Hi! Welcome to Shiro Talk

Main character energy, but in a niche internet microfame way!! Welcome to sshirotalk

[sshirotalk]

Week 10: Digital Citizenship, Gendered Harassment, and Platform Responsibility – Why “Logging Off” Isn’t the Answer

This week’s reading by Haslop, O’Rourke & Southern (2021) challenged me to rethink digital citizenship within spaces where gendered harassment has become normalized. Their research into UK student online culture reveals a concerning pattern: online abuse isn’t just tolerated, it’s expected as part of participating in certain digital environments.

🚩 When Harassment Becomes a Cultural Norm

Haslop et al. (2021) argue that online harassment—particularly targeting women and LGBTQ+ individuals—is often seen as "just part of being online." What stood out to me was how many participants internalized this logic, viewing harassment as inevitable. This creates a gendered digital divide, where masculine-coded behaviors like aggression or trolling are normalized, while those outside dominant groups are pressured to either adapt or withdraw.

Personally, this resonates with my own experience in online spaces like gaming communities, where toxic behaviors are often brushed off as "just jokes." Haslop et al. highlight how platform governance often fails by relying on self-policing instead of taking active responsibility to protect vulnerable users.

GIF by canadianabroadvery

🧩 The Manosphere and Organized Harassment

This normalization connects directly to Ben Rich & Eva Bujalkaj (2023), who explore how Andrew Tate gained popularity by exploiting manosphere rhetoric. Tate thrives in a culture where harassment is reframed as “pushing back” against supposed political correctness. This mirrors the conditions outlined by Haslop et al., where toxic behaviors are rewarded by both social and algorithmic dynamics.

Marwick & Caplan (2018) describe this as networked harassment, where collective online actions target marginalized groups, creating toxic solidarity. The manosphere and cases like Gamergate show how harassment becomes not only accepted but also weaponized.

GIF by vowled

💡 Resistance and Platform Responsibility

While creators and activists resist through satire or community action (e.g., Vitis & Gilmour, 2017), Haslop et al. make it clear that this burden shouldn’t fall solely on individuals. Platforms benefit from high engagement, yet moderation remains reactive and inconsistent.

For me, this raises key questions about what digital citizenship means today. It should move beyond passive participation to include active work in reshaping exclusionary digital cultures. The reading leaves me wondering: is legal reform like the Online Safety Act 2021 (Australia) enough, or must we push platforms harder to enforce structural change?

🔄 Final Reflection

This week reinforced how systemic gendered harassment is—rooted in cultural attitudes, platform design, and profit models. While individual resistance is essential, Haslop et al. challenge us to rethink collective and institutional responsibilities within the digital sphere.

💬 Discussion Prompt: What does meaningful action against online harassment look like—platform reforms, cultural shifts, or both? 💬👇

GIF by jylljylljyll

Reference list

Ben Rich, & Bujalkaj, E. (2023). The draw of the ‘manosphere’: Understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/the-draw-of-the-manosphere-understanding-andrew-tates-appeal-to-lost-men-199002

Haslop, C., O’Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). #NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture. Convergence, 27(5), 1418–1438. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211010683

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: Language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447334

Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2017). Dick pics on blast: A woman’s resistance to online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram. Crime, Media, Culture, 13(3), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659016652445

[sshirotalk]

🎮 Week 9: Gaming Communities, Social Gaming & Live Streaming – Where Play Meets Platform Power

Gaming isn’t just about play—it’s about communities, cultures, and platforms that shape how we interact and engage online. This week we explored how gaming spaces operate as social communities, how streaming platforms commercialize play, and how indie developers and modders navigate the growing platformisation of games.

🕹️ Key Themes: Communities, Platforms & Power

Keogh (2021) gives us a fascinating look at the Melbourne indie game scene, where local developers create games driven by community values and creative autonomy. Unlike AAA studios that chase profits, indie developers in localized scenes focus on authenticity and DIY ethics. However, Chia et al. (2020) caution that even indie creators are entangled in platformisation, relying on dominant platforms like Steam or itch.io, which control discoverability through algorithms. This raises a tough question: Can indie devs truly remain “independent” when gatekeepers like platforms influence who gets seen and who doesn’t?

Hardwick’s lecture also unpacked how gaming cultures often privilege white, male, and East Asian identities. Hjorth et al. (2021), through Minecraft ethnographies, show how even in open-ended creative spaces, exclusionary dynamics persist. Personally, I’ve seen how “gamer” identity is policed—players who don’t fit this narrow mold often have their skills or belonging questioned.

