STACIE NEWBIGGIN @stacienewbiggin-blog - Tumblr Blog

Social Gaming: Playing the crowd

Social gaming refers to games a ‘structured activity which has contextual rules through which users can engage with one another’ (O’Neil 2008). This definition is usually associated with games that are hosted on social media platforms like Facebook where people form communities based on their shared game playing experience. Some of the most popular examples of online gaming include Candy Crush, Farmville and Texas Hold’ Em. This industry continues to thrive with Zynga (creators of Farmville) alone having over 200,000,000 monthly active users in 2013 (Social Gaming Industry – Statistics & Trends [Infographic] 2013).

Pay to play

With the rise in social gaming and in particular, mobile gaming. Many people have found themselves victim to large credit card bills after downloading a free game. How is this possible? In-app purchases. This has recently become a focus in the media after people have become ‘addicted to a title and not minding paying 99 cents at the time to increase build times, clear a level, or get a new update to advance them in the game’ (Keating 2016). Often parents are the real victims after passing their phones or tablets to their children play with, only to receive a surprise when they open the following months bill. The media spotlighting has lead to many people now being more aware of ‘freemium’ gaming.

However, regardless of hidden payments Mobile and Social Gaming continue to grow. In fact gaming ‘companies race to develop new products targeting smartphones, tablets and laptops while the sector is forecasted to top $45 billion within two years’ (PR Newswire 2016). The social aspect of this is also becoming more supported by many platforms. Already a large part of Facebook, Twitter are now also working to add gaming into a more integrated experience in their platform with ‘Twitter users are 72% more likely to talk about gaming than the average Internet user’ (PR Newswire 2016).

References

HaWith Billions of Revenues at Stake in the Mobile Gaming Industry Developers Race to Launch the Newest, High Quality Mobile Games in 2016, PR Newswire, 22 January, viewed 3 February 2016, <http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/with-billions-of-revenues-at-stake-in-the-mobile-gaming-industry-developers-race-to-launch-the-newest-high-quality-mobile-games-in-2016-566184571.html>.

Keating, L 2016, 'Gaming On-The-Go: How To Avoid In-App Purchases In Mobile Games', Tech Times, 16 January, viewed 3 February 2016, <http://www.techtimes.com/articles/124222/20160116/gaming-go-tips-avoid-app-purchases-marvel-mobile-games.htm>.

macyosos8 2014, South Park - Freemium Games, 5 November, viewed 3 February 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4duJdeKTwHY>.

O’Neill, N 2018, 'What Exactly are Social Games?’, Social Times, viewed 3 February 2016, < http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-games/1695>.

Social Gaming Industry – Statistics & Trends [Infographic] 2013, Go-Gulf, 18 April, viewed 3 February 2016, < http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/social-gaming-industry/>.

Visual communities and social imaging

Since the rise of Instagram in 2010, Social Media platforms have seen a major increase in users using visual media such a photographs and videos to connect with each other digitally. With over 300 million monthly users and an increase in average post engagement by 416 percent over two years, Instagram is considered the most important social platform by teenagers in the United States (LePage 2015). However, not to overshadowed, platforms such as Snapchat, Flickr, Tumblr and Pinterest also provide users way to connect visually interact, and with the mobile cameras creating images and videos is easier than ever.

(Richmond 2012)

The rise of the selfie

The Oxford Dictionaries (2016) defines a selfie as ‘A photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and shared via social media’. A selfie, is not the first form of personal photography, however, what is important is the ‘ways in which the web has changed how and what it means to share photographs’ (Vivienne et al. 2013, p. 281). No longer are photographs placed in albums, they are instead uploaded to a much larger platform via Web 2.0 technologies. The appeal of the selfie is that it allows the user to share a controlled moment in time and present a part of themselves they want others to see. These images are often met with criticism, although, not for their potential risks like ‘sexting’ and inappropriate content, but rather for their associated with narcissism and vanity (Magazine 2013).

However, selfies are again evolving with many separate websites and galleries celebrating them as a form of art. For example, the New York Museum of Feelings have published a Living Gallery. This gallery encourages users to upload a selfie which then changes color based on your ‘biometric input, social media trends and other real-time data in your region’ (REFERENCE). You can check out the live gallery here: https://www.themuseumoffeelings.com/living-gallery/photo.

(Brooks 2015)

A picture speaks 1000 words

Overall, the ease of access to a camera and the Internet on Smartphones allows individuals to snap a picture or video of a moment in time and share it instantly. The ability to do this means that people can now share a highlight from their day, their lunch or selfie without resorting to words or a keyboard.

References

Brooks, K 2015, 'MUSEUM OF FEELINGS / HPMG' [image], in The Museum Of Feelings Is A 'Mood Ring' For Your City's Emotions, The Huffington Post, viewed 30 January 2016, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/museum-of-feelings_us_565c674ce4b072e9d1c26249?section=australia>.

LePage, E 2015, 'A Long List of Instagram Statistics and Facts (That Prove Its Importance)', HubSpot, 17 September, viewed 30 January 2016, <http://blog.hootsuite.com/instagram-statistics-for-business/>.

Magazine 2013, ‘Self-portraits and social media: The rise of the ‘selfie’', BBC News, 7 June, viewed 30 January 2016, <http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22511650>.

Make a mood lens, The Museum of Feelings, viewed 30 January 2016, <https://www.themuseumoffeelings.com/create-mood/>.

Richmond, S 2012, 'Facebook brought Instagram earlier this year' [image], in Instagram: we won’t sell your photos, The Telegraph, viewed 30 January 2016, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/9754817/Instagram-we-wont-sell-your-photos.html>.

Selfie 2016, Oxford Dictionaries, viewed 30 January 2016, <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/selfie>.

Vivienne, S & Burgess, J 2013, ‘The Remediation of the Personal Photograph’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 279-98.

They're out there, everywhere. But who are they, where do they come from and how do you deal with them? We've got some answers courtesy of YouTube and science.

