Michael Bellu

Blog for MC 7019

[michaelbellu]

Directions of emerging media research

Blog 4/20

The article “The Future of Dataveillance in Advertising Theory and Practice” by Strycharz and Segijn analyzes how technological developments have changed the advertising landscape by extending the possibilities to collect, process, and share consumer data to optimize advertising.

This article advances advertising theory by conceptualizing the impact of consumers’ perceptions of dataveillance in digital data-driven advertising and applying long-standing advertising research theories to this new phenomenon to provide an overarching framework for future research. Scholars have been adapting to new technological advances by changing the definition of advertising and adjusting its practice.

Consumers have been shown to feel uneasy that their data are so widely collected and processed for advertising purposes, as such harvesting threatens their privacy. Research in digital ethics focuses on developing frameworks and guidelines for ethical decision-making in the context of emerging media. As emerging media technologies become more prevalent, ethical issues such as privacy, security, and transparency become more important. To access consumer data, researchers can, for example, ask consumers to donate their digital trace data. This donation would make it possible to examine real-life data in relation to this topic.

As for the future of dataveillance in advertising theory and practice, data collection and analysis will likely continue to play a significant role in advertising. However, there may also be increased scrutiny and regulation of data privacy as consumers become more aware of how their data is used and its potential risks. Advertising professionals will need to balance the benefits of data-driven advertising with the need to protect consumer privacy and maintain consumer trust. Additionally, there may be developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning that could enhance the effectiveness of dataveillance in advertising but also raise ethical concerns around the use of personal data. Ultimately, the future of dataveillance in advertising will depend on technological advancements, regulatory developments, and societal attitudes towards privacy and data protection.

The article “Tech companies and the public interest: the role of the state in governing social media platforms” by Stockmann addresses the question of how to govern social media platforms is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, social media companies have significant power over the flow of information and the public discourse, and their actions can have far-reaching consequences. On the other hand, social media platforms are private companies, and they have the right to operate their business as they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.

Social media have recently been criticized for spreading false information and hate speech, polarizing people, promoting dissatisfaction and citizens’ distrust in institutions, and threatening peace and stability. The debate has shifted towards tech lash, with many critics pointing towards technology companies undermining democracy, stability, and sustainability. As a result, policymakers self-regulation has to move towards co-regulation.

Some have argued that social media platforms should be treated as public utilities and subject to the same regulation as other critical infrastructure. Others have proposed creating a new regulatory framework specifically for social media platforms, which could include requirements for transparency, data protection, and content moderation. Still, others have called for social media platforms to be broken up or nationalized to limit their power and influence. While social media platforms have significant power and influence over public discourse, they are private companies with the right to operate their business as they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.

The article “John Oliver as the Pandemic Fundraiser? Championing Causes and Political Participation Through Satirical Television” by Becker discusses one of the most pressing questions posed by scholars is whether exposure to political satire content can engender greater political participation among these media-consuming citizens who might otherwise remain disengaged from the political process.

John Oliver has demonstrated the power of satirical television as a tool for advocacy and political engagement. The author claims exposure to political satire can encourage smaller, “easier” acts of political and civic participation and public expression, like signing a petition, commenting online, or attending a protest. By trolling relevant corporations, Oliver is encouraging broader corporate responsibility. His work has inspired many viewers to take action on important issues and has helped to raise awareness.

[michaelbellu]

Can deepfakes create a more shallow perception of reality?

Blog 4/13

Deepfakes create a serious trust problem in a society that is already as polarized as ever.

The article “Deepfakes and Disinformation: Exploring the Impact of Synthetic Political Video on Deception, Uncertainty, and Trust in News” by Vaccari and Chadwick discusses how artificial intelligence now enables the mass creation of what has become known as “deepfakes.”

The authors conclude that deepfakes may contribute toward generalized indeterminacy and cynicism, further intensifying recent challenges to online civic culture in democratic societies. Most people may be poorly equipped to discern when deepfakes deceive them. The article found that people correctly identify fakes in only about 50% of cases, statistically as good as random guessing. We have shown that political deepfakes may not necessarily deceive individuals, but they may sow uncertainty which may, in turn, reduce trust in news on social media. “On a more optimistic note, we have shown that an educational video about political deepfakes can succeed in reducing uncertainty, and in so doing can increase trust in news on social media, compared with deceptive deepfakes.”

