ketchuppiee

[ketchuppiee]

The Dark Side of Digital Citizenship: Online Conflict, the Manosphere & Gaslighting 🌐🔥

Introduction 🖥️💬

The internet was supposed to bring people together, but instead, it has become a battleground for ideological clashes, misinformation, and harassment. As digital citizens, we engage daily in online spaces where these conflicts unfold—whether it’s through heated political debates, toxic subcultures like the manosphere, or manipulative tactics like gaslighting. While social media platforms promise connection and free expression, they often fail to curb online harassment and harmful rhetoric. So, how do we navigate this space while maintaining a healthy, informed, and ethical digital presence?

Let’s take a deeper dive into these issues.

🔥 Online Harassment & Cyberbullying

Online harassment is widespread and harmful, affecting people across all demographics. According to Jones et al. (2013: 54), online harassment is defined as:

“Threats or other offensive unwanted behaviours targeted directly at others through new technology channels (e.g. Internet, text messaging) or posted online for others to see that is likely to cause them harm, unintentionally or otherwise.”

Online harassment can take many forms, from spreading malicious rumors and sending abusive messages to non-consensual sharing of private content. Hate speech and incitement of violence also fall under this category, particularly when motivated by prejudice against gender, race, religion, or other identities. Studies show that women are disproportionately affected by online harassment (Pew Research Centre, 2017; Southern & Harmer, 2019). A YouGov survey (Smith, 2018) found that 40% of British women (aged 18–34) had received unsolicited sexual images, compared to 26% of men. These digital abuses are often seen as extensions of offline gender-based violence (Gillett, 2018).

The psychological impact of online harassment is severe. Victims frequently experience stress, anxiety, panic attacks, and, in extreme cases, suicidal thoughts (Amnesty International UK, 2017; Lenhart et al., 2016). Many withdraw from digital spaces entirely, a phenomenon known as the silencing effect, which disproportionately impacts marginalized groups (Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2016; Jane, 2018; Megarry, 2014).

📢 Read More: The Impact of Cyberbullying

🚹 The Rise of the Manosphere

The manosphere is a loosely connected network of online communities that claim to support men’s issues but often veer into misogynistic rhetoric. Emerging as a reaction to feminism and social changes, these spaces present themselves as a refuge for men struggling with romantic rejection, financial insecurity, and lack of strong role models. While some groups focus on self-improvement and personal growth, many others cultivate resentment by blaming feminism and female empowerment for male disenfranchisement. This zero-sum perspective frames gender equality as a threat rather than a step toward social balance (Aiston, 2021).

Many young men don’t initially enter these spaces out of hatred but as a response to feelings of loneliness or exclusion. The manosphere provides them with explanations—albeit flawed ones—for their struggles, reinforcing a worldview where men must "fight back" against a perceived loss of power. Influencers play a significant role in this, using social media algorithms to target vulnerable individuals and pull them deeper into radicalized communities (Rich & Bujalka, 2023).

Addressing the manosphere requires more than simple dismissal or ostracization. Efforts to push people out of these spaces often reinforce their narratives of persecution. Instead, fostering empathy and providing alternative support systems can help steer men toward healthier communities that genuinely address their concerns without fueling misogyny and division.

🌀 Gaslighting & Manipulation in Digital Spaces

Gaslighting, originally named after the 1944 film Gaslight, refers to a psychological manipulation tactic where an individual makes someone else doubt their perception of reality. In digital spaces, gaslighting has become a tool for misinformation, abuse, and social control, used in political debates, online relationships, and media narratives. It often manifests through repeated denial of facts, reframing of events, and undermining of a person’s confidence in their memory or judgment (Gleeson, 2018).

The rise of misinformation on social media has made gaslighting more prevalent than ever. Politicians and public figures frequently use it to deflect criticism, altering narratives to make their opponents seem irrational or uninformed. In personal relationships, digital gaslighting can take the form of abusive partners manipulating conversations, erasing digital evidence, or making their victims question their own experiences. Social media influencers and viral posts also contribute by spreading misleading information, capitalizing on emotional reactions rather than truth.

Gaslighting not only erodes trust but also weakens critical thinking. When people are repeatedly exposed to manipulated realities, they become more susceptible to misinformation and coercion. Recognizing gaslighting tactics and fostering media literacy are essential to maintaining autonomy and making informed digital choices.

📢 Read More: Understanding Gaslighting

The internet is a double-edged sword—it connects us, but it also amplifies toxicity, misinformation, and radicalization. By understanding online harassment, the manosphere, and gaslighting, we can navigate digital spaces with awareness, empathy, and critical thinking.

REFERENCES

Aiston, J. (2021, October 4). What is the manosphere and why is it a concern? | Internet Matters. Www.internetmatters.org. https://www.internetmatters.org/hub/news-blogs/what-is-the-manosphere-and-why-is-it-a-concern/

Amnesty International UK. (2017). Online abuse of women widespread in UK. Www.amnesty.org.uk. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/online-abuse-women-widespread

Banet-Weiser, S., & Miltner, K. M. (2015). #MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), 171–174.

