Three Square Suns @threesquaresuns-blog - Tumblr Blog

Why panda?

Hi, sorry for the late reply!Well, because I get increasingly bad dark eye circles whenever a new semester starts up, and I get on average, perhaps 2 - 4 hours of sleep. And Insomnia can birth some chaotic thoughts. So I found it fitting. Panda = Big mood

China & How The Internet Can Bolster Civil Society

China is an interesting case. Google is so commonly used and relied upon, that “Google’s my best friend” has been uttered in jest more than once by my friends and I, when we encounter something we don’t know. However, Google, and other international Web 2.0 services, are blocked by China’s Great Firewall (TED 2012) , forming what Xiao Qiang (TEDx Talks 2014) dubs, the “Chinternet”, a phenomenon whereby even with globalisation and economic advancements, freedom of the Chinese is still restricted, in terms of their political rights to have freedom of speech, association, beliefs, and assembly.

Although they’re different people from different occupations and circumstance, Qiang (TEDx Talks 2014), Michael Anti (TED 2012) , and Victoria Mui (Dan Lok 2017), all agree that this phenomenon exists because by preventing its people from accessing the global internet, the Chinese government is able to supply them with alternatives, through which they can better monitor and control the people, while protecting itself.

The image below illustrates China’s social media and internet eco-system (Oniix 2018) :

The eco-system is far from barren, being just as vibrant as that of the rest of the world, although filled with similar, yet different, sites. With China being such a huge market, even foreign celebrities (Kary 2015) have opened Weibo accounts and sought to establish a digital presence in among Chinese netizens. However, these are not mere social media platforms. they were developed because, while the government wants to censor the people, it understands the people’s need for social networking (TED 2012). Thus, in monopolising the internet, the government gains a comparatively greater power and hold over the people, without antagonising them outright. The situation is such that every year, around early June, censorship is tightened to prevent discussion of the Tiananmen Massacre, seeking to effectively erase the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests from Chinese history books...and it has succeeded much too well, with only 15 out of 100 university students recognizing the Tank Man photograph for what it is (Ser 2016). This fact really surprised me, when I first heard of it.

However, despite these government efforts, a public sphere has been forming and growing over the years in China (TED 2012) - people are becoming Aware, and are using the internet to voice out dissent, they’re forming communities online that have led to meetings in physical space, although those are still met with police action (TEDx Talk 2014).

Fart People (屁民) Voice Dissent

Qiang cites this incident as indicative of how the internet can help galvanize civil society in China. In 2008, Lin Jiaxing, a then official, had harassed a girl. When she escaped and her parents confronted him, he pulled rank and said that they were “worth less than a fart” to him, ending his tirade with a threat. The incident was caught on security camera (TEDx Talk 2014), and after being leaked on the internet, went viral, and sparked widespread criticism. Lin was eventually sacked. From here, netizens picked up on the term “Fart People”, noting the disparity between the government’s slogans that constantly put the people on a pedestal, and the actual treatment of the people by government officials. Netizens then reclaimed the term to voice their opinions about issues concerning government officials, such as when addressing the lack of democracy and corruption.They started calling themselves 屁民 with pride. Other incidents followed this. The 2011 train crash at Wenzhou sparked an unprecedented public outcry on the internet over 5 days, that led to the rail minister being sacked.

Other Creative Code Words to Subvert Censorship

Some examples are (Luo 2015):

Eye-Field (目田), since Freedom (自由) is censored,

Take a Walk (散步), since applications for official protests are usually denied, and could be dangerous, activists have opted to protest against state actions by “taking walks”, instead.

National Treasure (国宝, also symbolised by a Panda, a national treasure of China), homonym of the Domestic Security Department (DSD) ( 国保 ) that deals with “subversies” like human rights activists, religious groups and dissidents. Has more power than regular police and use violence to suppress “dangerous elements”

Your Country (你国), used by netizens to separate mention of Their Country, and the one run by the Chinese Communist Party, where in the past, the communist party and state were often viewed as one and the same.

