Rochelle Godwin

[rochellegodwin-blog]

A force for good!

Social gaming has been bought about through social networks such as Facebook, and refers to those games that are made specifically for those networks. Thanks to the success of social media sites like Facebook game developers were afforded an untapped opportunity to reach multitudes of online gamers. By adding the social aspect to the gamed allowed for the games to expand at rates never before seen. Tim Le Tourneau, the Vice President of games at the leading social gaming company, Zynga said that, “social is the backbone of all of our games; the ability to play with all of your friends. That’s what makes these games stand apart. And it really is the thing that we consider first and foremost whenever we are designing a game”. Zynga’s most successful game, Farmville exemplified the success of social gaming with 83.76 million active monthly users.

With numbers like this, what if we could use this popularity and medium for good? Arguably one of the most recognised women in videogames, Jane McGonigal thinks that we can (Whitson & Dormann 2011). Her book, Reality is broken (McGonigal 2011), suggests that games can “save the world” by harnessing these unprecedented scales of popularity to facilitate cooperation and collaboration on a mutual challenge. The concept of creating positive real world change is not a new one, with many creators endevouring to fulfill McGonigal’s dream by inspring new thinking to transform users views or attitudes through gaming and thus, their real-world behaviour (Schreiner 2008). These are exemplified through games like EyeWitness or Tempest in Crescent City, which approach issues of political war and environmental disasters (Whitson & Dormann 2011). What’s more, some games like Escape from Woomera, are helping to address issues like asylum seekers and refugees (Whitson & Dormann 2011). 

Social gaming, if done cleverly, certainly has the capabilities for change. Take even Farmville, for example, although it does not actively inspire change it consequently educates on agriculture and the importance of sustainability and self-sufficiency. Social gaming can certainly help to educate, for me, one of my favourite social games (which unfortunately is no longer available), Traveler IQ Challenge, was instrumental in my geography learning. Geography was always a weakness of mine and it was not something we were necessarily taught at school, but thanks to this game, geography is now one of my strengths. What’s more, I was able to learn at vast rates as my brother and I would compete to see who was smarter, and thus, learning faster. Who knows, maybe we are just nerds, but its application and potential for change is certainly something that can be harnesses for change, just as McGonigal theorised.

References:

McGonigal, J 2011. Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world, Penguin Press, New York

Schreiner, K 2008. ‘Digital games target social change’, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 4 January, Vol. 28, No. 1, viewed 22 January 2018, <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4418744/?reload=true>

Whitson, J & Dormann, C 2011 ‘Social gaming from change: Facebook unleased’, First Monday, 3 October, Vol. 16, No. 10, viewed 22 January 2018, <http://www.firstmonday.dk/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3578/3058>

 Watch a video about my favourite game: 

[rochellegodwin-blog]

And they lived happily ever after...

Once upon a time in a far away land, existed the printed photo album, the photo album you could only view if you visited grandmas; but today’s photo album exists purely online, and is bigger than ever. We now have social media sites like Facebook and Instagram that chronicle our life photo album, and these photo albums are open for our friends to see whenever they like. However, it is not only our friends that can see them. As Mizuko (2008) stated, we now exist in a world of networked publics, whereby “Publics can be reactors, [re]makers and [re]distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception. So, as we put our photos in our albums the networked publics are able to react, or even remake or redistribute that photo, and that’s where the problem begins. As post pictures of ourselves, or god-forbid, even our children, they are open to the publics to remake or redistribute, the next thing you know your face ends up on the next meme in your Facebook stream. Yet, we continue to publish these photos.

As Tifentale (2014) would suggest this networked public is our community and we continuously work to belong to that community. We post these images in hope that someone will like the photograph, so as to approve our membership in this community. We seek this attention and approval at such vast rates, it is no longer a concern of privacy, but more of an issue of popularity and approval. Social media sites like Instagram are based on how many followers you have, and thus, how many people approve of your membership into the community.

We extend our reach from our friends through tools like hash-tagging. Hash-tagging is a way to stamp your photograph with a theme essentially, and thus, become a way for others to find your photograph. However, it’s a two way street, it is also a way of finding others who also post about a similar theme. Therefore, as you begin to categorise your photo album with these themes you begin to construct a story about yourself, it is your way of representing yourself to the networked public. 

Furthermore, as your Instagram feeds becomes flooded with those that you have approved into your network community, their posts become a means to influence, inspire and discover new things. This concept has marketers scrabbling to find their way into the networked public, and like all things, they are succeeding. For more incite into this idea check out this website about the power of the influencer on Instagram: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/influence-of-instagram/ (Routley 2017)… and they lived happily ever after.