Gillett, R. (2018). Intimate intrusions online: Studying the normalisation of abuse in dating apps. Women’s Studies International Forum, 69, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2018.04.005

Gleeson, J. (2018). Explainer: what does “gaslighting” mean? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-gaslighting-mean-107888

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

Jane, E. (2018, October 24). Gendered cyberhate- a new digital divide? ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328474307_Gendered_cyberhate-_a_new_digital_divide

Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2013). Online harassment in context: Trends from three Youth Internet Safety Surveys (2000, 2005, 2010). Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030309

Lenhart, A., Ybarra, M., Zickuhr, K., & Price-Feeney, M. (2016, November 21). Online Harassment, Digital Abuse, and Cyberstalking in America. Data & Society. https://datasociety.net/library/online-harassment-digital-abuse-cyberstalking/

Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Forum, 47(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2014.07.012

Pew Research Center. (2017, July 11). Online harassment 2017. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/

Rich, B., & Bujalka, E. (2023, February 12). The draw of the “manosphere”: understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-draw-of-the-manosphere-understanding-andrew-tates-appeal-to-lost-men-199179

Smith, M. (2018, November 19). Four in ten young women have been sent unsolicited sexual images | YouGov. Yougov.co.uk. https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/21937-four-ten-young-women-have-been-sent-unsolicited-se

Southern, R., & Harmer, E. (2021). Digital microaggressions and everyday othering: an analysis of tweets sent to women members of Parliament in the UK. Information, Communication & Society, 24(14), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1962941

Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American sociological review, 84(5), 851-875.

[ketchuppiee]

Melbourne: The Heart of Australia’s Indie Game Scene 🎮✨

Melbourne isn’t just the city—it’s a hotspot for indie game development, bursting with creativity, collaboration, and experimental ideas. Every November, the city transforms into a global gaming hub with Melbourne International Games Week (MIGW), where industry professionals, indie devs, and gamers alike come together to celebrate the art of video games.

From Games Connect Asia Pacific (GCAP) to PAX Australia and the Freeplay Independent Games Festival, MIGW highlights the diverse and dynamic gaming culture that defines Melbourne (Bourdieu, 1983; Keogh, 2019). But what makes Melbourne’s game development scene truly unique? Let’s dive in.

Melbourne’s Unique Indie Game Culture 🎨🔍

Unlike Montreal’s well-structured creative cluster, Melbourne’s game development industry has historically operated in isolated silos (Darchen & Tremblay, 2014). However, over time, these silos have transformed into a thriving network of indie developers. The Australian industry underwent a massive shift in the early 2010s when nearly every large studio shut down, leaving indie developers to redefine what game-making could be. Today, Melbourne accounts for over half of Australia’s entire game development industry (GDAA, 2018).

With a mix of corporate studios, co-working spaces, artist collectives, solo developers, and community-driven events, Melbourne is now home to a variety of game-making approaches—each contributing to the city's cultural and artistic identity.

More Than Just “Indie” – A Network of Scenes 🕹️

Melbourne’s game-making scene isn’t one single community—it’s a web of overlapping subcultures, each with its own identity (Keogh, 2021).

The Arcade Scene – Professional & Collaborative 💼🎮

One of the most visible parts of Melbourne’s indie game culture is The Arcade—a co-working space for game developers, run by the Game Developers Association of Australia.

✅ Provides affordable office space for small game teams. ✅ Encourages collaboration and knowledge-sharing. ✅ Serves as a central hub for government and industry recognition.

By creating a physical space for game devs, The Arcade has given Melbourne’s indie scene a level of professionalization and visibility that few other indie hubs worldwide have.

The Bar SK Scene – Playfulness Over Profit 🍻🎨

At the other end of the spectrum lies Bar SK, a now-iconic venue that celebrated experimental and alternative games.

✅ Hosted “trash video games” and media art. ✅ Focused on self-expression rather than commercialization. ✅ Provided a countercultural space for artists and developers.

Bar SK was more than just a bar—it was a statement. It challenged traditional notions of game-making and provided a space where devs could experiment without the pressure of monetization.

Challenges & The Future of Melbourne’s Indie Scene 🚀

Despite its success, Melbourne’s indie scene faces significant challenges:

🔹 Lack of Large Publishers – Unlike major gaming hubs, Melbourne has few big publishers, making financial stability harder to achieve. 🔹 Overproduction vs. Market Demand – There are more developers than the market can sustain, leading many to rely on alternative income sources. 🔹 Creative vs. Commercial Tension – Some developers aim for financial success, while others focus purely on artistic expression.

Research on Canadian indie developers suggests that many teams prioritize sustainability over rapid growth, a mindset that aligns closely with Melbourne’s industry culture (Keogh, 2021).

That said, Melbourne remains a global model for community-driven innovation. With support from government funding, grassroots events, and tight-knit creative networks, the city continues to prove that indie game development isn’t just about making games—it’s about making culture (Banks & Cunningham, 2016).

🌟 What do you think? Is Melbourne the future of indie game development?

REFERENCES

Banks, J., & Cunningham, S. (2016). Creative destruction in the Australian videogames industry. Media International Australia, 160(1), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x16653488

Bourdieu, P. (1983). The field of cultural production, or: The economic world reversed. Poetics, 12(4-5), 311–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(83)90012-8

Darchen, S., & Tremblay, D.-G. (2014). Policies for Creative Clusters: A Comparison between the Video Game Industries in Melbourne and Montreal. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.865712

GDAA. (2018). Game... - Game Developers’ Association of Australia. Facebook.com. https://www.facebook.com/GameDevAssocAus/photos/a.1943622552593569/2042164869406003/

Keogh, B. (2019). The Cultural Field of Video Game Production in Australia. Games and Culture, 16(1), 155541201987374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412019873746

[ketchuppiee]

Digital Citizenship & Software Literacy: Instagram Filters ✨📱

What Are Filters? 🧐

Filters do more than just add a glow or funny effect to your selfie. The term "filter" describes how technology alters, distorts, or removes certain information in digital culture (Rettberg, 2014, p. 21). They shape our online identities, reinforcing beauty ideals, influencing self-perception, and even raising concerns about privacy.