Malaysia In Comparison

After the last election, Malaysia’s ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, lost to the Opposition for the first time in Malaysia’s 61 year history. It was a victory for the Opposition, but also for the people, against a corrupt government and prime minister, Najib. The rule of BN was rife with corruption, and although government censorship was not to the same extent as that of China, there were still instances like the blocking of Syed Akbar Ali’s blog (FMT Reporters 2016) which was critical of the Prime Minister. Another blogger, Raja Petra Kamarudin, fled the country after hearing he would be detained without trial for the 3rd time (Bland 2010), after publishing writings about Najib, his wife, and the mruder of Mongolian translator, Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa. There was no apparent transparency in the handling of scandals involving the government, or more specifically, the then-Prime Minister, and Najib’s responses to public outcry often did not make sense. One incident gave birth to the Kangkung meme, and the opposition adopted the vegetable as a symbol (Palatino 2014). Everything culminated in a Fake News law (Hutt 2018) being passed right before the elections, and the wording was so general and loose, that it would be up to the courts to define what constituted “fake news”....and that seemed to play heavily in the favour of Najib and the ruling party, with spokespersons citing mentions of Najib’s IMDB scandal as attempts to tarnish his good name. Fittingly, Malaysian lawyer and human rights activist R. Silvarasa once noted that while the Malaysian constitution guarantees free speech, it does not guarantee “freedom after speech” (Hutt 2018). After the election, hopefully, this will have changed for the better.

I think that while China’s netizens are still far from having that the level of freedom that we Do have here, the Chinternet, by still affording users with the ability to form networks and communities, will indeed continue to bolster the growth of Chinese netizens as a civil society, and allow them to eventually enact effective change in their country. Because as noted by Qiang, while the censorship in China has allowed it to perpetuate lies, no people can live in a lie indefinitely (TEDx Talk 2014), and the people will ultimately choose freedom and dignity, rise up and prevail.

#mda20009 #SocialMediaAndChinaAcaseStudy

Gaming Does Good

Social games are games that involve active in-game interactions and typically involve multiple players. Being only a casual, occasional player, I’m far from an expert on online social gaming, and there’s so much to talk about, that it’s hard to settle on one topic. I did vaguely remember reading about how scientists had used data from games to help solve real world problems, and so, I did some research into social games and their possible real world impacts.

Second Life

Developed by Linden lab (ABOUT LINDEN LAB 2018), the impression Second Life (Second life 2018) gave me was that it’s similar to The Sims (Electronic Arts 2018), but based online with other players in the form of avatars, rather than non-player characters (NPC). And it’s much more massive in scale - an actual world, but virtual. Also, with more dated graphics.

It’s a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), yet different from the usual trope, in that it does not set any objectives or goals for the players. These, if any, are player-made, and much like in real life, things cost real money too (Kalning 2007). Unlike real life and other MMORPG, the World is not set, and players are given a huge amount of control over it - they can “grow” and develop the game as they like, using the Linden Scripting Language (Maiberg 2016). Exchanges and collaborations of various cultures, information, skills, and data can happen frequently in Second Life, such as in the building of an island resort (Kalning 2007). Perhaps the biggest appeal about Second Life is its social aspect (Kalning 2007), and the possibilities it offers - institutions like MIT and Stanford started building virtual space, assuming they would be able to hold lectures virtually in the future (although they abandoned it just as suddenly as they joined) - and business is literally booming in Second Life, with users redeeming US$ 60 million from their in-game businesses in 2015 (Maiberg 2016).

However, with this much freedom, it appears difficult for proper rules and control to be established and maintained. Wagner Au, a blogger and author about Second Life, notes that as it’s all user-generated content, players can remake and redistribute corresponding content on social media, and it has become a “microcosm” of internet and real world culture (Malberg 2016). However, he also admits that the seedier side probably draws some users strongly too, noting that half of the most popular sites in-game are Adult-rated, and offer sexual content not readily available elsewhere online. He still notes the social aspect in these cases though, citing how regulars form communities with each other based on more than sex (Maiberg 2016). Be that as it may, the lack of governance and policing is still apparent. For instance, access to areas in Second Life are censored based on Age. But, players can still purchase skins to “cheat” the system - there was a case in which German prosecutors launched investigations into anonymous players who were buying sex from other participants posing as children, or offering child pornography for sale (Connolly 2007). Clearly, online social games can affect the non-virtual world negatively.