As discussed in previous articles and in class, educating the public to help prevent misinformation sounds like a good strategy at first, but it is not realistic when attempting to implement it. In the case of deepfakes, it creates an even more confusing environment to teach users what is real vs. fake. Due to their erratic speeches, the current and previous presidential administrations have created even greater confusion around what is real or fake. Donald Trump was so off the cuff, erratic, and shocking with his real speeches that the public often was left confused if it was edited or real. Joe Biden stubbles, misreads, and loses his train of thought so often that it also can be confusing for viewers to know what is real or edited. Both of these scenarios are unique and different from what is discussed in the article. The fact that AI can create perfect deepfakes of well-trained, polished speakers is scary what can be done for average speakers. As stated in previous AI articles, this type of technology needs to be kept in check and carefully contained to help prevent issues in the future as it continues to evolve.

The article “Different platforms, different uses: testing the effect of platforms and individual differences on the perception of incivility and self-reported uncivil behavior” by Sude and Dvir-Gvirsman investigated differences in perceived incivility between seven social media platforms.

Differences in perceived affordances between platforms were related to differences in perceptions of incivility’s prevalence. Platforms that were perceived to allow greater anonymity were perceived to have more incivility. Specifically, platforms characterized by either perceived anonymity or perceived network association were, in turn, perceived to be more uncivil. American users see certain platforms as more uncivil than others, even considering differences in their behavior.

The article “Tackling Misinformation: What researchers could do with social media data” discusses how platforms play a significant role in the diffusion and amplification of mis and disinformation narratives. The overarching scope of the research is not defined by the researchers but by the platforms themselves. In the rare case, data sharing is a possibility, negotiations have been slow for several reasons, including platforms’ concerns over protecting their brands and reputation and ethical and legal issues of privacy and data security on a grand scale.

The article “Dark Participation” Without Representation: A Structural Approach to Journalism’s Social Media Crisis” by Miller and Nelson concludes by observing that “dark participation” is not unique to journalism alone and by discussing the implications of our findings for communication stakeholders invested in overcoming the current, global climate of populism that frequently results in hate, harassment, and hostility within social media.

Social media allows journalists to pursue stronger, more intimate connections with their audiences, cultivate their own professional identities or “brands,” and advocate for improved working conditions within their organizations. However, journalists feel concerned about being their “authentic selves” on social media for fear of sometimes violating ambiguous policies beneficial only to their organization.

[michaelbellu]

Does social media make you more trustworthy?

Blog 4/6

Scientists posting “selfies” to Instagram from the science field were perceived as significantly warmer, more trustworthy, and no less competent than scientists posting photos of only their work.

The article “Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists” by Jarreau et al. 2019 claim that self-portrait by STEM professionals on social media can mitigate negative attitudes toward scientists.

Participants who viewed scientist selfies, especially posts containing the face of a female scientist, perceived scientists as significantly warmer than participants who saw science-only or control images. Participants who viewed selfies also perceived less symbolic threat from scientists. People are more likely to pay attention to and act upon “quality information communicated by sources they see as trustworthy in terms of expertise, honesty, and shared identity” and from sources they “like.” High-quality interactions with likable scientists encourage positive beliefs about science and scientists’ messages.

Social media platforms may offer women and minority scientists an opportunity to create their own narratives through self-images and new takes on what scientists look like, what they do, what they care about, and how both warm and competent they are. A diversity of real-life scientist faces in our media environments could help others begin to individuate scientists, help break down stereotypes, and foster more inclusion in STEM.

Individuation processes, where viewers pay attention to a person’s individual attributes and see that person as human with ideally shared beliefs and good intentions, can help counter negative stereotypes about that person and their group. By humanizing themselves on social media, scientists may be able to increase trust, public support, and interest in science. 

This study is a very interesting concept because, when looked at at a glance, it seems trivial and not a serious topic. However, after reading it, the study addresses a possible solution to a long-time problem. Something as simple as a selfie posted on Instagram can help break down stereotypes in the science field in general, but especially in women and minorities. It humanizes people thought of as emotionless robots that work with mostly things regular people do not understand. 

The article “Digital platforms as socio-cultural artifacts: developing digital methods for Cultural research” by Vicari & Kirby 2022 discusses how social media platforms are increasingly looked at as means to investigate social phenomena like collective events, issues, or causes. 

The study investigated the potential of digital methods for cultural and cross-cultural research. “With ‘digital methods’ we refer to techniques that ‘follow the medium’ and focus on ‘born digital data, namely, medium-specific methods that usually exploiting computational techniques or tools allow researchers to collect and/or analyse data that originated online.” 