The Evolution of Snapchat & Instagram Filters 🔄

Remember when Snapchat was all about raw, unedited moments? That changed in 2015, when AR beauty filters took over (Barker, 2020). Instagram followed in 2017, introducing face filters in Stories (Instagram, 2017). What started as playful effects quickly became tools for digital perfection—transforming authenticity into unattainable beauty standards.

Filters & The Beauty Industry 💄🛍

For centuries, cosmetics have been used to enhance features and shape beauty standards. Today, we don’t even need physical makeup—filters give us flawless skin, perfect contours, and sculpted features in seconds.

But while filters may seem like harmless fun, they reinforce unrealistic beauty standards, intensify self-consciousness, and blur the line between entertainment and advertising.

So, let’s take a closer look at how filters mimic the beauty industry, their psychological impact, and their role in marketing and consumer influence.

Beauty Filters as Marketing Tools 🎯

L’Oréal launched the first sponsored beauty filter to promote their eyeliner

Urban Decay also creates beauty filters to promote their products

There are also others brands, creating their own "try on"beauty filters

Beauty filters aren’t just a type of entertainment anymore —they’re being used to promote, to sell products for brands . Brands use AR filters to let users "try on" makeup before buying, increasing engagement and sales (Barker, 2020).

But surprisingly, this method works, these filters work and it works effectively bringing in the profit and benefit for the brands

Urban Decay’s lipstick filter reached 27 million users, with people spending an average of 35 seconds interacting with it

Benefit’s eyebrow filter had 38 million interactions and increased purchase intent by 18%

We can see that 

Unlike traditional ads, These filters make users a part of the advertisement—they don’t just see the product through the device's screens, but they also have a chance to experience it on their own face

This leads to higher brand recall, more engagement, and increased product sales

Brands capitalize on insecurities created by beauty filters, offering real-world solutions through makeup and beauty products. Which means, The filter gives users a problem (the flawless digital beauty they can’t achieve in real life) , then sells them the solution (beauty products to fix the problem, to get closer to the flawless digital beauty) 

Reinforcing Beauty Ideals 🪞

Filters don’t just add fun effects—they follow the same beauty trends as the cosmetics industry.

Think about the most common beauty filters on social media platforms, they all have:

Skin smoothing – similar to foundation and airbrushing.

Face contouring – mimicking bronzer and highlighter.

Bigger eyes, fuller lips, and sculpted jawlines 

Filters create a digitally perfected version of ourselves, subtly encouraging us to believe that we should look like this all the time  (Barker, 2020). And the problem here is, this airbrushed look is unattainable in real life. And yet, the more we see it, the more we internalize these beauty standards (Andrada, 2025)—leading to increased pressure to “fix” our real faces through makeup, editing, or even plastic surgery.

Social media normalizes plastic surgery in a dangerous way

The Psychological Impact of Filters 🧠💔

Filters don’t just change our appearance, the way we look outside, but they also change how we feel, and think about ourselves (Barker, 2020). They make us hyper-aware of imperfections we might not have noticed before, they create a fear of being seen without enhancement (Shein, 2021), and make the natural beauty seem inadequate. This constant comparison can lower self-esteem, increase anxiety, and distorted self-perception

📸 Ever felt amazing with a filter, then disappointed looking in the mirror? That’s called Digitized Dysmorphia.

What is Digitized Dysmorphia? 😞

💭 Dr. Isabelle Coy-Dibley describes it as the widening gap between our filtered and real selves (Tukker, 2022).

The more we use beauty filters, the more our real face feels "wrong."

Filters create insecurities → Then offer "fixes" through filters and beauty products.

The cycle continues, distorting self-perception and leading to anxiety.

Filters & Biometric Surveillance 🕵️‍♂️

Most people think of filters as just a way to have fun. But every time you use one, Filter is scanning and mapping your face. Jill Rettberg (2017) calls this “Biometric Citizenship.” On the other hand, our faces are not just our identities—they are data. Instagram and other companies are collecting this data, training AI to recognize faces and track expressions.

Why does this matter? Because facial recognition isn’t just for fun—it’s used in: Security systems (airports, police databases) Marketing (targeted ads based on your facial features) Even financial transactions (MasterCard’s “Selfie Pay”) So, filters aren’t just about beauty. It also belongs to each person's privacy and security.

Filters & Digital Citizenship 🌍

Filters reshape how we see ourselves and how technology sees us. They challenge digital authenticity by: ✔ Altering self-image & reinforcing unattainable beauty ideals (Rettberg, 2014; Hyman, 2025). ✔ Contributing to Digitized Dysmorphia (Rettberg, 2017). ✔ Influencing consumer behavior & societal beauty standards. ✔ Raising ethical concerns about privacy & biometric data collection.

💡 While filters distort self-esteem, they also empower creators to explore self-expression and inclusivity. But software literacy is crucial—we must recognize manipulated content, address privacy concerns, and make informed digital choices (Rettberg, 2014, 2017; Hyman, 2025).