Taylor (2018) discusses how Twitch transformed from a niche platform into a massive entertainment and community hub, where streamers don’t just play games but also cultivate emotional and knowledge-based relationships with viewers. As someone who follows indie game streamers on Twitch, I can see how these spaces become “digital campfires,” where inside jokes, tips, and personal connections flourish—but always under the influence of platform monetization tools (subscriptions, donations, etc.).

GIF by geekedgamer

🎯 Independent Research: Cozy Gaming Communities on Twitch

Looking beyond the readings, I explored the rise of “cozy gaming” communities on Twitch. Streamers like Vixella and Kayla (lilsimsie) have built thriving audiences by focusing on wholesome games (e.g., The Sims, Stardew Valley) and fostering safe, inclusive spaces. Interestingly, these communities often resist toxic gamer culture, echoing Keogh’s and Hjorth’s points about creating alternative, more welcoming game spaces.

Yet, even cozy streams are shaped by platform capitalism. Twitch promotes channels based on viewership and interaction rates, so streamers still face the push-pull between community care and algorithmic demands (similar to Chia et al., 2020’s argument about platform dependency).

GIF by giffypudding

💭 Reflection: Tactical Participation or Platform Dependency?

What struck me most this week is how gaming communities are fluid—players flow between indie dev spaces, esports scenes, modding forums, and Twitch streams. Jenkins (2006) describes these as “knowledge communities”, where people share expertise and emotional labor. But there’s tension: while we gain community and creativity, platforms subtly steer participation toward commodification.

Personally, I’m left wondering: As digital citizens, how can we push for more autonomy in these spaces? Can we re-center community values over platform profits?

✨ Let’s discuss! Do you think gaming communities today are still grassroots and player-driven, or are they increasingly shaped by the logic of platforms? Share your thoughts! 💬👇

Chia, A., Keogh, B., Leorke, D., & Nicoll, B. (2020). Platformisation in game development. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1515

Hjorth, L., Richardson, I., Davies, H., & Balmford, W. (2021). Exploring play. In Exploring Minecraft: Ethnographies of Play and Creativity (pp. 27–47). Palgrave Macmillan.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.

Keogh, B. (2021). The Melbourne indie game scenes: Value regimes in localized game development. In P. Ruffino (Ed.), Independent Videogames: Cultures, Networks, Techniques and Politics (pp. 209–222). Routledge.

Sotamaa, O. (2010). When the game is not enough: Motivations and practices among computer game modding culture. Games and Culture, 5(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412009359765

Taylor, T. L. (2018). Broadcasting ourselves. In Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming (pp. 1–23). Princeton University Press.

[sshirotalk]

WEEK 8: Digital Citizenship and Software Literacy: The Cultural Politics of Instagram Filters

With over 700 million users engaging with AR filters monthly on Meta platforms, filters are no longer just playful tools—they have become a fundamental part of how we construct identity online. But as someone who frequently uses social media, I often ask myself: Are filters helping me creatively express myself, or are they quietly disciplining me into conforming to algorithm-driven beauty standards?

GIF by sustancy

Digital Citizens and Internalized Surveillance

As Choi and Cristol (2021) argue, digital citizenship today requires software literacy—the ability to recognize how technologies like filters shape our digital identities and data practices. Personally, I’ve noticed how filters now “automatically” beautify my face according to platform trends. Sometimes, I forget what my face really looks like without digital enhancement.

Rettberg (2017) points out that AR filters normalize facial recognition, training users and platforms alike to accept face-scanning as routine. This reminds me of Foucault’s (1977) Panopticism, where individuals self-regulate under invisible surveillance. Adjusting my selfies to fit the "Instagram standard" feels like this modern panopticon at play.

GIF by cleopatrachampagne

Self-Objectification and Everyday Filtering

Fredrickson & Roberts (1997) argue that women are particularly vulnerable to self-objectification when constantly viewing themselves through external, social lenses. I resonate with this—sometimes I feel dissatisfied with my unfiltered self compared to my “filtered” self on social media.

Barker (2020) discusses how filters promote “algorithmic aesthetics”, privileging Eurocentric beauty ideals like smooth skin, large eyes, and smaller noses. Coy-Dibley (2016) terms this effect “digitized dysmorphia,” where filters distort users’ perceptions of their real bodies. Personally, I’ve grown so accustomed to subtle filter enhancements that my natural appearance sometimes feels “off” or less polished. This "ambient filtering" effect, as Barker describes, gradually shifts our baseline for what “normal” looks like.