Mack, E 2016, 'Internet trolls explained by science', CNET, 19 January, viewed 30 January 2016, <http://www.cnet.com/news/internet-trolls-as-explained-by-science/>.

magicnumber23-blog

Blog #7 – Visual Communities and Social Imaging

Offline and online world of social media

Gone are the days when we use to take a photo or video to capture that moment in time, that special memory of a holiday, family occasion or birthday. Memories that were captured offline, developed and displayed around the home or kept in bulky photo albums. Now, we’re living in an online world where there’s no such thing as offline anymore, less photos around the house and photo albums with a few selected photos. Innovation and technology hasn’t changed the the idea of capturing a moment, it has changed however, how and when we document – 24/7 (Bishop 2016; Jason Farman 2014). Innovation of the smartphone and the Internet has enabled us to capture an image or video with a portable pocket sized device, and then instantly upload it to social media for the world to see. I like it how Sociologist Nathan Jurgenson puts it ‘seeing your life in the present already being documented’. Jurgenson believes uploading images to social media shouldn’t be compared to traditional photography in its art form, but rather a way of communicating the experience itself (Jurgenson 2014; Jason Farman 2014). I agree, social media provides a much bigger audience than visitors to your home.

Snapchat: Network Visuality & Visible Publics

(Snapchat n.d)

To be honest I’m not a fan of taking a ‘selfie’ and I’m rarely involved in one, looking in the mirror every morning scares me enough already! I don’t use Snapchat for taking ‘dick pics’, ‘selfies’ or any illegal activity, I use it to communicate my experiences with an audience that cares and enjoys sharing it with me. I’m talking about family and friends and 99% of the time it’s 10sec snaps of my 1 year old son growing, learning and general everyday life. I don’t feel I’m trading the experience in hope of documenting the moment as Turkle puts it, I’m able to do both (TED-Ed 2013).

(Jason Farman 2014)

Snapchat is an example of ‘network visuality’, expression and experiences through images and videos. ‘Network visuality’ has become a social norm, evident in the existence and popularity of other social media platforms, Instagram, Facebook, Flickr and Youtube (Bishop 2016). In an interview (check it out above), Jurgenson talks about theories as to why it’s normal to have an audience for your content (Jason Farman 2014). However, there is a difference between a wanted audience and unwanted audience and yes I’m talking about ‘dick pics’ again. Whether it’s Snapchat, SMS or any other social media platform, no one, not even Snapchat can “guarantee” the vulnerabilities from hacks or leaks (Bogle 2015; Bishop 2016). However, if your name is Dane Swan or Travis Cloke, your vulnerability is your stupidity (Ryan 2016).

(Womens Day 2016)

Posting, sharing and snapping your visual generated content is a way of communicating the experience itself to others. But, be warned about the vulnerabilities and implications of an unwanted audience, don’t take ‘dick pics’!

References

Bishop, R 2016, ‘Week 9’, Digital citizenship 2: Activism and protest, Learning materials on Blackboard, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 22 January 2016.

Bogle, A 2015, ‘Snapchat tells users it’s not storing their private snaps after privacy update’, Mashable, 2 November, viewed 22 January 2016, < http://mashable.com/2015/11/01/snapchat-privacy-policy-update/#cOH0jp1Eigqh>.

Jason Farman 2014, Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media: An Interview with Nathan Jurgenson, 16 June, viewed 22 January 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnPtZ5lKDHo>.

Jurgenson, N 2014, ‘The Frame Makes the Photograph’, Snapchat, 7 January, viewed 22 January 2014, < http://blog.snapchat.com/post/72561406329/the-frame-makes-the-photograph>.

Ryan, P 2016, ‘Magpies Swan, Cloke in ‘nude photo’ furore’, afl.com.au, 18 January, viewed 22 January 2016, < http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-18/swan-cloke-in-nude-photo-scandal>.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 22 January 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Images

Snapchat n.d., [logo], viewed 24 September 2015, <http://au.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/2014611/rs_600x600-140711114502-600-tech-snapchat-logo.ls.7114_copy.jpg>.

Womens Day 2016, ‘THE NUDE AFL PHOTOS EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT…’, [image], kiis1011.com.au, viewed 23 January 2016, <http://www.kiis1011.com.au/entertainment/the-feed/the-nude-afl-photos-everyone-is-talking-about>.

melgallimore-blog

This was a really good read. I especially enjoyed your point on there not being as many photos around the house. It actually made me think of something I had never realized - when I was younger we had a whole shelf for photos in frames. If you knocked one over they went down like dominoes. I can’t even remember when that shelf was packed up, but it’s not there anymore. It’s clear to see digital photography is reason for this.

adigitalcitizen

I too can relate to decline of photographs around my house. The decline can also be seen through the documenting of my five children’s lives - they are those that were born before our purchase of a digital camera (there were lots of processed and framed pictures of them when they were young), the ones that were born when we had a digital camera but before we used social media (had some pictures processes and framed, but not that many), and the poor child that was born after social media took hold of our house (well, she only really has her professional school pictures as hard copies, and the rest are either online or in the cloud. But it must be noted that she has far more images, videos and selfies then the rest of the family combined!)

stacienewbiggin-blog

Thank you for the interesting read. I have to agree with ‘seeing your life in the present already being documented’ as one of the appeals of uploading images to social media. It also seems that people viewing the images agree, as photos generally receive more engagement than text on Facebook for example.

Crowdsourcing in times of crisis

In times of crisis the flow of communication is arguably more important than ever. Social media platforms provide a globalised way where, real time, on the ground, information is constantly updated into the flow of communication. This feed can be added to and viewed by anyone on the Internet and has now been labelled as a form of crowdsourcing, which is defined as ‘the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers' (Merriam Webster Online 2014).

(Koekemoer, 2013)

Traditional media now looking to the general public

Traditional media outlets are now turning to social media to gauge the public’s response to a crisis. Emergency and government services are also using crowdsourcing as a way to receive updates and then provide appropriate information to assist. An example of this was the use of Twitter during the 2011 South East Queensland floods crisis. In particular, the Queensland police and emergency services found that worldwide users shared and retweeted flood related material and that users closer to the disaster shared first hand updates of their own experiences via the hashtag #qldfloods. Within the flow of communication found with this hashtag, emergency services and media updates were amongst the most visible (Posetti & Lo, 2012) making it a worthwhile and targeted way to reach the appropriate people.