EVE Online - Project Discovery

However, online gaming Has positive impacts too. Like Second Life, EVE is a free Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG). It prides itself in “aggressive and piratical gameplay”, attracting “scams and scandals...including fraud, Ponzi schemes, corporate raiding and theft” in-game (Zwart & Humphreys 2014). However, where others might view a lawless environment confined in a virtual world, Bernard Revaz and Attila Szantzer saw potential for social good (McMullan 2017). In 2014, they established Massively Multiplayer Online Science (MMOS) (MMOS 2018), a company that connects scientists and game developers, and in 2016, they launched, in collaboration with EVE Online, Project Discovery, which is a “special pocket” within the game, wherein players are given repetitive tasks, but with actual scientific implications (McMullan 2017) . Throughout, MMOS has worked closely with developers at Crowd Control Productions (CCP), who then worked closely with players - such as in developing the best AI to find cheating bots to counter people who “try to game the system” via an AI challenge (Karmen 2018) - in order for the all aspects of the “mini-games” to weave seamlessly into the main game - via a corresponding tale, points (McMullan 2017), ranks (Arthur 2017), and other intrinsic rewards (Scott Manley 2017) - and to thus encourage production of real and accurate results.

The first stage aimed to get around half a million players to help with the Human Protein Atlas (HPA), that helps map all proteins in human cells (McMullan 2017). Players identified and catalogued different cell structures, and when enough players agreed on an image, it was sent to the researchers of HPA. Players were found to be more interested in helping with science, rather than in the rewards (McMullan 2017).

The second stage, backed by Professor Michel Mayor (McMullan 2017) who is one of 2 who found the first exoplanet, is more in tune with the theme of EVE and involves searching for planets outside of our solar system (exoplanets), by analysing images from the COROT (COROT OVERVIEW, n.d.) telescope and categorising potential planets. And when enough players agree on a classification, data is passed to scientists at the University of Geneva (McMullan 2017). Together with players, developers were able to rectify problems with Transit Time Variations that algorithms could not account for in the 2nd release of the project, and the high level of player engagement produced data that would have taken years to classify manually; 77,709 players worked together to, in just over 6 months, work through 44.4 million period samples (Paramemetic 2018). Teamwork of the whole EVE community was key in maing this happen. CCP also changed the reward system to one that better satisfies players (Eyondawn 2018), to whom fair rewards are an important part of the gameplay. There’s also the fact that they can play it while waiting for their games to progress (Maack 2017). Clearly, this is not something that is completely separate from the multiplayer gameplay, but an aspect that players have incorporated into their daily play, interacting with developers and among themselves, via chats and streaming, just as they would for the original game.

Players work together collectively in-game, and outside of the game as well. They have organised heir own presentations, poetry competitions on EVE forums, game sessions and tutorial streams (EVE Online 2017), all centred around Project Discovery. The mining of human resources and voluntary labour from the active EVE MMOG, that has a community interested in science and in helping it advance (McMullan 2017), has made it far easier and more probable to discover a scientifically recognised exoplanet. Although none have been found so far, Kamen (2018) thinks it is a matter of “when”, and I find that really exciting.

#mda20009 #SocialGaming

Fan Activism - Political or Not?

What is “Fan Activism”? Well, it could depend on which definition we choose to go by.

Earl & Kimport (2009) defines it as

“Not about the mix between political concerns and culture, but rather action that looks like political activism, but is used towards non-political ends.”

This means that while fans are utilising forms of political protest (campaigns, rallies, and so on), they do not have any significant political, civil or social impact, and are not meant to, as the purpose is related purely to the text or content they’re fans of.

This can be held true in many cases. One is the “Save Chuck” case.

Chuck (IMDB.com, 2018) is about this ordinary guy - Chuck - who gets government secrets downloaded into his brain, and the ensuing chaos. Although never an avid fan, I liked the premise and the few episodes (earlier ones) that I watched, well enough, and had expected the show to do well. However, due to lacklustre ratings performances following its first season, it was at risk of being cancelled. Concerned, fans launched the “Save Chuck” campaign. Christina Savage (2014) in studying this case, notes that the campaign was run by savvy fans mainly online, though websites, Twitter, and forums, the latter being where the “Finale and a Footlong” movement was birthed. It involved fans buying footlongs from Subway chains (the franchise had featured on the show and was one of the major sponsors), and thus speak directly to sponsors in their language - money. It garnered media attention, and received support from critics too (Chuck Wiki, n.d.), and Chuck was eventually renewed for a 3rd season. All this fittingly happened in 2009 too.

