Digital Communities

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 10- Social Media Conflict

As of this year, with “50.64% of the 7.77 billion people in the world us[ing] social media” (Dean 2020), it is no shock for need of proper regulation and governance over social media platforms and websites. With the large number of users on these platforms, some begin to use these for targeted harassment and bullying, where more regulation and policing need to be done, both by the platforms themselves and Governments.

In 2017, it was found that “1 in 5 Australian young people reported being socially excluded, threatened or abused online” (eSafety Commissioner 2017), with the number presumably rising through the pandemic that kept Australians at home for a sizeable part of last year. The problem arises with the number of these that get reported compared to the number that are left intact & not reported on. The Harford County Examiner reported that “Fewer than 1 in 5 cyber bullying incidents are reported to law enforcement” (Bullying Statistics 2015). This of lack of reporting & punishment of cyberbullies and trolls leads to changes needing to be made on the platforms about regulation. Without proper laws and regulations on the behaviour, perpetrators have been allowed to continue to attack and belittle other users without fear of repercussion for their actions. 

Whilst cyberbullies have caused the inclusion of “new laws along with platform controls and a wide array of cybersafety educational programs” (Mccosker, Vivienne & Johns 2016, p. 1), it is still far too easy for users to continue to target others. Although users can receive temporary bans, typically lasting only twelve hours, they are free to post again once their ban is up. Even after receiving permanent bans, users can create another account, continuing to contribute to the cyberbully cycle, with celebrities such as Donald Trump and Alex Jones being the only users receiving seemingly legitimate permanent bans. As a whole, social media platforms need tougher regulation and laws on cyberbullying, where users receive permanent bans from platforms and are no longer able to create new accounts.

Reference list

Bullying Statistics 2015, “Cyber Bullying Statistics,” Bullying Statistics, viewed 14 May, 2021, <http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html>.

Dean, B 2020, “How Many People Use Social Media in 2020? (65+ Statistics),” Backlinko, viewed 14 May, 2021, <https://backlinko.com/social-media-users#social-media-usage-stats>.

eSafety Commissioner 2017, “Cyberbullying | eSafety Commissioner,” eSafety Commissioner, viewed 14 May, 2021, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/cyberbullying>.

Mccosker, A, Vivienne, S & Johns, A 2016, Negotiating Digital Citizenship : Control, Contest and Culture, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, London, p. 1, viewed 14 May, 2021, <file:///C:/Users/clark/Downloads/McCosker_Managing%20Digital%20Citizenship_2016%20(1).pdf>.

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 9- Fast vs Slow Fashion

As society becomes increasingly ethically conscious, the debate surrounding fast vs slow fashion has become significantly more discussed as of late. The concept of fast fashion regards clothing that is “mass-produced, cheap, changes within a fortnight, and often associated with a ‘throw away’ attitude” (Lai, Henninger & Alevizou 2017). These usually include items that attempt to replicate high design items, producing them on a large scale for significantly cheaper than the original items. Problems arise with this type of fashion due to the high turnover of items, with “more than half of fast fashion produced is disposed of in under a year” (Remy, Speelman & Swartz 2016), creating the underlying problem of extreme excessive wastage from the products. With the clothing being so cheap and poor quality, consumers do not feel a need to keep the items for a long period, creating this unsustainable business formula that both parties don’t lose out on.

Slow fashion instead is rather “built on the essential concepts of sustainability values, ethical working conditions and decreasing environmental contaminants” (Chi et al. 2021), where clothing items are ethically sourced, produced and disposed of. Slow fashion is less about how quickly a company or brand can respond to and meet upcoming fashion trends, instead focusing on ensuring the item has an ethically responsible life-cycle. A lot of slow fashion relies on the consumer’s assistance, whether that be through donating to goodwill and op shops or reducing their clothing turnover. This is where slow fashion struggles as consumers are not always as ethically conscious as the producer of the clothing, inherently halting the overall effect of the intended life-cycle of the product. Whilst this is sometimes the case, the majority of consumers purchasing slow fashion items, remain both environmentally and sustainably conscious, ensuring the clothing is disposed of where it can be recycled and reused.

References

Chi, T, Gerard, J, Yu, Y & Wang, Y 2021, “A study of U.S. consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants,” International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 102, viewed 9 May, 2021, <https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/33896/pages/week-9-readings?module_item_id=1919451>.