Digital methods attract increasing interdisciplinary attention as means and techniques to approach medium and social research. The authors argue for the importance of bridging digital methods literature focused on studying collective phenomena and epistemological reflections on the socio-cultural specificities of digital data and platforms. They stress the need to advance emerging debates that address and problematize the “quali” side of digital methods research in the cultural and cross-cultural investigation of social phenomena.

[michaelbellu]

SNS: Social Networked Self

Blog 3/30

New media algorithms assertively answer anyone’s “what should I watch” question with a flood of answers. 

The article “Why’s Everyone on TikTok Now? The Algorithmized Self and the Future of Self-Making on Social Media” by Bhandari Bimo claims that TikTok departs from existing platforms in the model of self-making it engenders, called “the algorithmized self.” This term is a complication of the preexisting “networked self” framework. TikTok engendered a mode of self-representation and identity creation that departs significantly from the model of “the networked self” that is found on other social media.

This understanding of a “networked self” shows that social media sites, apart from the influence they may have on social practice through their design, are relatively neutral tools for individuals to engage in these processes of identity management and representation. Interaction and curation are self-directed; despite the growing claim of algorithmically directed feeds, for example, “these sites at least claim that the content that users consume is essentially within their control and is ultimately chosen by the user through their conscious choices: the site thus provides a space for free self-representation.”

TikTok has changed the way social media platforms show content to users through their personalized algorithm. Their surge in popularity has put a strain on other big media companies such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. These giants have implemented spinoff features of TikTok on their apps. TikTok still is ahead in most categories over its competitors. 

I believe that one reason many politicians are so against TikTok and claim that it is a Chinese spying device that collects Americans data is because so many of those politicians are associated with big tech companies. Companies such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, when TikTok came along as a threat to their interests, they are trying to shut it down. It works because of the popular anti-Chinese narrative that has been pushed politically in recent years. The public has seen in the TikTok hearings that these people who claim it’s a spying device cannot even define what TikTok is or how it works. A recent hearing with TikTok’s executive was almost commercial at how bad the questions were from those conducting it, such as, “is TikTok connected to the house Wi-Fi, can it connect with other devices in the home.” The executive did not know how to answer the questions other than by saying that it’s not how it works. I don’t believe it is a spying divine and should not be shut down. 

“Influencer Celebrification: How Social Media Influencers Acquire Celebrity Capital” by Brooks et al. discusses how influencers differ from traditional celebrities in that they are experts in the medium through which their celebrity capital is typically leveraged, which is social media. Influencers work with advertisers; this produces even more celebrity capital; the process becomes a continual loop. 

The article “Studying Reddit: A Systematic Overview of Disciplines, Approaches, Methods, and Ethics” by Proferes et al. set out to provide an account of how researchers are using Reddit as a data source. The topics being studied using Reddit data vary widely, and at times, researchers are drawing data from communities on Reddit that may include vulnerable populations. The kinds of subreddits researchers are pulling data from vary considerably. 

[michaelbellu]

Corporate Activism With a Cherry on Top 

Blog 3/23  

Social media does not exist in a separate virtual reality but is embedded in more traditional forms of activism and helps facilitate and organize these actions. The motivations behind its use impact social media’s impact on behavior.

The article “Social media and activism: A literature review,” by Allsop 2016 discusses social media’s role in activism and its effects on social movements. There has been an increase in interest in the role social media plays in facilitating activism, particularly since the wave of protest that erupted in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, embodied in the Arab spring, the Occupy movement student protests in the UK and several widespread protests in Spain Greece and Ukraine. 

During the Arab Spring, activists at the anti-consumer organization Adbusters sent an e-mail to their subscribers suggesting similar action on New York’s Wall Street. A movement fueled by Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr took off, and soon there were Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests in many locations. The movement’s physical and philosophical Wall Street home was in Zuccotti Park, where thousands of protesters set up a community for a long-term protest. Their goal was to raise public awareness of the country’s growing level of income disparity-the gap between the richest Americans and those in the shrinking middle class and the swelling ranks of the poor. OWS’s slogan, “We are the 99%,” was designed to highlight the fact that the income and opportunity gap between the richest Americans, the 1%, and everyone else was rapidly growing and becoming a permanent part of American life. Making New York’s financial district the site of its main activities was intended to signify that it was the practices of the nation’s financial elites that were responsible for people’s increasing economic issues. It aimed to raise awareness and, through its non-violence actions, make the moral argument for economic fairness. 