References: 

Mizuko, I 2008 ‘Introduction’, in K, Vamelis, ed. Networked Publics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 2

Routley, N 2017, ‘The Influence of Instagram’, Visual Capitalist, 17 November, viewed 17 January 2018, < http://www.visualcapitalist.com/influence-of-instagram/>

Tifentale, A 2014, ‘The Selfie: Making sense of the “Masturbation of Self-Image” and the “Virtual Mini-Me”’, The Graduate Center, February, viewed 17 January 2018 <https://d25rsf93iwlmgu.cloudfront.net/downloads/Tifentale_Alise_Selfiecity.pdf>

[allthingsdigitalandsocial-deact]

Crowdsourcing in times of crisis

Coined by Jeff Howe and Mark Robinson, the term crowdsourcing can be defined as “an online distributed problem-solving and production model” (Brabham 2008, p. 76). Further to this, there are varying definitions of the term: crowdsourcing exists among diverse categories, but is typically interpreted from either a business or technique domain perspective (Zhao et al. 2016). Luz (et al. 2014) adds that despite its affordances of use, all forms of crowdsourcing are task orientated. Some of the most popular and globally recognised crowdsourcing systems are Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers and Zhihu. Take Wikipedia for example, the system relies on its users to complete tasks through the crowdsourcing process. As a result, Wikipedia “produces the most extensive and up-to-date form of encyclopaedic knowledge” available online today (‘8.2 Crowdsourcing’ 2017).

The Pseudo-ER model: The crowdsourcing process

[image] Zhao et al. 2016, p. 946.

When exploring the impact that crowdsourcing can play in times of crisis; “social media is an effective tool for monitoring and engaging public discourse during the crisis process” (Tinker et al. 2009, p. 25).

[image] Hill, S 2014

Social media proved to be a key influencer in shaping a global understanding following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. As events unfolded in real time, digital citizens were quick to capture what was happening using camera and video functionalities on their smartphones. As a result, media outlets all over the world were able to share information and broadcast attack locations across the city; to ensure that Parisians stayed safe and avoided these areas.

Meanwhile on Twitter, digital citizens self-organised support networks using #porteOuverte, which means open door. The hashtag was used as a means to offer support, help, and love to those in need following the tragic attacks. Similarly, #rechercheParis became the means by which Parisian citizens “tried to find traces of loved ones from whom they hadn’t heard” from (Walter 2015).

[image] CCTVNews 2015

Furthermore, Facebook activated its Safety Check tool, which allowed nearby users in affected areas to let their friends and family know that they were safe (Zuckerberg 2014). You can read more about Facebooks Safety Check tool here (Gleit et al. 2014).  

[image] Kille. W, L 2015

Facebook also made a profile picture filter of the French flag. Users had the ability to change their profile picture to show their support for France and Parisians.  

[image] Strange 2015, ‘Facebook profile picture of French flag following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks’

Gao (et al. 2011) argues that leveraging crowdsourcing for disaster relief and emergency management has three distinct advantages:

1. User requests and data reports are automatically generated, which “allows relief organisations to identify and respond to urgent cases in time” (Gao et al. 2011, p. 11).

2. Data collected can be categorised and structured; identifying the most important relief efforts required.

3. Geo-tagging information and maps, such as Facebook’s Safety Check tool “can help relief organisations accurately locate specific requests for help” (Gao et al. 2011, p. 11).

It is important to note that Gao (et al. 2011) also argue that there are a number of shortfalls in crowdsourcing for crisis and emergency management. That being said, it can be argued that generally, crowdsourcing applications provide organisations with relevant and timely information and data to help and support people in need in times of crisis.

Word Count: 507 words 

References:

‘8.2 Crowdsourcing’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, WEEK 8: Crowdsourcing in times of crisis on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/8-dot-2-crowdsourcing?module_item_id=6789>.

Brabham. C, D 2008, ‘Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases’, The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 75 – 90.

CCTVNews 2015, ‘Parisians launch hashtag’ #porteouverte, meaning “open door”, offering shelter to people after the #parisattacks’ [image], Scoopnest, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://www.scoopnest.com/user/cctvnews/665453402013442049-parisians-launch-hashtag-porteouverte-meaning-open-door-offering-shelter-to-people-after-the-parisattacks>.

Gao, H, Barbier, G & Goolsby, R 2011, ‘Harnessing the Crowdsourcing Power of Social Media for Disaster Relief’, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 10 – 14.

Gleit, N, Zeng, S & Cottle, P 2014, ‘Introducing Safety Check’, Facebook newsroom, 15 October, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/introducing-safety-check/>.

Hill, S 2014, ‘Crowdsourcing’ [image], 5 reasons crowdsourcing is ideal for usability testing, Crowdsourcedtesting.com, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://crowdsourcedtesting.com/resources/crowdsourcing-usability-testing/>.

Kille. W, L 2015, ‘How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks’ [image], How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks, The Conversation, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-shaped-our-understanding-of-the-paris-attacks-50814>.

Luz, N, Silva, N & Novais, P 2014, ‘A survey of task-oriented crowdsourcing’, Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 44 no. 2, pp. 1 – 27.

Strange, A 2015, ‘Facebook profile picture of French flag following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks’ [image], Facebook lets you support Paris in your profile photo with one click, Mashable Australia, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://mashable.com/2015/11/14/facebook-paris-filter/#n5lDtEz298qQ>.

Tinker, L.T, Dumlao, M & McLaughlin, G 2009, ‘Effective Social Media Strategies During Times of Crisis: Learning from the CDC, HHS, FEMA, the American Red Cross and NPR in Crisis Management, The Strategist, Summer, pp. 25 – 39.  

Walter, L 2015, How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks, The Conversation, 17 November, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-shaped-our-understanding-of-the-paris-attacks-50814>.

Zhao, Z & Zhu, Q 2016, ‘Conceptualizing task affordance in online crowdsourcing context’ [image], Online Information Review, viewed 9 January 2018, p. 946.

