#networkedpublics

[seneyhaa14]

📌 WEEK 2 POST: We Need to Talk About Social Media (But Make It Academic) 👀

You ever scroll TikTok for "5 minutes" and suddenly it's 2am? Yeah. There's actually a whole field of social theory dedicated to explaining why that happens and what it means for society.

Week 2 lecture introduced us to social theory as a tool to understand how power, behavior, and communities work online. Think of it as the glasses that help you actually see what's going on beneath the surface of your For You Page.

Here are the theorists you genuinely need to know:

Rheingold said online communities create real social bonds, no physical presence needed. Reddit users raising money for strangers? That's his whole point.

Castells argued modern society runs on digital networks, information and power flow through them globally and instantly. One viral tweet can shift a news cycle. That's network society.

Danah Boyd introduced "networked publics", social media spaces that are shaped by the platform's own design. TikTok's algorithm decides what kind of "public" you're even part of (Ojala & Ripatti-Torniainen, 2024).

Henry Jenkins gave us participatory culture, users aren't just consumers, they're creators. Every meme you've remixed? That's participatory culture in action.

Axel Bruns called it produsage, you produce AND consume at the same time. Wikipedia editors and TikTok creators who also doom-scroll. That's all of us (O'Boyle, 2022).

Papacharissi pointed out that online spaces blur public and private life. Posting your 3am thoughts publicly? She predicted that.

Now here's the big question, is social media actually a public sphere where everyone can speak freely? Spoiler: not really. Surveillance, unequal access, and corporate algorithms all get in the way (Staab & Thiel, 2022). Especially in Malaysia, where social media shaped the GE15 election but also spread disinformation (Tapsell, 2023).

Social theory isn't just for textbooks. It explains your entire online life.

References

O'Boyle, N. (2022). Produsers: New media audiences and the paradoxes of participatory culture. In Communication theory for humans (pp. 175–204). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02450-4_7

Ojala, M., & Ripatti-Torniainen, L. (2024). Where is the public of "networked publics"? European Journal of Communication, 39(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231210207

Staab, P., & Thiel, T. (2022). Social media and the digital structural transformation of the public sphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 39(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632764221103527

Tapsell, R. (2023). Social media and Malaysia's 2022 election. Pacific Affairs, 96(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.5509/2023962303

[digitalcommunitieswithbekbell]

1 V 1 Me Bruh. What games mean to me.

This week we touch on the very interesting topic of social gaming. Talking about games is something that always excites me as I have always both enjoyed playing games as well as had an emotional connection to them. Wait, what? Everyone has different interests but nothing I think is stranger to people when someone says they have an emotional connection to games.

Do you watch TV or movies? Of course you do, and have you ever watched one that moved you or made you feel something? Yes. Did you feel invested in the narrative and the characters and did it devastate you when you watched The Notebook (2004) and you realised that the story about Allie and Noah was their story? Of course it did, if it didn’t you aren’t human! (Or you’re a bloke who is angry that his partner is making him watch The Notebook again.)

Games and gaming worlds are as immersive, if not more, than TV and movies, when you add the element of socialising and you start to do the math, it becomes no surprise that games, such as social games played through SNS and MMOG’s mean a lot to people.

Social Games: are games that people play through their social media sites in and outside the boundaries of their immediate network. Games such as Farmville (Zinga 2014) or Candy Crush (King 2012), which people have integrated with their social network sites (SNS), are more appropriately referred to as social network games by some industry members (Lovell 2011.)

MMOG or MMORPG: This means Massive Multiplayer Online Game or Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.

In a position paper that my team wrote last year when we focused on the cultural significance of games we discussed the following;

Although legally classified under the same grounds as Film and Television there is a distinct difference in the way computer games are appreciated in society as a creative industry. The most common argument is computer games are categorised as having a violent effect on players. Yee (2012) identifies in his article these ideals are perpetuated by the mass media and Dr. Chris Ferguson of Stetson University says that these causal studies have no legitimacy, and are rejected by American courts in every case. Video games are a culturally significant part of the 21st century (Keogh, 2012.) The introduction of progressive technologies through new devices and online access has cemented their use within our current media landscape; however, it is still underrepresented culturally.