Surveillance Culture and Beauty Standards

I’ve also found myself engaging in what Lavrence & Cambre (2020) describe as the “digital-forensic gaze”—scrutinizing others' photos to see if they’ve been filtered. This contributes to a beauty surveillance culture where we not only self-police but also monitor others’ appearances.

The rise of “Snapchat Dysmorphia” (Rajanala, Maymone & Vashi, 2018), where people seek cosmetic surgery to match their filtered selves, illustrates how digital beauty standards spill over into real life. Even though Instagram banned plastic surgery filters in 2019, subtle “beautifying” filters still dominate—and I see them everywhere.

Beyond Beauty: Filters, Biometric Surveillance, and Data Extraction

Filters are not just tools for self-expression; they also function as data collection mechanisms. Rettberg (2017) warns that filters prime users for biometric tracking, normalizing face scanning and algorithmic surveillance. While platforms present AR filters as harmless entertainment, they simultaneously collect vast amounts of facial data, raising concerns about privacy and digital rights. The integration of beauty filters into commercial applications, such as AliPay’s face-scan payment system, highlights how digital self-representation is increasingly intertwined with biometric verification.

Conclusion: The Future of AR Filters and Digital Citizenship

The widespread adoption of AR filters raises essential questions about digital identity, beauty norms, and privacy. Are we freely expressing ourselves, or are we subtly being shaped by algorithmic aesthetics? The tension between empowerment and surveillance, self-expression and commercialization, remains central to the debate on AR filters. As digital citizens, we must critically engage with these tools, advocating for greater transparency in platform governance and algorithmic decision-making.

💡 Questions to Consider:

Do AR filters expand creative self-expression, or do they impose new beauty standards?

Should platforms regulate beauty filters more strictly to prevent body dysmorphia?

How can users push back against the biometric tracking embedded in AR technology?

📌 Let’s discuss! Do you think filters empower or manipulate digital self-representation? Comment below!

References:

Barker, J. (2020). Making up on mobile: The pretty and ugly implications of Snapchat filters. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7, 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with an intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy-driven digital citizenship education. Theory into Practice, 60(4), 361–370.

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). “Digitised Dysmorphia” of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16040. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.40

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173-206.

Lavrence, C., & Cambre, C. (2020). “Do I look like my selfie?” Filters and the digital-forensic gaze. Visual Communication Research.

Rajanala, S., Maymone, M. B. C., & Vashi, N. A. (2018). Selfies—Living in the Era of Filtered Photographs. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 20(6), 443-444. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0486

[sshirotalk]

Week 7: Digital Citizenship, Algorithmic Invisibility & Health Campaigns in the Age of Instagram

This week’s reading by Duffy & Meisner (2022) invites us to critically examine how algorithmic (in)visibility shapes the experience of social media creators. Their research shows that platform governance, especially through opaque algorithms, systematically marginalizes creators who don’t conform to dominant cultural templates—impacting visibility, engagement, and even self-perception.

🎯 Algorithmic Invisibility: Who Gets Seen and Who Doesn't?

Duffy & Meisner (2022) highlight how marginalized creators—especially women, queer, and transgender influencers—struggle with algorithmic invisibility. This occurs when platform algorithms deprioritize or “shadow-ban” content that challenges heteronormative, Eurocentric beauty ideals. Reading this, I realized how familiar this feels on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where filtered “mainstream beauty” content often trends while alternative representations are buried.

This concept ties directly to Mavroudis’ (2023) lecture, which discusses how microcelebrity culture is built on conforming to aesthetic templates—specific poses, body modifications, and gendered visual cues that appeal to the platform’s engagement-driven logic. These templates aren’t neutral; they reinforce pornification (Drenten & Gurrieri, 2019) and the monetization of the “ideal body” (Carah & Dobson, 2016).

🩺 Health Consequences: Body Image & Public Health

The lecture also highlights the public health risks associated with these online dynamics. For example, users engaging in what Mavroudis calls fame labour often develop identity dissonance—the psychological gap between their curated online self and their offline body. This can fuel issues like Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), as people chase unachievable aesthetic ideals amplified by influencers and even some health campaigns.

Interestingly, Dorfman et al. (2018) found that most cosmetic surgery-related posts on Instagram were promotional, not educational. This made me reflect on how “public health messaging” is increasingly blurred with influencer marketing—sometimes reinforcing unrealistic body expectations under the guise of wellness.