Crowdsourcing, the negative side

This the heightened reliance on crowdsourcing in times of crisis while providing an incredible funnel of information, can also lead to misinformation and rumours. After the Boston bombings in April 2013, video evidence become ‘an incredibly valuable tool, but that investigators often run into trouble because they've "asked the public to decide what's relevant."’ (Glynn 2013). This flow of public created information led to a subreddit named r/findbostonbombers, which faced extreme controversy after the online community named Sunil Tripathi as a suspect in the bombings (Shontell 2013). Although, not in any way related to the crimes his family’s ‘Find Sunil’ Facebook page was flooded with comments and accusations. This crowd-sourced campaign was also fuelled by media outlets who later apologised to the family of Sunil.

(Oremus 2013)

References

Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Crawford, K & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods, Arc Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, pp 7-10, viewed 17 January 2016, <http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf>.

'crowdsourcing entry' 2014, Merriam Webster, viewed 17 January 2016 <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crowdsourcing>.

Glynn, C 2013, 'Boston Marathon Bombing "Crowdsourcing:" How citizens are using the Internet to help solve crimes', CBS News, 18 April, viewed 17 January 2016, <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boston-marathon-bombing-crowdsourcing-how-citizens-are-using-the-internet-to-help-solve-crimes/>.

Koekemoer, A 2013, 'Social Media Ahead’ [image], 6 top tips for handling a social media crisis, Memeburn, viewed 17 January 2016, <http://memeburn.com/2013/01/6-top-tips-for-handling-a-social-media-crisis/>.

Oremus, W 2013, 'Reddit's findbostonbombers page is no more.’ [image], Reddit Stands Down, Slate, viewed 17 January 2016, <http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/04/19/crowdsourced_boston_bombing_investigation_reddit_stands_down.html>.

Shontell, A 2013, 'What It's Like When Reddit Wrongly Accuses Your Loved One Of Murder', Business Insider Australia, 27 July, viewed 17 January 2016, <http://www.businessinsider.com.au/reddit-falsely-accuses-sunil-tripathi-of-boston-bombing-2013-7?r=US&IR=T>.

Cyber-bullying and how can we prevent it?

Both the Internet and Social Media give the public the tools to voice their thoughts and opinions to an audience like never before. However, with ability to communicate people without the barrier of distance can lead to misuse, abuse and disruption on a public level. The term ‘troll’ is often used to describe the people who partake in this type of behaviour on the Internet. It covers a broad range of actions that an individual uses that ‘conceals the aims of their disruption; by implication, they are to be excluded or dismissed’ (Fuller et al. 201 3, p. 17).

One of the most concerning derivatives of trolling is cyber-bullying, in particular by younger generations. The Kids Helpline (2015) describe cyber-bullying as an extension of bullying conducted via technology to purposefully embarrass, demean, harass, intimidate or threaten other people. Although conflict and bullying while growing up are nothing new cyber-bullying adds another avenue for this behaviour to take place. Quite often, a cyber-bully will use an anonymous profile adding a layer of protection to their activities.

The very public forum on which this can take place has fuelled urges from the public for tighter regulations online. In January, the Australian Government released a discussion paper that contained a number of proposals to address this (Law Report, 2014), the most talked about being the introduction of a Children’s e-Safety Commissioner. The e-Safety Commissioner would be responsible for addressing complaints that have been ignored by a Social Media website, conducting a test as to whether the activity has caused and child harm and then taking appropriate action. However, there are concerns that this that this approach could impact the freedom and anonymity of digital citizenship, in particular ‘there's been some commentary about impacts on free speech for example, but we have quite carefully limited this’ (Law Report, 2014).

At this point in time it is not possible to say if these tools would be effective in reducing cyber-bullying or instead, just be responsible for removing content after it has been published. The Internet can remove the fact that there is a person behind the computer leaving people feeling less responsible for their actions. What is important to educate children and adults on how their behaviour online can affect others, what constitutes as trolling or cyber-bullying and how to respond if they find themselves a victim of this behaviour.

References

Cyberbullying 2015, Kids helpline, viewed 11 January 2016, <https://www.kidshelpline.com.au/teens/get-info/hot-topics/cyber-bullying.php>.

Fuller, F, McCrea, C & Wilson, J 2013, ‘Troll Theory?’, Trolls and The Negative Space of The Internet, vol. 22 no. 22, pp. 17-56.

Law Report 2014, Can A Cyber-Bullying Commissioner Protect Our Kids?, Radio National, 27 February, viewed 11 January 2015, <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/5286036>.

theurbantheoristblog

Slacktivism, the feel good activist

Consider for a moment how the internet has shaped our world, now, take a moment to explore the ways in which the internet has shaped your world.

Internet technologies and perhaps more poignantly, social media technology has single handedly changed the way that our world operates.

When it comes to mass communication the goal posts have significantly widened, regarding audiences, the very same can be said for activism and protest.

Overtime, ongoing interest has become the driving force behind new ways to not only facilitate, but to also mobilise what is essentially grass roots activism and protest.

Whether its for the purposes of pedalling a conspiracy, generating a public or political interest, promoting curiosity or perhaps even sparking a debate, since its earliest of days, the internet and more poignantly social media, has effectively armed the common activist/reformer with the ability to literally move mountains, when it comes to addressing wider global audiences in such immediate and intimate ways.

However, within recent years, an argument has formed around the effectiveness regarding digital activism. Yuma and York, authors of ‘Social media and the activist toolkit’ argue that the role social media plays within activism lends itself to a more relaxed, perhaps even sell fulfilling approach, commonly known as ‘slacktivism’, a minimalist approach to activism which has little to no real world impact, socially or politically, while at the same time delvers large on feelings of warm and fuzziness.

Yet according to the Rand Corporation, “with the introduction of new media, individuals have increasingly enabled to participate in the political process, online activity may not translate to political activity, at least not in the classical sense”

By placing an ever increased emphasis upon social media, the pre-internet era definitions of rebellion have become somewhat clouded or ignored, which interestingly was once derived from popularised opinion and polarized perspective.

