the ideal case study to examine the relationship between evolving social media technology and established journalistic norms. Not surprisingly, Groshek and Tandoc found that legacy news wasn't present during this movement, and journalists barely covered it. Instead, Twitter users took on the role of traditional media and served as the main gatekeepers. Twitter users were "identified to have served as a catalyst for protestors and activists, catching, to some extent, the mainstream media by surprise," said Groshek and Tandoc.

It's quite unsurprising that the media was so shocked at their own unpreparedness. Legacy media, like many other older traditional institutions, has been slow at adapting to the new technological trends, much to their detriment. Legacy media has lagged behind in keeping up with emerging media, like digitizing their newspapers. It seems fitting that Groshek and Tandok found that legacy media were no longer the most influential voices in the discussions online, and their role as gatekeeper has largely diminished. An article published a couple of weeks ago by a large legacy media outlet criticized the government for not being able to keep up (in terms of policies) with the fast-paced changes of technology. The irony is that legacy media fails to see that they are also falling into the same outdated trap.

Yang et al. had a different take on this issue. Though they agree that the role of traditional mass media has weakened, they still found evidence that "news outlets continue to have agenda-setting functions." They further found that "their role is critical as they drive the dynamics of networked communication by filtering, making sense of and selecting information and topics of interest to the public." This suggests that legacy media might still have a fighting chance to enter the online "public sphere" and reclaim their role as traditional gatekeepers (though that seems unlikely at this point). Yang et al. found that social media has not been a positive tool for democracy as elites, and few key influencers still dominate the "public sphere" that is Twitter and other social media sites.

Penney (2017) presented an example of a political traditional activity attempting to capitalize on social media and all the unintended reproductions that come with that. Campaigns have tried successfully and unsuccessfully to utilize social media as a tool to win over voters. People used to go door to door canvassing neighborhoods in an attempt to gain supporters. With the digital revolution, people can simply log in to their social media accounts and tweet or retweet their campaign's message for all of their followers to see. The fact that anyone can spread information on behalf of a campaign has led to an interesting dichotomy of formal, organized campaign groups spreading "tightly controlled" social media messages and unofficial grassroots circulating "informal and culturally oriented appeals." As Penney described, the social media campaign ecosystem has created several "reputational risks for the associated campaign." This article shows how even institutions embracing social media can face many unforeseen and unexpected consequences.

In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't

Himelboim et al. looked at how users interacting in social spaces like Twitter form connections that create complex social network structures. Though their study of network structure and information flow seemed like an interesting and much needed systematic approach to analyzing Twitter, it was incredibly hard to follow. For me, the potential practicality of this study got lost in their 200 step explanation of concepts. For example, they start with a "three-step classification model," which led them to "six structures of information flow" and finally "six distinct patterns of collective connections." They claimed that these concepts illustrate "how different topics of conversations exhibit different patterns of information flow." However, their explanations did very little illustrating for me. Unfortunately, the information in this information flow article just didn't flow.

Similarly, Shin et al. missed the mark in their article that tracked political rumors on Twitter during the 2012 presidential election. They found that Twitter helped spread rumors and misinformation within "homophilous followers." However, last week's book would leave me to conclude that while this may be true, it is a minimal amount of Twitter users that exist in these highly partisan groups. This study seems to be falling into the filter bubble and echo chamber trap of generalizing very specific highly Partisan groups on Twitter to the entire Twitter population. As we have learned, these highly polarized groups are a tiny minority of the actual interactions on Twitter and are not representative.

The author also said that Twitter "seldom functioned as a self-correcting marketplace of ideas." This notion that stems from the process of scientific research and a peer-reviewed self-correcting process seems like a little much to expect from social media sites like Twitter.

Ending on a more positive note, Lu and Hampton's work pushed back against the looming dystopian notion that social media causes people to be lonelier and more isolated. They looked at "informal social support" like companionship, tangible aid, and emotional support from social media use. The researchers found that some Facebook features like status updates and private messages do provide us with the resource of support.