💡 Independent Research – Algorithmic Bias in Cosmetic Trends

Expanding on this, I looked at Wen et al. (2015) who analyzed YouTube cosmetic surgery content. Their study showed that videos often frame cosmetic enhancement as empowerment, yet overwhelmingly cater to heteronormative beauty standards. This parallels Duffy & Meisner’s point about algorithmic invisibility, where only specific beauty narratives gain traction.

Personally, I think this raises a key question: are health campaigns on social media truly empowering, or are they entangled in the same platform logic that marginalizes diverse bodies?

"The structures of platform governance systematically render certain creators invisible, reinforcing offline hierarchies in online spaces.” (Duffy & Meisner, 2022, p. 2)

✨ Reflection: Rethinking Digital Citizenship

For me, this week reframes digital citizenship beyond participation. It’s about critically engaging with platform cultures, resisting algorithmic bias, and demanding accountability from both influencers and tech companies. As users, we co-create digital spaces, but as Duffy & Meisner argue, we also navigate infrastructures that often replicate offline hierarchies.

💬 Your turn: Have you noticed how some types of bodies or identities seem more “visible” on your social feeds than others? How should we challenge this as digital citizens? 💬👇

References

Carah, N., & Dobson, A. (2016). Algorithmic hotness: Young women’s “promotion” and “reconnaissance” work via social media body images. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672887

Dorfman, R. G., Vaca, E. E., Mahmood, E., Fine, N. A., & Schierle, C. F. (2018). Plastic surgery-related hashtag utilization on Instagram: Implications for education and marketing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 38(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx104

Drenten, J., & Gurrieri, L. (2019). Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention. Gender, Work & Organization, 26(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12312

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923

Mavroudis, J. (2023). Digital Citizenship and Health Campaigns. Lecture presented at MDA20009: Digital Citizenship. Swinburne University.

Wen, N., Chia, S. C., & Hao, X. (2015). What do social media say about makeovers? A content analysis of cosmetic surgery videos and viewers’ responses on YouTube. Health Communication, 30(9), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.889288

[sshirotalk]

WEEK 6: Slow Fashion and Digital Citizenship: Between Activism and Platform Control

Slow fashion has become the “ethical” alternative to fast fashion, offering a vision of sustainability, mindful consumption, and resistance to overproduction. But on social media, where activism and aesthetics collide, I keep asking myself: is slow fashion a real disruption, or is it just another trend shaped by algorithms?

The Power—and Limits—of Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship, as Choi and Cristol (2021) put it, is about using digital spaces critically—to call out greenwashing, uplift ethical labor practices, and shift conversations around consumption. And slow fashion influencers and activists are doing that. But here’s the catch: social media isn’t a neutral tool. Carah and Dobson (2016) talk about “algorithmic hotness,” meaning the system favors what looks good over what critiques deeper problems. Fast fashion hauls flood my feed, while critical slow fashion posts barely make it to the surface. Duffy and Meisner (2022) back this up, showing how content that pushes against consumerism often gets algorithmically buried.

It’s frustrating but unsurprising. Platforms are built to prioritize commerce and engagement, not activism. So, while slow fashion is fighting the good fight, it often feels like it’s fighting uphill on platforms designed to sell, not challenge.

Influencers in a Capitalist Machine

Take influencers like Venetia La Manna—they’re raising awareness and calling out industry giants, but as Drenten et al. (2021) explain, their labor is still commodified. Their activism runs on “monetized attention”—dependent on engagement, sponsorships, and brand partnerships. I find it ironic (and a bit disheartening) that influencers working to dismantle fast fashion still need to “play the game” of platform capitalism. As Duffy and Meisner (2022) point out, influencers critiquing consumption often have their voices suppressed by the same algorithms that reward viral haul videos.

(Queenanie N, 2022)

The Aesthetic Trap of Slow Fashion

Even slow fashion spaces can feel exclusionary. Carah and Dobson (2016) remind us that digital platforms reward content aligned with dominant beauty ideals—Eurocentric, thin, minimalist chic. Lane (2016) further argues that fashion and body politics are inseparable, meaning even ethical movements like slow fashion often reproduce the same beauty hierarchies we see in fast fashion. Honestly, scrolling through slow fashion content, I sometimes feel like it’s just a more “conscious” version of the same curated, aspirational feed.