The New York Times, the self-proclaimed paper of historical record, wrote nothing about the occupation, which was occurring only a few blocks from its offices, for the first five days. By 2011 the presence of phone cameras, Twitter accounts, Facebook, and YouTube could spread what was happening instantly to millions. Instead of a couple of thousand people coming to Zuccotti to rally or assemble for marches during the day, the crowds swelled to the tens of thousands. 

The article “Effects of Issue Ownership, Perceived Fit, and Authenticity in Corporate Social Advocacy on Corporate Reputation,” by Lim and Young 2021, analyzes the rise of social media that has provided contemporary firms. It creates a new gateway to interact with consumers and take stances on diverse social and political issues, known as corporate social advocacy. The current research examined the effect of corporate social advocacy on corporate reputation. 

The article “Measuring consumer digital engagement and political consumerism as outcomes of corporate political advocacy,” by You and Hon 2022, discusses the polarized political climate that consumers increasingly expect corporations to use their influence by taking stances on sociopolitical issues. Corporations’ engagement in sociopolitical issues through CPA/CSA as a public good for democracy, corporations become political actors. Corporate engagement with CPA/CSA can increase awareness of controversial sociopolitical issues and impact voting behaviors. Corporations act as political actors in civic mobilization and policy-making through community engagement. The measurement of political consumerism corresponds with this concept’s focus on political ideology expression through supportive and unsupportive purchasing behaviors.

[michaelbellu]

Authentically inauthentic

Blog 3/9

Users intentionally being fake on social media to make themselves feel better, but the reality is the opposite.

The article “Feeling Authentic on Social Media: Subjective Authenticity Across Instagram Stories and Posts” by Kreling et al. 2022 compares subjective authenticity perceptions among users and between self-presentations of two Instagram features, Stories vs. Posts.

This study backed up what most users already know, that Instagram stories are more real than actual posts because they are more spontaneous and allow more self-presentation. People use the two features for different reasons, so that should be taken into account when comparing the two. Posts are primarily pictures of the person in charge of the account, edited with a caption. Stories can be anything, sharing music, sports clips, other people’s posts, ect. There is much less time and work associated with stories than posts. These attributes can make stories feel more authentic and relatable. Unlike traditional posts, stories are not posted with the intention of receiving likes or comments. Along with lower expectations of response rate, stories also can be more spontaneous, creating more authenticity.

“Snapchat lenses and body image concerns” by Burnell et al. explored associations between general use of Snapchat lenses and body image concerns and experimentally examined how taking selfies with Snapchat lenses influences appearance satisfaction.

I do not think Snapchat lenses significantly affect users’ body image satisfaction. Certain lenses can make a person look better than without one, but most of them are obvious to the viewer that a lens is applied. Also, many of them are meant to be silly or funny, like the dog tongue or a cat sitting on your head. When lenses or filters are applied, and it is not obvious or shown that there have been alterations done to pictures, it can negatively affect others’ perceptions of the person posting and how they look at themselves. Examples such as facetune or others like it can create negative effects on people who do not understand it has been edited.

The article specifies that “taking more selfies without lenses until reaching one satisfactory for posting on social media was associated with greater body image concerns.” No matter the platform or how you use it, this data shows that it’s the constant self-reflection and the attempt to look perfect that creates a negative self-image; the apps are just tools that help facilitate that goal.

The article “Social media is not real: The effect of ‘Instagram vs. reality’ images on women’s social comparison and body image” by Tiggemann, M., & Anderberg, I. (2020) discusses a recent trend on Instagram that consists of posting Instagram vs. reality images containing side-by-side photographs of the same woman, one an idealized depiction and the other a more natural depiction.

The majority of social media influencers and models are people presented with no flaws and perfect bodies. This trend has had harmful effects on users for years, creating unrealistic expectations for themselves based on heavily edited pictures and filters. All of this has impacted specifically women’s self-confidence and body image.

Real posts have the potential to bolster women’s body satisfaction. As predicted in the study, it was found that exposure to paired ideal-real images and real photos resulted in lower body dissatisfaction than viewing idealized Instagram images. Showing what models actually look like in everyday life has positive effects on self-confidence. There are also many plus-size models now who intentionally post pictures with unflattering angles, showing stretch marks, cellulite, and other things that previously would never be shown or edited out.