I know that I personally have made some wonderful connections through online gaming; in my time when I would socialise on Xbox Live, I met some fantastic people in Australia and overseas, who I still talk to on Facebook today. I also look at my brother, who has struggled to socialise due to having severe ADHD and learning difficulties, for these reasons my brother completed schooling in an alternative setting. Games for him have always been an avenue where he can exert energy, express himself and an environment where he is not judged for his social disabilities but rather as a person as a whole. He is also a fantastically gifted gamer!

I think it is clear that games mean a lot to me personally, as well as other emotional factors such as the example I use with my brother. I look at gaming environments and I see a place where anyone can thrive, if they choose to, where perhaps in the ‘real world’ they have struggled. As I touched on last week in relation to the work of Nathan Jurgenson, I really do believe that the idea that there is an online and an offline world is a fallacy.

Although my emotional connection to games may see me talk about them very idealistically, I can recognise that it is not always peachy.

“Game rules are used to establish a field of interaction at once familiar and strange, a deliberately differentiated site for competitive, social, cultural and commercial exchange.” (de Zwart & Humphries, 2014)

Rules in games are established to both serve a legal purpose as well as establish a code of conduct for players to act under. Think about when you purchase a ticket to a sports game, your ticket purchase means you accept the terms of service and code of conduct for both a legal purpose and a social purpose. Whether at the stadium, or playing online everyone has the right to be comfortable.

I want to know have you ever experienced or seen people acting anti-socially in an online gaming public? Whether you play games personally or have seen a YouTube video of such, please sure your experiences!

References & Bibliography

de Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014, 'The lawless frontier of deep space: Code as law in EVE Online', Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99.

Keogh, B. 2012 'Freeplay reminds us videogames matter: the ‘culture’ debate is over, The Conversation, viewed 30 August 2016, <http://theconversation.com/freeplay-reminds-us-videogames-matter-the-culture-debate-is-over-9825>.

King 2012, Candy crush, [iOS game], King, Stockholm.

Lovell, N 2011, ‘What is a social game?’, GamesBrief, viewed 22 January 2017, <http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/01/what-is-a-social-game/>.

Yee, N (2014) How The Media Consistently Gets Games Wrong, The Huffington Post – US Edition, viewed 15 September 2016 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-yee/video-games-media_b_4572231.html>.

Zinga 2014, Farmville, [iOS app], Zinga, San Francisco

[digitalcommunitieswithbekbell]

Millennials Explain Why They Deleted Their Social Media Accounts

'If someone needs me, they can just call me.'

An interesting idea. I personally only have Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and Snapchat but I barely use Snapchat. I guess if you are on most, if not all social media sites available it can feel like you are suffocating under the perceived pressure to use them all. 

[fembot22-blog]

Day #3: Social Networking Sites & Participatory Media Sites

[nakitamarendazuniverse]

Week 4

In the reading “Bloggerati, Twitterati: How Blogs and Twitter Are Transforming Popular Culture (Cross 2011), Cross discusses the demographic’s of bloggers, focusing on the ages and geographic locations of the trend. Her findings discovered that “bloggers skew young”. “Even kids are blogging,” and they’re doing it well. Tavi Gevinson started her fashion blog, Style Rookie, at age 12. It featured photos of her outfits and commentary on fashion trends and runway shows. The blog’s popularity led to her being invited to these coveted shows, guest writing for magazines such as Harper’s Bazaar and eventually to starting her own online magazine, Rookie. 

Fashion blogs are of course not the only popular genre, although somewhat outdated now BlogPulse states movies and television, followed by sports and politics as the most popular blog topics in 2010. 

The “Mommy blog” is another popular phenomenon and the mother’s behind these, like Tavi the fashion blogger, become influencer’s in their respective fields. One CEO credits the blogger’s success to how “they bypass officaldom and establishment gatekeepers and have more credibility as unfiltered news or opinion.” (Cross 2011) I can understand this point of view as there isn’t the same advertising agenda with a blog that there is in a high end magazine. At least at first. As blogs gain a following it is becoming increasingly common that brands approach them for sponsored posts and collaborations, which can indeed call into question their credibility. It’s interesting to note that where in the beginning/past bloggers were the “voices of the counterculture” (Cross 2011) the platform has become mainstream as well as its “job” opportunities streamlined. 