[marthakramirez]

Popping the filter bubble

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-02-07/theres-a-virus-spreading-in-us-thats-killed-10-000-the-flu

The coronavirus injected fear and panic into the public over the last couple of weeks. But like many diseases, the fear and panic are sometimes greater than the actual threat. Over 10,000 people have died from the flu this season compared to the 900 people who have died from the coronavirus. While the coronavirus does pose a threat to some, many argue that the dangers of it are overstated. This recent example is reminiscent of the phenomenon that Axel Bruns analyzes in his book, Are Filter Bubbles Real. The arrival of social media has brought its own waves of fear and panic on how it could be affecting society. One of the most talked-about issues in regards to social media is the idea of filter bubbles and echo chambers. Many are quick to blame social media platforms for further polarizing society by feeding them the things that they want to hear and filtering out conflicting ideas. I see it happen all the time; people tend to pile the blame on social media while neglecting other possible causes for the issues that we face today. It was refreshing to see someone use scientific research to push back against these ideas.

Bruns attacks this dystopian notion that social media has created echo chambers and filter bubbles that are ruining society. He uses empirical data from studies to combat this. A study on Facebook actually found that "social media use can lead to pro-social outcomes: users with diverse social networks engage with a greater variety of news" (p. 65). Other studies on Twitter and Facebook have yielded similar results: social media often reflects people's offline networks instead of causing echo chambers.

When I reflect on my social media use, I find that my Facebook and Twitter feed is filled with ideas from my friends and acquaintances on all ends of the political spectrum. I often scroll past a friend's post on how Republicans are the root of all evil, followed by a post on how Trump is the greatest thing to ever happen to America. Either the algorithm is broken, or Bruns is right: social media is not causing isolation and homogenous content in society.

The more that Bruns dissected the filter bubble phenomenon, the more "outlandish" and absurd it became. I agree with his assertion that it's easy and compelling to blame technology for issues in our society, but it is also negligent. It was clear to me that filter bubbles and echo chambers are just another case of unfounded fear and paranoia.

Bruns suggested an alternative explanation for the division in society: "too many citizens hold hyperpartisan and extremist views. The problem, in short, is polarisation and not fragmentation, and such polarization is not the result of our use of online and social media platforms" (p. 105). A recent book by Lilliana Mason called Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity echoes this explanation. Mason found that people have grown more polarized because their identity is now tied to their political party. When an individual's party is attacked, they feel like they have been personally insulted. This deep-rooted partisanship has fueled the divisiveness that is rampant through society. She would agree with Bruns that citizens today hold very extremist views and are highly polarized. She would also agree that social media is not to blame.Bruns effectively dismantles the argument of echo chambers through a review of systematic empirical data. 

This book serves as a cautionary example of why it is important to approach problematic issues in the digital world from an empirical and scientific standpoint and not jump to the simplest answer. Bruns provides compelling evidence that social media is not to blame for the division in society, and he effectively pops the filter bubble.

References:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/world/asia/coronavirus-china.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-02-07/theres-a-virus-spreading-in-us-thats-killed-10-000-the-flu 

[marthakramirez]

A dystopian digital world

When the internet first landed in the hands of the public, people's eyes lit up like it was Christmas morning. The internet came wrapped up in a nice shiny computer box with a tag attached that contained great promises. This new concept of the world wide web promised to "eliminate hierarchy in communications," as in, there would be no monopolies or internet giants. Everything on the internet would be equal. As we have come to find out with companies like Google, this was an overly optimistic and utopian notion of the internet that Matthew Hindman dismantles in his book, Internet Trap.

Emerging media, by nature, are ever-changing and evolving. New media sites and platforms come out as often as new movies and frequently fail as often. These emerging media forms depend on stickiness, or the "firms' ability to attract users, to get them to stay longer, and to make them return again and again" to survive. Only a few have been able to crack the perfect recipe to this "stickiness." Behind these select few is a plethora of money, power, and resources to make the magic happen. The high-entry cost of the internet has ensured that this power dynamic will continue to favor the select few.

Media companies like Facebook, Google, and Netflix dominate the internet and its economic landscape. Their algorithms have been perfected over time and have generated vast amounts of success. This great success is not free of social costs and implications. This is highlighted in media and news companies' attempts to please their audiences with personalization. This seemingly benign attempt to personally cater content and satisfy the consumer has led to concerns of echo chambers and decreased exposure to diverse content. News targeting is just one of the evolving worrisome practices of media companies. Meanwhile, smaller news organizations are struggling to keep their heads above water in this digital arena dominated by the media giants.