🌟 What do you think? Are filters harmless fun or a deeper issue? Let’s discuss! 👇💬

REFERENCES

Andrada, G. (2025). Beauty Filters in Self-Perception: The Distorted Mirror Gazing Hypothesis. Topoi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10149-1

Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of snapchat. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

Hyman, D. (2025). School Manager by Family Zone. Ksbw.com. https://www.ksbw.com/article/snapchat-celebrates-marie-curie-with-new-filter-but-folks-arent-happy/9108521

Instagram. (2017). Introducing Face Filters & More on Instagram | Instagram Blog. About.instagram.com. https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-face-filters-and-more-on-instagram

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Filtered Reality. Seeing Ourselves through Technology. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661.0004

Rettberg, J. W. (2017). Biometric Citizens: Adapting Our Selfies to Machine Vision. Selfie Citizenship, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45270-8_10

Shein, E. (2021, November 1). Filtering for Beauty – Communications of the ACM. COMMUNICATIONS of the ACM. https://cacm.acm.org/news/filtering-for-beauty/

Tukker, S. (2022). Meta-Critique: Critiquing Visions on the Female Body on Instagram. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12932/42010/Thesis%20-%20Sanne%20Tukker%20-%206255426%20-%20Meta-Critique.pdf?sequence=1

[ketchuppiee]

WEEK 7 - Digital Citizenship and Health Education: Body Modification on Visual Social Media ✨💻

Social media has reshaped how we see ourselves - literally. With platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat prioritizing visual content, body image ideals are no longer dictated by magazines or celebrities alone but by algorithms, influencers, and digital filters. This shift has had profound effects on body modification trends, self-esteem, and health education in the digital age. As responsible digital citizens, how can we navigate this space while protecting our mental and physical well-being? 🤔💭  

The Algorithmic Influence on Beauty Norms 🤖📲

Ever noticed that your feed is filled with the same aesthetic - perfectly contoured faces, flawless skin, and hourglass figures? That’s not a coincidence. Algorithms prioritize and amplify certain beauty ideals, shaping what we see as "normal" or "desirable." Research by Duffy & Meisner (2022) highlights how platform governance and algorithmic (in)visibility play a role in what content gets promoted and what gets suppressed. This curated beauty standard pushes users to alter their appearances, whether through photo editing apps, cosmetic procedures, or excessive fitness trends. When certain body types or features are consistently favored by algorithms, users may feel pressured to conform - leading to an increase in body dissatisfaction, anxiety, and even eating disorders 🚨💄

Algorithmic (In)Visibility & Marginalized Bodies 🚫📉

Social media doesn’t just shape beauty standards - it also decides who gets visibility. Platform governance and algorithmic bias significantly influence what content is promoted and what is suppressed.

🔹 The Power of Algorithms in Visibility & Suppression

Content that aligns with popular beauty trends is often boosted by algorithms, contributing to its visibility and potential virality.

Conversely, shadowbanning and biased algorithmic suppression affect marginalized creators, including plus-size, disabled, and gender-nonconforming users. Many report unexplained declines in engagement or outright content removal (Are, 2021) (Cotter, 2021).

Platformed indices of visibility (views, likes, shares) are directly tied to monetization, meaning marginalized creators often struggle financially due to suppression.

🔹 Unequal Platform Governance & Content Punishment

Platforms enforce content moderation inconsistently. LGBTQ+ creators and Black influencers have reported unfair demonetization or removal of content, even when similar content from mainstream creators remains untouched (Duffy & Meisner, 2022) (Romano, 2019).

Formal governance mechanisms (flags, content removals, account suspensions) and informal punishments (shadowbans, suppressed reach) disproportionately affect creators discussing social issues.

Self-censorship is common—many creators avoid certain words, topics, or hashtags to prevent algorithmic suppression.

For instance, TikTok comedian Ziggi Tyler garnered widespread media attention after discovering a key mechanism through which Black creators are censored: an algorithm linked to the much-hyped Creator Marketplace was blocking queries for the term "Black", including references to "Black Live Matter" (Colombo, 2021)

Some creators believe human biases coded into AI systems result in discriminatory content moderation policies, favoring white, cisgender, conventionally attractive influencers.

By amplifying certain body types and suppressing others, social media platforms reinforce narrow beauty ideals and hinder diversity in body representation. This uneven playing field forces marginalized creators into a constant battle for visibility while benefiting those who fit conventional beauty standards. 🏳️‍🌈💪

📸 Follow: @meganjaynecrabbe for body positivity content

Promoting a Healthier Digital Citizenship 🌿📖

So, how do we challenge toxic beauty norms and promote a healthier digital culture? Here’s what we can do as responsible digital citizens:

🔹 Educate Ourselves on Digital Literacy & AI Bias – Algorithms aren’t neutral; they reflect societal biases. Understanding how they shape beauty standards helps us consume content more critically. 🧠📚 🔹 Support Body Positivity & Ethical AI – Follow and uplift diverse creators who challenge unrealistic beauty standards. Push platforms for fairer algorithms and transparency in content moderation. 💪🌎 🔹 Practice Self-Awareness & Media Mindfulness – Ask yourself: "Would I feel the same way about my body if I didn’t use social media?" Take breaks, engage with unfiltered content, and prioritize self-love over social validation. 💖🌿

REFERENCES

Are, C. (2021). The Shadowban Cycle: an autoethnography of pole dancing, nudity and censorship on Instagram. Feminist Media Studies, 22(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2021.1928259

Colombo, C. (2021, July 9). TikTok has apologized for a “significant error” after a video that suggested racial bias in its algorithm went viral. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/tiktok-racism-algorithm-apology-creator-marketplace-ziggy-tyler-2021-7

Cotter, K. (2021). “Shadowbanning is not a thing”: black box gaslighting and the power to independently know and credibly critique algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 26(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1994624

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society, 45(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923

Romano, A. (2019, October 10). YouTubers claim the site systematically demonetizes LGBTQ content. Vox; Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/10/10/20893258/youtube-lgbtq-censorship-demonetization-nerd-city-algorithm-report

[ketchuppiee]

Digital Citizenship Case Study: Social Media Influencers and The Slow Fashion Movement

The Rise of Slow Fashion: A Movement for Change 🌿✨

The fashion industry is at a crossroads. While consumers are becoming increasingly aware of sustainability concerns, fast fashion continues to dominate the market, contributing to pollution, unethical labor practices, and overconsumption. Enter Slow Fashion - a movement that challenges the status quo by prioritizing quality, ethics, and sustainability over fleeting trends. But what exactly is slow fashion, and why does it matter?