This is discussed in more depth in the article “It’s All About the Look”: Making Sense of Appearance, Attractiveness, and Authenticity Online” by Foster 2022. Foster describes how influencers of color, plus-size influencers, and influencers who are perceived as less conventionally attractive continue to face obstacles related to visibility online and are less likely to secure brand endorsements in exchange for their labor. This means that Instagram remains relatively looking the same.

[michaelbellu]

Are there any accounts to follow to help get over my social media addiction?

Blog 3/2

This week’s readings focused on social media usage and how it impacts people’s mental health and addiction to social media. 

The article “Does time spent using social media impact mental health?: An eight year longitudinal study,” by Coyne et al 2020, was my favorite of this week’s readings. The study spanning over eight years, is really interesting and gives more perspective on the range of social media. Participants included 500 adolescents who completed once-yearly questionnaires between the ages of 13 and 20. The results showed that increased time spent on social media was not associated with increased mental health issues at the individual level. When individual adolescents used more social media than their own cross-time averages, they did not increase in either depression or anxiety. 

Decreases in an individual adolescent’s own time spent on social media did not indicate ensuing decreases in depression or anxiety. This study shows that the reported link between social media and mental health might be somewhat exaggerated. I believe that it all depends on intentionality and the different kinds of content consumed. In certain cases, one individual’s screen time could be much lower than others, but the content being consumed is more depression/anxiety producing. The number of variables that are incalculable make studying issues like this very difficult, but I feel that this study did a good job capturing the full scope of the issue. 

“Digital Communication Media Use and Psychological Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis,” by Liu et al 2019 built on the Coyne et al study by investigatig how people’s association with social media affects them. The study showed the more often people made and received telephone calls, the better their overall well-being. Texting was also positively correlated with well-being. Social networking sites usage and online gaming were negatively related to well-being. 

Phone calls and texts make sense that they show positive results because it mostly helps bring people together in a personal direct way, unlike most social media. Social media can be very empty and “friends” are mostly people that have never met. Online gaming has some variables that can affects whether it has positive or negative results. If the games are played with real friends that the person actually knows, it can work in the same way as phone calls, if the games are with strangers or online aquantances it can have the same results as social media. 

This study would be interesting if it was conducted again after the covid lockdowns. Many people’s perceptions of social media and virtual communications changed after not boeing able to see people in-person for such an extended period of time. I believe that the results would mostly remain the same, just exagreratetd. Virtual media gave people a way to stay connected in way not needed before, for many people it was their only source of communication or cantact with others. In some cases I think social networking sites could have benefited individuals well being depending on their personal circumstances. 

The article “Black Women’s Social Media Use Integration and Social Media Addiction,” by Matsuzaka et al 2023, examined Black American women’s social media use integration in relation to social media addiction and the potential moderating role of connectedness to Black women. 

It is interesting that black American women are among the largest consumer groups of social media in the United States but are under-researched in the social media literature. The study found that social media use integration was positively associated with social media addiction. Connectedness to Black women moderated this relationship, such that the positive association between social media use integration and social media addiction was magnified at a higher level of connectedness to Black women.

From personal experience, it seems as if the stereotypical person that would be addicted to social media is an American white girl. The most used platform would be Instagram, and most effects would probably be negative. This article showed that this stereotype is not true.

[michaelbellu]

Gatekeeping for the truth or gatekeeping the truth?

Blog 2/23

As social media grows, journalists have less gatekeeping power. Everyone has an outlet to share the news how they want to, but this places a greater responsibility on journalists to seek and report the truth. Even if they are not the most influential discussion leaders, people still depend on them for the truth.

This week's readings examined Twitter data and how it impacts our social networks and how gatekeeping and agenda-setting impact the discourse to which we are exposed. Guo and Liu (2022) and Groshek and Tandoc (2017) show the power of Twitter to affect our lives in their articles. Both researchers use their reports to show the platform's impact through agenda-setting effects and gatekeeping. In the case of the Ferguson, Missouri protests, Groshek and Tandoc (2017) they have discovered that legacy journalists were not the most effective at producing conversation and gatekeeping stories about Ferguson.

Social media platforms have transformed the nature of relationship management as "key mediators interacting between organizations and various stakeholders." according to Himelboim et al. (2014) in "A Social Networks Approach to Public Relations on Twitter: Social Mediators and Mediated Public Relations," Twitter appropriately depicts social network structures, mediators, and indicators prevalent in our current social sphere. This article applies a network approach to "identify and classify the types of social mediators that connect organizations with their publics and the direction of communication between them (Himelboim et al., 2014)." The research presented in this article shows how new interactive media possess tremendous potential to make communication more strategic, two-way, interactive, and dialogical, especially within government organizations active on social media.