A recent study by McCrindle Research suggests that despite the individualistic world in which we live, humans have a timeless desire for social connection. It is understood that the builders generation is greatly influenced by those in positions of authority, meanwhile the baby boomer generation are influenced by facts and data, and 51% of Generation Y youth are influenced through peer relationships.

As mentioned earlier, Social media has further widened the goal posts, (or platforms) through which opinion may be vented, by lowering the thresholds an ever increasing ability to connect online has fuelled online discussion and debate fuels participation more so than offline.

OPINION: Is it possible for the modern day key-board warrior (slacktivist) to over throw the power of the grass-roots, feet on the street activist?

References:

Slacktivism - Definition of Slacktivism in English from the Oxford dictionary. 2016 [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/slacktivism [Accessed 06 January 2016]

Youmans, WL, & York, JC 2012, ‘Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements’, Journal of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329 Available from: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01636.x. [06 January 2016]

Slacktivists vs Activists - YouTube 2016 [ONLINE] Available at: https://youtu.be/0EQFKKJBjwE [Accessed 06 January 2016]

The European Democracy Paradox | RAND. 2016. The European Democracy Paradox | RAND. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/05/the-european-democracy-paradox.html. [Accessed 06 January 2016]

McCrindle Research, Seriously Cool, Marketing and communicating with diverse generations. 2015 [ONLINE] P.25 & 27, Available at: http://www.mccrindle.com.au/resources/whitepapers/Marketing-Communicating-with-Diverse-Generations.pdf [Accessed 06 January 2016]

stacienewbiggin-blog

I enjoyed reading your blog post.

In regards to your question, on a personal level I’m starting to look at slacktivism and subactivism as a different part of activism. People are now raising awareness and spreading a message more widely with the aid of Social Media, and although the intentions might not always be for the right reasons, sharing & liking could get the message to people who will take action who would not have necessary been aware previously.

Activism VS. Slacktivism.

Social media offers people and organisation an easy way to create and maintain either a public of semi-public present, while allowing connections with others. Whether, in a positive, neutral or negative way, there is no doubt that this new way of forming connections aids the formation of groups and communities. No longer are people restricted by their location, more than ever like-minded people area able to come together for a common interest.

So, how does the introduction of a social world impact activism? Does more people rallying for the cause result in a better outcome? Or, is the distance created by the internet between the individual and the actual issue create a lack of responsibility? These are questions will being answered with varying opinions. To look into these concepts, it is important to understand both sides of the argument, but first, to define the relatively new concept of slacktivism. This can be defined as ‘feeble motions immersed in the everyday many times removed from the hot area of politics’ (Bakardjieva, 2009, p. 103).

(Thrash Lab 2013)

To idea of slacktivism isn’t necessarily a negative one, however, that doesn’t mean that some of the opinions surrounding it haven’t been. The most apparent thing is that people no longer need a membership or to attend meetings, the community is liquid, which Gerbaudo (2012, p. 140) asserts “is what helps social movements achieve the goal of leaderlessness”. However, not having clear leadership leaves to people absorbing social justice messages without acting on them (Robertson 2014). Retweeting, sharing and liking causes do not necessarily lead to results, but rather, take the responsibility away from the individual.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that social media allows activists to spread a message more quickly, easily and on a larger scale than ever before. In fact “data showed most modern protests have a minority who are physically active and a much larger group - dubbed "the critical periphery" - who may tweet about it only once or twice but are responsible for doubling the protest’s reach.” (Mortimer 2015). Although this statement contradicts previous arguments, perhaps the extended reach of the message helps raise awareness to people willing to do something for the cause.

Whatever your opinion may be, it is undeniable that the Internet and Social Media have changed the way people and organisation approach issues they want to actively change.

References

Bakardjieva, M 2009, ‘Subactivism: Lifeworld and Politics in the Age of the Internet’, Information Society, vol.25, no.2, pp.91-104.

Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets : Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Pluto Press, EBSCOhost.

Mortimer, C 2015, ''Slacktivism' works: Study shows people who like and retweet political slogans help protesters spread their message', Independent, 8 December, viewed 20 December 2015, <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/slactivism-works-study-shows-people-who-like-and-retweet-political-slogans-help-protesters-spread-a6764611.html>.

Robertson, C 2014, 'Slacktivism: The Downfall of Millennials', The Huffington Post Australia, 14 December, viewed 20 December 2015, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlotte-robertson/slacktivism-the-downfall-_b_5984336.html?ir=Australia>.

Thrash Lab 2013, Slacktivists vs. Activists, 15 April, viewed 20 December 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EQFKKJBjwE>.

Politics & Civic Cultures: The Year Australian Politics discovered Social Media.

(admin, 2013)

“66% of social media users (39% of American adults) have engaged in one of eight civic or political activities with social media, including:

- 38% of those who use social networking sites (SNS) or Twitter “like” or promote material related to politics or social issues that others have posted.

- 35% have used social networking sites to encourage people to vote

- 31% have used the tools to encourage other people to take action on a political or social issue.

- 28% have used the tools to post links to political stories or articles for others to read”. (Politics Fact Sheet, 2012)

Now, more than ever, Social Media is used as a key marketing tool in Political Strategies. Social Media gives candidates a cost effective way to communicate with their audience, while, also offering a high reach platform to connect with potential voters on a personal level.

So, what about Australia?

After the success of the Obama campaign in US, Australia saw the use of Web 2.0 technologies, especially social media, introduced into Political strategies in 2007. Generally speaking, this new form of campaigning has two key goals. First, to attract younger voters and then to deliver policies associated with a younger audience through Social Media (da Silva et al. 2010, p.28).

(Harrison, D, 2012).

The most significant example of Social Media used within Australian Politics is Kevin Rudd’s campaign in 2007 which led to him being named prime minister. Rudd’s digital campaign comprised of the kevin07.com.au site, Facebook and MySpace pages, along with a YouTube and Mobile. These platforms were supported by further online advertising resulting in 2 million website page views, 1.8 million YouTube video views, 24,000 MySpace Friends and 20,000 Facebook likes (Chan 2008).

Since then, Social Media has continued to play a role in Australian Politics, particularly in the lead up to elections. In the year of the 2013 election “Politics was the top engagement group with 20.9 per cent, a long way ahead of radio on 12.73 per cent” (Australia's politicians finally nail the social media thing, 2013) on Facebook. These numbers are not surprising considering the increased use of Social Media as tool to receive news and updates.