Zhao, Z & Zhu, Q 2016, ‘Conceptualizing task affordance in online crowdsourcing context’, Online Information Review, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 938 – 958.

Zuckerberg, M 2014, Today we announced the launch of Safety Check on Facebook, Facebook, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101699265809491>.

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Awesome job @allthingsdigitalandsocial! I like your first reference of Wikipedia. Despite its authenticity, its a one stop shop for all information. Honestly, its crazy to think it is user created. I mean who has time to contribute to that! 

Your example of the Paris terrorist attacks it spot on! I like the adaption of the Facebook safety check in tool. A smart move by Zuckerberg, but also an incredibly useful one. In my blog post, https://rochellegodwin.tumblr.com/post/169569289786/shed-a-little-light-in-times-of-crisis , I too speak of the positive impact social media has had in this regard. It’s nice to see a way it can be used for good, and be studied in this positive light. At home here in Australia, we too are implementing the same tools and methods in times of crisis. 

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Shed a little light: in times of crisis.

So far, throughout my previous blogs, despite my best efforts, they have largely been centered around the negative effects of social media and digital citizenship. However, where there is dark there is also light.

Globally, it is becoming evident that social media has been a pivotal tool during emergency situations. This has been true for both those it affects and those trying to help. Emergency services can use social media posts to track badly effected areas, and provide aid to those unable to get through to blocked emergency service lines. On the other hand, users in effected areas can receive an up to date newsfeed in regards to what to be aware of, and what’s happening. This can make the difference between when to flee an effected area or not.

In the Black Saturday fires of 2008, an ABC (Australia’s official emergency broadcaster) staff member effectively utilised social media, and henceforth, setting the precedent for having a profound impact during emergency situations. ABC’s national social media co-ordinator, Ping Lo, reported that we felt it was the ABC's responsibility to continue to use social media during emergencies thereafter (Posetti & Lo, 2012). Since then, social media has been an important tool during emergency situations in Australia.

The 2011 Queensland Floods (10-16 January), is a prime example of effective use of social media during times of devastation. The hashtag #qldfloods became the principle communicative tool for flood-related news. Whilst I’ve spoken in the past about hashtags being a way to label yourself, in this respect it acts as communication mechanism to bring people together. The community it creates is one of support and information. During January 10-16, there were more than 35,000 tweets containing the hashtag, #qldfloods; and more than 15,500 Twitter users participated in #qldfloods (Bruns et al, 2012). Of these tweets, 50-60% of them were retweets in an effort to further spread the flow of information (Bruns et al, 2012). What’s more, emergency services and media organisations were amongst the most visible participants in #qldfloods (Bruns et al, 2012). As a result, Twitter became a primary source of news regarding the flooding. Furthermore, it also allowed a platform for those affected or involved to share their own experiences, which hence further widened the reach of coverage on the disaster.

In the hope not to bring anything dark to this light blog post, it is also worth mentioning as a side note, that there is a relevant argument toward the authenticity to user-generated posts.

Despite this, the increased use of social media does have a positive influence in such situations, and has proven so on multiple occasions.

 References:

Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Crawford, K. & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication, ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation.

Posetti, J. & Lo, P 2012, ‘The Twitterisation of ABC's emergency and disaster communication’,

Australian Journal of Emergency Management

, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 34-39, viewed 3 January 2018, < https://search-informit-com-au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/fullText;dn=046926063833158;res=IELAPA>

[rochellegodwin-blog]

The digital bully.

As we speak of digital citizenship we have to begin to understand how this affects all citizens, namely our younger citizens. Young people are growing up to be immersed in digital technology and social media. As our networks broaden, as does the potential for harm. Trolling, hating and flaming are ever-increasing terms that are being thrown around popular medias to loosely describe “cyber-bullying”. The assumption among many parents and journalists is that social media radically increases bullying; however, most adults and news media are using bullying as an umbrella term that covers, teasing, aggressive acts, harassment and abuse, when it should not (Boyd, 2014). Rather than increasing bullying, social media has merely become a new platform or avenue for such behaviour; this does not necessarily translate to more opportunity for bullying, it simply comes in conjunction with the shift in the way we communicate. Boyd (2014) agrees, stating that “although new forms of drama find a home through social media, teens’ behaviours have not significantly changed” (p.152). She continues to suggest that social media has made these dynamics more visible to more people. Therefore, in digital citizenship, these issues have not been exaggerated they have simply become more apparent and observable; thus, to blame technology would be naïve, social media is a shift in the way we communicate, and hence the ways bullies operate. Essentially, we have become more aware of the issue of bullying or trolling, as it has now been brought into view.

As we continue to develop into a digital society, our citizens are learning to communicate and represent themselves on this platform. Young people are now constantly on show, so they have no sense of privacy, and hence, no opportunity or time for self-development. Young people are continuously under pressure to be online and available at all times… and the social pressures that go along with that are relentless (Ramsey, 2014). Perhaps this is the answer to why there has been an increase in youth suicide, it is not “cyber-bullying”, but yet the constant pressures of online communication and digital citizenships. The continuous upkeep of presenting your ideal self is tedious, and taxing on youth, with little time left for actual meaningful relationships and self-development. So thus, in an online world the youth is learning self-value based on the number of likes they get or the amount of comments they receive (Ramsey, 2014). Thus, if we are theming bullying under the same umbrella as news medias, then neglect, and not liking posts can also fall under this umbrella. Could then also, a lack of presence or active participation on social media also lead to exclusion under this umbrella.

