Language and New Media @mrjamestpowell-blog - Tumblr Blog

Oversharing on Facebook

Posting pictures of your breakfast might work for internet sensations, but a shoddy plate of scrambled egg posted by Barbara, 56, from Rochdale just isn’t the same. Welcome to the world of ‘oversharers’ on Facebook, with new features that encourages users to tell their friends if they’re “feeling annoyed” or “feeling blessed”, oversharing on Facebook is most definitely still a THING.

There’s something about being behind screen that encourages some people to bare all to people they might have only met once drunk in a girls bathroom. Facebook encourages users to do this in a variety of ways, for example the check-in function, allowing people to check-in to everywhere from Nando’s to hospitals to service stations, and making the mistake that all 178 of their friends care what Nando’s meal they’re eating.

Another of Facebook’s features which oversharers have latched onto is the memory feature. This shows you what you were doing on this day, 3 years ago (for example), it can be as small as a breakfast you had or as big as a wedding you attended, as long as you posted it to Facebook 3 years ago, it’s classed as a memory. As nice as it is to reminisce from time to time, reminding us of that amazing full English you had 3 years ago makes you a grade A oversharer.

These trivial type updates are ALMOST bearable but the worst bit about oversharing is when people get too gushy on Facebook. My biggest regret is excepting my Mum’s friends on Facebook when my timeline is filled with inspiration quotes like this…

I’m sure I’m not alone on this one, what are your thoughts on “oversharers”?

mrjamestpowell-blog

I think oversharing has only become more prominent due to the rise of algorithmic memes, for some reason, people seem to find a personalised, mildly funny image irresistible to share. It's also interesting that people choose to both share and publicly tag specific people in such content when it's just as easy to send it via messenger. There is possibly an element of promoting your social mobility by utlilsing the public nature of the share tool.

sophh-lou-blog

Viral Smiles

Let’s give ourselves some credit. We’re not always phishing for likes. Sometimes we want to share some goodness, like this video.

The idea of something going viral sounds dangerous, with the word directing us to the idea of a ‘virus’. Things being spread beyond our control, causing harm, such as sex tapes and secrets. We often see photos posted on Facebook intended to humiliate and embarrass people, which a lot of the time is funny… Just not for those at the butt of the joke.

But it is possible to spread happiness online without upsetting anyone. When this BBC News footage was gatecrashed by the interviewee’s children, it became far more interesting. The audience were no longer watching to be informed, but to be entertained, and people wanted to spread that humour. Thanks to social media, they could. The video has been shared so many times, that it has over 18 million views on YouTube, and hopefully caused even more laughs. The idea that we want other people to experience the same feeling of happiness as us is a lovely one, and proves that media isn’t numbing us to human emotions. It’s helping us to feel them.

If you can spread the happiness, ‘share’ it.

mrjamestpowell-blog

Whilst I agree that we not everything we share online is negative, I think it's useful to consider the 'consequences of virality'. For example, in a follow-up interview to this video, the family raised the worry that it could be detrimental for their relationship with the BBC and the controversial assumption that the mother was the nanny. The idea that this family will forever be associated with both this video and the assumptions made, is intimidating and frustrating.

semperetperpetuum-blog

When this photo was taken, I was sitting in the cutest little brunching place near my house in Cyprus with two of my best friends. When the waitress brought us our food she put the plates in the middle of the table like we asked her to, and then promptly left. That’s when Leda (one of my friends) stood up, moved everything around, added car keys and sunglasses onto the collection of things that were on our table, and told us to push our chairs back so that she could take a picture. The rest of the time we spent in this quirky café was spent by us talking about the evening we had planned for that day, choosing outfits, solving the world’s problems and you guessed it- trying to find two captions and filters for this picture. One for Facebook, so that I could post it, and one for Instagram so that Leda could post it. So I guess what I’m getting at here is that although in some cases using phones when with friends is anti-social, if what we’re doing on our phones can become a group activity then I don’t see what the issue is. Taking pictures of food and drinks, having one final scroll through Facebook and checking that last Snapchat story before the actual conversation starts with your friends is now becoming an actual thing, and as long as once we’ve all quickly inspected social media I get to hang out and have a great time with my friends then I don’t really care if they want to take pictures of the food every time we go out; because the chances are that I’ll be doing it to!