Hindman delves deep into this new form of digital inequality that favors media monopolies and deters small companies and users from profiting and surviving in the digital world. We've only begun to scratch at the surface of all of the problems and challenges that up-and-coming media companies face. The digital economic landscape mirrors the century-old saying of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer," where the rich are the big media monopolies, and the poor are the small companies like small news organizations. These challenges, paired with the uncertainty of net neutrality, paint a pessimistic picture of our digital future.

Though Hindman poses some strategies to combat this, the future for diversity in media companies and small organizations overall looks bleak. Considering Hindman's dystopian outlook, it seems likely that smaller media players will continue to be pushed into a small dark corner of the internet until they disappear.

[marthakramirez]

Inequality in the digital sphere

Inequality: The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this as social disparity or the disparity of distribution or opportunity. This week’s readings revolve around inequality and gaps found throughout the digital spheres. The readings presented several ways of studying inequality in digital media, from the digital divide to the digital participation and production gap, along with the factors that cause these inequalities.  

One of the most common topics when it comes to digital inequality is the digital divide. However, Hargittai argued that the digital divide is becoming less prominent. Instead, he believes the more pertinent issue is the inaccurate assumption that those who have grown up with technology are naturally tech-savvy and digitally knowledgeable. He argues that internet skills vary across the “digital native” generation, depending on various factors like socioeconomic status. I find it probabilistic and premature to assume that the digital divide is not as big of a concern. 

So far, research points to the fact that the digital divide is still very much prevalent today. Some scholars even argue that the digital divide has become so deep that there are two Americas: one connected and one not. Though I agree with Hargittai’s argument that internet skills vary across digital natives, he makes this argument by downplaying the digital divide. At one point, he mentions how “once people cross the initial connectivity divide,” they still have issues with their internet skills. Hargittai makes his point at the expense of the gravity of the digital divide. He makes it seem like people can simply choose to “cross” over to technology instead of mentioning the systematic and challenging obstacles that prevent them from obtaining access. 

Many of the other readings focused on the most common denominator when it comes to inequality: socioeconomic status. 

Robinson et al. discuss how gender, race, ethnicity and economic status contribute to and reinforce digital inequalities. They discussed how these digital inequalities have grown so prevalent that they are spilling into other alarming areas like healthcare, where users miss out on crucial healthcare information and participation due to digital inequalities. Similarly, Schradie found that there is a significant production gap in content because of socioeconomic factors. Schradie’s findings mirror the persisting issue in society that those on the higher end of the ladder hold power. In this case, the poor and the working class’ voices are missing from the digital production sphere.

Other scholars looked at digital inequalities beyond the traditional socioeconomic and digital divide scope. Reisdorf and Groselj went past the traditional binary focus of internet users and non-internet users. Instead, they looked at a spectrum of non-users, regular users and broad users. They found that education was a strong factor in digital inequalities and that attitudes towards the internet heavily influence participation. Sasaki also found that education, as well as self-efficacy, are important factors in the power imbalance of the digital divide. This type of work is crucial because it pushes other scholars to look beyond socioeconomic factors and consider other alternatives.

Scheerder et al. also rejected the previous binary focus. They took it a step further from education in their concept of a “third-level digital divide” that examines the outcomes of the internet and digital inequalities. They also pointed out inconsistent terminology across digital inequality research. There seems to be an ongoing trend of lack of consistency in terminology across areas of digital media research, considering last week’s discussion on inconsistent terminology on problematic internet use. On a more positive note, Hoffman et al. applied social cognitive theory to examine how socioeconomic factors affect the participation divide. This use of a theoretical framework is a step in the right direction for the digital media research field, which often lacks theory.

It is quite apparent that digital inequality is deeply entangled with today’s technological landscape. I’ve worked for a nonprofit organization for the last five years that works with under-represented children in foster care. Most will tell you that all teenagers in America glue themselves to their digital devices. However, there were countless instances of teenagers at the age of 18 who did not own a phone or a laptop and had little digital literacy. I am interested in lobbying or working for a nonprofit, and these readings resonated with many of the issues that these organizations aim to tackle. I echo the sentiments of many of these scholars who called for more research on digital inequalities. As Robertson et al. stated, “digital inequalities can reinforce existing social inequalities and even exacerbate them because they carry over preexisting differences in human capital into online settings” (p.570). This is an evolving problem that requires much more attention and discussion. I am hopeful for more research on this area that can be used to pass policies or to take action to find a solution.