References

admin 2013, 'social vote, social election' [image], in Like, Tweet, Vote: The Growing Influence of Social Media in Indian Politics Image Management, viewed 10 December 2015, <http://imagemanagement.in/2013/05/24/like-tweet-vote-the-growing-influence-of-social-media-in-indian-politics/>.

Australia's politicians finally nail the social media thing 2013, News.com.au, 24 October, viewed 10 December 2015, <http://www.news.com.au/national/australias-politicians-finally-nail-the-social-media-thing/story-fncynjr2-1226746219225>.

Chan, S 2008, 'Camilla Cooke explains the Kevin07 digital campaign – notes from CCI ‘Creating Value Between Commons and Commerce’ conference, Brisbane, 2008', Fresh & New(er), 20 November, viewed 24 November 2015, <http://www.freshandnew.org/2008/06/camilla-cooke-explains-the-kevin07-digital-campaign-notes-from-cci-creating-value-between-commons-and-commerce-conference-brisbane-2008/>.

Da Silva, B, & Howell, G 2010, 'New media, first time voters and the 2007 Australian federal election', Public Communication Review, vol. 1, pp. 27-36.

Harrison, D 2012, 'Then opposition leader Kevin Rudd signs the popular Kevin 07 t-shirts' [image], in Federal Politics, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 10 December 2015, <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-13-rudd-calls-for-tshirt-ideas-20121023-28378.html>.

Politics Fact Sheet 2012, Pew Research Center Internet, Science & Tech, viewed 10 December 2015, <http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/politics-fact-sheet/>.

magicnumber23-blog

Blog #3 Digital Citizenship – Politics & Civic Cultures

#Running for #Office #Follow me

Social media has increasingly become apart of a political campaign strategy for any candidate seeking the publics support. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are able to disseminate campaign messages and gain candidate support by a like, share, comment or hashtag. Social media has proven to generate support, motivate and excite the political process, but does this effect actually make a difference on ballot day? (Housholder & LaMarre 2014)

Where did it all start?

The 2008 U.S presidential election made history, not just because Barack Obama became president but how social media was apart of of his success. Obama embraced social media during his political campaign by engaging and connecting with potential voters on the issues that mattered most via Twitter, MySpace and various blogs. Leading up to election day, Obama had already won the social media battle against his opposition John McCain. Come election day Obama had a total of 118,1008 twitter followers compared to John who only had 4,942 followers (Lardinois 2008).

The Social Campaign infographic provides great insight into the importance social media played during the 2008 U.S election and the potential it projected for 2012. Click here for the full version. The infographic illustrates the impact social media was projected to have in 2012 and how the increase of users could benefit political campaigners in the future (Dugan 2012). Fast forward too 2012, Twitter reaches 500 million users, with 141 million of those in the U.S (Lunden 2012). Wowser…. 20 times than what was projected!

(Dugan 2012)

The Obama Story Continues …

(Sharp 2012)

Obama sent out the above tweet before he even addressed the nation on his success of being re-elected for “four more years”. Obama’s tweet within minutes had 741,473 retweets and 290,546 likes. Twitter was also used by other powers that be to congratulate Obama on his victory (Sharp 2012).

(Sharp 2012)

7 years on…

Looking back it’s hard to believe Obama was at the forefront in using social media for political campaigning 7 years ago. Then, Obama had 100,000 Twitter followers and 840,000 friends on MySpace. Now, Obama has over 67 million followers on Twitter and over 46 million Facebook page likes (Obama 2015 & Lardinois 2008). Obama’s organisation continues to use social media as a political strategy, embracing technological change by pursuing political support not just on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube but also being active on Google+, Slideshare, Flickr, LinkedIn and Foursquare ( Turoczy 2008 & White House 2015).

Click here for further insight into Obama’s Social Hub

Academic research and hard evidence is still out on whether political campaign support on social media has transferred to physical votes on polling day. What is evident is how Obama has been effective in using social media to generate support and awareness in gaining democratic voters.

Further insight into the company Blue State Digital the agency who has been credited for the success of Obama’s social media presence. The video also looks at the power of amateur political comments in broadcasting campaign messages. Have you ever shared or contributed to a political campaign message?

#thanks for reading

References

Bloomberg Business 2015, How Social Media Strategy Changed Election Campaigns, 26 May, viewed 18 December 2015, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0kXc7Xjb7Y>.

Dugan, L 2012, ‘Social Media Then And Now: The 2008 And 2012 Presidential Elections [INFOGRAPHIC]’, Social Times, 31 Jan, viewed 12 December 2015, <http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/social-media-then-and-now-the-2008-and-2012-presidential-elections-infographic/459616>.

Housholder, E & LaMarre, H 2014, ‘Political social media engagement: Comparing campaign goals with voter behavior’, Public Relations Review, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 138-140.

Lardinoism, F 2008, ‘Obama’s Social Media Advantage’, readwrite, 5 Nov, viewed 12 December 2015, <http://readwrite.com/2008/11/05/social_media_obama_mccain_comparison>. (Lardinois 2008)

Lunden, I 2012, ‘Analyst: Twitter Passed 500m Users in June 2012, 140M Of Them In US; Jakarta Biggest Tweeting City’, techcrunch, 30 July, viewed 12 December 2015, < http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/30/analyst-twitter-passed-500m-users-in-june-2012-140m-of-them-in-us-jakarta-biggest-tweeting-city/>.

Obama, B 2015, Barack Obama, viewed 18 December 2015, <https://twitter.com/BarackObama>.

Sharp, A 2012, ‘Election Night 2012’, Twitter, 7 Nov, viewed 12 December 2015, <https://blog.twitter.com/2012/election-night-2012>.

Turoczy, R 2008, ‘Obama’s Social Media Advantage, Act II’, readwrite, 7 Nov, viewed 12 December 2015, <http://readwrite.com/2008/11/06/obamas_social_media_advantage>.

