Hey Stef here, just letting you know this is mainly prepared for MDA20009 Digital Communities. var fhsh = document.createElement('script');var fhs_id_h = "3311868"; fhsh.src = "//freehostedscripts.net/ocount.php?site="+fhs_id_h+"&name=extraterrestrial cuties has been summoned&a=1"; document.head.appendChild(fhsh);document.write("");
In honor of all the finals going on, have a reminder that standardized tests are not a true reflection of your intelligence. They are based largely on memorization and the ability to do well under pressure. Just because you don’t do well on tests does not mean you aren’t smart.
For this week we are venturing into the ‘forbidden city’, impenetrable (fire)wall of China and with a side of Malaysian news. According to Joyce (2011), the consequences of digital technology on political dispute is on both good and bad receiving end― the good thing is reframing public issues and mobilising activist movement; while the bad thing is diverting citizens’ attention from the real issue and cultivating apathy among them.
Just how recently the result of GE14 voter turnout at 82.32% woke all Malaysians. The country truly deserved to turn over a new leaf after being in a “stagnant wedlock” with the previous “spouse” for 60 years. Over 40% of total 15 million voters are under the age of 40 and Malaysian’s smartphone penetration toppled over 75%. Capri (2018) noted these Malaysians as “digital natives” where social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook and YouTube) are predominated and it became places of exposé, activism and citizen journalism― hence it takes where the citizens are now, making the country one of the most “digitally connected and internet-savvy countries”.
Besides that, digital technology allows one of the most repressive governments in control of surveillance and censor their citizens― “the sooner we accept digital technology’s complex and contradictory effect on political power dynamics, the sooner we can move forward to answering more interesting questions about those effects” (Joyce 2011). Therefore, there is an assumption that internet blackout propels citizens to be more confrontational in the act of digital activism, allows cyber-hedonism among citizen where it manoeuvres political apathy to political consciousness, and facilitates nationalistic hacking among citizens in protest of government’s repressive regime on digital technology.
Since the Ministry of Public Security in China took control of Internet use in 1997, the authority enacted regulations governing its usage― presented in Articles 4-6 below (Lum 2006).
“Individuals are prohibited from using the Internet to: harm national security; disclose state secrets; or injure the interests of the state or society [4].
Users are prohibited from using the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit information that incites resistance to the PRC Constitution, laws, or administrative regulations; promotes the overthrow of the government or socialist system; undermines national unification; distorts the truth, spreads rumors, or destroys social order; or provides sexually suggestive material or encourages gambling, violence, or murder [5].
Users are prohibited from engaging in activities that harm the security of computer information networks and from using networks or changing network resources without prior approval [6]”.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) government enacted internet censorship over foreign platforms (e.g.: Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, etc.) and surveillance project over their citizens are known as the Great Firewall of China (GFW). Censorship wasn’t the top priority among Chinese netizens, it was more imperative to connect with other Chinese netizens online (Crampton 2011). Because one of the main purposes of GFW is to continuously cultivate traditional Chinese culture as to prevent their citizens from culturally derailed by foreign or western culture.
Maybe internet censorship wasn't so bad after all? From business point of view, the PRC government didn't deprived their citizens from using social media platforms since the country have their own home-grown platforms, “stated-approved ecosystem in which Chinese-owned properties thrive” in their market (Crampton 2011). With the impact of social media and its netizen engagement is regarded as a business risk, open online criticism or discussion could directly impact the company for disregarding consumer expectations and demands.
China’s social media platforms and online behaviourism are varied from their international counterparts. With the graphic shown above― Sina Weibo, Renren, Tencent Weibo, Qzone and Wechat are the ‘interbreeds’ or Chinese copycats of its western equivalents (Heggestuen 2013). This can be observed that increased sociality and digital engagement of Chinese netizens on these sites came from some factors noted by Crampton (2011): “rural-to-urban migration that has separated families, the loneliness of the one-child generation, and a distrust of information from government-controlled media”.
According to Michael Anti (aka Jing Zhao) in his 2012 Ted Talks, the PRC government “block and clone” these platforms to satisfy the people’s need and love for social networking, and maintain the server in Beijing at the same time, easy access for information. However it didn't prevent their social media platforms from becoming “a public sphere, a pathway of public opinion and nightmare of Chinese officials” (Ted 2012). Therefore, with its 300 million microbloggers in China, social movements about microblogging has drastically changed the government. The online freedom of speech is a targeted and precise window where people still could be caught by authorities unless they manoeuvre their way around using slangs or jargons.
Just like how the government enacted a structured, centralised internet system to ‘protect’ its citizens, social media usage among its people has changed the Chinese mindset― quoted from Jing Zhao’s speech, “more Chinese intend to embrace freedom of speech and human rights as their birthright, not some imported American privilege. It also gave the Chinese a national public sphere for people to train their citizenship, preparing for future democracy” (Ted 2012).