[marthakramirez]

Social media through a new lens

This first week's readings pushed me to consider social media, which I constantly interact with through a vastly different lens. I was fascinated with the author's attempts to define social media, something which I had not considered past the thought of listing examples like Facebook.

The author's definitions and functions of social media often overlapped: Stoychef et al. talked about ordinary people creating and spreading content instead of media companies. They also mentioned the facilitation of 2-way communication through social media. In "Social Media, A Phenomenon to be Analyzed," Boyd talked about how social media is revolutionizing the way information is disseminated and the way communities develop. Ellison and Boyd stressed the creation of profiles, connections, and traversing between connections. The authors argue that these aspects define social media and drive people to engage with it.

However, I believe the main issue these authors ignored was the emotional aspect that plays in the popularity and creation of social media. Various authors alluded to the idea that the primary function of social media is to share content and interact with others. Though this is true, there is an important psychological function to social media: fitting in. Many create accounts because of peer pressure or fear of missing out, not to share content and interact with others. Many also stay on social media, not because of the information available or to share content, but because of the "dopamine hit" that social media provides, as discussed in our previous class. Sometimes it has less to do with interaction and more with fitting in or going along with the masses.

Borah et al. examined existing literature on emerging media and identified common patterns. The findings pointed to a lack of theoretical framework and conceptualization. However, I think the issue isn't that scholars are neglecting to use theoretical frameworks. The issue is that there isn't a theory out there that can appropriately integrate with the scholarly work on emerging media. As Ellison and Boyd discussed, the arrival of the Web 2.0 and emerging social media brought a wave in technology that was like nothing seen before. As I studied theories in mass communication, it is apparent that pre-established theories are not apt to be applied to social media. Most traditional theories emerged before the 2000s. It's about time for scholars to develop new theories to account for the changing technological landscape of today.

I enjoyed the Venturini et al. article on digital methods. I appreciated the practicality of their article, particularly how they opted to provide a summary of the points discussed instead of concluding with a theoretical discussion. I think this type of work is useful to scholars in this field, which often lacks direction due to the ever-changing nature of digital media.

The article that stuck out to me the most was Boyd's paper on teenagers and their social media use. I enjoyed how Boyd focused on the context of social media posts, which is often ignored. The story of the boy who had gang-affiliated posts on his social media and was possibly rejected from a college illustrates just how out-of-context social media posts can be taken. As Boyd described, the teen likely had these posts to stay safe. This story is an example of how social media is a portal into an alternate life where people make important decisions in that space to protect their everyday lives. As social media becomes enmeshed with our daily lives, many blame social media as the root of teenager's drama. However, it isn't the cause; social media has only added another layer to these pre-existing conflicts, a layer where real-life situations spill into social media.

I liked how forthcoming Boyd was with identifying personal biases that might influence her work. She was aware of her privilege as a white middle-class adult and continuously reflected on how this might affect her interviews. There are times when you are reading a scholar's work and their bias is glaringly apparent. Everyone is biased; it's human nature. However, it becomes a problem when scholars fail to acknowledge these biases. More scholars should take note. As I reflected on her essay, I had the following question: If actions speak louder than words, how do we interpret social media posts, which are both actions and words?

Davis and Jurgensen's idea of context collapse echos with Boyd's work with teenagers. Boyd found that these teens often find their personal, private, and public selves clashing unintentionally, which Davis and Jurgensen call context collision. The idea of context collapse is an intriguing issue that social media has brought, as we try to figure out how to balance our real-life selves with our online selves.

Similarly, Lee, Ho, and Lhin looked at problematic SNS use in teenagers. It makes sense that adolescents have a higher probability of becoming addicted to social media because of their high social media consumption. This article was particularly interesting to me because I am 22, and I consider myself to be a social media addict. I believe words matter and enjoyed the author's discussions on which terms (SNS addiction, dependency, or problematic use) are most appropriate when studying this phenomenon. This can help further the discussion and research on problematic SNS use.

Overall, these articles all pushed me to look at social media through an entirely different lens, and I am excited to see where this takes me.