And despite the growing popularity of slow fashion, the industry’s structural issues remain intact. Fast fashion is still thriving, with projections of hitting $3.3 trillion by 2030 (Statista, 2023; McKinsey & Company, 2021). Morozov’s (2011) critique of “clicktivism” hits hard here: are we making real change, or just consuming activism as another aesthetic online?

The Future of Slow Fashion and Digital Citizenship

The slow fashion movement illustrates the tensions between activism, algorithmic control, and influencer capitalism. While digital platforms provide visibility for ethical fashion advocacy, platform governance ultimately dictates whose voices are amplified and whose are silenced (Van Dijck et al., 2018).

For slow fashion activism to drive meaningful change, it must move beyond individual consumer choices and aesthetic branding, toward policy-driven accountability and corporate regulation. If digital citizenship is to be a force for structural transformation, it must engage critically with the very platforms that shape online activism.

📌 What do you think? Can slow fashion activism drive systemic change, or is it just another digital trend? Let’s discuss! 💬👇

What do you think? Can slow fashion activism...

drive systemic change✈️

just another digital trend 👐🏻

Voting ended onMar 19, 2025

References:

Carah, N., & Dobson, A. (2016). Algorithmic Hotness: Young Women’s “Promotion” and “Reconnaissance” Work via Social Media Body Images. Social Media + Society.

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with an intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy-driven digital citizenship education. Theory into Practice, 60(4), 361–370.

Drenten, J., Gurrieri, L., & Tyler, M. (2021). Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic, and the monetization of attention. Gender, Work and Organization.

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society.

Lane, D. C. (2016). Understanding body modification: A process-based framework. Sociology Compass, 10(9), 824-836.

McKinsey & Company. (2021). The State of Fashion 2021: In Search of Promise in Perilous Times. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/state-of-fashion

Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.

Queenanie N. (2022, June 22). Hương Ly tỏa sáng tại bán kết Hoa hậu Hoàn Vũ với đầm làm từ... giấm ăn | Harper’s Bazaar. Harper’s Bazaar Việt Nam. https://bazaarvietnam.vn/huong-ly-toa-sang-tai-ban-ket-hoa-hau-hoan-vu-voi-dam-lam-tu-giam-an/

Statista. (2023). Retail sales of the global apparel and footwear market from 2017 to 2030 (in trillion U.S. dollars). Statista Research Department. https://www.statista.com/statistics/875708/global-apparel-and-footwear-market-retail-sales-value/

Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press.

[sshirotalk]

Week 5: Gamified Citizenship – How Social Media Turns Political Engagement into a Digital Game

🎮 1. When Politics Becomes a Digital Game

In the digital age, citizenship is no longer just about voting or joining traditional political organizations—it has expanded to include online activism, viral hashtags, and digital protest content.

But here’s the catch: political engagement is being “gamified” through social media platforms.

📌 Research Question: How do social media platforms and gamification mechanics transform digital political behavior?

⏩ Key Theories:

Gamification Theory (Deterding et al., 2011)

Platformisation & Algorithmic Governance (Van Dijck et al., 2018)

Hashtag Publics & Digital Citizenship (Choi & Cristol, 2021; Bruns & Burgess, 2011)

Clicktivism & Slacktivism (Morozov, 2011; Vromen, 2017)

💡 Main Argument:

Social media platforms gamify political participation by rewarding engagement through likes, shares, badges, and streaks.

Platforms like TikTok, Twitter, and Facebook turn political movements into challenges and interactive games.

This has both positive and negative effects on digital citizenship.

🤖 2. Gamification of Politics: From Serious to Playful

Gamification Theory (Deterding et al., 2011) describes how game-like elements are applied to non-game contexts to motivate participation.

So what happens when gamification meets digital politics?

(a) Reward Systems & Digital Citizenship

Social platforms introduce incentives to encourage users to engage in activism:

🔥 Hashtag Streaks – Posting daily with the same hashtag to maintain a “streak” (e.g., #FreeBritney, #MeToo). 🏆 Badges & Achievements – Facebook used to award Top Fan badges to those who engaged the most in political discussions. 📈 Leaderboards & Trending Visibility – Viral political tweets get algorithmic boosts, making them visible to more users.

📌 Gamification of Digital Citizenship Model (Illustrating how platforms use gamification to shape political behavior.)

⏩ Supporting Research:

Choi & Cristol (2021) argue that digital citizens are motivated by social and personal incentives in hashtag campaigns.

