Rowboat

just give me a minute to cook here. WGST 320

[nommi707]

Blog post #10 - Week 13

How does the Patriot Act pose more of a disadvantage to people's safety than an advantage?

The implementation of the Patriot Act was a result of the multiple 9/11 attacks against the U.S., which posed the question of the safety of living in America, in addition to the defense of all non-Americans who entered the country. The passing of this allowed the usage of surveillance made by the government to be legal and necessary to minimize and hopefully prevent any future attacks that would threaten the citizens and the country's safety. However, Parenti points out in their article that the legality of such surveillance is more "invasive" than not, allowing acts that were previously considered illegal to be legal just because the government believes it will better benefit the security of America, even though before they thought of this as a threat. Acts like wiretapping required multiple warrants per device, but with the Patriot Act, anyone who could be in connection with the supposed "suspect" can be surveilled as well; this example is similar to the "hacking" of one of the members involved in the Pegasus and how his family was involved. Although there are some advantages to this and no one is considered a "suspect" without reasonable suspicion, it does not warrant the fact that those who have a relation with them are automatically deemed suspicious, and the government is given the right to legally search their devices. In addition, Parenti brings up the example that the Act also allows the government to choose which judge implements the warrant, which raises suspicion that the government could choose a judge who already shares similar beliefs with the police and can bring unfairness and injustice to the possible suspect. If the government were to raise much suspicion, especially against a specific ethnic group of people, they could choose a judge who is biased against that group, and they may be deemed to receive a worse sentence than they deserve.

How does Madison & Wallschlaeger's case demonstrate the injustice and bias of the legal system? Madison & Wallschlaeger were arrested in 2009 for "criminal use of a communication facility", "possessing instruments of crime", and "hindering apprehension", which meant that it was a felony to organize or encourage a "riot". However, the only thing that they were doing was letting those who were at the scene, protesting and not rioting, know that police were in certain areas, which allowed the crowd to make sure that they were not doing anything actually "bad". Even after they were released on bond, police continued to harass them by barging into their home under a supposed "warrant" and essentially seizing many of their possessions, which led to the assumption that the police believed they were not innocent. Power quotes Madison, stating that "It was almost as if they thought, 'If we take enough stuff, we'll find something to charge them with'", highlighting the corruption within the legal system where if though you are deemed as "innocent", you will never actually be considered as one. The legal system always reminds its citizens that they prioritize their rights and freedom, but how can they prioritize that when they can not even respect individuals who were already charged and deemed "innocent" of their actions? Because Madison and Wallschlaeger were considered "anarchists", going against the authority of the government, they were automatically considered as "threats" and even with their names cleared; Madison even states "part of the thing with the government is to make you feel not only afraid but also ashamed".

How are immigrants who are "protected" still threatened with their rights and safety within the U.S.? Many immigrants who come into the U.S. enter via visas or special programs like exchange student programs that allow students from other countries an opportunity to study abroad. But with recent events, individuals who are under special programs for their right to live here may not be protected as they are believed to be. Incidents like the multiple international students at CSUF being detained and others like Andry Hernandez Romero, who sought asylum in the United States, all had a right to live within the country, yet they were still detained and eventually deported because they were not actual American citizens. If going through all the legal processes to gain these rights is still not enough the guarantee of their safety, then how can anyone feel safe? How can all this effort be just a formality that may end up with these individuals getting "kicked out"? The flaw to such processes is that even though you may have all the right paperwork and shown that you have "good character", there are so many loopholes within the legal system and the government itself that it almost seems like it is not worth the trouble; individuals who are even caught participating in acts such as peaceful protesting can get them in trouble and sent back within an instant. I feel like this is also a tactic that they are using as an attempt to reduce immigrants entering the country, as if America is "exclusive access only".

Can American citizens even feel safe living in the U.S.? To an extent, no one can feel safe. In 2023, it was estimated that 47.8 million immigrants lived in the United States, or about 14.3% of the U.S. population. This meant that 1 in 7 residents were most likely to be immigrants, or foreign-born; this does not exclude individuals who were born to foreign parents or have family relations who were foreigners. Although it may not seem like a lot to the vast numbers of the total population, it still shows that a large number of citizens within the country were made up of immigrants. If the U.S. government were to use the same tactic of "getting rid of" immigrants, the way that they have detained those who were not exactly citizens, a big chunk of the population would be gone, possibly affecting the economy and the way that the country is run. The United States is, and will always be, full of diversity with many different cultures represented in the communities. For those who are not necessarily white but are still considered American citizen, how can they feel safe if they know that they could be taken just because of the way they look or their ethnic background? Stories shown on the news only show those who are not actual citizens being taken away, but that does not mean that those who are "legalized" have not been taken away either. Like in the previous question, you can have all the right paperwork and prove yourself to the government, and it will still not be enough for them; in the end, only the higher-ups and the government can decide whether you are deemed a "citizen" or not.

Parenti, C. (2007). The soft cage: surveillance in America: from slavery to the war on terror. Basic Books.