Ultimately, social media is not the cause of further bullying and trolling, rather it is our inability to develop proper means for teaching our youth how to grow up in a digital era, that is causing the most harm.

  References:

Boyd, D 2014, ‘Bullying : is social media amplifying meanness and cruelty?’ in It's complicated : the social lives of networked teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 128-152.

Ramsey, M (2014) Why thinking you’re ugly is bad for you, TedTalks, September, viewed 30 December 2017, <https://www.ted.com/talks/meaghan_ramsey_why_thinking_you_re_ugly_is_bad_for_you#t-347726>

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Slacktivism

As a postscript to last week’s blog, I would like to continue the idea of digital citizenship and user-generated political discourse. Social media has made way for users to comment, contest and create political movements. As mentioned last week, this is evident through movements like, Kony 2012, a user-generated political movement created in hope to apprehend warlord Joseph Kony (Truthloader, 2013). This grassroots campaign had over one million views on social media site, YouTube, in less than a week, setting records for the time (Truthloader, 2013). However, despite mass support, profit and growth, the Invisible Children organisation failed to apprehend or even find the warlord. Despite the campaign’s online success, the successes struggled to reverberate into the literal world. Morozov’s (2009) theory of “slacktivism” can help us understand why; slacktivisim refers to an online activism efforts that focuses more on the participants feeling of self-fulfilment rather than actually making a social or political impact. Essentially, those who were sharing, commenting and even donating to the Kony 2012 campaign, were doing so to help themselves feel as if they were contributing to something important.

This feeling is exasperated in an online world where your self image is everything. In my first blog, I spoke of our need to continuously project an image of our ideal selves. This includes what we like and support online. To be seen supporting Kony 2012, you public represent yourself as a philanthropist and as an intellectual up to date with current affairs. As 2013 ticked over, due to the lack of action taken by the Invisible Children organisation, it is evident that the campaign’s focus was on gaining participants, by prying on their need for self-fulfilment, rather than actual impact or the apprehension of Joseph Kony; hence, slacktivism.

However, I will continue to argue that campaigns, despite their presence of slactivism can still generate actual change or impact. Consider the Marriage Equality campaign mentioned last week, whilst most campaign efforts were about awareness, it has come to generate actual change all over the world. Following the US Supreme Court decision backing same-sex marriage, people all over the world were adding a rainbow filter to their profile pictures to declare their support (Ireland, 2016). The following year, social media giant, Facebook, waded into the debate by creating a banner that users could apply directly to their profile picture (Ireland, 2016). Like with Kony 2012, the support was a way for users to express their opinion online and present themselves in an ideal way. However, like with Kony 2012, often those who branded themselves with the banner did not intend on taking real action (Christensen 2011). However, in this instance, I would argue, that this support is what was needed to take the campaign to the next level. Once the issue was taken to parliament, campaigners were able to lead with a realistic vision of what level of support they had from the public. Therefore, when the Australian’s were called to vote, the campaign worked tremendously to build support, and hence more yes votes. The result included changed legislation to marriage laws all over the world.

So for me, I agree with the idea of slacktivisim and concur that it is a prominent challenge for digital communities, however, I believe the true success in the campaign lies behind its makers rather than supporters.

References:

 Christensen, HS 2011, ‘Political activities on the Internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means?’ First Monday, viewed 20 December 2017, <http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3336/2767>

 Ireland, J 2016, ‘Facebook boost for same-sex marriage ‘yes’ campaign’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 March, viewed 20 December 2017, <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/facebook-boost-for-samesex-marriage-yes-campaign-20160229-gn6awf.html>

 Morozov, E 2009, From slacktivism to activism. Foreign Policy, viewed 8 December 2017, <http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/05/from-slacktivism-to-activism/>.

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Digital Citizenship & Political Discourse.

In a digital era, everything has been pulled into the sphere, and politics are certainly no exception. The growing use of social media, has not only allowed for publics to hold politicians accountable, it has also allowed for them to create their own political discourse. What’s more, if politicians shy away from social media they effectively put themselves out of the campaign, which is hence why we are seeing figures such as Donald Trump rise in the political domaine, because despite his background, his successful use of social media has translated into success in the politics.

Social media has afforded politicians the opportunity to communicate with the public directly, and hence, bypass traditional medias (Fairfax Media, 2013). Users, are then able to respond, question, comment and to declare their support on such platforms. Social media, affords politicians to see what is trending, what issues are important, particularly for youth voters and to then offer an opinion on said issue.

Moreover, social media also provides the opportunity for politicians to transcend the boundaries of friendship as users start to follow them, they build up a sense of loyalty and camaraderie. Politicians like Kevin Rudd and Donald Trump, have come to realise this opportunity and seize it for their success. By communicating in ways that appeal to a broader audience they help to remove the political stigma and relate to users in a genuine capacity. For Rudd, it was through comedic and self-ridicule photos that appealed to the humourous Australian (Fairfax Media, 2013); and for Trump it his celebrity like status that keeps him entertaining and charismatic (Bulman, 2016).