Another important topic covered this week was the concept of “publics”. Boyd (2010) states there are three central dynamics to networked publics and I believe the one most relevant to blogging is “invisible audiences”. This could refer to what we know as “ghost followers”, people who read your content online but never engage with it through liking or commenting. Taking on the role of an observer is quite common platform wide on social media today. On the contrary there are publics who regularly engage heavily with material, making themselves ‘public’ publics. Mizuko Ito (2008) describes publics as “reactors, (re)makers and (re)distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception.” In the context of blogging, publics could mean responding to and critiquing ones work, creating one’s own interpretation of it and re-posting other’s content. 

REFERENCES

[tszmolnik-blog]

New Media - How it’s affected the professional photography game

Unless you’ve been living under a rock this past decade you know how Facebook works. Another form of social media is Instagram. For that 0.5% of readers who aren’t sure what they just read, Instagram,  it’s entirely photo/video based allowing people to share images of their lunch since 2010 #throwback.

(Reference: www.memecenter.com)

Photography. No I don’t mean selfies of you and your dog #dogsofinstagram but more so photography in the professional field. The photographers who actually make a living out of what they snap. These most common fields are wedding and event, and portrait photography. Isn’t it funny how the word ‘photography’ has almost developed a new definition throughout this last decade. Now when I think of photography other words that instantly come to mind are ‘Instagram’ and #filters. I’m not saying this is a bad nor a good thing, but just that its interesting how things change due to certain influences in todays society, notably new media.

The introduction of social media and other social sharing apps have created a whole new culture for photography, the main two standouts being Facebook and Instagram. Some more technical terms that I’ve researched and am going to use to help explain this particular shift are: the Digital Divide, the use of Convergence, Spreadability and Networked Publics.

Digital Divide -

First point of discussion is the ‘Digital Divide’. What is it exactly? From what i understand after reading through DiMaggio and Hargittai’s ‘From the ‘Digital Divide’ to 'Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases’ article, it’s basically the gap between people who have access to the internet and those who do not. The ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. I found it funny to read that years ago ‘Digital Divide’ described people with /without access to telephones. I even now find it weird to read studies relating to internet access to be honest. Obviously there are still third world countries without internet access but you don’t exactly stop to think about it. I think because for most countries the internet has become the norm and part of our everyday lives. I personally couldn’t imagine going an hour without the internet let alone a lifetime.

(Source: www.memecenter.com) #nointernet

Researchers' are now catching on to these ideas and are starting to compare ‘Digital Divide’ studies with how people use the internet, their skills online and the general scope of online users rather than just the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.

For professional photographers ‘Digital Divide’ studies could be used to determine the demographic market for their service. According to the Pew Research Centre’s ‘Internet Project’, a survey showing the percentage of online users performed in January 2014 with 74% of adults (18+) using social networking sites like Facebook and Instagram. Of this group, 89% of adults were aged between 18-29, compared to 49% being aged 65+ years. So its safe to say the demographic market majority for photography services should be aimed at the younger generation, also because this age group would be more likely to need a photography service either for a wedding, engagement, social function or portrait shoot. I find it hard to imagine someone aged 65 or older scoping Facebook to find a photographer, rather than just looking through a business directory or asking a younger family member for advice.

(Source: www.memegenerator.net)

#StruggleIsReal

Convergence - 

The next topic contributing to the change in professional photography work over the years is ‘convergence’. Henry Jenkins describes media convergence as an ongoing process that should not be viewed as a displacement of the old media, but rather as interaction between different media forms and platforms (Jenkins, 2006).

So basically an example of convergence in this case would be how social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram are used together to advertise users’ material to the public. These two social medias forms are also both available on multiple platforms including computer, mobile phone, and even gaming consoles. When you go to upload a photo to Instagram it gives you the option of also posting it to your Facebook page in one hit, probably because Facebook now owns Instagram. This use of convergence allows for an easier experience and encourages both platforms to be used together to increase visibility from fans or followers.

Although when you think about it most people running a photography business, or any design business for that matter, where displaying your work is a vital part of gaining new customers, have multiple social media accounts. So having the option to directly post images to both Facebook and Instagram saves times and encourages ease of use for designers which will make them want to post again and again.