Power, M. (2010, March 11). How Your Twitter Account Could Land You in Jail. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/police-twitter-riots-social-media-activists/

How many immigrants are in the United States? | USAFacts. (2024). USAFacts. https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-immigrants-are-in-the-us/country/united-states/ (extra resource I used for the last question)

‌

[nommi707]

Blog Post #9 - Week 12

How are Black hairstyles "problematic"? The topic of race has been a sensitive topic within American society, in which the little things that make someone unique can be used against their identity, whether it be the color of their skin or even the simplest detail like enhancing their facial features using make-up or simply styling their hair. For Black individuals, they are often discriminated for this type of decision as it is somehow "offensive" and "distracting". But why is that the case when everyone styles their hair in some form? How are Black hairstyles different from the way that other hairstyles are treated? For one, these hairstyles have been seen as a "rebellion, or rejection of Euro-centric standards and features", somehow making hair a political topic for the way it is. Throughout history, anyone who was not considered white or white-passing was automatically treated differently, if not worse, as a way to convey that they were seen as less, sometimes not even considered "human". In Lee's paper, they showcase the example of Angela Davis, one of America's ten most wanted criminals in the 1970s, who was portrayed to the media with the photo of them with an Afro hairstyle. Rather than focusing on the identity of Davis as a whole, it was noted for their hairstyle as a way to convey that anyone with this type of hair was considered a criminal, having the persona of being an anti-American Black individual. Something as simple as a person's hairstyle created a lot of chaos and misrepresentation of both Davis and the Black community, as they could be profiled for just having a similar hairstyle; this adds on to the claim that anything about you can just be used against you as a way of discrimination and oppression, all because you do not fit a certain standard and are not as seen as an "equal", specifically to white individuals who consider themselves as superior.

How can Black identity be reconstructed? One way that Lee shines light on the comeback for Black identity in a world full of oppression against self-identity is the use of blogs and sites run specifically by Black individuals. Influencers like CurlyNikki, whose blog is run under the parent company of NaturallyCurly.com, use their space as a way to help motivate other individuals who have curly hair to embrace that trait of theirs, and that it should not be something that others have to be ashamed of. While the main target audience is mainly Black individuals, it does not mean that those who are not Black do not go through the same type of discrimination experience for the way they look and style their hair. The simple act of gaining support from those similar to you can be enough to "rekindle" a lost flame of learning to love oneself and battling against those who are against the idea of letting you be 'you'.

Can there ever be "consent" within the digital space? In a way, not exactly. In both the "Surveilled" documentary and class discussion on Wednesday, the idea of consent is more of a way to make users within that digital space feel like they have a form of "control" or even have a say in how they move forward. Even if we knew we were guaranteed the control we believe to have and our consent of whether we agree or disagree is actually respected, the internet is too full of loopholes and individuals who know how to get passed the digital walls that keep outsiders from your information. With the documentary, one of Ronan's connections, Elies Campo, he reveals an insight in which one of the dangers to being in the business of uncovering the truth about spyware, is that not only are you targeted by those who want to stop you, but others like your family can be at risk too. He states, "The whole family is infected" to emphasize that even with the biggest precautions, the amount of risk and loopholes within the digital space are far too great, and simply having a connection with someone can cause you to lose everything. This type of behavior, from the spread of the spyware, Pegasus, shows that consent is rather just an illusion, and you are more or less forced to agree. The moment you open your phone or even download an app, you are "consenting" without realizing that it allows others to gain your information; even places that you do not visit can find ways to get your data through other companies that you have "consented" to.

How did Halle Bailey's role as "Ariel" gain the wrong attention? To begin, most fairytales and folklore have always been represented with the image of white individuals portraying the characters, and even with Disney, the majority of their characters are portrayed as "white". Because of this, it is not surprising to find this backlash against a Black mermaid, as some were perceived into believing that only white individuals can play these roles, and the history of oppression against people of color adds to this. Unlike stories like "Snow White", where the storyline specifically talks about her having "skin as white as snow" so that it is clear that she is a white princess, "The Little Mermaid" has a little more leniency as the race of "Ariel" is not exactly described, therefore, having a Black mermaid is not entirely absurd. Stories about mermaids are created all over the world, each culture with its own twist on the idea, and the portrayal of Ariel in the live-action is more or less just expanding the diversity of using stories, or folklore, from other cultures, like African culture.

Lee, L. (2015). Virtual Homeplace: (Re)Constructing the Body through Social Media.

Hathaway, J. (2014, October 10). What is Gamergate, and why? An explainer for non-geeks. Gawker.

O'Neill, M., & Peltz, P. (Directors). (2020). Surveilled [Film]. HBO Documentary Films.

Lee, L. (2023, April 17). Are Y’all Ready for a Black Mermaid? How Black Twitter Challenges White Supremacist Imaginations. Ms. Magazine. https://msmagazine.com/2023/04/17/the-little-mermaid-halle-bailey-black-twitter/

‌

[nommi707]

Blog Post #8 - Week 11

How have cultural communities, specifically the Black community, used social media to their advantage against mainstream media?

Mainstream media is widely used as an outlet for all the latest news, in which everyone is exposed to the content and allows specific news to gain the attention that it requires. However, mainstream media only focuses on what they believe will attract a large audience, as well as what will bring them the money and funding they require to remain in business. This means that often times, many events that occur daily are left without a news coverage, and if at all, it is very little coverage; this sort of behavior is seen often against the Black community, where the rise of events involving Black individuals and even violence is often overlooked or the story is manipulated because of certain perspectives against the community. In Lee's paper about "Black Twitter", she brings in the use of "#IfTheyGunnedMeDown", an emerging hashtag that became popular over the recent killing of Michael Brown, by implying that the point of the hashtag was "an effort for people to voice their discontent with the media's portrayal and stereotyping of victims who had been killed or injured at the hands of the police and vigilantes" (8). After the news of Brown's death, many media outlets went out of their way to cover the story, but when it came to the portrayal of Brown in their coverage, he was often seen as what looks to be a gang member or even aggressive when that wasn't what he was. Seeing this, the community took it into their own hands by sharing and reposting images and other content as a way to show that Brown was not what the media outlets portray him as, and with the result of the hashtag gaining popularity, it was used as a chance to show that mainstream media was not as truthful as they should be. Without the use of social media, it would be uncertain whether the Black community could make as much as an impact on how Black victims are portrayed on the main news channels as they did with Michael Brown. Social media like Black Twitter has shown to rather be an extension and an alternative for others to voice their concerns and aspects on these situations, even going as far as letting locals and others to bring awareness, both my support and experience.