White House 2015, ‘Social Hub’, US Government, viewed 12 December 2015, <https://www.whitehouse.gov/engage/social-hub>.

stacienewbiggin-blog

I really enjoyed reading your blog, in particular the figures on how much Obama’s social following has increased over 7 years. They are pretty incredible numbers.

prprincess-blog

Public [displays of acceptance]

The sphere’s 2015

Going public

No, I’m not talking about updating your relationship status on Facebook to make your relationship official. I’m talking about the public that is a concrete audience with a sense of totality bounded by the virtual space shared online (Warner 2002). More specifically, these publics are formed through a cultural likeness, such as blogging. Yes, what we’re doing right now. Reactors, makers/remakers and distributors/redistributors engaging in shared culture through social exchange are what being a public is all about (Mizuko 2008).

Networked publics

Networked public’s are the groups of individuals that come together online to share information with like-minded others, and to see and be seen (Boyd 2010). These publics are also shaped by three main dynamics:

Invisible audiences - not all are visible nor co-present;

Collapsed contexts - lack of spatial, social and temporal boundaries creates difficulty in maintaining distinct social contexts; and

The blurring of public and private - no control over context means public and private are turned into meaningless binaries, are scaled in new ways and difficult to maintain as distinct (Boyd 2010).

The role of networked publics in teenage social life n.d.

Counterpublics

While you’re Facebook friends are tagging you in photos, memes or viral threads, there are some publics that are purposely excluding outsiders. Counterpublics are formed through conflict with the norm and context of their cultural environment (Warner 2002). However, not all counterpublics are a space for negativity; there are also those formed on the basis of sexuality, political preference and/or religion. There are those counterpublics, such as mentioned, that can offer inclusion for someone who feels excluded within their culture.

Looking at an in-depth perspective of online publics, I can further understand those that turn to online platforms for comfort or acceptance. Being culturally unaccepted can be debilitating to one’s self-perceptions, so why wouldn’t you try to find a public within the public sphere where you can, finally, be you.

What sort of group are bronies? 2014

REFERENCES

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.

The role of networked publics in teenage social life n.d., [image], wordpress.org, viewed 27 December 2015, <https://teensociallife.wordpress.com/>

The sphere’s 2015, [image], self made in Photoshop.

Warner, M 2002, ‘Publics and Counterpublics’, Public Culture, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49-90.

What sort of group are bronies? 2014, [image], wordpress.org, viewed 27 December 2015, <http://www.researchismagic.org/2014/04/what-sort-of-group-are-bronies/>

magicnumber23-blog

Great read! The layout makes it easy to follow and understand with the use of subheadings, bold text and the break up of text with colourful images. Brownie points for creating your own image in photoshop :) I was so carefree “going public” with sharing information on ICQ, MSN messenger and Facebook when I was younger. Now….I’ve turned into a paranoid user being cautious with everything I post or share being mindful of who the “concrete audience” is and the possible negative consequences.

stacienewbiggin-blog

I really enjoyed reading your post. The use of sub-headings works really well.

stacienewbiggin-blog

Blogs, what makes them popular?

Did you know that over 50% of Internet users are active blog readers? In fact, around 227 million blogs are hosted, just like this one, on Tumblr (Blogtopus, 2015) and this number is only continuing to rise.

(Blogtopus, 2015)

So that begs the question, what is it that makes blogging so popular? Cross, 2011 assets that ‘Bloggers say that personal expression is far and away the reason they’ve started a blog, the chance to describe their personal experiences and have an audience for it’ and it could be just this personal connection that readers identify with.

The fact that there are no prerequisites to become a blogger means that the ability to create your own is as simply as creating a profile on Tumblr and it’s free. This means that now, more than ever, people have a voice, which has resulted in the creation of blogs dedicated to politics, fashion, tech, celebrity and niches that don’t come straight to mind.

Unlike, face-to-face conversations, social media and in particular blogs, have persistence (Walker Rattberg, J 2013). This means, that conversations and posts don’t just disappear, they stay online for future reference. This makes it easy for the reader to search the Internet and receive results in topics they instantly connect with.

These connections that bloggers and their readers form are considered Networked publics. Danah Boyd (2010) describes this term as publics that are restructured by networked technologies. These new digital forms of publics have three main characteristics:

Invisible audiences

Collapsed contexts

The blurring of public and private

So just by reading this very blog post, you have become part of an invisible audience sharing is this public.

(geralt 2014)

References

6 Interesting Facts About Blogging in 2015, 2015, Blogtopus, viewed 26 November 2015, <http://www.blogtopuse.com/blogging-world-2015>.

Cross, M 2011, Bloggerati, Twitterati How Blogs and Twitter Are Transforming Popular Culture, ABC-CLIO, EBL Ebook Library.

Danah boyd. (2010). “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi), pp. 39-58.

Walker Rettberg, J 2013, Blogging, Wiley, EBL Ebook Library.

Images

6 Interesting Facts About Blogging 2015, 2015, ‘Total blogs number’ [image], in Blogtopus, viewed 27 November 2015, <http://www.blogtopuse.com/blogging-world-2015>.

geralt, 2014, ‘Personal group human network’ [image], in Pixabay, viewed 27 November 2015, <https://pixabay.com/en/personal-group-human-network-358065/>.

2xglenos-blog

Hey Stacie,

A great read, thanks. At the start I couldn’t believe that half the internet uses are bloggers, but it does make sense with all the travel, food and home reno blogs etc you can blog without even knowing it. I look forward following your blogs in a non crazy way haha.

Regards

Glen

stacienewbiggin-blog

Hey Glen,

Thanks! Yeah it’s an interesting fact. I do wonder if it considers things like ‘micro’ blogs into the number, like Twitter.

Kind Regards,

Stacie

Blogs, what makes them popular?

(Blogtopus, 2015)

Invisible audiences

Collapsed contexts

The blurring of public and private

So just by reading this very blog post, you have become part of an invisible audience sharing is this public.

(geralt 2014)

References

6 Interesting Facts About Blogging in 2015, 2015, Blogtopus, viewed 26 November 2015, <http://www.blogtopuse.com/blogging-world-2015>.

Cross, M 2011, Bloggerati, Twitterati How Blogs and Twitter Are Transforming Popular Culture, ABC-CLIO, EBL Ebook Library.