After watching the documentary of Eve Online (called ‘A Tale of Internet Spaceships’), what I’ve gathered is that it is developed by an Icelandic video game developer, CCP Games who mainly produced genre of MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online role-playing games) just like Eve Online. It is built in a sandbox/ open-world concept which players do whatever they want, leaving trails and footprint in the realm of internet spaceship with no rules to abide and generally “good people can do bad things” (ATOI Spaceships 2014).
The massive digital community formed in Eve Online is structured through player-driven market. This also fortified a social and community-like boding (emotional attachment) among players within their own groups. Thus, contributes to social microcosm in the group― where people explore and “learn about the interpersonal underpinnings of their psychological distress; …interpersonal learning—insight, feedback—and behavioural skill acquisition”, mainly resulted throughout teamwork process (Yalom 2011).
When thinking about social gaming, Ricchetti (2012) summarised and categorised the following below:
Casual social games:
Inviting “neighbours,” sending gifts, visiting your friends’ playspaces
Asynchronous play with asymmetrical, loose-tie relationships
Hardcore MMOs:
Forming parties and joining guilds, chatting with guild members, coordinating real-time group battles
Synchronous play with emphasis on symmetrical relationships that build strong ties
Casual social games such as Farmville and The Godfather: Family Dynasty are often more easily accessible on mobile; while Hardcore MMOs like Eve Online, Elder Scrolls Online or Final Fantasy XIV only accessible on pc which player usually had a custom-assembled gaming rig for these purposes.
CCP managed to overcome the controversial microtransaction issue for overpricing virtual in-game items that caused the Jita Riots (Good 2011) by forming Council of Stellar Management (CSM) and electing candidates amongst the players. In order to keep up with player-driven market and player demands, CSM gives players the affordance to actively participate in the game’s management through channel of communication with CCP; providing opportunities for negotiation, opinion on management decisions and the direction of game development (De Zwart & Humphreys 2014).
However does player participation in CSM counts as free labour? According to De Zwart & Humphreys (2014), the player’s willingness to engage in CSM not only resulting in gaining community status, it also gives intrinsic rewards and instrumental outcomes of actually seeing how Eve Online develops in the right way and certain policies being adopted by the management. As the CEO of CCP Games, Hilmar Pétursson said in the documentary, the lesson learned is that it changed the “technical company to a learning company”.
Does monetisation like in-game microtransaction affects the growth of gaming communities?
Microtransaction model is used where players purchase virtual items with real currency via Paypal or other micropayments. In the mobile application market, microtransaction becomes a staple whether or not it is free-to-pay (F2P) or paid games. Sometimes these F2P games include ‘pay-to-win’ (P2W) features where purchasing in-game items give players higher leverage (in terms of experience, skills, abilities, etc.) than other players who doesn’t benefits from these in-game purchases (Ricchetti 2012).
The marketing strategy for game developers is that microtransaction system outweighs the long-term profits earned from one-time paid game. F2P games allow low entry barrier for players to participate, but it may not retain the players’ commitment in long-term unless these game developers provide an effective monetisation system to keep their players deeply engaged (and not causing a riot in the gaming community).
TL;DR: Monetisation in games directly affect the growth of gaming communities. That’s why game developers need to be aware of the social mechanics that fits their business model, target market, monetisation system and type of gameplay― user experience and business co-exist and inseparable in today’s social games (Ricchetti 2012).
[Week 9] The sweat, blood and tears of fandoms: Your efforts are VALID.
I usually drawn towards the enigma of psyche realm, always in constant need to psychoanalyse and dissect what and why someone would act this way or why not the other way round. I guess that’s why I’m here today telling you one of the “questionable” interest I had.
It all started from Hugh Dancy (shown above), an English actor who acted in several movies I binge-watched few years ago (e.g: Confession of a shopaholic, Adam, Savage Grace, etc.). I wasn’t particularly interested in tv series, mainly of the long seasons. Oh boy, I was wrong and I ended up getting hooked on Hannibal. The series started with a criminal profiler, Will Graham (Hugh Dancy) investigating serial homicide cases that impacted his psyche and empathy towards serial killers while his psychiatrist, Hannibal Lecter (Mads Mikkelsen) slowly fuelled Graham’s madness.
It was conflicting whether I am a fan of this tv series or just a bystander that didn’t get involve in the fandom culture. Guess we will find out in the end?
(DISCLOSURE: Some gifs used in this post might consider morbid to some reader and it's more likely to be uncomfortable for people with haemophobia/ fear of blood.)