Does internet activism have a limitation?

In Vegh's article, one of the three main categories of internet activism is through the area of "awareness and advocacy". With the use of this, public awareness is required, in which the individual obtains certain information that is relevant to the cause or topic that is related. The use of the internet makes this easier as it allows information to be seen at a much faster rate, while also allowing information to be spread faster, thus making others more aware of what may be going on. But how can this be a limitation to the use of internet activism? In some ways, people may have a different definition of what they consider as "awareness and advocacy", where some may feel passionate about the cause while others may just see it as something less, or even use it just for "clout". Individuals who are passionate about the cause will go above and beyond in actively participating and spreading information on the topic, protesting and even finding ways of supporting through donations and volunteering; on the other side, those who are not as passionate may just simply like and share the post, believing that it will bring more "awareness" and help the cause. While something as sharing the post about the cause can bring more awareness, it does not necessarily mean that it is as helpful, nor does it mean that it will officially bring more advocacy. By simply liking and sharing the post and then proceeding to carry on with your life shows that you are not actually helping, but rather just joining the majority in passing the information around to make it look like you care, and if you just share once, it could weaken the message as there may be people who may not see the cause or may not even understand the seriousness unless they see others actively sharing and participating to spread awareness. Like with the BLM movement in 2020, a lot of the cause would not have been as easily seen without those who are very passionate about it and actively share stories and experiences as a way to show the seriousness of the situation.

How is Animal Crossing more "serious" than it portrays?

Animal Crossing is a game released by Nintendo in the early 2000s, originally released for the Nintendo 64. The game has had its different versions for the different consoles, some of which require you to be a resident while helping your neighbors or even run your own town as mayor, up to the most recent version of which you are in charge of helping the animal villagers in creating their own dream vacation home (all of which the player is allowed their own personal take in using their creativity to help). In recent times, though, the game has undergone multiple analyses in which people are "diving deeper" in both the meaning and even the hidden secrets that the game has. In The Atlantic's article about the game, they portrayed the game as a trap into getting the players addicted to the "consumer life", where you can buy as many clothes, accessories, and even furniture for your household and for the other villagers, as well as describing one of the characters, a raccoon named Tom Nook, as a "local real-estate tycoon" who is known to help you out, specifically with your house using mortgages. For a game with such innocent imagery and colorful colors, this type of "hidden" meaning can come off as very surprising to both consumers and those who do not play the game, as video games are typically something to have fun with and "let off some steam". As someone who first played Animal Crossing on their little Nintendo DS, I do find this meaning as surprising as I never would have thought the game could be just as serious as the real-world, but just hidden and kept lowkey as the game is mainly targeted towards young children to have fun with and build their creativity. Since the release of the game, there have been multiple creators creating content like on Youtube, expressing their own intake on the game and even sharing possible theories about the game that could add to the "lore" of the given storyline of the original game; for one, some believe that the villagers often do not leave the village or area as they are constantly in debt to people, whether through wealth or through favors. Players will see their neighbors "move out" and be introduced to new ones, but how do we know that the previous neighbors actually "moved on"? Despite its "seriousness", the game still continues to provide comfort and even relief towards users as a way to pass the time, especially during quarantine.

How does the role of "Tom Nook" reflect the way that our real-world economy works?

As stated in the previous question, Tom Nook's character is often described as a sort of "tycoon," as he is always concerned about money or Bells, the currency used in the game. With the recent version, "New Horizons", you are once again a sort of resident where Tom Nook is in charge, specifically to an island. With the assistance of his apprentices who are also Japanese raccoons, Timmy and Tommy, players can buy and sell whatever they wish, similar to the real-life version of "supply and demand" where the two young tanukis supply certain furniture and items each day, and the player is allowed the freedom to buy them at (sometimes) a reasonable price; and in addition, the player is allowed to sell mostly whatever they see fit as a way to gain "income" to buy other things, or to pay off their debt towards Tom Nook in assistance of building their house from a tent. Yet, Tom Nook's role also reflects the way the economy and "rich people" think, only wanting something that will benefit them the most, which are often expensive. Items that are of higher value and are more "rare" are sought for more often compared to smaller, common items like sticks that can be easily found all over the island. Although Tom Nook does not necessarily seem to be profiting from these tasks, in which the player is paid for the high-value items, the overall meaning and role of Tom Nook runs a deeper meaning, where Tom runs the entire "operation" as a way to keep the player and the villagers in the area through the use of financial debt and "favors", thus making him a type of "leader over all" figure where he has the most influence and control over everything and everyone.

Lee, L. A. (2017). Black Twitter: A response to bias in mainstream media. Social Sciences, 6(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6010026

Vegh, S. (2003). Classifying forms of online activism: The case of cyberprotests against the World Bank. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. Routledge.

Bogost, I. (2020). The Quiet Revolution of Animal Crossing. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/04/animal-crossing-isnt-escapist-its-political/610012/

[nommi707]

Blog Post #7 - Week 9

How has politics shaped the use of the Internet?

Politics has significantly shaped the use of the Internet, mainly by what people have access to seeing and the interaction they have with certain information. In Elin's article, they state that "political uses of the Web have deprived individuals of an effective public voice while perpetuating a voice that is of more value to the propagandist than to the group of individuals involved", which signifies the harsh reality that with people of higher power having authority over the internet, whether through actual power or influence, they can manipulate your feed into displaying information that benefits them and their image. For example, with TikTok and recent events, more people have reported being shown many political videos and information regarding Trump and his "achievements" that better display him as a better figure compared to his competitor Kamala Harris, often pictured as the "bad guy". Rather than producing information that benefits many of the public's voices on the concern of who will take office, those who have power manipulated the algorithm in a way that was of more value to the propaganda that benefits the authorial figure. We also see this within movements all around the world, in which individuals involved in the movement are often censored and misrepresented through media and the Internet by the hands of those who are against the cause, in which they attempt to manipulate information about the cause and the movement in a way that benefits them, belittling the movement, while getting the other party to "back down" from protesting and essentially trying to discredit them.