Furthermore, social media has not only been beneficial in political discourse for the politician but also for the user. Social media has become a platform for users to broadcast their personal opinions and political preferences, and to furthermore, create political discourse for themselves. Think Kony 2012, a political movement solely created on social media by users (Jericho, 2013). This movement went viral, and brought an international audience and awareness to issues usually far beyond their reach. Likewise, social media has also been an important way for users to organise protests and petitions. I would argue, that without social media, issues such as marriage equality, would have never seen the light of day; the effect has been global.

Therefore, thanks to social media, citizenship has now become digital. Political discourse is being changed, created and shifted faster and more dramatically than ever before. As #myoungdigitialcommunities blogged, the youth are now the gatekeepers in political discourse (Nayak, 2015). As we watch politics progress overtime, and we see leaders like Donald Trump come into power, and laws being passed for marriage equality, the more evident this statement becomes.

 References:

 Bulman, M 2016, ‘Donald Trump’s celebrity style tweets helped him win US presidential election, says data scientist’, Independent, 28 November, viewed 10 December 2017, <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-twitter-account-election-victorypresident-elect-david-robinson-statistical-analysis-a7443071.html>

 Fairfax Media, 2013, ‘Social Media Stakes: Rudd vs Abbott’, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 10 December 2017 <http://images.smh.com.au/file/2013/08/07/4640158/Web_ElectionSocial/>

 Jericho, G (2013) Rise of the Fifth Estate: Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politics. Scribe Publications: Melbourne

 Nayak, V 2015, How the internet is changing politics – Ted Talk, 4 July, Viewed 7.12.2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrvpD-5zwqk

[myoungdigitalcommunities-blog]

Posting in politics

Traditionally, politicians and political parties tended to use one-way communication methods to reach the community. Campaign ads, televised debates, rallies etc. were commonplace until the introduction of social media channels like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. These digital communities are enabling ordinary citizens to engage in conversation and weigh in on the political landscape and in ways that have never been experienced before. This increased participation in democracy and can manifest a number of ways. Take ‘curation’ (Swinburne 2017) for example, users are able to pick and choose what information they want to engage with, repost/retweet and publish via social media from their chosen politician or party. Thus, giving broader exposure to particular pieces that interest the citizen at the time. Power to the people!

Though, Jodi Dean (2013) notes some negative effects that social media can have over democracy when we take ‘action’ via social media in regard to material that we choose to broadcast, explaining that a lot of the time it’s the social media post that becomes ‘the story’, rather than the real issue, “leaving people dying on the streets”. She refers to these downfalls as ‘communicative capitalism’.

Another example of increased participation is the circulation of non-official political media content such as comedy skits on shows like Saturday Night Live and various late-night talk shows. An incredibly popular skit by Melissa McCarthy, broadcast on Saturday Night Live, depicted a half-wit, aggressive White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer. This entertaining performance was a viral hit and led to the devastation of Spicers image and credibility in the public eye, proving the effect that digital citizens can have when participating in political conversation.

Vinay Nayak (2015), a member of President Obamas 2012 campaign team, call this use of social media a new ‘political microphone’. Nayak was in charge of this new tool, empowering citizens, running the National Youth Outreach Online Department. He discusses how social media is predominantly dominated by the young voices, noting that if his campaign wanted to communicate with these voices, they needed to engage with them on a platform and medium that the youth themselves had created. Nayak states “Young people are gate keepers for political messages in a way that we have never been before. Social media is different from other forms of communication because we’re the ones who decide what images and what moments get magnified and which ones’ fade”. This new ‘political microphone’ essentially lets its citizens decide the kind of day to day political discourse they want to engage in.

The introduction of these tools has been incredibly empowering for not only the political party or candidate, but also the voters. This new form of two-way communication and engagement in political discourse has had a profound effect on the way parties are able to project themselves to an audience and similarly the way a ‘digital citizen’ is able to highlight a certain issue they feel needs to be discussed.

References

Dean, J. (2013) IAMCR 2013 plenary No. 3. Posted 3.7.2013 Viewed 7.12.2017 <http://bit.ly/1q5rYZn>

Nayak, V. (2015) How the internet is changing politics – Ted Talk, Posted 4.7.2015 Viewed 7.12.2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrvpD-5zwqk

5.2 Politics and Civic Culture (2017) Learning Materials - Swinburne Online, Swinburne University of Technology Viewed on 7.12.17

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Hi, I agree with your post here. I particularly like your reference to Obama's: Political microphone, and how, now in a digital world, young people are now the gatekeepers for political messages. This certainly makes for an interesting change to previous traditional media gatekeepers. As I was reading I couldn't help but to think of social media user political movements like Kony 2012, where issues can become as viral as a cat video. This is also true in regards to the protests and petitions. Thanks, to the digital era, citizens have now gained a new medium for gaining traction on an issue, or simply having their voice heard. I would go as far to suggest that, thanks to social media, largely debated issues like marriage equality, have come to the forefront, and hence now why, laws are being passed all over the world on this topic. Furthermore, this also returns to your point on young people now being the gatekeepers, as marriage equality is certainly echoed from younger generation’s beliefs. 

[arneemac-blog]

Digital citizenship: Politics and civic cultures.

‘how are our social experiences in each of these contexts bound up with social media platforms and their affordances, and how we make use of them?’

Political campaigns are investing more money into social media use and who they can strategically target. Social media allows people to feel more connected to politicians and policy via trending topics.