I’ve included a link to a website that explains media convergence in more detail for those interested: https://mconvergence.wordpress.com/about/ 

Spreadability - 

Before social media and the internet were introduced professional photographers had to heavily rely on ‘word of mouth’ to generate business. Getting a job shooting a wedding for example, would help advertise yourself to others that attended on the day who might also be in need of a photographer. So in this case you would rely on your name spreading between clients. Advertising yourself in the newspaper as a professional photographer, the ‘yellow pages’ business directory, television, wedding expo’s and bridal shops would’ve been the other main types of advertisement to find work in the field. Now in this tech savvy day and age with wonderful things such as ‘social media’, its much easier to spread the word. Its almost too easy now to advertise a business online through social media. Also the ability enabling customers to rate a business on Facebook and provide reviews/feedback for each is also a huge advancement allowing potential consumers to make their decisions based on previous customers’ experience.

In ‘Chapter 5: Spreadable Media’ of ‘The handbook of media audiences’ Henry Jenkins and Joshua Green describe Spreadability as seeking ‘to motivate and facilitate the efforts of fans and enthusiasts to “spread” the word.’ (2011) If I was looking for a wedding photographer right now the first step for me would be to log into Facebook and type ‘wedding photography’ into the search bar at the top of the page. This search would show the results in order of proximity and immediately allow me to view potential photographers’ sample images and the amount of likes they’ve gained, which demonstrates their credibility. It allows me to contact them directly and show which of my ‘friends’ have also ‘liked’ the page.

(Source: www.imgur.com)

A friend of mine recently tied the knot last month and they released their wedding photos on their profile page just recently with the wedding photography company they hired ‘tagged’ in the post. I imagine this would’ve been discussed with the company so that others interested could get straight to the company’s page with just one ‘click’. It’s basically free advertising, its genius!

So referring to the above quote on spreadability, this particular wedding photos post would motivate and encourage other family members and friends to ‘share’ this post to others online, which would in-turn generate more business for this photography company.

Networked Publics - 

The final term to be explained are the use of ‘networked publics’ and their contribution to the re-shaping of photography in the professional field. ‘Networked Publics are publics that are restructured by networked technologies.’ (Boyd, D and Marwick, A 2011)

Networked Publics are simultaneously (1) the space constructed through networked technologies and (2) the imagined community that emerges as a result of the intersection of people, technology, and practice. Facebook, for example, serves both as a networked public itself and as a site upon which networked publics gather. (Boyd, D and Marwick, A 2011)

Do we shape networked publics or do they shape us? I’d like to say we shape them but I don’t think this is the case. Twitter for example has a 140 character word limit when sharing information with one another. This would be an example of an ‘affordance’ which is a quality of an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action. (Boyd, D 2011)

Having this character limit shapes the kind of information we produce, encouraging quick and on-the-spot posts rather than well thought-out posts containing paragraphs of information. I think this would encourage a higher quantity of posts and increased traffic within the social media site.

(Source: www.memegenerator.net)

Networked publics in terms of professional photography would be those who ‘like’ or ‘follow’ a photography page. Those who invisibly come together to view, like, comment and share interesting content. Maybe ask a question or two relating to a particular photo that was posted and being answered by another like-minded fan on the page. Like for example when I find a cool photo on a photography page that i’ve ‘liked’ and I comment to find out what camera or lens was used for the shot, another person would soon follow with a response.

So social media, in particular Facebook, allows these fans to come together through the use of their business page options which create these niche networked publics and encourages social interaction.

Summary - 

There is no doubt the use of new media has changed businesses considerably, in particular the photography profession. These four discussed terms have each played a vital role in contributing to this shift and continue to re-shape the online (and offline) community. Nowadays it seems detrimental not having related social media pages for your business. As technology continues to change and develop it’s important for business owners to keep up with the pack. 

Thanks for reading and I look forward to answering your questions!

Trent Szmolnik

n9395253

References: Boyd, D, Marwick, A, 2011. Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes, Practices, and Strategies. United States: A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, September 2011. 

Di Maggio, P, Hargittai, E, 2001. From the 'Digital Divide’ to 'Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use as Penetration Increases. 1st ed. United States: Russell Sage Foundation.

Green, J, and Jenkins, H, 2011. Spreadable Media: How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy, in The Handbook of Media Audiences. ed V. Nightingale, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK.