How does the Internet play a role in protesting?

One big factor in the use of the Internet is the anonymity that it gives to users; it is up to the user whether they are to use it for the better or worse of themselves and the other parties. With protests, the risk of taking it on the internet is that many programs and people can witness and police can even identify certain individuals, which leads to many arrests as they become tied to it. However, most of these risks come from videos and pictures that circulate the digital space; if forums and discussion posts were used as a way of protesting and spreading awareness, it would be less of a risk since there is less of a hassle of linking it to your identity. There are still tactics for getting your data and tracing it back to you if you are not careful about where you access the space, but it is better than getting traced from a video that someone took and it so happened to capture you being involved. Elin states in their article that "like many other anarchist and protest groups, has no actual 'membership'… the Internet gives all of these people a chance of organize, and not get caught." No one has to be a member or take part in the movement/cause, but the idea that people have access to officially voice out their opinion in a space that allows them anonymity creates a better result of support which can help benefit the entire picture aims to achieve.

What is the limit to what the digital space can provide in evidence of white supremacy?

The digital space is almost limitless in the amount of information it has access to and stores within itself, but in contradiction, there are actual limits it can obtain depending on the purpose of its use for users. In summary, the internet can not show us everything we want, despite its many resources and access to all forms of information. Daniels highlights the rise in white supremacy social movements, both physically and in the digital world, and questions the impact it may have on the internet. We know that they exist, but how can we know just how much they have grown? Using the Southern Poverty Law Center, "its data about white supremacy in the global era are of limited value, since they restrict their scope to activity within the United States", signifying the lack of tracking that the U.S. does and control it has, yet sources outside the US state that they "estimate there may be as many as sixty thousand racist websites worldwide, much higher than the SPLC's calculation of just under nine hundred sites based in the United States" (42). From this statement alone, it seems that the US is not the only area in which white supremacy originates, showing that its spread of ideals is worldwide. Because there is such a big estimate of how many white supremacy websites exist in the digital space, it is harder to keep track of and even identify if more were to appear. One disguised website is a certain MLK website; at first glance, it seems that it is a website on information about civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., but upon closer look, it is actually run by the KKK, a famous American white supremacy group who's goal was to mislead users about MLK.

How have historical moments shaped the white racial frame?

For as long as the history books have dated and recorded events, multiple moments of racism and white supremacy have occurred, some acts being forever recorded and taught to future generations on the past while others were "fortunate" to be lost; but just because some information was lost, does not mean that it can not be made up through other information or even through people's experiences. Because racism has been around for so long and even at times "normalized", Daniels states that "when people who adopt the white racial frame begin to note these racial disparities… they misunderstand racial and social inequality as a result of individual inadequacy rather than the predictable result of systemic racism", meaning that although some individuals may know that their actions are discriminatory, they would rather blame it on what they are taught and the other person's "lack of luck" than take account of the reality of the situation and of their own actions (52). Even in today's times and with the "advancement" and acceptance that modern society has learned and implemented, the same ideals from before are continuously used now, mainly with the problem of people, mainly whites, still believing that they hold just as much power over others as in the past, and with the bias and unfair treatment that is shown to non-white individuals, a solution for the problem always seems close, but it never close to being achieved. Even looking back at the birth of America becoming a nation altogether, the ideal picture that we perceived from the Constitution for everyone is not the same as what the founding fathers thought of; "they had very certain ideas on what constituted "men"… blacks were more animal in nature, and, therefore, not equal" (53). While it seems that historical items can be used as evidence backing up equality like the Constitution, we have to remember that these same historic items may not have had the same meaning as we thought.

Daniels, J. (2009). Cyber racism: white supremacy online and the new attack on civil rights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Elin, L. (2013). The Radicalization of Zeke Spier: How the Internet Contributes to Civic Engagement and New Forms of Social Capital.

[nommi707]

Blog Post #6 - Week 8

Are we slowly becoming a "cyborg world"? As humans, we are becoming more and more of a "cyborg world" than ever before, implementing different forms of technology every day, from everyday tasks to big things like carrying out jobs beyond the human capacity. In Haraway's "Cyborg Manifesto" article, they mention their take on the shift, stating that "a cyborg world might be about lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines" which summarizes the fact that we are becoming more and more accepting of technology being apart of our lives, which essentially blurs the line between human and machine (356). Small devices like wearable technology, for example, smartwatches and even glasses modified with technology, are used in our lives constantly with simple tasks like knowing the time, checking the weather, and answering phone calls; a phone, but at a smaller scale. In another way, the introduction to artificial intelligence has also shaped our world, in which it has become our assistants like finding alternatives to a specific recipe or helping us solve a question that we can not find the answer to; yet, it has also began to influence the way we think and create decisions, sometimes with us relying more and more on its assistance to think in place of us. A "cyborg world" does have its benefits, but it also has its downsides, which if not taken seriously now, it can have serious impacts for how we as humans will continue to carry out our lives.

How is the role of being "female" manipulated within a male-dominated world? In one way, the role of being "female" has been tied to a specific role, often being seen and pushed by the thoughts of men, through females being seen as the "parental" figure; a mother. Riordan highlights the many aspects of being female and femininity within the world, digitally and realistically, and one thing he highlights is the role of "mother" being tied to being female. To many male figures, women are either sexualized or just seen as the maternal figure for their "kind" nature; there is rarely an in-between role, where women are sexualized for their bodies (having big enough boobs, pretty face, being thin but not too thin, etc.) and having a "tamer" role within society mainly due to the bias that women can not do the same things as men. For as long as history has been recorded, most cultures saw women as insignificant, only being the "caretaker" and "babymaker" as that was what they were only allowed to do and be capable of. Even now as a more modernized society, the role of "female" is still controlled by men, for men continue to hold power of women despite the freedom given to women to choose what they want to do.