What is Slow Fashion? 🧵♻️

Slow fashion represents a fundamental shift in values, encouraging brands to embrace durability over speed, ethics over exploitation, and sustainability over waste. Unlike fast fashion, which thrives on rapidly changing trends and mass production, slow fashion focuses on:

✅ High-quality, long-lasting garments 👗 ✅ Ethical production & fair wages 💰 ✅ Sustainable materials & minimal waste 🌎 ✅ Timeless designs over short-lived trends ⏳

"The movement encourages brands to embrace a quality-based rather than a time-based business philosophy." — Domingos et al., 2022

The Environmental & Social Impact of Fashion 🌍💔

🌱 Environmental Impact

Did you know that the fashion industry is one of the biggest polluters on the planet? Here’s why:

🚨 Trend cycles have accelerated - brands like Zara release new collections every 15 days, compared to only two collections per year decades ago! This leads to an explosion of clothing waste. 🚨 Fast fashion encourages overconsumption - Between 1996 and 2012, the average consumer increased clothing purchases by 40%, worsening environmental damage (Domingos et al., 2022). 🚨 Toxic chemicals in production - The dyes and materials used can harm both workers and the ecosystem. 🚨 Unsold products go to waste - Many fast fashion brands burn or discard unsold inventory, adding to landfill overflow.

However, Unlike fast fashion, which encourages overproduction and waste, slow fashion promotes sustainability through:

🌿 Lower production volumes, reducing resource depletion and pollution. 🌿 Durable, high-quality materials, leading to longer garment lifespans and less textile waste. 🌿 Eco-friendly fabrics like organic cotton, hemp, and linen, which reduce water and chemical use. 🌿 Minimal waste production, often utilizing zero-waste or circular fashion approaches.

Slow fashion brands reject the throwaway culture by focusing on timeless styles rather than short-lived trends. This shift towards sustainability is essential in mitigating the environmental damage caused by fashion. The Slow Fashion movement represents the need to adopt sustainable performance in the fashion industry. It aims to focus more on durable products and traditional production techniques or designs, emphasizing quality to achieve sustainability (Domingos et al., 2022).

👩‍🔧 Social Impact

Slow fashion not only protects the planet but also prioritizes ethical treatment of workers. Unlike fast fashion brands that rely on exploitative labor, slow fashion:

👕 Ensures fair wages & safe working conditions for garment workers. 👕 Promotes transparency in the supply chain, ensuring ethical labor practices. 👕 Supports local artisans & small-scale production, fostering craftsmanship over mass production.

By choosing slow fashion, consumers support fair labor rights and help create a fashion industry that values both people and the environment (Domingos et al., 2022).

📸 You can follow @ethicalfashioninitiative - a platform highlighting ethical fashion brands.

Why Slow Fashion is Gaining Momentum 💡👗

The slow fashion movement is not just about clothing—it’s about changing how we consume. Here are some key consumer behaviors driving this shift:

🔍 Ethical Values

This dimension reflects the core values that influence Slow Fashion consumers, including functionality, exclusivity, equity, locality, and authenticity. Research indicates that perceived values such as authenticity, locality, and exclusivity play a significant role in shaping the purchasing intentions of Turkish consumers. Similarly, Kazakhstani consumers are influenced by equity, functionality, locality, and exclusivity, which enhance their willingness to buy Slow Fashion products and pay premium prices (Domingos et al., 2022).

♻️ Sustainable Consumption

This reflects consumers' awareness of the fashion industry's impact on workers and society, their interest in product origins, and their desire to break away from fast-changing trends in favor of longer-lasting clothing. It also encompasses a preference for fair trade, organic products, and sustainable production practices. Additionally, sustainable consumption is closely linked to environmental and social responsibility.

✨ Consumer Motivations

A key driver of Slow Fashion adoption? The desire for uniqueness. Research highlights several motivations behind this preference:

👗 Classic & Exclusive Designs – Consumers are drawn to timeless, high-quality pieces that reflect sophistication and maturity (Santos, 2009; Giglio, 2015; Vigneron & Johnson, 2004).

💎 A Sense of Sophistication & Individuality – The appeal of exclusivity fosters a willingness to pay more for garments that stand out and align with personal identity (Chi et al., 2021).

💰 Higher Perceived Value – Consumers associate Slow Fashion with durability and sustainability, reinforcing their purchasing intentions (Chi et al., 2021).

Additionally, some researchers argue that Slow Fashion is linked to self-image and social identity, where individuals seek to differentiate themselves from mainstream trends, enhancing self-esteem through a distinctive style (Zarley Watson & Yan, 2013; Yoo & Lee, 2009).

✨ Consumer Attitudes

🌍 Growing Awareness of Environmental & Social Issues – Consumers are increasingly mindful of sustainability, prioritizing recycling, reuse, and ethical purchasing decisions.

🔍 Transparency & Corporate Responsibility – Concern for brand integrity drives demand for clearer communication and accountability in ethical and sustainable practices.

🏡 Support for Local Communities – Consumers favor brands that contribute to local economies and uphold fair labor practices.

Research highlights key factors shaping ethical fashion perception: ✅ Environmental Responsibility – The impact of production on nature and resources. ✅ Employee & Animal Welfare – Fair working conditions and cruelty-free practices. ✅ Durability & Materials – Clothing perceived as ethical often aligns with long-lasting, high-quality fabrics (Chi et al., 2021).

📈 Positive Attitudes Drive Purchases – A strong appreciation for Slow Fashion’s values significantly increases purchase intention, as consumers recognize its long-term benefits (Chi et al., 2021).