Danah boyd. (2010). "Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications." In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi), pp. 39-58.

Walker Rettberg, J 2013, Blogging, Wiley, EBL Ebook Library.

Images

6 Interesting Facts About Blogging 2015, 2015, ‘Total blogs number’ [image], in Blogtopus, viewed 27 November 2015, <http://www.blogtopuse.com/blogging-world-2015>.

geralt, 2014, ‘Personal group human network’ [image], in Pixabay, viewed 27 November 2015, <https://pixabay.com/en/personal-group-human-network-358065/>.

#blog #blogging

Although not directly related to how social media is changing society, this video is gives a fun overview of the way Social Media is changing our brain.

References

AsapSCIENCE 2014, 5 Crazy Ways Social Media Is Changing your Brain Right Now, 7 Sep, viewed 30 November 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HffWFd_6bJ0>.

ljt245

The online, the always on and the ugly.

Blog 1 – reflecting on weeks 1 to 3 of Digital Communities.

Affordable, powerful and connected technology has announced the era of globalisation and the individual (Wilken and McCosker 2014, pp. 291-293; Siapera 2012, p. 191). But all this managing of identity, curating of friends lists and tweeting of opinion, represents an explosion of sociality (Siapera 2012, p. 192), new ways of being together! Tonnies talked about community’s affective bonds (Swinburne Online 2015b) replaced by society through technology. It seems that technology is taking us back to where we started and those nostalgic views we have might just be tested.

As online students we know years of collaborating apart, and, through convenience and necessity most of us embrace being ‘always on’. The continuous, peripheral connection to knowledge and people (boyd 2012, pp. 73-74) makes collaboration flexible, fast and (sometimes) fun! Although my double standards show each time I’m dismayed by my children jumping at the text message chime. Putnam’s very American metaphor (Swinburne Online 2015b), of bowling alone though, is one I take issue with. We have never worked or played together more than we now do online. While there might less depth in these connections (TED ed 2013), Putnam’s beer and pretzels are hardly high culture so, for a new generation Xbox and PlayStation are the new bowling, less ‘bowling alone’ than ‘bowling apart’.

Synonymous with social media is the discussion of privacy (Wilken and McCosker 2014, p. 294) but I want to say, right now, I’m optimistic, especially with those ‘born digital’. Online awareness is ingrained in them (Youth and Media n.d), and if knowledge is power then they are well equipped to negotiate the tension between public and private. But is the threat to privacy as bad as we imagine? Sunstein (in Siapera 2012, pp. 195-196) notes the internet’s boundless choice, at the same time Wellman (in Siapera 2012, p. 198) notes the tendency for users to choose content based on their own preferences and characteristics. Privacy becomes less urgent when fewer people care what you put online, and those that do, seek only (van der Negal 2013, p. 5) reflections of themselves.

I’m more concerned with our new gatekeepers of information. Social media challenges traditional content distribution with a many to many model. Government, industry associations and editors once applied ethics and societal concerns to what we saw and heard, in contrast distribution of online content is regulated solely (Gillespie 2010, pp. 358-359) by the profit driven. The sheer volume of data moving through their platforms requires technological and cultural structures to manage (van der Negal 2013, pp. 5-9) and it is in these that billionaires decide what you can see, do and say. I remain optimistic though. I trust in a humanity that has maintained privacy in the face of threat (boyd 2010, p. 52) and exploits the affordances (Swinburne Online 2015a) of social media platforms for free expression and believe in the end we control our online creation, not the other way around.

References

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.

boyd, D 2012, Participating in the Always On Lifestyle, in Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp 71-76.

Gillespie, T 2010, ’The politics of platforms’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, Sage, London, pp 191-208.

Swinburne Online 2015a, ‘Week 3: Platform case study: reddit’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials on Blackboard, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 12 November 2015.

Swinburne Online 2015b, ‘Week 2: Social theory and social media’, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Learning materials on Blackboard, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 12 November 2015.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 26 August 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

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.

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

Youth and Media n.d, Digital Natives, Youth and Media, viewed 20 November 2015, < https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/youthandmediaalpha/projects/past-projects/digital-natives/>.

narellemda20009-blog

Technology is a new way of communicating and being together, but don’t you think that this is a bit “false” because we’re all “managing our identities” and only showing what we want to show? This means that we have an “online self” and a “private self” - I think that the private self also needs a place to express itself and probably on a face-to-face basis otherwise I see that health issues will eventually result.

stacienewbiggin-blog

‘Government, industry associations and editors once applied ethics and societal concerns to what we saw and heard, in contrast online content is regulated solely by the profit driven’

I find this concept interesting, I wonder how many organisations hold true to this point? With Social Media/Websites so readily available to everyone who has access to the internet, maybe instead we should be more concerned with individuals. With everyone having so much more access to information via the internet there is also more cause for people to dispute unethical content from organisations/government.

adigitalcitizen

Blog 1: Digital Communities, an introduction.

Technology redefines human connection

History shows that as societies have acquired new information, in particular technology, these technologies have lead to sociocultural revolution - a process of change in the ways in which society functions (Macionis & Plummer 2012, p. 107).

(The Mely File 2015)

Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855- 1936) proposed that social groups only exist because people want to be associated with others. Tönnies observed a significant shift in sociality as a result of the industrial revolution, with people moving away from Gemeinschaft (community), where social connections were organically formed, to the purposeful social connections of Gesellschaft (society), in which people began associating with others in order to achieve certain goals (Siapera 2012, p. 193).

With the emergence of the information revolution, a number of theories have been put forward to decipher its impact on sociality. Sociologist Bruce Wellman suggested that sociality could be better understood in the terms of networks. Within networks, people (or nodes) are connected to others in a variety of ways (ties) where they exchange unique content (flows). Ties can vary in strength, with weak ties representing connections to acquaintances rather than those of close social relationship (Siapera 2012, p. 197).

Mobile devices and the rise of Networked Individualism

Did you know that just over a year ago, it was declared that there were more mobile devices in the world then people?

At the time, it was estimated that 7.22 billion of these devices could be found in all corners of the world regardless of socio-economic standing (Boren, 2014). According to the GSMA’s real-time tracker, in just over a year that number now exceeds 7.58 billon and counting (GSMA Intelligence 2015).