Can the video-game industry avoid exploiting the role of "female"? For the most part, I highly doubt that the industry can move away from being overly obsessive in using the role of "female" for their benefit. This ties in with the previous question, in which being female and the role within society is more presented and manipulated based on what the male population wants it to be. Riordan mentions the role of women in the video-game world as "having no penis (lack)… having breasts (excess)… Victorian aesthetic of tiny waists and large breasts" where women are sexualized more often than not, which shows the reality that even in a modern world, men and their "desires" are still prioritized than being true to realism and even having respect to the identity of what being a female is (248). With the author, they see the problem rooting from the overall dominance men have in the software engineeering and programming fields and the lack of women in these fields, emphasizing that so long as men hold power and domination in these fields, women will continue to be overly sexualized for their bodies, catering to their audience of men. Furthermore, the exploitation of the "female" role also allows more revenue to both the games and companies behind the creation(s) of female models; when there are more female models, often being "revealing" in some form with their design, the amount of players and even money spent on the game increases significantly as it caters to what their "target population" wants. If companies can get the most money out of this decision, then they will continue to use this tactic to both dominate the video-game industry and over their competitors, even if it means having to "sacrifice" certain aspects (overall player population, game mechanics, etc.). There can be some efforts in avoiding this if these companies are willing to change, but often it is futile.

Why is Mavis Beacon so significant even though she is just a fictional character for a typing game? Mavis Beacon is a fictional character from a popular typing software, in which it taught many American children how to type on a computer efficiently through the use of practice and the ways of using a keyboard. Even though she was never a real person, aside from the creators using a real woman as the "model", she impacted millions as well as how society played out as she was the first black woman not only in the digital world as an assistant, but as well as one of the first significant black women models. Her original model was based on Renee L'Esperance, who was a Haitian-born woman and scouted during her work as a department saleswoman. Although Renee L'Esperance modelled for the creators and helped shape millions of users on the use of the keyboard, she did not actually consent for her image to be used in their product, only for a photoshoot for a magazine page. The creators of the type software not only exploited Renee, but they went against her rights, which caused her a lot of distress in her overall identity. For many, they are entitled to the "right to be forgotten", where essentially they are legally obligated to have their identity erased online, however, she was denied that right. Renee's role as a woman in the digital space was manipulated by men, both in the digital world and in real life, which adds more evidence that although women now have more rights than ever before in history, men will continue, if not, will always hold power as to how the "female" role is used and portrayed.

Haraway, D. (2006). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. In: Weiss, J., Nolan, J., Hunsinger, J., Trifonas, P. (eds) The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments. (pp. 354-359).

O’Riordan, K. (2006). Chapter 21 Gender, technology, and visual cyberculture: Virtually women. In D. Silver & A. Massanari (Ed.), Critical Cyberculture Studies (pp. 243-254). New York, USA: New York University Press.

Jones, J. (2024). Saving Mavis Beacon. [Documentary]

[nommi707]

Blog Post #5 - Week 7

Is racism being "normalized"? In some ways, racism is being "normalized" in our current society, and we are often unaware of it, or we are aware of what is going on and still deciding to ignore the situation. With the justice system, people of color, mainly Hispanic and Black men, are arrested and put into the system for their identity; in many cases, innocent people are placed into the prison system because they resembled the suspect just because they were Black or because they had similar facial features. Even with our generation, classified as "Gen Z", there has been at least one comment that we have either said or witnessed that posed as a racial comment, whether as a joke or as a statement. More often than not, we bring people's race into the conversation as a joke to "lighten" the mood with humour. While it may seem harmless, it may pose a greater harm to others and can cause a lot of damage to a person's relationship and even self-esteem. Senft and Noble quote a statement many critical race theorists look at, stating "racism is ordinary… an everyday occurrence, pedestrian rather than spectacular" and it lines up with how we casually approach the topic anymore (116). We still often see people standing up against this perspective and trying to make an effort to make things a more equal ground, but it does not summarize the whole majority of American society, only a handful at most. Even with gender, the approach to sexism and how people identify is seen more casually than taken seriously, like we would think.

How can racism be implemented discreetly? In Benjamin's article, "Race after Technology", they use an example of Trump's "work for welfare" policy, in which it was those who were to receive healthcare benefits from Medicaid had to have certain work requirements to continue qualifying. However, those who believed in Trump's beliefs found ways in which White Americans who lived in poor living conditions and communities were able to be exempted from the requirement, while other groups, like Black residents in urban centers, were still faced with the requirement since they were more proximate to wealthier suburbs. Outside of an individual's identity and how they look, even the location of where you live can be subjected to being purposely excluded; those who live in these areas may not even be aware of what is going on, being completely blindsided all because the state found loopholes in catering to their white residents than their other residents who make up the population. There are other ways in which racism is implemented without our knowledge or our full awareness at the time; in the workplace, many resumes that are examined for potential candidates get sometimes get "filtered" for individuals who sound "ethnic" and even based on gender, can be denied without the person knowing the actual reasoning. Many places will state that you either do not have the right requirements they are looking for, or that they had already chosen a different candidate, and it could be not the full reason.

In what ways does "Nosedive" reflect our real-life world? While the lifestyle of the episode seems "artificial" in their way of thinking, there are a lot of examples in the real-world that line up with the way that everyone in the episode was influenced into thinking. One real-life example is "cancel culture", in which a majority do not like a certain person based on their actions or even their opinions and proceed to downplay both their identity and reputation for it. We see this often on social media with influencers, such as Colleen Ballinger and Shane Dawson, for their bad actions surfacing the internet. With the episode, Lacie is "cancelled" through the use of merits, or ratings, because her actions often "dissatisfied" people, leading them into rating her low. At the wedding scene of her friend Naomi, there was a spread of low ratings as Lacie tries to partake in the wedding speeches, as a result of them against her image of essentially "ruining and crashing" the wedding, which also plays into account of "the bandwagon effect", where many follow into majority of what the others do as a way of fitting in and conforming to what society thinks.