However, Henry Jenkins (Jenkins & Shreshtova, 2012) views Fan Activism differently. He defines it as,

“Forms of Civic Engagement and Political Participation that emerge from within fan culture itself, often in response to the shared interest of fans, often conducted through the existing fan practices and relationships, and often framed through metaphors drawn from popular and participatory culture.”

keywords being “civic engagement” and “political participation”. Here lies the discrepancy between the two definitions - where one states that it is completely separate from politics, another states the complete opposite.

I think that back in 2009, the internet was not as advanced as in 2012, and the level of knowledge, data, culture available on the internet, as well as the possible level of social engagement and connectivity, was not as detailed as it became within the next few years. As digital technology advances, so does the spreading of data and culture, and the possibilities afforded to users. I am more inclined to agree with Jenkins, based on the facts in recent years.

Case #1 - Transformation of Culture Within the K-pop Fandom

From what I’ve seen in the years of reading about K-pop, K-pop fans used to always organise gifts for and addressed to their preferred idols, especially for big events. However, while the gifting of material goods is still being done, there has been a gradual shift in recent years, from material goods to charitable actions done in the name of their idols. Examples of this include rice wreaths instead of flower wreaths (Lindsay, 2013), with the rice being donated after an event, the planting of forests (The Straits Times, 2017) , building of libraries (Kim, 2017), and donations (SBS PopAsia HQ, 2018), among others. This change in their culture of gifting, reflects a change in the fans, as K-pop fans, now made up of people from countries all over the world (more than they were in the past), are becoming more socially and politically aware. I think this can definitely be put down to the advancements of digital technology.

Case #2 - Fan-Art

Rather than traditional, striaghtforward fan-art, fans are now re-making original character designs or recognisable elements, into points they can use to advocate for a cause or issue they want to talk about - such as stereotyping (Ro, 2018), racial representation (Penn, 2018) and white-washing (Kim, 2016) - and then posting them up online. And even when not explicitly stated, just the posting of the art online is, in and of itself, a political action, because the art brings a message that others can, and will, receive. The purpose is not only to show love for the text, but to give voice to a social or political issue, through the common fan practice of producing fan-art.

Case #3 - Even When Not Political, It Can Become Political

I am referring to cases like Chuck’s, where fan’s actions are not in that current moment, political in any way. However, through cases like this, just participating in the campaigns and such, they learn and gain skills that they can utilise for issues in the future. For instance, they could learn how to negotiate with a studio and make it understand what they want as fans, and they could use this knowledge later when encountering a problem they want to advocate for, such as concerning proper racial representation in movie adaptation castings.

To conclude, given how a huge part of fan activism now clearly is political, I am more inclined to accept Jenkins’ definition. And I believe we will continue to see fan culture and fan activism grow in this direction, as digital technology continues to advance.

#mda20009 #FandomAndFanActivism

Digital Crowds Making a Difference

According to Jeff Howe (Metzger 2007) who helped coin the term, Crowdsourcing is defined as

“the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”

Crowdfunding, which is often seen as a branch of crowdsourcing, on the other hand, is defined as

“a practice in which a community pools money to finance certain activities...the only form of consumers’ collaboration that requires monetary participation from consumers, sometimes without any material reward” (Moisseyev 2013)

“to collect money for investment; this is generally done by using social networks, in particular through the Internet.” (Belleflame, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2012)

I first studied about Crowdsourcing and Crowdfunding for an Advertising assignment. One of the projects I came across in my research, was the UNICEF Tap project, and it’s stuck with me since, both for its merits in terms of design and advertising, but also for its purpose and positive effect on the world. In 2006, David Droga was challenged by Esquire to come up with a brand that could create positive change (Droga5 2018). A year later, the UNICEF Tap Project was launched in New York, primarily as a grassroots volunteer program (UNICEF USA 2018). It has since spread across the world, and has over the years, helped millions of children across the world gain access to clean water. Social network sites Are integral to how information is “broken” and circulated, today, and as is the case for all crowdsourcing or crowdfunding projects, social media - specifically, Facebook’s decentralised network - was definitely important in spreading news about it, and ensuring the growth of its success.