✨ Sustainability Awareness

Growing awareness of fashion’s social and environmental impact is driving interest in Slow Fashion, reshaping consumer values and purchasing habits. As demand for sustainability, ethical production, and corporate responsibility rises, consumers also seek to balance style with recycling and reuse. However, challenges like cost, accessibility, and ingrained habits still hinder widespread adoption.

The Challenges of Slow Fashion ⚠️

1️⃣ The Gap Between Intentions & Actions

Although many consumers say they care about sustainability, their buying habits don’t always reflect that. A 2009 study in Finland found that while people consider ethical concerns while shopping, their final purchases are often driven by style and price (Niinimäki, 2010).

2️⃣ Barriers to Adoption

Despite growing interest, slow fashion faces three major obstacles:

💰 Price Sensitivity—Not everyone can afford higher-priced, ethically made clothing. 👗 Style Preferences—Consumers may feel that slow fashion offers fewer trendy options. 🛍 Availability—Fast fashion is everywhere, while slow fashion brands are harder to find.

📌 Check out sustainable brands here - they rate fashion companies on ethics & sustainability.

Slow fashion is more than a trend—it’s a necessary shift towards sustainability, ethics, and quality. While challenges like pricing and availability remain, consumer awareness is growing, and with the help of social media and activism, we can all make better choices.

🌿 Will you join the movement? Let’s discuss in the comments! 👇💬

REFERENCES

Chi, T., Gerard, J., Yu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). A study of U.S. consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 14(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2021.1872714

Domingos, M., Vale, V. T., & Faria, S. (2022). Slow Fashion Consumer Behavior: A Literature Review. Sustainability , 14(286). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052860

GIGLIO, E. M. (2015). GIGLIO, Ernesto Michelangelo - O Comportamento Do Consumidor. Scribd. https://www.scribd.com/doc/269575045/GIGLIO-Ernesto-Michelangelo-O-Comportamento-Do-Consumidor

Niinimäki, K. (2010). Eco-clothing, Consumer Identity and Ideology. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.455

Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (2004). Measuring Perceptions of Brand Luxury. Journal of Brand Management, 11(6), 484–506. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540194

Yoo, B., & Lee, S.-H. (2009). Buy Genuine Luxury Fashion Products or Counterfeits? Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U.S.), 36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255605703_Buy_Genuine_Luxury_Fashion_Products_or_Counterfeits

Zarley Watson, M., & Yan, R. (2013). An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 141–159.

[ketchuppiee]

WEEK 5 - What Even Is Digital Citizenship?

So, digital citizenship. It’s kind of a big deal. With social media shaping everything from activism to our daily convos, the internet is more than just a space to scroll—it's a place where identities are formed, movements take off, and systems get challenged (Choi & Cristol, 2021). The rise of movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM) and global events like the Covid-19 pandemic have really emphasized how digital citizenship affects marginalized groups.

So What Exactly Is Digital Citizenship?

Academics have been all over this term, with different disciplines—education, communication, political science—all bringing their own interpretations to the table (Choi & Cristol, 2021).

Choi & Cristol (2021) break it down into three key approaches:

🔹 Unidimensional approach – Think of this as the more traditional take. Depending on the field, it could mean teaching kids to be good online citizens (education), looking at online discourse (communication), or studying how people engage in online activism (political science).

🔹 Multidimensional approach – This one considers different factors like digital ethics, media literacy, civic engagement, and how people resist dominant ideologies online.

🔹 Critical & Radical approach – Here’s where things get real. This perspective recognizes the unequal power dynamics at play in digital spaces and pushes for change, particularly in how marginalized voices are heard (or silenced).

Intersectionality & Digital Citizenship

Let’s talk intersectionality—a concept that explains how race, gender, class, and other social factors intersect to shape people's experiences (Collins, 2019). It’s super relevant when we talk about digital citizenship because the internet isn’t a level playing field. Who gets visibility? Who faces the most harassment? Who gets censored? These questions matter when discussing how we participate in digital spaces.

The dream? A digital citizenship that actually supports participatory democracy, where people can freely engage in social and political conversations. This means: ✅ Seeing digital citizenship through an intersectional lens. ✅ Using social media for activism, not just aesthetics. ✅ Acknowledging how dominant ideologies in schools (and society) can reinforce inequalities.

SoundCloud: A Case Study in Digital Citizenship

Let’s switch gears a little—what does digital citizenship have to do with music platforms like SoundCloud? At first glance, SoundCloud seemed like the perfect utopia for independent musicians, offering a space to share their work and connect with listeners. The platform’s unique feature? Users could leave comments at specific timestamps, making music a more interactive experience (Baym, 2018).

But here’s the thing—SoundCloud, like all social platforms, is still tangled up in the capitalist, algorithm-driven culture of connectivity. While it wanted to be a place for music-sharing freedom, its survival depended on balancing that openness with industry restrictions. Facing revenue struggles, SoundCloud had to tighten its rules around copyrighted material, limiting its appeal to independent artists (Hesmondhalgh et al., 2019).

At its peak, SoundCloud gave underground and DIY musicians a way to sidestep traditional music industry gatekeeping, launching the careers of artists like Chance the Rapper and Lil Uzi Vert. However, the pressure to monetize and comply with copyright enforcement led to an inevitable shift: more ads, premium subscriptions, and stricter content regulations. As a result, many of the very artists who made the platform popular in the first place felt pushed out.

SoundCloud’s story is a lesson in digital citizenship: Even platforms that promote creativity and connection can get caught up in corporate structures that restrict accessibility and expression. The platform's journey raises broader questions about who truly benefits from the digital economy and how independent creators navigate a system that increasingly favors major players over grassroots talent.