Imgur. 2015. Imgur. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imgur.com. [Accessed 14 April 2015]. 

Jenkins, H, 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. 1st ed. New York: New York University Press. 

Meme Center - Largest Creative Humor Community. 2015. Meme Center - Largest Creative Humor Community. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.memecenter.com. [Accessed 13 April 2015]. 

Meme Generator. 2015. Meme Generator. [ONLINE] Available at: http://memegenerator.net. [Accessed 17 April 2015].    

What is Media Convergence ? | MEDIA CONVERGENCE. 2015. What is Media Convergence ? | MEDIA CONVERGENCE. [ONLINE] Available at: https://mconvergence.wordpress.com/about/. [Accessed 15 April 2015].

[veronika-hl-blog-blog]

Charity Campaigns Reaching New Heights with New Media

New media continues to transform and be transformed where technologies, social practices and people are shaped together, creating techno-social hybridity. It is defined by the convergence of cultural, industrial, social and technological implications, with the different artefacts and contexts. This new landscape therefore, creates certain affordances that are appropriated by users. The characteristics include blurring the lines between consumer and producer, evoking interaction, democratising creation and consumption, generating creative communities and participatory systems. Industries are being shaped and modified by this new environment and in particular the charity field. New media affordances are enabling the industry to enhance its practice. This is embraced by the Cancer Research UK Charity with their ‘No Make Up Selfie’ campaign where it allowed audiences to take a photo barefaced, upload it, nominate a friend and then text to the charity number to donate, while linking this all to the viral user generated hashtag #NoMakeUpSelfie.

The hashtag #nomakeupselfie sparked a trend of everyday women and celebrities posting makeup-less selfies online

Image sourced from

http://b4tea.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/no-makeup-selfie-trend-goes-viral-to.html

The collection of people as well as the reconstruction of publics by networked technologies has created greater opportunities for interaction and participation (Boyd 2011, p.41). Green and Jenkins (2011, p.114) explore the characteristics of networked publics identifying the idea of ‘spreadibility’ that allows for non profit organisations to spread content through audience. The CEO of the Cancer Council said that the ‘no make up selfie’ campaign that started out in the United Kingdom “...had now well and truly spread to Australia” with ease in a very small amount of time (Cancer Council Australia, 2014). A movement that began oversees and went global suggests that the way charities use to run their campaigns have changed with the network technologies and the new ways of gathering different people. Papacharissi and Gibson (2011, p.76) agree, stating that this new media encourages a culture of sharing and exemplifies the affordance for charities to reach larger audiences. This possibility of 'spreadibility’ further enhances the impact of a cause and generates more knowledge. A recent study showed that the place people first hear about a non-profit cause is through social media, with 51% of the sample agreeing (Miratel Solutions Inc, 2014). This indicates the growing importance new media has on generating awareness of a cause, impacting the way charities run their campaigns.

Although networked publics allow greater contribution from society, it does not guarantee visibility. Boyd identifies this as ‘scalability’, where organisations have the opportunity to achieve a large audience, however, do not always attain it (Boyd, 2008, p. 14). The viral ‘No Makeup Selfie’ campaign was produced in one spot, spread to the next and raised £8m (approx. $15m) for Cancer Research in one week (Amar, 2014). This “niche group” was able to achieve mass visibility that resembles what Senft (2008) defines as a “micro-celebrity.” Whilst this aspect is undoubtedly a game changer, it is difficult to replicate the success. This is due to the fact the aspect of scalability “…does not necessarily scale what individuals want to have scaled or what they think should be scaled, but what the collective chooses to amplify” (Boyd, 2008, p. 9). Therefore, although other charity campaigns may have the ability to share content and create publics, they may not achieve the same attention. This role of social media, where users chose the content as well as construct the meaning, is shaping the professional identity in the non-profit organisation field.

With the affordance, viral campaigns can also become commercialised, raising the question if people are being genuine or using it for self-glorification and identity. “Social media applications encourage people to compete for social benefits by gaining visibility and attention” (Marwick, 2013, p. 5). To potentially boost social status, the ‘No Makeup Selfie’ movement allowed to market oneself as doing ‘good’ in society. There was a lack of connection between a makeup-less selfie and the cause, perhaps suggesting that taking a selfie without makeup associates with bravery and is a “monumental event” in society (Dockterman, 2014). Furthermore, £18 625 (approx. $35 000) of donations were found to have been sent to a wrong cause (The Guardian, 2014), implying people were wanting to be part of the trend rather than the cause. This ability to control and modify the individual persona is conforming to the commercial ideals (Marwick, 2013, p. 5). Working in hybrid economies, has created the challenge to the way non-profit organisations manage their work.