mrjamestpowell-blog

I think this is a very interesting post, I've also often thought that the negative effect of social media is overstated. The nature of these devices encourage a constant socialisation that is unprecedented, especially when compared to the non-present, asynchronous communication that was common before their arrival. Nowadays, through instant messengers, we engage in constant and synchronous communication that only enhances our ability to socialise, rather than hinders it.

lucawetherbym-blog

When will my social media show who I am inside ?¿

I remember when I first started using the house computer for games and bizarre virtual worlds like Habbo, the number one rule was always ‘don’t trust people on the internet’. The fear of befriending someone who was secretly an 80-year-old man in his basement was a daily threat which, as far as I’m aware, I managed to avoid.

It was far easier to hide your identity online ten years ago than it is now. Before, you could easily keep all of your social networks at a distance from each other. This meant that a person could create multiple versions of themselves without any remnants of their other online identities leaking through. Even more so, because these online communities were so distanced from each other, you would be able to create an online persona which was completely different to your real-life one.

Nowadays, all of our social medias can be linked together so seamlessly. For one, it is incredibly easy to find people’s alternative social medias through one you’ve already found, like finding their Instagram through their Twitter, for example. Secondly, in an age where social media is the crux of modern communication, it is impossible to create different identities across apps as the information is so readily available for any members of the public to search through and analyse.

So, if you were to display yourself as extremely outgoing and kooky on Instagram, but then you were deathly quiet and uninterested in real life, people would pick up on it in a millisecond and think ‘hang on, I could’ve sworn this guy was really funny when I looked through his page’.

It makes you think, is the internet a way for me to show my real identity without judgement, or is it a way for me to perform as the person I wish I was?

mrjamestpowell-blog

I completely agree. I too experienced strong warnings about online interactions, even when it was significantly easier to stay anonymous. Whilst today many joke about online 'stalking' and the ease with which you can find someone with minimal information, I think few consider the seriousness of that concept. The virtual 'bread crumbs' we leave create a breach of our privacy and causing our accounts to be constructed rather than a natural representation of ourselves.

kingkofiii-blog

Blinded by the Lights

Right, so I’m going to see the 6ix God himself this weekend and I can’t lie when I say I have one very major concern. Phone screens in my face. Nearly every concert I have attended in the last year, from Chance the Rapper to Glass Animals, has been marred by masses of glaring screens and eye level ulnars. I understand the fact that people want to ‘capture the moment’ or ‘re-live the memories’ but when I have splashed out £116 and crippled my bank account to see Drake, I better not have 300 Samsung Galaxies or Iphones obscuring my vision for most of the night.

To me, a few pictures are acceptable, maybe one or two short videos of your favourite song but I can guarantee that no one wants to see your 130 second, blurry snapchat story which mostly includes other people filming from their respective devices. A twenty minute video that is probably going to have to be cut down to conserve memory space anyway is just not necessary! You can’t dance properly whilst trying to film so not only is my vision being impeded but you are also killing the vibe. Maybe it is time to put the devices away, enjoy the moment and be thankful you are getting to experience an occasion that many are not.

I understand the fact that people may want to show off to their friends but why can’t the stories and events be shared through vocal means instead? Since when did we need to see a low quality, condensed version of the night to understand how good it was? In the past a verbal re-telling was good enough and the emotion conveyed through such a story would be an indicator of the type of night it was. Is it too late to return to a time when the only lights at a concert were the flames from a bic or clipper? Or have we gone too far in our quest to gloat over our fellows, to re-live every moment and, in doing so, changed how people experience concerts for the worse?

mrjamestpowell-blog

I completely agree with this claim, there is no need to excessively document every event yet, despite my better knowledge, I also find myself frequently being guilty of this very action. I don't go as far to record a whole song or gig but I do often take short videos from each song. It's something that I continue to dislike but often end up participating within. I think it's interesting how such constant surveillance has become so normalised and frequent, not just within the context of live music but generally. We seem to live in a time when any action or event can be both excessively recorded and stored by thousands of people at once, for better or worse.