UNICEF Tap Projects 2013 & 2016

2013

The UNICEF Tap project app was launched on Facebook for World Water Month (UNICEF USA 2013). The app would use the world’s largest social network (Statista 2018), to create a water network by utilising users’ Friend networks. This is explained in the video below:

In the case of the UNICEF Tap project 2013 (UNICEF USA 2013), digital communities linked together on Facebook are clearly crowdsourced for human data and labour (participation) via users’ Friends lists, rather than via traditional methods. At the same time, funds of $5 at the minimum - each donation entitles the user to choose 2 friends to receive water and the opportunity to donate - are sourced from each participant, to be pooled towards UNICEF’s Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) programs (Dineen 2017). Participants, made up of ordinary people, are also then motivated to spread the movement and news of the app via the reward of seeing the real-time growth of their “pipelines”, and the impact they’re having on the lives of children globally (UNICEF USA 2013). This is interesting in the fact that social media is not only used to increase public interest and scrutiny (Chin, Jones, McNutt & Pebler 2014), but it utilises the very links that connect and form the users’ network of Friend accounts.

2014 - 2016

Together with generous sponsors like Giorgio Armani Fragrances, a mobile app (Dineen 2017) was launched and continued until 2016 (UNICEF USA 2016), the concept being that for every minute that participants spent off their phones, they were unlocking funding towards the cause - 5 minutes was enough to provide a child with a day’s worth of clean water. When they go back on their phones, the sponsors will make the appropriate donation, and the user can opt to donate themselves or share with and challenge their friends and family on social media (UNICEF USA 2015). And as you can see in this video, people were motivated to react to, (re)make, or re(distribute) (boyd 2010) information about the app in their own ways, as well. The app was a hit, and in March 2016 alone, funding for nearly 4 million days of clean water was unlocked (Dineen 2017).

After a successful run of 10 years worth of positive impact on the lives of so many children, the Tap Project was retired in 2016 (UNICEF USA 2018).

Clearly, while crowdsourcing is a great tactic in business (Business Insider 2014), and a great way to source for real-time news and information - such as regarding dangerous situations like the Syrian War (Platt 2014) - as an ““extension” of traditional journalism, rather than a revolution” (Metzger 2007), and while crowdfunding is a great way for some independant or indie projects to raise funds (Chin, Jones, McNutt & Pebler 2014), there are other ways, such as in the case I have explored here, in which crowdsourcing and crowdfunding among the networked publics online, Can positively impact society itself.

#mda20009 #CrowdsourcingAndCrowdfunding

Troll(s) Under The Bridge

We know the tale (Three Billy Goats Gruff, n.d.): three Billy Goats want to cross a wooden Bridge to get to the other side where all the green is, but there’s this Troll who lives under said bridge, and who would come out and stand in their path, ready to eat them up, upon hearing their steps.

I feel it’s a fitting analogy for modern internet socialisation:

The Bridge The Bridge of Digital Technology. It’s any digital platform that allows for interpersonal interactions, such as Social Media. It affords the formation of digital communities and networked publics, and on which the Private and Public, as well as Boundaries and Borders, are blurred . Mizuko Ito argues that that publics are engaged in shared knowledge and culture through social exchange and media consumption, and can be “reactors, (re)makers, and (re)distributors” (boyd 2010).

The Goats “Ordinary” internet users, who find value and purpose in using this bridge. The Green could be a connection with like-minded people, or a sense of belonging and acceptance. Community and fulfillment.

The Troll “Trolls” who dwell right under the surface, in the the slightly murkier part of the internet. They’re always looking to disturb and “eat up” the Goats on the Bridge....even if you can’t see them, you know that they’re there.

When I first came upon the term, I’d thought of a Troll as someone who’s deliberately being mean-spirited, or who deliberately makes alternative comments to express or provoke dissent, because they mean to cause harm. However, according to Buckels, Trapnel & Paulhus (2014), Online Trolling is

“the practice of behaving in a deceptive, destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the Internet with no apparent instrumental purpose”

and that they’re more like the “Trickster archetype of ancient folklore” that operate as “agents of chaos”, exploiting “hot-button issues” to trivialise users. They also note that if someone were to succumb to the Trolls’ traps, trolling would intensify for “further, merciless amusement” (Buckels, Trapnel & Paulhus, 2014). This means that unlike my initial belief, Trolling usually does not involve a personal vendetta, and is not spiteful for the sake of being spiteful - the focus is more on sowing some chaos because they like doing so, rather than on the actual resulting hurt they can cause. Trolls also usually do not know their victims, and actually deny any connection between their real and cyber identities (Zezulka & Seigfried-Spellar, 2016). I think for that reason, they can be sidestepped, or sometimes, even stopped when faced head-on. This lack of a “pointed” purpose in their attacks also distinguishes Trolling from Cyberbullying, which is defined as