#NoMakeupSelfie movement criticised for the self-congratulatory aspect of the campaign

Image sourced from

http://time.com/40506/nomakeupselfie-brings-out-the-worst-of-the-internet-for-a-good-cause/

Social media is shaping professional identity in the field through the ability of crowdsourcing. Non-profit organisations that do not receive government funding rely on public support and fortunately; the affordances on new media enable charities to generate this on a larger scale. Howe (2008, p.14) affirms this point stating that crowd funding allows “individuals to invest a small amount in order to raise capital for a cause”. Cancer Research UK said “the #nomakeupselfie trend had resulted in an unprecedented increase in donations…[allowing] the charity to carry out 10 clinical trials that it did not have money to fully fund…” previously (The Guardian, 2014). This demonstrates that new media is able to assist with funding critical research that previously was unattainable for charities. It is evident that new media is alternating the way this field is working in funding research.

Cancer Research UK tweeting about the excitement of reaching £8m from the online campaign

Image sourced from

http://time.com/40506/nomakeupselfie-brings-out-the-worst-of-the-internet-for-a-good-cause/

Crowd creativity is also harnessing collective resources to produce what would usually be difficult to accomplish.  Howe (2008, p.14) views this as a “greater democratisation of commerce”. A ‘hashtag’ effectively allows an organisation to start their own conversation or join in a broader conversation (Page 2012, p.187). The campaign hashtag was created by the audience itself, which was then identified by the Cancer Research UK and embraced to raise awareness of their cause. The success of the #nomakeupselfie lies in its creativity, length and memorability. It is the higher frequency visibility enhancing self-branding through hashtags, unlike the conversational exchanges found with addressed messages (Page 2012 p.187). This is a way charities are making use of the affordances that enable higher visibility of their cause.

In addition, it is important for the industry to accommodate an ‘inclusionary vibe’. The new media environment demands greater importance of consumers partaking in the process, giving organisations opportunities to connect with the public (Flynn 2001, cited in Shefrin 2004, 274). The ‘No Makeup Selfie’ campaign gave the ability for the audience to create and share content, enhancing the excitement of participating. Everyone was able to contribute regardless of age, nationality and socio-economic status, embracing the social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). It is clear that charities are now more engaged with consumers through the new media.

Although the affordance of generating content through the audience enhances the non-profit sector, it is also seen as exploitation in industries. The participants are micro-tasking while providers gain improved workforce, loyalty, engagement and revenue. The society becomes the factory, where users produce labour that feels enjoyable and organisations use this as surplus (Fuchs 2014, 118). This ultimately turns into profit by reducing labour and investment costs. Although the global inclusion can be seen as democratisation for the voluntary sector network, it is also corporate colonisation (Fuchs 2014, 106). It is therefore, important to ensure the environment is balanced between humanity (Zittrain 2009) and creativity (Gauntlett 2011) which is being embraced by charities. 

These affordances are evidently changing they way the charity sector operates on a day-to-day basis. There is a certain blurring element of the user and producer, altering the consumption and production of content for campaigns. This landscape further involves higher engagement with the audience and this has created new ways of working in and with new media for various industries including the charity organisation field. The profession has been enhanced by these tools where there are new ways of engaging with the audience, spreading information, and gaining funding.

Reference

Amar, Zoe. 2014. “Five social media charity campaigns.” Accessed April 9, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/apr/03/five-social-media-charity-campaigns.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York, Greenwood), 241-258.

Boyd, Danah. 2011. “Social network sites as networked publics – affordances, dynamics, and implications.” In A Networked Self – Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 39-58. New York: Routledge.

Cancer Council Australia. “No make up selfies for cancer awareness.” Last modified June 4, 2014. http://www.cancer.org.au/news/news-articles/no-make-up-selfies-for-cancer-awareness.html.