"That sounds familiar..." The place of pastiche in the new media

As of recent years I've noticed a quirky trend among 'nerd' culture online that has seemingly permeated posters, graphic designs and 'nerd' fashion (if that's not an oxymoron) and until this month I had no idea what it was called. In our most recent lecture I learned that, as illustrated in my example image above, this was referred to as the concept of simulacra/pastiche where designs or elements of culture are mimicked and undergo a 'mashup' in order to make reference to, and occasionally comment upon, a famous form of art. Whilst I think these references are mostly harmless and a cool way to express that you like particular films, TV shows, literature or any iconic element of pop culture, the concept of remix and pastiche is often criticised for simply 'copying' another artists work and using it for your own benefit.

The video lecture linked above discusses this connection between comically parodying something to comment on it, and pastiche where it is simply referred to. It made me question both pastiche as a concept and it's place in the new media where the creation and sharing of images that have been aped or copied is easier than ever and if this is a breach of copyright or simply encouraging the act of plagiarism itself?

It's a difficult and ultimately grey area, however there is no denying that this kind of behaviour is not only easier but also far more common than it ever has been before. In the modern day, the enforcement and protection of copyright laws relies on algorithms to search for content that has been imitated or stolen entirely. But how can these same algorithms detect two pieces of content that have been blended and combined to create something new whilst still being built on another artist's ideas and creations? Will we slowly see the act of owning an intellectual property fade away? Or will these laws adapt to become even more restricting and intolerant?

How has gamification and game culture influenced new media?

As a self-confessed gamer, the concept of gamification is not only something that I personally found interesting but, as a millennial that has grown up seeing the application of many game mechanics and aesthetics into various forms of new media, it also seemed particularly relevant. Although, the implementation of game culture into contemporary technology, is not the only pattern I’ve noticed, there has also been a widespread criticism of the underlying commercial purpose of many forms of gamified new media. However, based on my personal experience, I would argue that the motivational and engaging nature of such gamification is one of new media’s most beneficial and positive occurrences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35341528

Take, for instance, the way that gamification has opened up the platform of video games to a brand new audience and broken down many stereotypes of the lone, pale, teenage boy in his bedroom. The accessibility of gamification and the manner with which it has been indirectly indexed into new media has brought it to the attention of not just the entertainment industry but health, relationships, politics, social media and most notably education. For example, the revolutionary video game Minecraft, which I’m sure you’re all familiar with, is planning on launching an ‘education edition’ that will make use of the 'situated and contextualised meanings’, described by James Paul Gee, to make learning more engaging and interactive. Particularly as they will be able to alter and change the game in a style completely unlike anything experienced in conventional classrooms.

This appropriation of video game culture into the growing landscape of new media, in elements such as education and social media, have made the sweeping generalisation that video games are trivial and purely for commercial purposes simply inaccurate. What’s more, the very people who have criticised video game culture are likely not aware that, on a daily basis, they are engaging and being motivated by new media that has appropriated the very mechanics and aesthetics they labelled as trivial, shallow and profit-oriented.

Multi-modality vs Censorship

The video attached above is discussing the Salford Quay's swearing ban that went into effect during March last year. This "public space protection order" could cost you up to £1000 for simply using profanity in a specific area of Manchester. The presenter, as you can clearly see, makes no effort to disguise his disapproval of the ban exclaiming, with a focused articulation of aggression that is unmistakably British, "No one has a right not to be offended". After watching the video and exploring the ban itself in more detail I think it's very interesting to see how the truth of this statement bears itself in the reaction of the public on not only Youtube but also in social media and the news.

If you look at the response on Twitter, and I'd recommend you do if only for the comedic value, that 'right to offence' is aired as people rightfully ridicule the ban for being old-fashioned, superficial and blatant censorship. The ease that these tweets, videos and articles were uploaded and in turn the speed in which I could find and collect them to gain a clear understanding of how the public reacted is a testament to the strength social media platforms have given to the voice of the people. Specifically, the multi-modality the internet has brought about has given the public many visual, textual, sound and colour based tools to voice their opinions of protest and disapproval. Without such tools these tweets, articles and Youtube videos would not have gained the same degree of exposure or publicity if they were created a mere 20 years ago. The stance that this video has taken is not only exercising the right for free speech but also taking a direct stand against the censorship of everyday language and I for one am all for it.

iPhone journalism: Questioning the legitimacy of modern photojournalism

During the mid 19th century photojournalism completely transformed the news. The early war photography was, at the time, revolutionary and further developments in technology during the 20th century popularised the form. Fast forward to 2017 and its incredible to think just how drastically things have changed. The rise of social media and online journalism have granted us a style of instantaneous news coverage with photos captured and shared within moments of them occurring. However, this newfound popularity of "iPhone Journalism" has also lead to many images being purposefully staged or digitally touched in order to portray a particular ideology or simply create a more pleasing composition.