Lai, Z, Henninger, CE & Alevizou, PJ 2017, “An Exploration of Consumers’ Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion – A Qualitative Study in the UK,” Sustainability in Fashion, p. 82, viewed 9 May, 2021, <file:///C:/Users/clark/Downloads/Lai%20Henninger%20Alevizou%20consumer%20perception%20sustainable%20fashion.pdf>.

Remy, N, Speelman, E & Swartz, S 2016, “Style that’s sustainable: A new fast-fashion formula | McKinsey,” www.mckinsey.com, viewed <https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula#>.

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 8- Gaming Communities and Live Streaming

As the internet has expanded over the last decade, it has created new, digital jobs such as professional streamers, able to make streaming into a career through donations and subscriptions from viewers. Whilst it is often frowned upon by an outsider’s perspective, seemingly ignorant to understand the content and work involved for streamers to become successful enough to make a living.

From video games’ inception, the media form has always had a strong reliance on community. Games have always typically had at least 2 player controls and modes, whether being against a computer or another player, games rely heavily on player-to-player interaction, with earlier games such as Pong (Alcorn, 1972) even having this interaction be the entire premise of the game. This is where live streaming and gaming videos seem to get their popularity, creating a sense within the viewers of “not watching alone but instead alongside thousands of others in real time” (Taylor 2018, p. 2), the idea of interacting with the creator in real time just as if they were in the same room playing the game with them. This sense on interaction has led to platforms like Twitch and YouTube Live to become extremely popular with players and viewers, with no other options similar found in traditional media. Much like newspaper or TV cable subscriptions, users can subscribe & donate to their favourite creators to gain special privileges and options when viewing a stream such as subscriber only chat & exclusive emotes. These donations and subscriptions give Twitch creators a source of income and the ability to turn their streaming into a career. 

Online video platforms have now also seen an increase in the number of Vstreamers and Vtubers, with the number climbing to over 10,000 in 2020 (Hirota, 2020). These are creators who broadcast themselves virtually through a digital persona, typically using an anime character as their alias. This has allowed for content creators to create a career online without ever needing to show their face, allowing them to keep their fame strictly to the online space.

References

Hirota, M 2020, “ユーザーローカル、バーチャルYouTuberの1万人突破を発表 9000人から4ヵ月で1000人増 | PANORA,” Panora Virtual Reality Japan, viewed 3 May, 2021, <https://panora.tokyo/archives/4247>.

Taylor, TL 2018, Watch Me Play Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton Oxford Princeton University Press, p. 2, viewed 2 May, 2021, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc77jqw.4>.

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 7- Filters

With technology evolving constantly, it is to no surprise the increase in both creation and usage of social media filters, who are “becom[ing] an important part of popular visual culture” (Rettberg 2014, p. 21). Whilst the majority of these are just used for fun, typically altering users’ faces slightly for comedic effect, many of these filters receive popularity through the altering of physical features towards a more ‘desired’ look, creating this concept of digitised dysmorphia.

Although many of the filters offered on the different social media platforms are by design, meant to “analyse, rate, evaluate, monitor or enhance appearance” (Elias & Gill 2017), mostly all harmless, a significant amount of the most popular ones with users tend to add to digitised dysmorphia. This idea of digitised dysmorphia being described as the “discrepancy between the ideal feminine beauty standard imposed by social media and the “real” appearance of women” (Verrastro et al. 2020). This becomes especially problematic with female users, with popular filters such as Snapchat’s dog filter overlaying the user’s face, typically hiding or minimising parts of the face like the nose or chin, making the user look more like the ‘ideal’ representation of women. The issue with this becomes apparent when users revert the filter, seeming to bring back the ‘undesirable’ features, inadvertently being associated with body dysmorphic disorder.

Another issue with newer technologies is the increasing ease for users to edit photos with filters. Most filters that social media platforms offer for their users adjust the lighting and colour of each photo. Although these can be useful for touch-ups of photos, they mostly hide physical flaws, having airbrushed facial lines and creating smoother skin, further reinforcing traditional ideals about feminity, further contributing to digitised dysmorphia.

References

Elias, AS & Gill, R 2017, “Beauty surveillance: The digital self-monitoring cultures of neoliberalism,” European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 60, viewed 26 April, 2021, <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1367549417705604>.