Digital citizenship and online participation in politics can be fraught with danger. An American student asks President Barack Obama “what do I need to do to become the President one day” Obama replied “I want everyone here to be careful what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age whatever you do, it will be pulled up somewhere later in your life. That’s number one” (Jericho 2012).

This week’s readings introduced me to a new term ‘public sphere’ my understanding of this is very new. The question was asked, “Would we agree that in the age of a digital citizenship we have now reached an age of an ideal public sphere as according to Habermas’s theory?” My response was, I don’t agree we have reached an age of an ideal public sphere, particularly if the discussion is online. For example, the quality of participation would be very low for people without access to the internet. If it’s a real source of public opinion, I think it could easily discriminate.

Originally, Jürgen Habermas and the Public Sphere idea was conceived pre-internet, in saying that, the public sphere idea really does translate very easily to the age of digital citizenship. Public opinion, whether it is on the internet or not can still shape the landscape of political power and politics.

Reference List

Jericho, G 2010, Rise of the fifth estate : social media and blogging in australian politics, viewed December 10, 2017, <https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/swin/reader.action?docID=1020873&ppg=261>

Habermas, J 2017, Jürgen habermas and the public sphere, viewed December 10, 2017, <https://www.media-studies.ca/articles/habermas.htm>

[rochellegodwin-blog]

I love your link into the ‘public sphere’ here, and I am glad that we could introduce a concept so widely debated about. 

The ideal the ideal public sphere in the wake of the internet was so enlightened and optimistic; people honestly thought with unlimited entry to the public sphere, we would be supplied with an equal access and thus, opportunity. That is to over-throw the gatekeepers of information (traditional media and the elite), and become the consumers, creators and sharers of information. Though in the beginning of the internet, an ideal public sphere may certainly have seemed possible and in reach, as we have developed the ourselves over the internet, we have developed ourselves out of an ideal public sphere and back into the hands of the gatekeepers. In the wake of social media, those who have access to it is still limited. The internet excludes those without the means to access it, which ultimately excludes half of the world’s population. There be it problem number 1. 

Number 2: as we become more reliant on social media, the owners of these sites continue to make a profit and control what information we receive. Thanks to algorithms our information is now tailored and thus limited and controlled by the gatekeepers. Moreover, as we consume said information we help to make the rich richer. 

Therefore, the ideal public sphere is as far off as it ever was. Whilst it may seem as if we have a voice, it is only at the choice of the gatekeepers. So essentially, the gatekeepers have simply changed from owners of newspapers to owners of social media sites. 

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Can we truly afford the affordances of social media?

In my previous post, I spoke in the defense of social media and the affordances it provides for connecting us globally, and henceforth affording us a wealth of knowledge and opportunities.

Conversely, I also spoke of how social media sites are merely a platform to construct your ideal self. This is then how the digital world judges you, thus separating us from vulnerability. Therefore, we henceforth become controlled by maintaining this image and our ability to keep up with our companions (Turkle, 2013). Tim O’Reilly (2005) has termed this particular increased use of the Internet as Web 2.0; whereby user generated content has led to an era in which users are gravitated toward producing content then thus became controlled by its story.

 Pariser (2011) highlights that given the open platform that a Web 2.0 era has left, has allowed for media platforms to seize upon this vulnerability. In December 2009, the biggest change in Internet’s history occurred… personalisation for everyone (Pariser, 2011). Google began using various signals, in fact, 57 at this time, to predict what pages you were most likely to click on, and hence, individually tailoring your search based on those signals. Pariser termed this phenomenon as “filter bubbles”. A Filter Bubble is this unique universe of information that these search engines have come to personalise and filter for each of us. As Pariser believes, this will fundamentally alter that way in which we encounter ideas and information.

 So thus, by hiding our vulnerabilities for meaningful human interaction, we have made ourselves more vulnerable to be controlled and constructed by another. This time, in the digital world, by a computer, by algorithms.

So whilst we are off thinking that we are able to construct our ideal self through these platforms, these platforms are now constructing us. The algorithms control the content we are shown, and thus limit the connectivity of users (our companions) and information available (positive affordance). Ultimately, these algorithms are watching what we watch, click on and connect with and then constructing these platforms based on those preferences. So simply, we are sacrificing our privacy and our right to our own realities in the wake of the affordances of social media. Is it worth it?

References:

 O’Reilly, T. 2005, What is Web 2.0, viewed 8 September 2016, <http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>

 Pariser, E., (2011) The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you, London: Viking, viewed 10 September 2016, <http://onlineres.swin.edu.au.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/1023084.pdf>

 Turkle, S 2012, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.

Please watch this for more information of filter bubbles:  

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Mrs. Brightside.

Sherry Turkle (2012), a professor of social studies of science and technology at MIT,  suggested that digital immersion is seductive because it seemingly addresses our human vulnerabilities. In her book, Alone Together, she states that “As it turns out, we are very vulnerable,” she says. “We are lonely but fearful of intimacy. Constant connectivity offers the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship”.

I couldn’t agree more, but I am going to point out the positives and negatives of this statement.