REFERENCES

Baym, N. K. (2018). Playing to the Crowd. NYU Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479821587/playing-to-the-crowd/

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital Citizenship with Intersectionality Lens: Towards Participatory Democracy Driven Digital Citizenship Education. Theory into Practice, 60(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142

Hesmondhalgh, D., Jones, E., & Rauh, A. (2019). SoundCloud and Bandcamp as Alternative Music Platforms. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119883429

[ketchuppiee]

Reality TV, Social Media, and the Art of the Viral Moment

Reality TV isn't just a guilty pleasure - it’s a full-blown digital phenomenon. These shows are designed to get people talking, sparking debates on what’s “real” and what’s just another carefully crafted edit. It’s all about that mix of authenticity and performance, giving audiences space to judge, speculate, and meme-ify everything they see (Lovelock, 2019). Whether it's a dramatic elimination or a cringeworthy flirtation attempt, reality TV thrives on liveness - especially with live voting and real-time social media reactions bringing viewers together. And let’s be real - reality TV shaped how we present ourselves online long before Instagram filters and TikTok trends even existed.

Reality TV & Social Media: A Love Story

1. Social Media's Impact on Reality TV

Ever noticed how Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok light up the moment a reality show airs? Social media gives fans a platform to dissect episodes, drag contestants, predict plot twists, and create memes that live on far beyond the finale. Hashtags and live-tweeting have turned reality TV into an interactive, community-driven experience (Deller, 2019).

2. Humor and Memes: The Internet's Favorite Currency

Reality TV is meme gold. From viral catchphrases to exaggerated reactions, fans remix and repurpose moments with puns, GIFs, and sarcastic commentary. Even official show accounts try to cash in on the meme culture, though let’s be honest—corporate attempts at humor rarely hit the same way as fan-made content (Deller, 2019).

3. Reality TV Stars and the Social Media Hustle

Nowadays, it’s expected that contestants will have an online presence before stepping into the limelight. Some go private to avoid drama, while others double down on self-promotion, securing brand deals and extending their 15 minutes of fame into full-blown influencer careers. Social media is their post-show playground, where they can either clarify misleading edits or capitalize on their newfound clout.

4. How Reality TV Shaped the Internet

Think about how we vlog, go live, or post Stories—all of these feel like reality TV spin-offs. Today’s digital creators use video diary techniques, spontaneous performances, and “raw” authenticity (with just a touch of curated perfection) in ways that mirror classic reality show confessionals (Kjus, 2009).

5. Fame, Image & The Performance of ‘Authenticity’

Social media thrives on the illusion of authenticity, just like reality TV. Whether you’re a micro-influencer or an A-list celebrity, there’s pressure to stay “relatable” while crafting the perfect online persona. The lines between reality and performance are blurrier than ever, making it hard to tell when someone is being genuine—or just playing the role of “authentic” for the algorithm.

6. Internet Celebs Meet Reality TV Stars

Once upon a time, reality TV stars were everyday people plucked from obscurity. Now? Many contestants already have built-in fanbases before even appearing on screen. Shows actively cast influencers, leveraging their online presence to bring in viewers. The reality TV fame pipeline has officially merged with the influencer era, making digital clout a new form of celebrity currency.

Case Study: Anh Trai Say Hi

Now let’s bring this into a Vietnamese reality TV context with Anh Trai Say Hi—a show where male contestants try to charm their way into love. It’s a perfect case study for how reality TV and social media culture are evolving together.

1. Social Media’s Influence

Just like major Western reality franchises, Anh Trai Say Hi thrives on social media buzz. Fans flood Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube with clips, memes, and debates over contestant behavior, deciding who gets crowned a fan favorite and who gets canceled (Luu, 2024).

2. Meme-Worthy Moments

Vietnamese internet culture LOVES sarcasm and memes, and this show delivers plenty of memeable content. From awkward first impressions to exaggerated flirtation fails, the show’s viral moments extend its influence far beyond TV screens.

3. Reality TV’s Influence on the Internet

The show mirrors modern social media culture, with fast-paced interactions and highly edited clips that feel straight out of TikTok or Instagram Reels. The contestants know how to play up their personalities for engagement, creating a dynamic where reality TV borrows from the internet, and vice versa.

4. The Fame Game: Authenticity vs. Performance

Just like in Western reality shows, Anh Trai Say Hi contestants walk the fine line between being “authentic” and playing up their personas. Some lean into the microcelebrity trend, using their time on TV to build a brand, attract sponsorships, or transition into influencer roles.

5. The Internet-Influencer Crossover

The rise of social media influencers has reshaped reality TV casting. It’s no surprise if some Anh Trai Say Hi contestants already have thousands of followers before stepping on set���and their internet experience gives them a clear advantage. The influencer-to-reality-TV pipeline is officially global.

Anh Trai Say Hi is just one example of how reality TV and social media are more intertwined than ever. As meme culture, influencer branding, and viral trends continue to shape entertainment, reality TV will have to evolve. Streaming platforms will likely lead the charge, and we can expect even more hybrid reality formats that blur the boundaries between online fame and traditional television (Buzz Metrics, 2024).

In the end, reality TV isn't just about what happens on screen—it’s about how we engage with it, remix it, and turn it into a digital conversation that never really ends.