Rettberg, JW 2014, Seeing ourselves through technology: how we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and ... shape ourselves., Palgrave Macmillan, p. 21, viewed 26 April, 2021, <https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/33896/pages/week-7-readings?module_item_id=2080455>.

Verrastro, V, Fontanesi, L, Liga, F, Cuzzocrea, F & Gugliandolo, MC 2020, “Fear the Instagram: beauty stereotypes, body image and Instagram use in a sample of male and female adolescents,” Qwerty. Open and Interdisciplinary Journal of Technology, Culture and Education, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 32, viewed 26 April, 2021, <http://www.ckbg.org/qwerty/index.php/qwerty/article/viewFile/318/299#:~:text=Digitized%20dysmorphia%20manifests%20through%20digital,Coy%2DDibley%2C%202016).>.

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 6- Body Modification on Social Media

It is human nature to compare yourself to others, whether positively or negatively and last year’s lockdown saw an increase in body comparisons between social media users. Within social media, to make a living, users must stay relevant. As the social media market becomes more and more competitive, this fear of loss of relevancy within creators has seen body modification, whether physical or digital has become more and more of a normality. 

Statistics from the American Academy of Facial and Plastic Reconstructive Surgery in 2017 found that 42 percent of surgeons reported that their patients were seeking surgery to improve their appearance on social media channels (Dorfman et al. 2017), displaying the intentions of not undertaking the surgery for personal body empowerment, rather to feel societal acceptance through followers, likes & comments.

With social media continuously growing and becoming more and more viable as a source of income through the pandemic, these numbers would see to increase as more people were stuck inside and sought social media, with “average time spent on social media has grown by 30 per cent throughout the COVID-19 crisis” (Spanos 2020). this increase would have seen users interact more frequently with social media ‘influencers’, in turn boosting revenue for creators seeking income from social media platforms. with some content creators like most of us getting a ‘covid bod’ through lack of exercise or dieting, some seeking digital body altering to maintain their social media physique. 

Although surgeries were postponed, body modification was still occurring digitally through photo editing and touch-ups. Rather than posting real, unedited photos, some creators sought to Photoshop, edit and modify their posts as a way maintain relevant. Although it can be argued that they would inherently receive less backlash and exposure from posting the original, the fear of losing relevancy and ultimately losing followers saw some users continually modify their posts to accentuate their body’s best features.

References

Dorfman, RG, Vaca, EE, Mahmood, E, Fine, NA & Schierle, CF 2017, “Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing,” Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 332.

Spanos, C 2020, “Aussies Spent 30% More Time On Social Media During The Pandemic,” B&T, viewed <https://www.bandt.com.au/aussies-spent-30-more-time-on-social-media-during-the-pandemic/>.

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 5- Digital Citizenship

As social media usage increases due to the pandemic, having “almost 80 percent of the population” (Statista, 2021) being active within Australia alone on social media, it is no question as to why politicians have begun more and more active on these platforms. because of individual social media platform’s user count, an individual politician or political party can communicate with hundreds of thousands of potential voters all wherever there is internet.

In her 2017 analysis of both Trump’s and Clinton’s social media campaigns for the 2016 election, she writes that although television and newspapers remain the dominant sources for news, social media is becoming increasingly important source for political news (Enli, 2017). Whilst TV and newspapers are the primary source for most voters to receive their political news and keep up to date, social media is now becoming a larger source for the news. An example that can be called upon is Hilary Clinton during her announcement that she would be running for the 2016 election. Clinton opted a social media release, choosing “Twitter in tandem with a YouTube video release” (Enli, 2017) rather than the traditional press conference reliant on mainstream coverage. Clinton saw the new age of political communication and was able to utilise this new platform to her benefit, much the same as her election opponent.

Like Clinton, Donald Trump too was able to utilise Twitter’s platform to his advantage. Before being taken off all social media platforms, the former President had amassed nearly 90 million followers on Twitter alone, being well over 9.9 million daily viewers of ABC’s World News Tonight (Bauder 2021). With this sizable follower account, its no question to see just how and why Trump had made almost 60 thousand Tweets (Socialbakers 2021) before his account was terminated. Even though Trump is now no longer on any social media platforms being banned, it was his power whilst active on these that many politicians have tried to mimic in order to communicate quickly and effectively to their followers & voters.

Reference list

Bauder, D 2021, “Cable news ratings tighten with big months for CNN, MSNBC,” ABC News, viewed 7 April, 2021, <https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/cable-news-ratings-tighten-big-months-cnn-msnbc-75643276#:~:text=ABC>.