“an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and overtime against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself” (Zezulka & Seigfried-Spellar, 2016)

and, by Dan Olweus, as comprising of three core components:

“aggression, repetition, and imbalance in power” (boyd, 2014)

One definition identifies victims as being unable to easily defend themselves, while the latter identifies the aggressor as someone with “differential physical or social power”, and I think they are compatible in the sense that someone would be unable to defend themselves easily Because they’re comparatively lacking in physical or social power. If we go by the tale, then, while we have the Troll, Cyberbullies would be predatory Birds who come and peck at the Goats, repeatedly, relentlessly, and purposefully, and because they’re creatures of the air, with the Goats on a lower ground, the Goats are thus helpless in defending themselves. Although both are forms of harassment, and the media and the public tend to use the term “cyberbullying” as an umbrella term, they do differ in definition.

Case #1 - Trolling of Celebrities

Trolling is often associated with sadism, and Trolls use digital technology to satisfy their sadistic urges (Buckels, Trapnel & Paulhus, 2014). They’ve existed even before the advent of the internet - think of hecklers in magic shows - but now, the anonymity of the internet and its various functions, have afforded them a space with more freedom to exercise their urges. All celebrities have haters, but they’re less likely to encounter them in real life. On social media, they are far more susceptible to Trolling behaviour. Many have left social media (Cohen, 2014) because of relentless Trolling, expressing they’d rather not have harassment from the publics on social media, in their lives. Sometimes, they leave because of a final straw on the camel’s back - insensitivity to a trigger issue. An example would be Matt Lucas’ case.

A teenager joked about the suicide of his former partner, to which Lucas had responded in a series of messages, before quitting Twitter altogether, even though the teenager had by then

responded to him directly (Leach, 2012) , saying

“ @RealMattLucas I never actually sent this to you. I only put it up as a joke for my friends to see. I didnt mean to be a **** sorry Matt.”

The purpose of the Troll is obvious: personal pleasure, not to hurt intentionally. Trolls sometimes seem unaware their posts might be read, and often apologise and backtrack when their target responds, such as seen when Abhishek Bachchan was called “Useless” (HT Correspondent, 2018) by a troll. The following exchange ensued:

Lucas returned to Twitter around a year later (Star, 2013).

Case #2 -Makergate: The Cyberbullying of Naomi Wu

Cyberbullying is different:

Naomi “@realsexycyborg” Wu is a tech engineer and designer, or maker, from China. Dale Dougherty is the CEO of Maker Media and founder of Make Magazine, and understandably, a big personality within the Maker community. Dougherty started the issue by tweeting and propagating doubt about Wu being an actual person (Gaudette 2017), and claimed to have proof she wasn’t.

He harrassed her online for weeks, and other makers joined in, with there even being a “debunking” post that has since also been disproven (Gaudette, 2017). This event shed light on the stereotyping, misogyny and sexism within the maker community, and Is a case of cyberbullying, not only because it was directed squarely at her, and was relentless, but also because Wu, being female, is a minority within the maker community, and has far less clout and social power than Dougherty, the instigator. A blog post by another maker, Bunnie (2017), is very insightful about the harassment and its aftereffects, and it also notes how prior to Dougherty making active accusations of fraud, Wu had dogged him and Make about the lack of representation of women, a fact supported by this analysis on “prototype bias” by Leah Buechley:

In this case, real life behaviour carried on into the cyber world. I first read about this case when it was fresh, and many other Makers weighed in on it. The comments at the bottom of the blog post reflected, and in fact still reflect, this misogyny and sexism, even after Dougherty admitted he was wrong, apologised, and took steps to rectify some of the damage he had caused.

While social media sites do have guidelines by which they monitor and filter out hate speech linked to trolling and cyberbullying, it is like a cart made of wooden sticks the Goats can ride across the bridge in - it protects a little, but is by no means a cure-all; if we rely on bots or Artificial Intelligence, these are fallible, because AI learns through keywords and input, and would not recognise more “human” nuances (Moller & X, 2018). The bottom line is, so long as the Goat wants to use the Bridge, it is in danger of the Trolls and the Birds.