Guo and Liu looked at the agenda-setting effects of the #BlackLivesMatter and #StopAsianHate trends from 2020 and 2021, collecting data from the most significant time of surge for the hashtags (3 months directly after George Floyd's death for #BlackLivesMatter and three months directly after the Atlantic spa shooting in 2021 for #StopAsianHate). The two found that the information surges directly after the tragedy but stabilizes after two weeks once the popularity dips. This leads to a change in the direction of the hashtag, shifting from directly talking about the issue to discussing how to combat general hate.

The most prominent example was the #BlackLivesMatter movement in 2020, which directly responded to police brutality issues continuing to rise in the United States. The hashtag and similar hashtags sought to cover the protests that raged across America and serve as an educational tool for people on social media to learn about the unfair treatment of black people in America. Notably, the death of George Floyd and the viral video of the situation itself served as the catalyst.

[michaelbellu]

An echo chamber so loud it pops a filter bubble

Blog 2/16

If someone yells into an echo chamber, but no one hears it, does it still create polarization?

The article “Filter bubble,” by Axel Bruns, claims that echo chambers and filter bubbles are not as significant in creating polarization as people think. “The myth of the filter bubble,” above all, “is one thing: a big misunderstanding.” Misunderstanding continues to circulate in public debate, and scholars push back against it by pointing to studies that claim to debunk it.

New media and communication technologies have always undergone a process of individual adaptation and social construction; while not neutral, the technologies and their providers are neither inherently good nor evil in this but can be employed by their users to serve socially and societally beneficial as well as disruptive ends.

The article “The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media,” by Elizabeth Duboisa and Grant Blank, also focuses on echo chambers with a more specific focus on politics. They also claim not to find significance in echo chambers when looking at the entire multi-media environment. The studies show that partisan echo chambers among politically interested could contribute to a growing gap in knowledge between those who are politically interested and those who are not. Greater interest in politics and more media diversity reduces the likelihood of being in an echo chamber. However, the high-choice environment also allows individuals, including those who are politically interested, to consume a wide variety of media, which could lead them to more diverse content and perspectives.

The article “When Birds of a Feather Instagram Together: Debating the Image of Islam in Echo Chambers and Through Trench Warfare on Social Media,” by Zeynep Aydin, Albrecht Fuess, Marcel Förster, and Thijl Sunier, shows that echo chambers do exist and how they can impact large groups of people. This study proves that not only do echo chambers exist within the #CharlieHebdo discussion online, but they can transcend multiple countries.

While echo chambers are built based on political views or personal interest, it is trigger events such as terror attacks that reinforce these filter bubbles. Tweets and likes by “cybermobs,” boost negative sentiments like anti-Muslim hostility and can finally lead to real-life targeting of Muslims.

While it could be argued that the “dank memes” modularity class is relatively low, considering that one user has posted most of the posts, this might not qualify as echo chamber behavior. However, the fact that there are many posts with these specific hashtags and because the individual posts are findable and offer a place for comments to be made qualify this hub as an echo chamber behavior and perhaps an echo chamber in itself.

Despite what data has been shown in studies, I believe that echo chambers and filter bubbles are major reasons for increased polarization. I understand that people have to intentionally seek out information online and that algorithms are not responsible for what people put in them to how the end results. However, whether users intentionally try to see reflective content or not, applications will show them what they “like” to try to keep them on the platform longer.

Throughout the articles, the idea of people using social media and online technology to find differing opinions to learn new perspectives and see what people from the opposing side are saying is unrealistic. Most of the public does not want to see what the other side has to say unless it’s so they can criticize it and belittle it. Some people do that, especially highly educated technology and media-literate users. Outside of college classrooms and other scholarly uses, the majority of people use social media and the internet to confirm ideas they already have and give credibility to their opinions. These users mostly use the differing opinion’s media as ammunition for their arguments and talking points. This behavior promotes filter bubbles and creates echo chambers. In many cases, things may not rise to a full “echo chamber” but still trend in that direction enough to generate more polarization. The idea that the opposite happens and the public will use technology to understand and learn about opposing sides seems unrealistic and utopian.

[michaelbellu]

Imagined internet is the real internet trap

Blog 2/9

If people want the internet to remain open, they must first understand it and then fight for it. The investigation of the internet and the world wide web was supposed to make media monopolies impossible. Instead, tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Apple now dominate the time we spend online and grab all the profits from the attention economy.