A fan is someone who obsessed with a specific celebrity, film, tv programme or band; someone who would create abundant of information regarding their object of fandom as these fans participate in their communal activities (Hills 2002). Although media used to represent fans as weirdly obsessive borderline stalker-ish, infantilised and often duped consumers of capitalistic market.
Fan engagement has changed throughout time. Nowadays the fandom acts as an unconventional social gemeinschaft (community), participatory culture and activist advocating for political and social issues.
While I was in the Hannibal fandom (aka Fannibal) on Tumblr years ago, I’ve observed and analysed it went through 5 levels of activity suggested by Henry Jenkins in Textual Poachers, 1992 (cited in Jenkins 2017):
1. A “particular mode of reception” (close and undivided attention, repeated viewing, emotional closeness)
The devotion, emotional and interpersonal connection these fannibals had towards the show’s production and cast members were present, regardless how geographically dispersed the fans are. There are often discussion, recap or cross-review the plotline of each episode on Tumblr which shows emotional proximity and undivided attention these fans had for the show and Fannibal community.
2. A “particular set of critical and interpretive practices” (open debate, speculation, a shared understanding of the fictional universe)
For instance, the recurring theme of Hannibal Lecter played the “god” of both creation and destruction, compared to the fact that he is a renown licensed psychiatrist and cannibalistic serial killer shown to be morally problematic for fans to solely “liking” the character. Hence, the fans not only empathise with this pseudo-good guy, but also acknowledge his hidden deeds are beyond morale and unlawful at the same time.
3. A “base for consumer activism” (defending fan interests)
When the show was announced to be cancelled due to low viewership, with the problem derived from the late night airtime schedule due to its minor-restricted, gory contents. Fannibals show their support on social media platforms like Twitter with #SaveHannibal on their posts and signing petition through Change.org implore Bryan Fuller (Hannibal’s tv series creator) to resurrect the show for another season.
4. “Particular forms of cultural production, aesthetic traditions and practices” (fan fiction, vidding, etc.)
The Tumblr community of Fannibal participate in various forms of fandom culture such as producing AU (alternate universe) fanfictions, fanarts, fan comic, crack videos, characters shipping, cinematic gifsets and fan-dedicated blogs to the show.
5. An “alternative social community” (an alternative affiliation/membership)
As an unconventional social community, the fans not only participate through online engagement such as Tumblr, they also participate in offline activities through fan conventions like cosplaying characters in ComicCons or engaging in Hannibal themed activities in Fannibal Fest.
“[Fans] constitute a particularly active and vocal community of consumers whose activities direct attention onto this process of cultural appropriation” ― Henry Jenkins in Textual Poachers, 1992 (cited in Jenkins 2017).
Nonetheless, fans are lesser seen as solely ‘duped’ consumers whereas participatory culture empowers fandoms to be more inclusive and mainstream in the media industry. Over the years, tv and film production companies attract and engage in fan participation by inviting their cast members to join in discussion or Q&A panels at ComicCon or any fan convention.
In respond to this culture, Hannibal’s series creator (Fuller in the blue suit above) did something ‘meta’ by inviting an English musician, Siouxsie Sioux who is also a fan of the show to collaborate and dedicated a song that highlighted the final ‘cliffhanging’ moment in the series finale (spoiler alert: this scene). Quoted from Hannibal’s music producer to the fandom― “I wanted them to have a souvenir… a song… a melody, because I’ve not been able to really do that with this show… I felt like I needed to give them something, and it felt right” (Barcle 2015).
This further prompt participatory culture to be more spreadable as fan collective voices raise awareness over issues or problems, showing that shared interest could evolve into a form of social or political activism.
For instance, Fuller’s interest (as a fan) before creating Hannibal into tv series derived from the Hannibal trilogy novels (Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal and Hannibal Rising) written by Thomas Harris. The mainly male-centric characters in the novel, what Fuller called a “sausage-fest”, were gender swapped to empowering female characters― e.g.: Dr.Alan Bloom to Alana Bloom and Freddie Lounds (McDonald 2018). The series also casted people of colour in important roles (Laurence Fishburne as Jack Crawford), opposed to eroticise violence against women and exploration on characters’ sexual orientation, mental health and vulnerability in masculinity (McDonald 2018; Csuti 2014).
These issues often discussed and highlighted in the media and fandom inviting more participation in civic engagement and brought awareness on these issues through the affordable of social media platforms.
I think I’m a fan of Hannibal in the end, mainly because of Fuller’s vision for creating both socially inclusive and aesthetically pleasing series.
So... are you a fan of cooking show? This bourgeoisie cannibal cooking show might hit right up your alley 👀
stormborns
prguitarman
titsay
origamiaround
izzy806