Vromen (2017) found that younger generations engage less in traditional politics but are highly active in digital activism through hashtag publics.

(b) Hashtag Publics: When Politics Becomes a Trend

Bruns & Burgess (2011) describe “hashtag publics” as temporary digital communities that form around specific political moments.

But social media algorithms have gamified these movements by turning them into viral challenges:

🎥 #IceBucketChallenge (2014) → #TrashTag (2019) → #BlackoutTuesday (2020) 🏁 #ElectionChallenge on TikTok, where users film themselves voting to farm likes and views.

⏩ Supporting Research:

Van Dijck et al. (2018) argue that platforms like TikTok and Twitter use algorithmic governance to actively shape political trends.

Bruns & Burgess (2011) initially described hashtags as organic, but today they are algorithmically curated, turning politics into a crowdsourced game.

📌 Visual: "Hashtag Publics as Gamified Political Tools" (Diagram showing how hashtags become interactive challenges.)

🎭 3. Clicktivism vs. Real Activism: Is Politics Becoming a Meaningless Game?

🚨 The Problem with Gamified Citizenship:

Evgeny Morozov (2011) criticized Clicktivism and Slacktivism—when people engage in politics just by liking, sharing, or posting without real-world impact.

📌 Two Major Issues:

1️⃣ Politics Becomes Superficial

#BlackoutTuesday faced backlash because people posted black squares without taking real action for Black Lives Matter.

2️⃣ Platforms Commercialize Activism

Facebook was accused of promoting paid political campaigns by boosting certain trends, turning citizens into "players" in a corporate political game.

⏩ Supporting Research:

McCosker (2016): Platforms don’t just provide spaces for activism—they control and monetize it.

Theocharis et al. (2023): Many users believe their digital activism has major impact, when in reality, it often doesn’t lead to tangible change.

📌 Visual: "Clicktivism vs. Real Activism" (Diagram contrasting digital engagement with real-world activism.)

🔮 4. Conclusion: Gamified Citizenship – A Tool or a Trap?

✨ Key Takeaways: ✔️ Gamification makes political engagement more appealing to younger generations. ✔️ Social media algorithms prioritize viral challenges over serious debate. ✔️ Gamification can increase participation but also risks turning activism into empty gestures.

💡 The Future of Gamified Citizenship:

Will politics become even more of a game on social media?

Can gamification be used without trivializing activism?

Are we real digital citizens or just players in an algorithmic political system?

📌 What do you think? Is gamification good or bad for activism? Let’s discuss! 💬👇

🔗 References

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. Theory into Practice, 60(4), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining “gamification.” Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks. ProtoView, 2(42).

Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs.

McCosker, A., Vivienne, S., & Johns, A. (2016). Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture. Rowman & Littlefield.

Theocharis, Y., Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2023). Platform affordances and political participation: How social media reshape political engagement. West European Politics, 46(4), 788–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2022.2087410

Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press.

[sshirotalk]

Week 4: Reality TV as Algorithmic Spectacle – How Streaming Platforms Reinvent the Genre

📺 1. When Reality TV No Longer Belongs to TV

Reality TV is no longer just a TV genre—it’s an algorithmic spectacle. Platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, and TikTok have transformed the way we watch, engage with, and even participate in Reality TV.

It’s not just about streaming episodes anymore. Algorithms dictate which shows get recommended, which contestants go viral, and even how audiences interact with Reality TV in real time.

📌 Research Question: How have streaming platform algorithms changed the way Reality TV is produced, distributed, and consumed?

⏩ Key Theories:

Spectacle Society (Debord, 1967)

Algorithmic Culture (Striphas, 2015)

Digital Publics (Kruse, 2018; Deller, 2019)

Transmedia Engagement & Meme Culture (Jenkins, 2006; Arcy, 2018)

🤖 2. Reality TV + Algorithms = Reality TV 2.0

Reality TV is now shaped by streaming algorithms, which influence:

1️⃣ Personalized content recommendations:

Netflix’s AI suggests Reality TV shows based on your viewing history.

This changes the traditional broadcast model—no more mass scheduling, just hyper-personalized Reality TV experiences.

2️⃣ The audience as part of the algorithm:

On TikTok and YouTube, audiences don’t just watch Reality TV—they shape its virality.

Comment sections, hashtags, and reaction videos boost contestants to meme status.

3️⃣ No more fixed air times:

Netflix’s binge-release model (e.g., Love is Blind, The Circle) allows for instant audience reactions.