#mda20009 #TrollingAndSocialMediaConflict

Activism and Protest: Only A Hashtag?

It’s true that acts of protests and advocacy can ignite wherever there are networked publics, when groups of individuals connect and gather around common grievances and “find symbols under which to organise” (Sigal & Biddle, 2015). As we know, digital technology has enabled the formation of numerous networked publics, in spite of physical boundaries, and as such, has over the years, become an increasingly common tool for activists. Sigal & Biddle (2015) indicates that while learning from preceding movements has seen activists seek out simple and widely available technology solutions to supplement more analogue communication methods, they also point out that digital technology could actually be a threat to protesters, and that it isn’t right to hinge the success of particular movements on the use of digital technology, rather than on the human stories behind the movements. True, digital technology tailored for the purposes of activism and protest are often Not used, in favour of more mainstream platforms like social media, and there Are problems that can arise from this. However, it’s also undeniable that overall, digital technology’s also benefited social or political movements. At least to a certain extent.

A Louder Voice, Wider Reach

Awhile ago, I digitally signed a petition against the culling of innocent dogs in Kuching (an extreme response to the outbreak of rabies a couple months before). Links to the petition were shared, and it quickly garnered support, beyond our rather small, localised community. My Facebook post about it led to a friend, currently based in the US, asking about the issue - Facebook afforded me the ability to spread awareness about it to a wider audience. And it was a simple, fuss-free and super cost-efficient method that fell neatly into the common tapestry of my daily life. Similarly, other people, whether full-time activists or not, have adopted these platforms over the years to advocate for their causes. Among the features they’ve “hijacked” and re-purposed, is The Hashtag, a feature of social media that utilises labels for content, enabling quick, efficient Searches and linking of posts, as well as easier and faster responses to, or the sharing and redistribution of, texts.

Case 1: #IAmStillAlive

02. 03. 2018

Ahmad Hamdan posted a photo of himself holding up the paw of his cat. It looked like it could be from a relaxing day out in his garden. His caption though, advocated a serious message:

“After more than a thousand air strikes, we have had over 500 victims, wounded 4,000, destroyed 2, 000 houses and became the remaining 400 people trapped in the cellars. We're still alive, living here between death, siege or bombardment. I invite the whole world to stand by us. We launch our campaign today #IAmStillAlive. Invite the world to stand with us.”

It quickly sparked a movement that saw Syrians in Ghouta adopting the hashtag and platform, and posting photos and videos of themselves and their children amidst the hellfire and chaos of the Syrian army’s war against opposition fighters. Each, in a way, became mobile witnesses and citizen journalists.

Social media, particularly Twitter, afforded them a way to communicate a direct, unfiltered view of their reality to the rest of the world, highlighting their raw plight and resilience, as well as bypassing the structured and potentially politically-biased reports of major news agencies. It blurred geographical barriers and sparked action internationally too, with people across the world posting and sharing in solidarity. It also introduced an easy way to speak up about the issue. The virality of this hashtag movement garnered international coverage, further elevating awareness.

14. 03. 2018 Hamdan is reportedly killed in an airstrike. News of this received further coverage and lent even more weight to the situation, something that might not have happened, had he not started #IAmStillAlive.

Marshall (1992) defines citizenship as the rights members of a community have, to participate politically, civilly, and socially. Digital citizenship extends these rights beyond physical boundaries. In this case, the global networked public community could easily react to, re-make or re-distribute texts about this issue affecting its members in Ghouta, on social media, hence enabling them to participate in this political and social movement, regardless of their nationality or geographical location. Digital technology thus proved to be an inexpensive, and powerful tool of engagement and advocacy.

Case 2: #MeToo

Tarana Burke set up activist group Me Too years ago, to help victims of sexual violence. But after the exposure of Harvey Weinstein, Alyssa Milano included “me too” in a tweet, encouraging victims of sexual aggression to use it. It was the external force that sparked an almost immediate elevation of Burke’s work from its grassroots origin. Survivors responded and started sharing their stories, heralding the advent of a huge movement. #MeToo spread like wildfire. Victims of sexual aggression and harassment were connecting and forming communities in the digital space. Those who had feared telling their stories gained new courage and drive from the outpouring of solidarity from the online community – they bonded with each other, and found a sense of belonging and support. And as more victims were encouraged to share their stories, it quickly manifested in real-world consequences, chief of which was the downfall of many powerful figures, particularly men.