Enli, G 2017, “Twitter as arena for the authentic outsider: exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election,” European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50–53.

Socialbakers 2021, “Donald J. Trump Statistics on Twitter followers,” Socialbakers.com, viewed <https://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/twitter/profiles/detail/25073877-realdonaldtrump>.

Statista 2021, “Australia - social media penetration 2018 | Statista,” Statista, viewed 6 April, 2021, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/680201/australia-social-media-penetration/>.

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 4- Reality TV

Reality TV has become the “second most-watched TV genre in Australia is Reality TV seen by 41% of Australians” (Roy Morgan Research, 2019) following closely behind news programming, it is no question as to how popular this genre of television is and how much it has become part of our lives and fandoms begin to arise. With reality TV ever increasing in popularity, so too has the stars within these genres of shows.

With reality TV’s shift from the “margins of television culture to its core” (Orbe, 2008), the genre has grown larger in popularity where now it can give likeable (and unlikeable) individuals platforms where they are able experience growth within TV, radio and film.  Reality stars such as 2018 The Block contestant Jess Eva, and The Bachelor’s 2015 winner Sam Frost have both experience success in the media industry through their initial reality TV appearances. Both stars were contestants who later were picked up by different media organisations, Jess becoming a radio presenter and Sam becoming an actor on Home and Away. The success of these two was only able through the exposure reality TV granted them, however, some contestants have been known to be on the show for ‘the wrong reason’

Although the fame from a reality show is usually only for a couple of years, it is fame nonetheless and begs the question as to why the contestants join these shows. Later seasons of reality shows has shown contestants to only join the show for the exposure the shows give them. Bachelorette USA contestant Jed Wyatt was found out to only be on the show “further his music career” (Scoop, 2019) as oppose of finding love like the premise of the show suggests. With reality TV’s large audience and ability to grant contestants permanent roles in the industry, it can come as no surprise why contestants take advantage of the spotlight and platform the shows give for personal, selfish reasons.

References

Orbe, M. P. (2008). Representations of Race in Reality TV: Watch and Discuss. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25(4), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295030802327790

Roy Morgan Research. (2019). News and Reality TV are the most popular TV genres. Roy Morgan. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7969-top-tv-genres-december-2018-201905060240#:~:text=The%20second%20most%20watched%20TV

Scoop, S. (2019, September 18). Top 10 Bachelor Contestants Who Were There For The Wrong Reasons. Sarah Scoop. https://sarahscoop.com/top-10-bachelor-contestants-who-were-there-for-the-wrong-reasons/

[masondigitalcommunity]

Week 3- How does Tumblr function as a digital community?

The blogging and social media site Tumblr is able to function as a digital community through its features and differing approaches to user-to-user communications. Tumblr uses a differentiation approach to social media's features that make it a public sphere, as in a "space in which individuals and groups associate to discuss matters of mutual interest… to reach a common judgement about them" (Hauser 1999, p. 61), with users able to interact with each other anonymously, contrasting to other social media platforms such as Instagram or Facebook, where typically during public discourse, users are personified through their own posts to their page.

It is this anonymity attached to posting that allows the platform to operate as a public sphere in a seemingly ideal way, with all users being reletively at the same level whilst in discourse, with no single voice overpowering any other, allowing to almost "revitalize Habermas’s public sphere" (Kruse et al., 2017, p.62) first constructed in the mid 18th century.

Another feature of the platform that differs from other social media sites is the ability it gives users to customise not only the content they post but their Tumblr wall. Being that Tumblr is "understood as a platform that prioritizes aesthetics", (Keller, 2019, p7) it can be seen how this customisation comes into effect to how the site functions as a digital community. Users are capable of tailoring their Tumblr to their own specific aesthetic, allowing for diversity between users posts that reflects Tumblr's "original positioning as a creative community" (Keller, 2019, p7), cementing the platform as a digital community. 

It is this sense of platform-wide individuality and creativity that Tumblr offers, with the platform focused more on community engagement and interaction rather than individual gain and aims to surpass other users that cause the site to be recognised as a functional digital community. 

References:

Hauser, GA 1999, Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, University of South Carolina Press, SC, p. 61.

Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2017). Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), p. 62. 

Keller, J. (2019). “Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms. Social Media + Society, 5(3), p. 7.