The article “The Internet Trap” by Matthew Hindman describes the difference between the internet people imagine and the internet that is real. When comparing the two, there is a significant gap in the public’s mind. People imagine the internet to be this land of opportunity where anyone can make it big when the reality is a third of web visits go to the top ten firms. The big names are Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. These companies led by Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk are the modern version of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Most small start-up sites can not touch the big guys. The article shows why, even on the internet, there is still no such thing as a free audience. The internet has not reduced the cost of reaching audiences; it has shifted who pays and how.

The article also talked about how news aggregators such as Apple news and Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages are moving news organizations’ content onto their own platforms. This greatly impacts journalism as a whole and is forcing news organizations to compete with these tech giants. The move hurts most news companies, especially small newspapers. People claim that many small news sources that cater to small local audiences are important; however, “on the real internet, small-but-valuable audiences are an oxymoron.” Digital survival depends on stickiness, how to attract users, get them to stay longer, and return again. As discussed in previous readings, algorithms are used to keep users on an app or website longer by showing content crafted according to what that specific person likes based on previous activity. Probably the stickiest app right now is Tiktok. It is the most popular algorithm-run app. Users primarily focus on the “for you” page, not the people they follow. The whole idea of the “for you” is only to show content the app knows that person will like based on their specific activity. Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook also do similar things to get users to stick around on their platforms and pay attention to their apps. It all centers around the attention economy and how one site can get more of a person’s attention than others.

Google has created stickiness in a different way. Rather than being just a search engine, it has evolved into a combination of work tools, personal storage, and social media. Instead of trying to keep users on one platform, they just made a variation of everything you need, all connected through your personal Google account. There are Google photos, drive, maps, translate, email, docs, shopping, travel, and a ton more. Google has become a conglomerate of all different types of tools and sites that are all liked together. Before Google, people would have accounts for all the different tools, such as email, word docs, excel, mapquest, etc. With the evolution of Google, users can now stick to a Google site, no matter the variation of the use they want. Google has now become a verb; if you don’t believe me, Google it.

Google is extremely helpful and has improved many people’s lives through its convenience and evolution; however, there is a downside. Google continues to grow bigger every year, reaching new parts of our lives and linking other things to Google accounts. At what point is it too dominant? How long before it reaches and knows too much about people’s lives? Previous readings have discussed AI and the evolution of it being incorporated into everyday life. If AI continually goes unchecked and Google has a robot variation, it could be very problematic with it having access to most parts of people’s lives. I have said for years that Google is Skynet from Terminator and that they will come after me first because I tried to warn everyone.

[michaelbellu]

Positive Social Media? Is There an Algorithm for That?

7019 Blog 2/2

Using Twitter, the study found four online fields of focus: lifecasting, politics, promotion, and entertainment. This breakdown is interesting because there are definitely lots of subgroups in each one that are very different.

The article also mentions the digital divide and its relevance to the study. In today’s modern tech-driven world, especially as college students, people forget that not everyone has the same media access. Digital inequalities tend to mirror the offline areas of inequality, such as race and ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. In many cases, even if people have economic and logistical access to technology such as social media, streaming, smartphones, and the internet as a whole, they still cannot access them. Age and geographical location are significant factors in the digital divide that were not mentioned in this study. People 65 years old and up, especially 80 and up, struggle to keep up with our continually evolving climate. In most cases, they are not the target demographic for any new technology or thought of when everything is moved to digital. The unfortunate part is the elderly could stand to benefit greatly from new technology, either from heath and emergency areas or just general entertainment.

The study pointed out that pundits and men were significantly more negative on Twitter due to the discussion of politics in an increasingly polarized society. They also mentioned that the entertainment field expresses a more positive outlook than tweets posted in the political field. I thought this was very obvious data in this study, that people who tweet about entertainment are more positive than people who post about political news. I believe that social media, especially Twitter, has facilitated a more polarized political climate. Constant misinformation, arguing in comments, and the ability to attack anyone with opposing views all contribute to division.

There are new apps that have been gaining traction in recent years that are only positive apps. The apps promote goal setting, compliment others, and mental health. Their whole goal is to facilitate a positive platform where users can go to escape the sewer that most regular social media has become. The irony is that regular social media was thought of as an escape from the real world and was supposed to be fun and enjoyable when created. Now companies are creating sites to escape the old ones, and people turn off their phones as an escape to the real world. The entire intended use of social sites has been inverted in recent years.