If we were able to live without this system in society IRL, would there be a reduction in how people are pressured to form their thoughts, or would people continue to be "fake", artificially forming their thoughts to fit a certain standard(s)? I think there would not be much of a change in society if we could remove these systems, as it has been so deeply implemented into our daily lives and how everything is run. One example that was stated in class was the credit card system, in which the system is run based on a person's status. If we were to remove the system of basing decisions through a person's reputation, it would cause a lot of mayhem; the credit card system would falter as anyone would be able to be "qualified" and it can tank the country's economy. In addition, these ratings of a person's reputation helps in separating individuals who are "bad", such as criminals, biased or racist individuals, and even rude people, from individuals who are considered as "good", such as performing good deeds for the community, being nice, and being careful of the people around them. People would still conform somewhat to creating "artificial thoughts" as a way to fit in with others even without the system of merits used in Nosedive. We are all human, and we are taught to think that sometimes being different is "bad", so we attempt to join others through the same thinking as to not be seen in that way. We are also taught to be good individuals by considering those around us when we are speaking, so there would also be some "holdback" in people's thoughts; if we did not hold back, I would think society would be less happy as everyone would be allowed to speak their mind, and in addition, there would be more harmful comments through gender and race.

T. Senft, S. Noble (2015) Race and social media. In J. Hunsinger and T. Senft (Eds.), The Social Media Handbook (pp. 102-125). Routledge

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity.

Brooker, C. (2023). Black Mirror: Nosedive. Netflix

[nommi707]

Blog Post #4 - Week 6

Why is race significant, or even more significant in the digital world than in the real world? What most individuals do not realize is that the concept of "race" was mainly established as a way to suppress the freedom to express oneself and to put the idea of what a person's identity should be restricted in a "box". Arguments about race were ways of "wrestling with difficult questions" as a way to return to less controversial topics, making it seem like anything that has to do with race and its subcomponents were taboo; for as long as history has been recorded, there has always been this avoidance of "race" specifically seen in white communities as if it is like an act in keeping some form of control over others. But what does that have to do with the cyberspace? With technology, you are believed to think you have freedom in expressing yourself, but in actuality, your expression is suppressed the same way that the concept of "race" was created in the real world. In "Race in Cyberspace", the authors highlight that "race matters in cyberspace precisely because all of us who spend time online are already shaped by how race matters offline", which signifies that even though the digital space is shaped to feel like it may not be the same as in the real world, it is more similar than different as we, the users, are feeding technology in a way that mimics how current society is like (5). Race shows its significance in the digital world because of the way we behave, reflecting on our real-life decisions and actions and in turn, we get results that we see in our everyday scrolls that we do not like; this contradicts the cause that many people portray in-person against biased racial behavior, yet they have no problem in showing this behavior in an online space.

Is the 3D Realms: Shadow Warrior the result of pure ignorance? In some form, there is ignorance to what the point of the game is in terms of portraying the Asian community. The theme of the game was to play on the stereotypes that the American industry had on Asian background, which was very limited as many believed all Asians were the same or similar compared to the vast diversity and better portrayal of Asians in entertainment now. While the creators of 3D Realms did not see it as a problem, but rather as a joke or comedy against previous perspectives on the community, many others thought otherwise as it continued to paint Asian individuals in this negative light. Even if it was not intended in that way, it still added to the oppression and hate that the Asian community faces for being who they are, basically "adding fuel to the fire" and setting back the progress made in attempts for Asians to be seen as more than those stereotypes. The game also builds on the stereotypes of women, mainly sexualizing them through enhancing their breasts as a way to captivate more revenue, and it places this image as if they are just "objects" for men to fond over and do with however they like through the main character's inappropriate behavior; this specific portrayal is specifically used to get white, typically older men, hooked in their game as a lot of the perspective on Asians and more so Asian women is through fetishism and it is an occurring problem even today. The creators may say that it is not ignorance if they are aware of what they are portraying and use it as a joke against old stereotypes from the 60s through the 80s so it would not be taken seriously, but even so, their actions in knowing these portrayals are still hurtful and still continue to use them for the fun of it shows that they are in fact ignorant to the situation and prioritize their own profits over being properly informed.

What is "voice-activated" racism? Racism can be portrayed through different forms of speech, whether verbally or through words online. With "voice-activated" racism, it is used through verbal language where one party will make remarks against another out loud for others to hear. In Nakamura's TedTalk, she uses the example of Rampage Jackson, who is a well-known martial arts fighter through his experience in playing video games, specifically Halo. Jackson reports his experience of playing the new Halo game that allowed in-game voice chat, where those who heard his voice were triggered and led them to make racist remarks against him for being a Black individual. In addition to their comments, his own teammates would also go against him, often killing him off rather than focusing on the opposing team in the match. Dr. Nakamura highlights the significance of this form of racism, in which despite the other players not even knowing what Jackson really looked like outside of the game, they assumed based on what they knew, his voice, and backlashed against him in a very intense form of racism; in some point during our lives, we have at least heard one person talk about how "words can cut sharper than knives" or in a similar format, where what we say can have a more-lasting impact on a person's conscious compared to being physically attacked. In my experience, I have seen a lot of this "voice-activated" racism through current videos, like Roblox. Since the implementation of voice chat for those old enough, it has often been overused and utilized as an extension in verbally attacking individuals for their avatars and being who they are, which also ties into the other form of racism through a person's avatar; the downside to this behavior is that more and more kids are picking up these behaviors, thinking that they are okay to use since others are using it and you have kids verbally attacking other individuals who may also be a kid and say things that should normally not be said.