(Mobile devices 2011)

Mobile devices like smartphones and tablets have become essential to the way people go about their daily lives. With most devices these days having the ability to connect to the Internet, many have become reliant on them not only to complete most of their daily tasks but to also virtually connect and communicate with whomever they desire irrespective of time or geographical location.

The combination of mobile connectivity, along with Internet broadband and social networking - the three key transformations to come out of the information revolution, have lead to the rise of a new social networked operating system known as networked individualism (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, p. 11). Networked individualism allows people to function more as connected individuals rather then as implanted group members. Individuals now have the opportunity to meet their social, emotional, and economic needs beyond that of local groups, connecting through wide outreaching networks of diverse acquaintances online (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, p. 11-12).

(Social media illustration 2014)

Networked individualism is expanding at a rapid rate due to the affordance of social media. The term social media refers to a collection of Internet-based applications or platforms that enables anyone with a computer or mobile device to access, create and exchange information, collaborate with others, and build relationships (Jue et al., cited in Murthy 2013, p. 7-8, Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, p. 61). These platforms allow their users to connect to other users by permitting access to create personal or semi-personal information profiles and communication tools within the site. Through these sties a network of relationships can be built based on a variety of common interests (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, p. 63). For example, as a social networking platform Facebook allows its users to create a homophily of networks, or tie based on similarities (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook 2001, p. 415).

With great advancement comes potential lose

As seen with every sociocultural revolution to date, mixed in with the excitement of gain, there has also been a degree of concern as to what society may lose along the way.

In her TED talk ‘Connected but alone’ Shelly Turkle (TED 2013) suggests that as society lets new technology redefine human connection, it also has the potential to take it’s members to places they do not want to go by changing not only how people do, but also who they are. That by choosing networked individualism as a means of sociality, people are losing the social capital to associate with others away from these devices and the virtual world they connect to (Siapera 2012, p. 195). Thus resulting in a society that is learning to be alone together (TED 2013).

(Geiger, A 2015)

Only time will tell the full impact of networked individualism and the consequences of this new virtual world in which people live.

Until then, these digital communities are being embraced and explored… creating history.

Reference List:

Boren, Z. D 2014, There are officially more mobile devices then people in the world, The Independent, UK, viewed 19 November 2015, <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html>.

GSMA Intelligence 2015, Definitive data and analysis for the mobile industry, viewed 20th November 2015, <https://gsmaintelligence.com/>.

Kaplan, A. M & Haenlein, M 2010, Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media, Business Horizons, vol. 53, pp. 59 – 68.

Macionis J & Plummer, K 2012, Sociology: a global introduction, 5th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, Harlow.

McPherson, M, Smith-Lovin, L & Cook, J. M 2001, Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp. 415-444.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, Wiley, EBL ebook library.

Rainie, H, & Wellman, B 2012, Networked : The New Social Operating System, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 19 November 2015.

Siapera, E 2012, ’Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, pp 191-208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 15 November 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Images:

Geiger, A 2015, SUR-FAKE, photograph, viewed 20 November 2015, <http://antoinegeiger.com/filter/photo/SUR-FAKE>.

Mobile devices 2011, How to redesign 1, photograph, iNews Design, viewed 20 November 2015, <https://inewsdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fotolia_71032320_subscription_xxl.jpg>.

The Mely File 2015, modern society, photograph, viewed 20 november 2015, <https://plus.google.com/109412435995758754621/videos?pid=6102382680096825666&oid=109412435995758754621 (Pew Research Center 2012)>.

Wisdom Times n.d., image, viewed 20 November 2014, <http://www.gopixpic.com/600/social-networking-advantages-and-disadvantages-of/http:||www*wisdomtimes*com|wp-content|uploads|2013|01|Social-Networking*jpg/>.)

stacienewbiggin-blog

Thanks @adigitalcitizen for the interesting read. I really enjoyed reading your overview of Networked Individualism and agree whole heartedly on your ending comments ‘only time will tell’. At this stage we’re only just scratching the surface.

Society, Community and Social Media.

For many, Social Media has become a part of their day-to-day lives. People are now turning to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and like platforms as their primary way to stay in touch with friends, remain up to date with the latest news and research future purchases. And, with 74% of online adults using social networking sites (Social Networking Fact Sheet, 2014) it’s not something that’s going to change in the near future. However, with this evolving form of communication and socialisation comes the need to redefine and understand what this means for traditional descriptions of society and community.

21st century sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies asserts that a community is ‘formed around organic, natural will’ and that society is ‘formed through rational will... leading to certain goals... that fulfils needs of modern society (Week 2 : Social theory and social media, 2015). However, since Tönnies defined these topics there has been profound changes in way people go about these two things. No longer are individuals confined by location, with the Internet and Social Media their reach is now global. But with this begs the question, what do these virtual platforms function as, society or community?

When considering Tönnies descriptions, there was a significant shift from communities to societies, arguing that this is due to a loss of human contact and unity in pursuit profit. But this no longer holds true with social media as people form bonds over similar interests without physical contact. This new form of communicating is called a Virtual Community and can be described as being ‘based on shared social practices and interest whereas physical communities are based on shared social and physical boundaries’ (Siapera, 2012).

Virtual communities not only offer individuals an opportunity to connect with like minded people, but also provide a platform for more niche interests. For example, someone interested with a passion for Steam Trains can now find a blog or forum full of people who share this passion and if they can’t find anything, simply start it themselves. This again differs from the original concept of community as with the constraint of location, they may not have found anyone who shares this particular interest.

The way the Internet and Social Media is still an evolving concept and with this so may the way we define these concepts.

References

MDA20009: Digital Communities, 2015, Week 2: Social theory and social media, viewed 20th November 2015, <https://ilearn.swin.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-5190907-dt-content-rid-26655212_2/courses/2015-SO3-MDA20009-210404/UnitLearningMaterials/week-02.html>

Pew Research Center Internet, Science and Tech, 2014, Social Networking Fact Sheet, viewed 20th November 2015, <http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/social-networking-fact-sheet/>

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, Sage, London, pp 191-208.

#social networking #social media #society #community

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

STACIE NEWBIGGIN