REFERENCES

Buzz metrics. (2024). [BSI Case Study] Tháng 8 rực rỡ của chương trình Anh Trai Say Hi. Buzzmetrics.com. https://www.buzzmetrics.com/bai-viet-bsi/bsi-case-study-thang-8-ruc-ro-cua-chuong-trinh-anh-trai-say-hi

Deller, R. A. (2019). Reality Television: The Television Phenomenon That Changed the World. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781839090219

Kjus, Y. (2009). Everyone Needs Idols. European Journal of Communication, 24(3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323109336758

Lovelock, M. (2019). Introduction. Reality TV and Queer Identities, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14215-5_1

Luu, H. D. (2024). The Vietnamese Entertainment Industry: The Role of Music TV Shows in Driving Industry Development - ProQuest. Proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/openview/fb2495702da560477bd5b3b10e417912/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

[ketchuppiee]

Tumblr: A Digital Haven for Self-Love, Feminism, and Radical Authenticity

Back in the mid-2010s, Tumblr was the place for marginalized voices to thrive. It wasn’t like other social media platforms that prioritized polished, influencer-style content - Tumblr was raw, unfiltered, and real. It gave people a space to be themselves, to speak their truth, and to find community in ways that felt deeply personal and meaningful. Whether it was conversations about mental health, body image, or self-worth, Tumblr fostered a culture of radical self-expression and empowerment (Reif et al., 2022; Cavalcante, 2018).

The #BodyPositive Movement on Tumblr

Before body positivity became mainstream on Instagram, it flourished in the depths of Tumblr. The #bodypositive community was a vibrant space where people—especially women—embraced self-acceptance and resisted societal beauty standards. Unlike the influencer-heavy platforms today, Tumblr allowed users to add lengthy captions to their selfies, providing space for context, personal stories, and deep reflections. It wasn’t just about looking good; it was about feeling good and reclaiming the body in all its forms (Reif et al., 2022).

A 2017 content analysis of 300 selfies under #bodypositive found that:

The hashtag was overwhelmingly dominated by women sharing their self-love journeys (Reif et al., 2022).

Selfies often featured unconventional beauty—colorful hair, androgynous aesthetics, and defiant self-presentation (Reif et al., 2022).

Despite its diversity, the study noted a heavy presence of young, white, and relatively average-weight individuals (Reif et al., 2022).

Textual content leaned more toward self-acceptance rather than self-improvement (Reif et al., 2022).

While Tumblr’s #bodypositive space was a breath of fresh air for many, it wasn’t perfect. The study also found elements of sexualization and traditional beauty norms lingering within the movement (Reif et al., 2022). Still, the sense of authenticity and acceptance made Tumblr a powerful space for self-love in ways that other platforms struggled to replicate.

Tumblr and Feminism: A Digital Safe Space

If there was one social media site that truly allowed feminism to flourish in the 2010s, it was Tumblr. Unlike Facebook, where everything was tied to your real identity, or Twitter, where arguments could escalate into chaotic pile-ons, Tumblr offered a semi-anonymous, curated experience. You didn’t need followers to be heard. You didn’t need a perfectly crafted post to go viral. You just needed something real (Keller, 2019).

For many teenage girls, Tumblr was the easiest place to practice feminism and explore radical ideas without fear of backlash. The platform’s unique structure meant there were no public friend lists, no intrusive comment sections, and no easy way for outsiders to hijack conversations. Instead, users could reblog and engage with content in a way that felt safe and supportive (Keller, 2019).

Some key reasons why feminism thrived on Tumblr:

Anonymity → Unlike Twitter, where an anonymous account could still be tracked, Tumblr’s structure made it easier to engage without fear of exposure (Keller, 2019).

Social privacy → Users had more control over their feeds and interactions, allowing for safer discussions on personal and political topics (Marwick & Boyd, 2014).

Radical feminism → Tumblr feminism wasn’t just about equality; it embraced radical, intersectional, and transformative feminist politics that often challenged mainstream narratives (Keller, 2019).

A true safe space → Topics like LGBTQ+ rights, rape culture, and sexism were openly discussed without the constant threat of trolling (Keller, 2019).

Emotional authenticity → Tumblr was a place where people could be real. It wasn’t just about social justice; it was about feeling, experiencing, and supporting one another through personal struggles and triumphs (Keller, 2019).

For years, Tumblr feminism helped shape online activism and create a refuge for those who felt unseen elsewhere. But then, in 2018, everything changed.

The Fall: When Tumblr Turned Its Back on NSFW Content

In December 2018, Tumblr announced a strict ban on NSFW (Not Safe For Work) content, a decision that hit the community hard. While the move was framed as an effort to combat inappropriate content, it disproportionately impacted sex workers, LGBTQ+ users, and artists who relied on Tumblr as a space for expression (Keller, 2019). Many users deleted their blogs in protest, and the platform lost a massive portion of its core community.

With Tumblr’s decline, many of its most engaged users migrated to platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. But something was lost in that transition. The emotional authenticity, the radical openness, and the deep sense of community that defined Tumblr just didn’t translate the same way elsewhere (Keller, 2019).

Even though Tumblr isn’t what it once was, its impact on online activism, body positivity, and feminist discourse still lingers. Many of the conversations that started there continue to shape digital culture today. Maybe it was messy. Maybe it was chaotic. But for so many of us, Tumblr was home. And that’s something no other platform has quite been able to replace.

REFERENCES

Cavalcante, A. (2018). Tumbling Into Queer Utopias and Vortexes: Experiences of LGBTQ Social Media Users on Tumblr. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(12), 1715–1735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1511131

Keller, J. (2019). “Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms. Social Media + Society, 5(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119867442

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444814543995

Reif, A., Miller, I., & Taddicken, M. (2022). “Love the Skin You‘re In”: An Analysis of Women’s Self-Presentation and User Reactions to Selfies Using the Tumblr Hashtag #bodypositive. Mass Communication and Society, 26(6). https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2138442