How is racism carried on in the digital world, even when you do not use your real identity? Dr. Nakamura speaks about a popular player in Second Life known as Jenny Varian, in which she is met with a graphic designer who specializes in making custom skins for players and he wanted her to model one of his skins as a way to gain business. When Varian did, she gained attention she did not expect; for individuals who were African-American in the real world, they complimented on her "bravery" for having this skin as there are a lot of individuals who are biased against those who portray themselves like this, and with Varian's friends, they fed into this biased perspective against "colored" skins as they asked her when she would change her skin back or if she could change it back since her original skin portrayed her better and it was more appealing. This exchange from both sides highlights that even in the digital world where no one has to know the real "us", racism and discrimination continue to exist because of the already pre-existing ideals from the real world. The quote from Kolko's article stating that "race matters in cyberspace precisely because all of us who spend time online are already shaped by how race matters offline, and we can't help but bring our own knowledge, experiences, and values with us when we log on" perfectly highlights this experience as it signifies that the digital world is just a reflection of the real world in a different format (5). Unless we as a society can change our perspectives on how we perceive "race", then the behavior in the digital world will not change either.

Kolko, B. E., Nakamura, L., Rodman, G. B. (2000). Race in cyberspace: An introduction.

Ow, J. A. (2003). The revenge of the yellowfaced cyborg terminator.

Nakamura, L. (2011). 5 types of online racism and why you should care. [Video]

[nommi707]

Blog Post #3 - Week 4

Why does Everett think the Internet is not as divided as described through the digital divide theory? One big point that Everett brings up is that many communities, specifically black communities, use the Internet as an online space to spread awareness and find connections through this space on both a national and international level. In "The Revolution Will be Digitized," they use the example of the Million Woman March, a grassroots protest march from Philadelphia that occurred in 1997. With the use of the internet and local flyers, the cause drew over a million individuals in the protest to end homelessness, help incarcerated Black women, and even improve government services such as education and healthcare to the less fortunate. If the Internet is divided as the digital divide theory describes, then this march would not have gained popularity and gained the needed attention it worked to obtain since the point of the divide is to create unequal access to technology for different groups; yet, the protest did gain the attention it wanted for awareness and caught many people's attention. Even though there is still unequal opportunity and fairness within the digital space, it does not stop people of color and others from using this space as a way to connect on a level bigger than just through flyers.

Why are names such "serious business"? Names are a really big deal to individuals as they stick with us for the remainder of our lives; there are exceptions like changing your name for your transition and other reasons. Names are what give us some sort of purpose, an identity that others can recognize and pinpoint when they are referencing to us. But for some, that sort of responsibility is taken more seriously than most. In the documentary, Freakonomics, it is described that some parents take naming their offspring so seriously that they use it as an exercise of branding their children as being "more or less valuable in a competitive social marketplace" (Benjamin, 19). In some way, it makes sense as the base of society has some bias towards anyone and every single detail about them; for example, some employers favor those who have more knowledge and experience in a certain field or practice even when they list themselves as needing no previous experience. With names, there is also that bias of assuming what a person is like before you even meet them; individuals who have more "exotic" names are less bound to be employed especially in fields where it is white-dominated as they already assume that you may be more trouble for them, whereas individuals who have more "simple and basic" names similar to white people are more prone to getting accepted as they have this image of you being like them and easier to approach. Before, having "exotic" names was the trend as it was a protest against White supremacy, but now that is not the case as it can be used against you and cause you more harm than necessary.

How are algorithms causing more harm on the topic of discrimination? In 2015, Google reported a "glitch" in their system in which their algorithm began to tag all photos of African American individuals in relation to apes and other animals. In addition, Google's GPS software would lead you to the White House during Obama's presidency if you typed in a specific slur. Noble highlights that while it is not fully Google's fault for these results, it does not mean that there are no consequences. They implement the idea of racism and sexism being integrated into the language and behavior of technology continuously, up to the point where the algorithm focuses on using data such as this to produce results such as the situation stated above. Algorithms rely on users' data as a way of learning and modifying each user's experience to what they are given, and the discriminatory results against people of color, specific to black individuals, show that it is not just the systems that are causing the harm. Organizations like libraries and schools rely on these tools for information and if users are continuously exposed to this sort of information, it can lead to a lot of bias and misinformation, something that certain groups like conservative whites aim to do as they want to spread their ideologies as much as possible against anything and anyone who is not the traditional "white conservative".

Why are black women never discussed as often as black men? Crenshaw makes a big point in her TEDTalk in which she states, "When facts do not fit with the available frames, people have a difficult time incorporating new facts into their way of thinking about a problem" (Crenshaw). Because more violence and discrimination are seen towards black men, this provides little to no "framing" for black women and their experience, as there is not enough evidence to give importance to. As more and more black women face these experiences like black men, they continue to be overlooked as they are not covered enough, creating this continuous loop of where black men get the coverage and public attention while black women are sometimes mentioned but not as often or as much as the opposite sex. These frames are important because they allow not just society to recognize and acknowledge the problem at hand but also help to influence others to take part against the problem and find solutions as to how to make change so that it may not occur again. The real-life example of Emma DeGraffenreid's case helps provide light on not only the lack of black women coverage but also insight into such discrimination. When we are faced with a problem that we are not used to, we tend to break it down and look at each part separately, like a math equation. In Emma's case, she was dismissed because the judge looked at her situation through the same lens as to how we would approach unknown problems. Rather than looking at how she was denied a job as a whole, he broke it down over the fact that there are black individuals hired as well as women in that field but never looked at when the groups merge together. This highlights the challenge seen by Crenshaw that because there is such a lack of attention towards black women, topics and situations like this will never be taken seriously and add more fuel to the oppression of black women.