Firstly, negatives: thanks to social media, we are substituting friendship for mere companionship. In place of one friendship come hundreds of companions, companions that we can switch off at any time. What’s more these companions are simply projections of their ideal self. Like Turkle (2012) suggests, we are vulnerable, so social media offers a gateway to rid of those parts of ourselves we dislike and then highlight the parts that we do. As we interact on social media, those are the parts we interact with. We avoid the messiness, the confrontations and of course the vulnerabilities that make us human. Thus, blocking any chance of intimacy as Turkle (2012) would suggest. The social media platform of Tinder, is a stark representation of this phenomenon. We display the best representation of ourselves to then seek out an intimate relationship based on this representation. We are trying to seek out meaningful human connection via a platform that disrupts the idea of meaning. Essentially, Tinder is a social oxymoron. Thus, as Turkle (2012) would agree, we are stuck being alone together.

Secondly, positives: As we progress into a world dominated by social media, there is no escape and no hiding from it. To simply choose not to partake is somewhat ignorant and outdated. Yes, we may sleep with out cell phones (Ted-Ed, 2013), but we need to learn to grow with social media not point fingers at it. As Rheingold (2000) would argue virtual communities are based on shared beliefs and common ideas not our location. The separation of location is where the positive lies in social media. We can connect with people from the other side of the world. We can broaden our knowledge, not only on the topics in which we are interested but also on other cultures, religions and practices. By being ignorant to social media you ensure you remain ignorant to a wealth of knowledge and experiences. You may not necessarily be able to afford to travel the world, but you may be able to afford a connection to a broadband network that allows you to communicate in any language in any part of the world. Not only that, we are afforded the opportunity to personalise the content we receive, so if you’re a single mum you can connect with other single mums, if you study medicine you can connect with other medics making break-throughs on the other side of the world. You can learn anything, from anyone. It brings a world of knowledge to your fingertips in an instant. So rather than cursing social media, we need to learn to embrace it. There is no going back.

Here are some other articles I found interesting: 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/05/rational-heroes-sherry-turkle-mit 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/reclaiming-conversation-sherry-turkle/409273/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00604/full 

References:

Rheingold, H 2000, The virtual community : homesteading on the electronic frontier, MIT Press, Cambridge.

 TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone? Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 5 Decemeber 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

 Turkle, S 2012, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, Basic Books, New York.

[ebonymccabe1-blog]

Seems familiar … <https://medium.com/alt-ledes/stop-sharing-this-photo-of-antisocial-newspaper-readers-533200ffb40f> 

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Amen! 

So maybe where we went wrong was not the ‘social media revolution’ it was the industrial revolution. We became so absorbed in ourselves, driven for profit and success we exclude those around us. Social media is just a faster way of exhibiting the same issue. Theorist need to stop looking at social media as the problem and look at each other instead. 

[studentthoughtsonsocial-blog]

Social Media Revolution

Social Media Revolution (Original) This video was produced in 2009 based on the book Socialnomics by Erik Qualman. There have been two newer versions since t...

The social media revolution…. Is it a fad, or is it the biggest shift since the Industrial Revolution?

An introduction to Digital Communities and the progression of social media platforms*, the social media revolution YouTube video highlights significant and progressive shifts in society and community. To put this revolution into perspective, it took 13 years for TV to reach 50 million users, 4 years for the internet to reach 50 million users and less than 9 months for Facebook to add 100 million users. And further to that statistic, if Facebook were a county it would be the 4th largest in the world behind China, India and United States. So where does these leave us, the consumers of social media creating social networks in a digital age? And is technology redefining human connection?

It has been noted that as individual we are using social media and communication devices to choose, construct negotiate, interpret and display who we are to be perceived. Does this enable us as users to project our ‘ideal self’ to others?

Sherry Turkle both highlights her excitement of technology however believes that it is letting us as consumers to be taken to places we don’t want to go. Believing our devices are so psychologically powerful they both change what we do and also who we are, undertaking quirks we may have considered in the past abnormal are now becoming familiar and normalised. A prime example of this concept is to consider the amount of time we spend ‘online’ or available/connected to a network. Those who are of the pre-internet and mobile phone generation would remember a time where we would make plans with someone, arrive at the predetermined time, and while spending time with that person would be completely invested in their company.. And, if it were perhaps a special occasion we may use a film based or early edition digital camera to capture precious memories for ourselves. Whereas now the most of us are, for the most part, always connected to the network peripherally connected to others, which has been enable by technology and other various platforms.

Therefore with an increase in virtual communities coupled with changes in society from more traditional face-to-face based relationships to communities and networks that are based on shared social practices and interests, as we engage with one another in digital communities it is certain that our behaviours are influenced. For those of us who have weak social network connections, we are essentially strangers to one another who have an ability to create a perception of our ideal self and seek affirmation from others through that created perception. Or on the other hand those who chose to remain anonymous have the ability to behave in a manner and experiment with their online behaviour(s) while keeping their identity private. Behaving anonymously does raise concerns about the perceived trust of those you may be engaging with or, other anonymous persons potentially causing harm through unsocial behaviours and their lack of integrity through not being identifiable. Unlike other media platforms, social media is not yet regulated however I believe this is an evolving area that needs further exploration. As users have the ability to publish their own content and content on others, where and how do we create boundaries that protect each other from either potential defamatory situations or matters of privacy exposure? While some may be comfortable with sharing every detail of their life, exaggerated or not or pure honesty as a therapeutic practice, there are other who don’t share the same preferences.