As illustrated in the photos attached above, the level of destruction or simply context of violence can be altered and, by the admission of many photographers, faked. I think this has created a real divisive view of modern journalism as many have begun to ask the question: do the affordances of accessibility and immediacy outweigh the constraints of forgery and political propaganda? In terms of my personal stance, I would say that the faking of images can be incredibly damaging to journalism and the public's reaction to events. However, I cannot deny that, on a daily basis, I benefit from modern photojournalism's instant and concise portrayal of the news.

It's a real shame that such great advantages have been compromised by the media's insistence on manipulating the headlines and altering facts. Is it too naive to place our trust in the honesty of the news? Or is the manipulation of facts and reports as intrinsic a part of the media as the sharing of images and stories?

Facebook and Fake Friendships

During our most recent lecture, our class was introduced to a concept that placed a limit on the number of meaningful relationships a person can maintain. The name and idea sounded very familiar and I remembered that I’d learnt about this concept several years ago, in an episode of QI. I unearthed a YouTube clip of this very scene and attached it above. During the scene, the host Stephen Fry, relays to the panel that Dunbar’s supposed limit of meaningful relationships is capped at 150 people. One of the regular panelists, Alan Davies, immediately looks shocked having expected the number to be significantly lower and I must say, I instantly agreed with him. However, Stephen Fry then went on to support Dunbar’s claim describing how the number is significant throughout social history and particularly in modern history as it’s close to the average number of Facebook friends which is “130 odd”.

I was intrigued enough to check my own profile and compare how close I was to Dunbar’s number and was surprised to find that I was well over both Facebook’s average and Dunbar’s limit with a total (as of writing this blog post) of 223 friends. This then made me question that, if I followed Dunbar’s theory, 73 of these friendships were not meaningful or genuine. As I thought about it more, I thought that perhaps this was even fewer than that and after an admittedly quick, and completely unscientific, bit of research only about 10% of my Facebook friends fit into the category of meaningful relationships. So why do we so flippantly add people on Facebook? Do we really think of our Facebook connections as real friends? Or is Dunbar’s number outdated in the modern world of social media?

Whatever the case is, I think it’s fair to say that a large majority of the relationships we establish on Facebook, despite the misleading label, are not defined by the same criteria of the friendships we experience outside of social media.

Social networking, a restrictive platform?

During our lecture this week, the point was raised that, in order to improve upon Facebook's format, the social network Twitter limited it's users updates to only 140 characters per post. These brief and direct updates were concise, blunt and contributed to Twitter's reputation as a restrained micro-blogging website.But it got me thinking, since the rise of Twitter, have new, emerging social networks become progressively more restrictive?

Well I found backing for this idea in the video linked above. Titled "WHY I QUIT SOCIAL MEDIA FOR A YEAR AND WHAT I LEARNED", this video essay relays the experience of someone who quit all forms of social media for a year and how their activities and thoughts were affected. During the video he mentions Nicholas Carr, a famous writer on the subject of technology, who claims, in his book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, that social media encourages a style of "hurried and distracted thinking". A quote, I think you’ll agree, that has only been further proved in recent years with the rise of social networks such as Snapchat, Instagram and Vine. All of which takes Twitter's restrictive policy a step further by only allowing temporary 24 hour posts, pictures and 6 second videos respectively. I would definitely say that our exposure to these short bursts of underdeveloped information have had an effect on not only our reduced attention span but also our ability to express longer, more sustained and meaningful updates.

Who’s ‘LOL’-ing now?