Social media discourse now dictates a show’s success.

📌 Algorithmic Reality TV Model (See diagram illustrating how algorithms influence Reality TV.)

🎭 3. The Evolution of Reality TV Under Algorithmic Influence

(a) From ‘Spectacle Society’ to ‘Algorithmic Spectacle’

In 1967, Guy Debord described the spectacle society—where media constructs hyper-staged, dramatic moments for mass consumption. Traditional Reality TV was built on this principle: drama, conflict, and shock value kept audiences hooked.

BUT Reality TV 2.0 isn’t just a spectacle—it’s an algorithmic spectacle.

🔍 Algorithms now dictate what counts as a viral moment:

The Real Housewives fights

Love Island recouplings

The Circle's catfish reveals

👀 Audiences aren’t passive consumers anymore—they amplify these moments through memes, reaction videos, and viral hashtags.

📌 Examples:

The Circle (Netflix) is designed for TikTok reaction videos.

Love Island encourages audience participation through hashtags.

The Real Housewives has become a bottomless meme generator on Reddit & Instagram.

⏩ Supporting Research: Deller (2019) describes how Reality TV is structured for online discussion.

📌 Reality TV Evolution Model (See diagram illustrating the shift from traditional Reality TV to Algorithmic Spectacle.)

(b) Digital Publics & Algorithm-Driven Reality TV Trends

Kruse (2018) argues that online publics are no longer singular spaces, but micro-publics. Reality TV has leveraged this to create digital communities:

📌 Examples of Reality TV Digital Publics:

#LoveIsland on Twitter/X: Fans live-tweet, influencing show edits and narrative focus.

YouTube Reaction Culture: 90 Day Fiancé has a massive fanbase that ONLY engages with it through reaction videos.

Reddit & Fandom Forums: RuPaul’s Drag Race has a dedicated Reddit community analyzing every single episode, creating an LGBTQ+ media discourse.

⏩ Supporting Research: Todd Graham & Auli Hajru (2011) explored how Reality TV can spark political discussions in online spheres.

📌 Reality TV Digital Publics Model (See diagram mapping Reality TV fandoms across social platforms.)

🏆 4. Meme-ification: When Reality TV Becomes the Internet’s Playground

📌 What happens when Reality TV moments go viral? They become MEMES.

📌 Examples:

RuPaul’s Drag Race: “Not Today Satan,” “Sashay Away.”

America’s Next Top Model: “We were all rooting for you!”

Love Island: Random arguments turned into viral TikTok clips.

🔄 The Cycle: 1️⃣ Reality TV creates dramatic, meme-able moments (intentional or not). 2️⃣ Social media turns them into GIFs, edits, viral trends. 3️⃣ The algorithm boosts engagement (trending, recommended feeds). 4️⃣ The Reality TV show gains new audiences through meme culture.

📌 Meme-ification of Reality TV Model (See diagram showing how Reality TV → meme → virality → cultural impact.)

⏩ Supporting Research: Arcy (2018) explores “The Digital Money Shot” and how Reality TV leverages virality for cultural traction.

🔮 5. Conclusion: The Future of Algorithmic Reality TV

✨ Key Takeaways: ✔️ Reality TV has fundamentally changed under algorithmic influence. ✔️ It’s no longer just reality—it’s algorithmic reality. ✔️ Reality TV doesn’t need traditional TV anymore—TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter have taken over.

💡 What’s next?

Will Reality TV optimize itself even more for TikTok algorithms?

Could Love Island survive if it was a YouTube-first show?

Is Reality TV the first genre to be fully "algorithmized"?

📌 What do you think? Is Reality TV still "real" or just algorithmic entertainment? Let’s discuss! 💬👇

🔗 References

Deller, R. A. (2019). Reality Television in an Age of Social Media. In Reality Television: The Television Phenomenon That Changed the World, pp. 141–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83909-021-920191007

Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media. Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143

Striphas, T. (2015). Algorithmic culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549415577392

Arcy, J. (2018). The digital money shot: Twitter wars, The Real Housewives, and transmedia storytelling. Celebrity Studies, 9(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2018.1508951

Kavka, M. (2018). Reality TV: its contents and discontents. The Critical Quarterly, 60(4), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/criq.12442

[sshirotalk]

Week 3: Tumblr’s Digital Ghosts: The Haunting of Internet Culture 👻 The internet never really forgets. Tumblr, the chaotic, unhinged, and deeply influential platform that ruled the 2010s, might not be the giant it once was—but its ghosts are still lurking everywhere. If you’ve ever scrolled TikTok and thought, this feels weirdly like 2014 Tumblr, you’re not alone.