The magnitude of #MeToo is such that it has since led to the #TimesUp movement, rallies and protests.

It has even spread to other countries, including relatively conservative China and Korea, where such topics are usually taboo. The latter saw various public figures of power, particularly politicians and veterans of the the entertainment industry, named and shamed as sexual aggressors. It sparked confessions and formal investigations. It also led to a rally by the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions for women labourers on International Women’s Day.

In both cases, it is clear that digital communities formed and organised themselves around the Hashtags, propelling the movements they represented into public consciousness. Would people have been just as aware of, or felt the same about, the victims of the Syrian civil war, if not for #IAmStillAlive? I think it unlikely. The hashtag feature definitely afforded Hamdan and his people an immediately wider reach, as well as increased visibility and voice. Not only did they bypass the structured reporting of major media outlets, these same media outlets received footage and facts they otherwise might not have had access to. It also afforded foreign supporters this same benefit of immediacy, visibility, and unrestricted voice. The same can be said for the participants of #MeToo.

There are downsides to digital technology in the context of activism, of course. Burke had her misgivings about #MeToo, noting that “social media is not a safe space” (Brockes 2018); although she now recognises the de-stigmatising effect of #MeToo as outweighing the risks of doing nothing, she was concerned that victims would be “poorly served” by the publicity. And she has a point. Because social media is a space in which the Private and Public are blurred. For many victims and survivors, social media has afforded them a way to redefine their experiences in terms of how violated they felt their rights had been, rather than in terms of the law, as well as a way to engage and speak up while avoiding direct public, or legislative and investigative, scrutiny and doubt. At the same time, however, it has also inversely afforded trolls the same platform to band together, speak up, or to target these very victims or the movement itself. This is an aftereffect that some victims have experienced and feel keenly about. Digital space, wide as it is, also provides little security, structure, law and censorship, and the protection of anonymity, in its blurring of boundaries. It affords the formation of a “public court”, in which immediate and public judgement of The Accused is passed, depending on which party is given the benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether the allegations are true or false. There are also groups of people who opine that #MeToo works too much against all men, in that it allows for immediate and public judgement without any proper investigation into facts, possibly resulting in extreme consequences for minor transgressions, or untrue allegations (Sullivan 2018).

Is It “Only a Hashtag”?

Well, Sigal & Biddle (2015) presents a view in which technology often overshadows the human stories and symbols behind activists’ causes. But despite its apparent shortcomings, I now posit that while that may be the case in some instances - like the Umbrella Protests in Hong Kong, in which FireChat gained attention for how it was hijacked by activists because of its unique characteristics - in others, like in #IAmStillAlive, #MeToo, and other movements like #BlackLivesMatter, a common function (Hashtagging) of common digital technology (social media sites) has provided activists with a tool that does Not overshadow existing symbols, but rather, affords activists the easy formation of new Symbols. Instead of overshadowing the stories, the Hashtags have become beacons and immediately recognisable umbrella terms and avenues, under which individual activists and participants of the movements converge and Share their stories. They can quickly engage with said movement and with each other, and through which they can easily amplify their Voices, whether to raise awareness or disseminate their alternative views. It is clear, even in media coverage, that while it is acknowledged that these movements are happening on social media, it is treated almost in passing as just another method, and focus is still placed on the people these causes champion (Zacharek, Dockterman & Edwards 2017) in a way that they had not been before. I think this comes following not only the advancement of digital technology, but the increasing digital literacy and dependency of the world’s population. And I can only see digital technology continuing to evolve as a tool for activism in the future.

#mda20009 #ActivismAndProtest

the-art-of-protest

I think the issue with watching the news and relying it on for your information is you give the agency of gathering information and learning about the world around you critically into the hands of others.

To the point, they tell you what to believe, what to be vengeful about, what feelings to have given a certain people or situation.

They also control the amount of rage you should have about anything, or what you should hold valuable.

The common phrase of “what haven’t I heard about the news” is becoming tiresome.

It’s your responsibility to know, and you should seek out that information and use the tools given to you to critically think about it or not.

threesquaresuns-blog

#Truth