This is still a developing and unfamiliar area which will need further exploration as media platforms and technology capabilities continue to progress. I will leave you with a few articles below which I found thought-provoking regarding the moral compass of technology and associated platforms, addictive behaviours caused by social media and the regulation of social media. I look forward to you sharing your views:

*The term platforms defined in an online context as an ‘online services of content intermediaries’.

https://medium.com/doteveryone/the-tech-industry-needs-a-moral-compass-3ce1665a287f 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/11/facebook-google-public-health-democracy

https://theconversation.com/regulate-social-media-platforms-before-its-too-late-86984

References

Buzzz Social Media 2011, The Social Media Revolution 2014, 23 October, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eUeL3n7fDs>.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014, ‘Social Selves’, in Cunningham & Turnbull (eds), The Media & Communications in Australia, Allen and Unwin pp. 291-295.

Center for Advanced Study, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2014, The Politics of Platforms, 21 January, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hxcofU_o7Y>.

University of Arkansas 2009, Connected Lives: The New Social Network Operating System, 13 April, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://clintonschoolspeakers.com/lecture/view/connected-lives-new-social-network-operating-syste/>.

van der Negal 2013, 'Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild’, Scan Journal of Media Arts Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, Macquarie University.

Boyd, d 2010, ‘Social Network Sites as Networked Publics’, in Papacharissi, Z, A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, Routledge, Hoboken, pp. 39-58.  

Mizuko, I 2008 ‘Introduction’ in Vamelis, K (ed), Networked Publics, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-14.

[rochellegodwin-blog]

Ahhh, the projection of the ideal self, so true. We are all guilty of untagging unappealing photos, only sharing the exciting destinations we visit, and only posting things that will reflect positively on our self-image. I mean no one tags themselves at work day in day out, and then post how boring it was. We don’t post a photo of their holiday of them getting lost and fighting over the directions. We don’t post a picture of our meat and three veg on Instagram. No we post ourselves at the hottest new spot having Friday night drinks, or we post the iconic photo kissing in front of the Eiffel Tower. Thanks to social media we can brag about the good things and omit the bad. 

In a digital world, we now have the ability to control the way we are perceived, and it is getting out of hand. We think that projected ourselves in this perfect light will then thus make us happy. These actions on solidify Sherry Turkle’s ideas of vulnerability. I agree, I don't think that projecting the ideal self is making us happy, it is making us more lonely. 

[myoungdigitalcommunities-blog]

“What holds society together when most of us are strangers to each other?”

This week we discussed Siapera’s ‘Understand New Media’ (2012) discussing socialities and social media. Tonnies (2001[1887]) two forms of sociality; community and society, and highlighted their relevance to social media use and digital communities in recent times. Tonnies explains that ‘community’ is formed around an organic, natural will, including associations which we undertake out of our own choice and violation. An example of a community is that of a family, neighbourhood group or not for profit organisation that takes voluntary involvement. These bonds are bound by affection. Alternatively, ‘society’ is formed through rational will, instrumental association with goal oriented membership. An example being that of a private company or enterprise (for the purpose of profit).

Tonnies developed these theories in the 19th century, when social interaction was largely based on close-knit, organic ‘community’ lifestyles. The introduction of the industrial revolution brought a shift in this way of life towards impersonal societies as people relocated to cities searching for employment (pursuit of profit) and was associated with a loss of unity and human contact. If we reference Tonnies forms of sociality in this new, digital era would we liken the introduction of the internet to the further destruction of community or has it played a role in developing an entirely new form of virtual community?

Rheingold (1993) argues that virtual communities aren’t based solely on physical location but on shared beliefs and common ideas etc. An opposing point of view was highlighted by Putnam (1995), who argues the new media era has encouraged social disengagement and an erosion of social capitol. He explained this with a metaphor about Bowling in the USA stating, “although more Americans are bowling, less of them are bowling in leagues”.

When reflecting on my digital and physical social life over the last two years I find I agree with both Putnam and Rheingold in a number of ways. As I had found myself drawn from my ability to be out in the world socialising and engaging in a physical sense after having my son 18 months ago (he keeps me very busy and my life is a far cry from the ‘Friday night drinks’ days of old), I have gained a new sense of community in the form of online social groups such as Mums forums on Facebook and I am bound by my love (addiction) of Instagram as it allows me to communicate visually and verbally with friends and family as well as connect with like-minded individuals even though I am unable to be present in a physical sense. Because of this, I see valid points from both Putnam and Rheingold’s theories.

Siapera, E. (2012) Understanding New Media: Socialities and Social Media. Sage, London, England.

Putnam. R (2012) Bowling alone Date Uploaded: 28.09.2000 Date viewed: 15.11.2017 <http://cs.pn/1rjk68S>

[rochellegodwin-blog]

In total agreement, whilst there are many arguments out there that suggest in a digital era we are largely anti-social, I thoroughly enjoyed your enlightened look at this change. Thanks to social media we now have a way of connecting with a larger social network, based on our shared needs and activities. Yes, I agree that with the argument that mums can go out and meet other mums, just like on social media, or wine lovers can go enjoy a glass of wine with other wine lovers, they are easy to find in a park or wine bar. However, what social media offers is an extension of that, for example, connecting with mums from other countries or with the wine makers themselves. It not only broadens our networks but also broadens our knowledge. 

Good job!