🕸 1. Tumblr: Dead But Never Gone

Tumblr didn’t die; it just dispersed. The 2018 NSFW ban sent users fleeing, but instead of vanishing, they scattered across the internet, carrying Tumblr culture with them.

Dark Academia, Weirdcore, Cottagecore, Y2K nostalgia? Tumblr made those aesthetics mainstream.

The lowercase irony, the hyper-specific memes, the “I had fun once, it was awful” humor? Tumblr did it first.

Shitposting discourse on Twitter/X? Tumblr invented it.

The current TikTok obsession with “girl internet” and “boy internet”? That’s just a rebranded Tumblr-era debate about what kind of fandom kid you were.

📍 Tumblr’s DNA is everywhere—you just have to know where to look.

🧳 2. Where Did the Tumblr Kids Go?

The Great Tumblr Migration led users to different corners of the internet:

TikTok → The closest thing to Tumblr 2.0. Weird humor, niche obsessions, and the same chaotic energy.

Reddit → Subreddits like r/tumblr and r/196 feel like a parallel Tumblr universe where the memes never stopped.

Discord → Tumblr-style fandom discussions just moved to private servers.

Twitter/X → The discourse lives on, just with more rage and less pastel.

Nugent (2020) once said, “TikTok is just peak Tumblr,” and honestly? He was right.

💀 3. Can You Kill a Platform’s Culture?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Tumblr might not be the center of internet culture anymore, but it is the ghost in the machine. Just like MySpace before it, Tumblr’s influence is too deep to erase. The way we talk, the memes we share, even the way platforms prioritize niche content—it all traces back to Tumblr.

Remember when Tumblr’s messy moderation led to a weird anti-censorship movement? Pilipets & Paasonen (2022) argue that we’re seeing echoes of that today, especially on platforms like Twitter/X. The digital cycle repeats itself.

🎭 4. The Return of Tumblr Core Aesthetic?

Something wild is happening:

People who never used Tumblr are now nostalgic for its “golden era” (???)

Posts like “I was never on Tumblr but I miss it” are going viral

Tumblr’s Sexyman Phenomenon is BACK (The Onceler, Sans Undertale, Reigen Arataka… why do we keep doing this to ourselves?)

TikTok is full of Poor Little Meow Meows again

Tumblr isn’t dead—it’s just wearing a different outfit.

📢 5. Tumblr Language: The Vernacular That Won’t Die

Keller (2019) coined the term platform vernacular to describe how different platforms develop their own style of communication. Tumblr’s language—lowcase irony, self-referential humor, aesthetic-based storytelling—is still alive and thriving:

📌 Evidence of Tumblr vernacular’s continued existence:

TikTok captions & text posts? Tumblr humor.

Twitter/X fandom discourse? Tumblr arguments, just angrier.

Pinterest & Instagram reels? Reviving Tumblr’s aesthetic-driven content.

📍 Tumblr was never just a platform—it was an entire way of speaking online, and that influence is still shaping digital culture today.

✨ Final Thoughts: Did Tumblr Really Disappear?

The ghosts of Tumblr are still with us, floating between platforms, shaping the way we communicate, interact, and meme. If you’ve ever caught yourself thinking, why does this feel so Tumblr?—that’s because it is.

So… were you a Tumblr Kid? Do you feel like we’re all just living in Tumblr’s long, weird afterlife? Let’s talk. 💬👇

🔗 References

Hutchinson, J. (2021). Micro-platformization for digital activism on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 24(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1629612

Keller, J. (2019). “Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms. Social Media + Society, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119867442

Pilipets, E., & Paasonen, S. (2022). Nipples, memes, and algorithmic failure: NSFW critique of Tumblr censorship. New Media & Society, 24(6), 1459–1480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820979280

Reif, A., Miller, I., & Taddicken, M. (2023). “Love the Skin You’re In”: An Analysis of Women’s Self-Presentation and User Reactions to Selfies Using the Tumblr Hashtag #bodypositive. Mass Communication & Society, 26(6), 1038–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2138442

Nugent, C. (2020). TikTok is Just Peak Tumblr. Medium. https://medium.com/@caseynugent/tiktok-is-just-peak-tumblr-9966d9ee4245