Everett, A. (2002). The Revolution Will Be Digitized. Social Text, 20(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-20-2_71-125

‌Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

Crenshaw, K. (2016). TedTalk: The urgency of intersectionality. [Video]

‌

[nommi707]

Blog Post #2 - Week 3

What exactly is "cyberfeminism"? In Daniels' article, they define cyberfeminism as the relationship between gender and digital culture, showing how they can both impact each other positively and negatively. Originally, the "old" cyberfeminism was targeted towards advocating and supporting women in cyberspaces against the vision that women were corrupting spaces with male-dominated patriarchy as women attempted to advocate for their own choices. However, the meaning of cyberfeminism has since evolved and broadened its term, advocating for not only women but also those who face oppression in corrupt hierarchies. When we think of the word "feminism," it is often tied to the image of women empowering other women in fighting for what they think will benefit the role of females, but in reality, it's more tied to uplifting oppressed communities against higher powers who want to take these rights away; with cyberfeminism, it takes these same ideals but online as these issues are not just seen physically. Even though many topics are targeted toward women, it does not mean that the cause will only help those who identify as a woman, but it will help pave a path for those who may experience aggression against them no matter who they are.

Is there a difference between men and women's presence online? Much of society is actively integrating itself into the digital world, with recent statistics stating that 5.44 billion people in the world, or around two-thirds of the population, have some sort of internet access. Yet, it is seen that women are the "poorest" global citizens in the digital era, often disregarded for their presence online, and it has not shifted much as to how women are treated and seen in a while. Despite that, women have an ongoing increasing rate of participation online even more than men, but why is that? Daniels dives into this topic, pointing out that those who feel excluded from mainstream society try to include themselves online as there is less restriction and it allows them to "see themselves as protagonists of the revolution". This means that it allows not only women but all others who are victim of this "exilement" from society to feel safe online in expressing their own being without the restraint of the general public stopping them from actively participating. It does not mean that there are no restrictions, but it provides an additional platform and essentially a "safe space".

How safe is it to implement algorithms into our daily lives? With the use of technology, it's almost default that the use of algorithms is being seen. With social media, it is used to provide more information and posts about things that interest us while also providing similar content that could pique our attention. But what about in our daily lives outside of our screens? In Nicole Brown's video, she mentions the high use of algorithms within healthcare. The United States is very populated, so using these algorithms would help in efficiency as well as decision-making. However, Brown found an article from the Washington Post that dives into how that might not be the best decision. She finds that the algorithm program, Optum, uses future healthcare spending as a proxy for future disease, and since white people are seen more as having better access to healthcare, the program caters to them as they use more healthcare compared to any other groups and deems white individuals as "more ill". This poses a problem not only towards healthcare, but to the general public as well since it creates racially biased outcomes without using race. Although technology can have its benefits, the increased use in implementing it everywhere becomes a problem as issues like this can pop up, and there can be times where there might not actually be a solution, raising the question if we can truly allow this to keep happening. As a society, we keep relying on such technology that we often miss the flaws of it.

Do we shift the blame onto technology for shaping our perspectives or do we account for our own actions for the way that we as a society handle problems relating to racial biases? Brown raises the question that "If we as a society can not or will not address anti-blackness, how do we expect to create technology that will fix it?", posing it that it is more of our own actions that add on to the problem rather than technology itself. Her previous examples relate more to the black community, but it still paints the picture of what many oppressed groups have to go through in a society that prioritizes white individuals. Technology such as AI learns based on our own actions we make on the Internet, and uses what it learns to provide results back to us. In the end, technology like algorithms are just abtractions, or an extension of our society's values and beliefs on certain topics and people; if we continue to think the same way as we do without change, technology will only reflect back these narrow ideologies and put society in a continous loop until someone or something makes that change. The argument can also go the other way where technology does have some fault in shaping our ideals, mainly towards younger generations who are growing up in this era of modern technology. Since they grow up with the use of technology, it creates this integrated bias on such topics because they rely so much on technology as their source of information compared to those who did not grow up with technology and can be more wary about what they see online.

Daniels, J. (2009). Rethinking Cyberfeminism(s): Race, Gender, and Embodiment. WSQ: Women's Studies Quarterly 37(1), 101-124.

Brown, N. (2020, September 18). Race and Technology [Video]. Youtube.

[nommi707]

The Big Internet Scare... (Blog Post #1- Week 2)

A time when technology did not live up to its hype was during 8th grade, in which the uprising of the video of a person named "Momo" was trending. In addition to videos, there were also images of the person spreading across the internet; Momo was a woman with the body of a chicken, long hair, and a scary face with big eyes. I first heard of Momo from my friends during P.E. (physical education), in which they showed me videos of people getting hacked and the content of Momo was stuck on their screens. Although I was fortunate enough to never get hacked or see the videos after that, I still continued to hear stories and it caused me a lot of paranoia since I was not sure if it would occur on my screens. For example, I had a conversation with my mother about what was happening online, and she shared how one of her friend's sons recently came across that video randomly on his tablet. The whole event made me feel skeptical of using the internet as it can be limitless and anything can happen at any time. I remember that the paranoia was so severe that it cost me many sleepless nights, and even having to have some form of nightlight in my room because, without it, I believed that Momo would come to get me. Although the trend has since died down and I have grown older, I still have the fear that something terrible will pop up on my screen, so I try my best to be careful on what platforms I am on and what I am looking at. My parents have always taught me to be careful on the internet, and having recently gotten on social media platforms like Instagram and Snapchat, I was pushed even more to be cautious. If I could go back in time, I would try to tell my younger self to avoid the internet as much as possible during that time so that I would not have to face the major paranoia that came with it; it was not the best way to be introduced to social media.