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/lol-or-haha-study-shows-how-we-laugh-facebook-n407071

Recently I've noticed a distinct change in the way that my friends and family have made use of elements, described by David Crystal as 'Netspeak'. Features that, for many years, I would have considered typical or common have began to shift and move towards a new standard. Specific examples, I have noticed, include possibly the most famous, or infamous depending on how you feel about this style of language, the acronym 'LOL'. In the last six months, I've noticed my friends have started to simply use 'HAHA' instead of the well known acronym. This is not the only change I've noticed either. Just the other day a friend of mine simply responded with an emoji, removing the use of text completely. So why the change? Have these features become cliché or old-fashioned? Is it an age issue? Or is it simply a new trend in online language?

Well after watching the attached video from NBC my suspicions were confirmed. They claim that in a recent study 'LOL' was the least used response when expressing laughter on Facebook, followed by 'HEHE' then the emoji and finally, the most used feature by almost half, was 'HAHA'. I find it interesting that they also discuss the issue of age and it does raise an interesting point that maybe 'LOL' has become dated. These statistics support Crystal's findings in schools that 'Netspeak is naff' but maybe this is because these new features more closely resemblance the physical action and so are more comparable. I think its difficult to say exactly why online communication is experiencing this shift and what caused it, but there's clear evidence that, much like our spoken language, our online communication is definitely undergoing changes.

Online journalism and ‘clickbait’

Whilst researching the topic of 'clickbait' articles for this blogpost, I stumbled across this collection of images. They came from a satirical trend a couple of years ago where classic film posters were given a modern update with a title similar to many modern online articles. These 'clickbait' titles manipulate the reader's expectation of the content in order to gain their interest before inevitably disappointing them with the actual, ordinary and usually boring content.

In addition to being absolutely hilarious, these edits also raise interesting ideas about the negative effect of modern media practices. I'm sure you've all probably experienced the annoyance and irritation of 'clickbait' articles and if you're anything like me, you've probably trained yourself to avoid them altogether. But what does this new media practice mean for online journalism? The very nature of 'clickbait' titles are solely seeking that single view in order to gain the ad-revenue generated whenever a reader visits their page. As a result, articles will prioritise the title above the content, they don't need to hold the reader's attention but instead intrigue them just enough to open the link once. This means that much of online media is dominated by misleading headlines that further results in the public's growing indifference and lack of trust when it comes to online media and journalism. Much like the film posters attached above, 'clickbait' has created a highly negative image of modern media as comically predictable and trivial.

Bursting the Filter Bubble

After seeing this image and being introduced to the concept of filter bubbles in general, I initially thought that these personalised algorithms were indeed a harmful tool that reinforced dangerous ideas/groups. However, after considering my own personal experience I begun to question, firstly, if this was much different to our personal social circles? And also if this occurrence was necessarily a bad thing?

These online filters, like our own personal filters, build a friendship group based upon those who we agree with and reinforce our beliefs in a positive way. For instance, take my twitter account, which I use to follow both personal friends and celebrities, this account is primarily made up of people who share my views and interests. Much of my feed is filtered actively by my choosing what appears as well as using the tools provided for me. If I see content which I find offensive or, more commonly these days, content I find annoying, I can "mute" or even "unfollow" that person. It begs the question do filter bubbles attempt to block out opposing points of view? Or do we instead filter our own content by actively promoting posts we support and removing those we disagree with?

The latest Tweets from Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump). 45th President of the United States of America. Washington, DC

Social Media and Impersonal Accounts

In the same way that the televised debates in the 1960's changed the public's interaction with politics, this decade has seen the rise of Twitter as a tool used by politicians to communicate their policies to the masses. But whereas JFK could manipulate the medium of television through his charismatic personality, are modern figures such as Donald Trump using the medium of Twitter in the same way? Are they constructing a persona that is accurate?

It’s common knowledge these days that many celebrities don’t personally contribute to their social media accounts, instead allowing a team to compose their posts and updates. In recent years you may have noticed this trend has crossed over into the online presence of many politicians including Trump. Several reports have claimed that Trump's tweets are constructed by his “team” to ensure that his posts are uncontroversial and appropriate.The few tweets that are claimed to be from Trump himself are, funnily enough, his most infamous posts, garnering much negative attention from both the press and public. So have social networks altered the way that modern politicians can communicate? I would say almost definitely. Instead of answering spontaneously, and without the support of their public relations team, politicians can now manufacture, perfect and, perhaps most scarily, edit their statements with ease and lack of consequence.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Language and New Media