Dockterman, Eliana. 2014. “#NoMakeupSelfie brings out the worst of the internet for a good cause” Accessed April 15, 2015. http://time.com/40506/nomakeupselfie-brings-out-the-worst-of-the-internet-for-a-good-cause/.

Fuchs, Christian. 2014. “The power and political economy of social media.” In Social Media: An Introduction, 97–125. London: Sage Publications.

Gauntlett, David. 2011. “Making is connecting, the social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0.” Cambridge: Polity Press.

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “Spreadable media. How audiences create value and meaning in a networked economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Howe, Jeff. 2008. “Crowdsourcing: How the power of the crowd is driving the future of business.” London: Random House.

Marwick, Alice. 2013. “Memes.” Contexts 12(4): 12-13.

Miratel Solutions Inc. “4 key findings from new social media and nonprofit study.” Last modified September 25, 2014. http://www.miratelinc.com/blog/4-key-findings-from-new-social-media-and-nonprofit-study/.

Page, Ruth. 2012. “The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags”. Discourse & Communication 6 (2): 181-201.

Papacharissi, Zizi and Paige Gibson. 2011. “15 minutes of privacy: privacy, sociality, and publicity on social network sites.” In Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited by Trepte, S and L. Reinecke, 75-89. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.

Senft, T. M. 2008. “Camgirls: celebrity and community in the age of social networks.” New York: Peter Lang.

Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and participatory fandom: mapping new congruencies between the Internet and media entertainment culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281.

The Guardian. “No-makeup selfies raise £8m for Cancer Research UK in six days” Last modified March 26, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/25/no-makeup-selfies-cancer-charity.

Zittrain, Jonathan. 2009. “Minds for Sale.” Last modified November 18, 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/2009/11/berkwest

[kcb206group12]

Free vs Mediated

How much of our lives are we freely choosing to share to our ‘networked publics’ and how much choice do we have to mediate this? “Networked publics” is a term used to describe publics that are “restructured by networked technologies; they are simultaneously a space and collection of people” (Boyd 2011, 41). What effect are ‘networked publics’ having on our ability to freely mediate our public and private life on social media? Deuze poses the question: “If we live our lives in media and we choose to take responsibility for it, what are our options to constitute each other and ourselves? How can we be free yet mediated at the same time?” (Deuze 2011, 144) New media has a dynamic infrastructure (Hartley,Burgess and Bruns 2013), users are constantly having to succumb their lives to a virtual platform with an audience, sometimes of an unknown scale. Consequently debates involving individuals’ private lives are constantly arising. Below is a personal experience that exemplifies the above question. A group of my friends were attending an event that involved getting dressed up and having pre-drinks before hand. When everyone was at pre-drinks, indulging in pre-drink activities, including selfies and group shots one friend had told everyone that she had called in sick to work. It was stressed that it was of the utmost importance she did not have a presence at this event on social media. This was because we all had ‘mutual friends’ on Facebook and similar ‘followers’ on Instagram- similar ‘networked publics’ if you like. This instantly became an issue, considering a lot of people really loved the group shots that had been captured. Group members felt upset they were unable to share their own photos with friends and followers on social media due to one friend wishing not to be seen at this event. There is no denying that our lives are now lived in a physical realm as well as a virtual realm. Questions regarding the positives and negatives of this become apparent when at events or places that are significant to us we want to share our experiences on social media sites. And if that option is taken away from us due to someone wanting to not ‘exist’ at an event online we feel upset and entitled to be able to share our experiences. Yet on the other hand, if we wanted to remain ‘invisible’ online at an event we would want to feel that this was in our control to mediate. Who is choosing what constitutes our presence on social media platforms? Of course we feel to a certain extent, control of what we post and share on social media. However, what about our friends that are involved in similar networked publics to our own? References Boyd, Danah. 2011. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics – Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In A Networked Self – Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 39-58. New York: Routledge. Deuze, Mark. 2011 “Media Life.” Media, Culture & Society 33 (1): 137 - 148. Hartley, J., J. Burgess and A. Bruns. 2013. A companion to new media dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. http://qut.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQsLQ0MjBOTUo2SwU2h00sDNOSzNKAfaFEI0MTINM4GWWwDak0dxNiYErNE2WQcXMNcfbQLSwtiYeOYcQnGZsaA5sS5haGYgwswH5xKgCk9hf2.