Some think of algorithms as technological prescriptions and logical instructions created by data engineers, mathematicians, and programmers. Other people think algorithms are an invisible infrastructure for internet users who consciously or unconsciously follow their instructions. I think both are true; algorithms have pros and cons. There are times it is helpful when online shopping, and it helps you find things or sorts out content you do not like. I love the algorithms on Spotify. The app will suggest new music that it thinks you will like and builds personalized playlists from your listen history. The downside is they can keep people scrolling for much longer than they normally would because the algorithm keeps showing them things they want to see. Also, it can feel a little intrusive with your device showing ads for things you have previously looked up or searched.

One big complaint is buying plane tickets online. In many cases, if a person looks up tickets once but doesn’t buy them, then returns later, the price can increase and have different flight options than before because the system knows you are interested in that flight. One way to combat this is to look up plane tickets in incognito mode, where the data is supposedly not tracked. In all, I believe that algorithms are a good thing, but they must be regulated and used in ways that are good, not just for profit.

[michaelbellu]

7019 Blog 1/26

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is ushering in an era of potential transformation of journalism and media content. AI is about creating machines that can mimic human cognition and behavior, such as learning and problem-solving. There is concern about whether AI will displace human workers or function more as a tool to augment human capacity. NLP platform known as ChatGPT. NLP is already widely used in journalism and media operations, including news organizations such as the Associated Press, which uses AI extensively in various areas, from news gathering to news production to distribution.

Some people “argue that AI is not yet advanced enough to fully replace human journalists and media professionals, and that it is likely to complement and enhance their work rather than replace it.” Of course that’s what is said when it is created, that’s how it starts. Most of the time, when there is an invention that ends up being bad or has negative effects on people or society in general, it starts with people saying that it’s okay and that it’s not harmful, yet. Social media started out that way; it was intended to help and be entertaining; though it still is in some ways, it also has had many negative unforeseen effects. AI robots are a huge example of technology being created that is not needed, which can ultimately cause a huge problem for everyone. A similar claim is made with new robots, as with ChatGPT, that it’s meant to enhance productivity and not advanced enough to hurt anything. The reality is it might not be sophisticated enough to hurt anyone now, but people are going to keep messing around until AI is a problem. When AI can fully think for itself and no longer needs humans to program them, they might think they do not need us around anymore. I know this is a big jump from a program writing a paper to robots taking over the world, but it is important to keep AI in check as technology rapidly keeps moving forward.

The research reported implies that social media platforms no longer feel a need or desire to be associated with these cultural beliefs. Given this, questions are raised as to whether “sharing” remains a keyword for social media. There is a clear reduction in the use of the terminology of “sharing” in the self-presentation of SNSs during the decade under study. Where in the mid-2000s SNSs relied heavily on a rhetoric of sharing to promote their services, by 2020, “sharing” appears hardly at all. “Sharing,” is no longer being used to do the rhetorical work it once was. The notion of words like platform, big data, algorithms, and AI have different meanings and uses.

It is interesting that there has been a decline in certain word usage on social platforms; it’s something I have never thought about. However, I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal. It is just a form of marketing like anything else; I assume companies ran focus groups and found that users like other terms more. The word “sharing” has evolved in general since social media was invented. Sharing used to be thought of as talking to someone in person or giving a person some of your food. The word has evolved as other things have.

What will the internet look like in 2035? Or what do people want it to look like? As the article showed, most people want all positive change and to fix problems that the internet has created. I do not think that the internet will be improved in 35 from the standpoint of helping people, but it will improve in making money from users. The internet is all big business now and will continue to grow, just look at Google and the paid ads at the top. Other examples are Instagram trying to sell people items based on algorithms made for you or companies paying for top spots on websites. It’s all based on the attention economy, where the goal of websites and apps is to keep people on them; people pay with their time, not money.

The definitions and major social media applications have changed in the 25 years since the term was originally coined. Based on the definition, the results may need to be interpreted in a more or less different way. Before 2010, SM was commonly approached as a tool of connectivity for people with common interests. After 2010, the focus changed to creating and sharing user-generated content.

Social media, as a term, has had many definitions and connotations over the years of its existence. Originally intended to be thought of as positive, fun, and helpful, has turned into a lot of negatives in recent years. Many people attribute a large number of societal problems to “social media.” This is true in many cases but also a scapegoat in many others. People tend to blame “social media” for many issues that are not associated with the big umbrella term or use it as a blanket statement, such as “social media is bad.” In reality, there are always positives and negatives in all the aspects of social media and the platform that make it up.