thoughtsofamastersstudent

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Yes. Let’s talk about influencers. I genuinely go back and forth on the “are influencers celebrities?” debate. At first, no way. NOW though, there is so much cross-over within these two groups that sometimes, they are celebrities, whether that be a celebrity taking on the role of an influencer or an influencer becoming so big that they become a celebrity.

I will say I have a little bit of beef with the whole thing because I KNOW I could do it, and heck, I WANT to. But at this point, it’s so rare and nearly impossible to become one because it is so over-saturated now.

Okay, enough about me being jealous. I also talked about children as influencers, and I think the whole idea is insane. Like, these kids didn’t ask for this, nor are they old enough to even comprehend the gravity of the situation. But mommy and daddy want to exploit them, so there they are. While sometimes I am guilty of enjoying the content, it leaves a weird taste in my mouth at the end of the day.

Evolution of IG

Instagram has come such a long way from those grainy pictures with a background that we posted when the app first came out. The app has roots in photography but is certainly no longer the main purpose of this app. It seems that since Facebook took ownership of Instagram, it kind of operates as a digital flea market. It feels like Facebook turned something that started off really fun and personal into something that isn’t necessarily likable but people still flock to.

The book talks about Instagram taking parts of other social media platforms like Snapchat stories and making them a functioning part of the Instagram app. Which, I think I look at Instagram stories more than I look at actual posts and I constantly post my thoughts on my Instagram stories so it is an added feature that I adore. As far as the “politics” of Instagram, that aspect is very weird to me. Just seeing engagement and analytics go down on my business or creator page makes it seem like the algorithm doesn’t necessarily promote authenticity or originality. Another thing about Instagram that the book mentions is the change from your timeline in chronological order. Which was one of the worst things they ever did. We ask for so little from this app and they couldn’t even let us have it.

Instagram kind of brought about this new era of photography with iPhones. This is very much a thing, I did a project on it freshman year. It’s grown a lot from this style of photography, you can find full twenty-minute videos on Instagram now. The iPhone photography that is still on the app is much different than it was, too. These iPhone pictures are professional-level pictures.

But let’s talk about influencers. Instagram created a whole industry around being an influencer. People have entire careers from this. So not only did Instagram’s changes start making the app money, but regular people began to profit from the changes too. Let’s preface this by saying that internet influencers are not celebrities and that’s a hill I’m willing to die on. This does circle back to being niche, though. Influencers whether they be micro, macro, or whatever other kind exists, create niches for themselves and build entire communities around themselves. They can profit from this through sponsored ads or brand deals. I don’t think I would have believed someone if they told me when I was 10 that I could make a career by posting on Instagram. It has completely changed the landscape of what a job can look like for people who are lucky enough to blow up on social media, specifically Instagram.

What’s even crazier is that sometimes these people get the title of “thought leaders”. Just some random person on the internet can be considered someone who is trustworthy enough to take their word on certain topics. This has also kind of changed the marketing game. Brands send products to influencers to highlight on their page in hopes that people will become early adopters (if their product is new) or a customer. But I think the weirdest thing about influencers is people turning their kids into them.

My sister and I were talking about a girl who has an Instagram and Tiktok for her baby who can’t even stand or talk yet with thousands of followers. She went on a rant the other day about how she was the first to stand her baby against walls/etc and now other baby influencers were copying her. It was the most insane thing I’ve ever seen. Very unhealthy and very weird that strangers all over the internet know your baby’s birthday.

I really liked the section about Instagram cultures. Because you can really find your crowd on Instagram. Aside from that, you can also find so many great resources on Instagram. There’s basically a side of Instagram for anything you can imagine. There’s fitness, there’s makeup, there’s art. Instagram has created these different subcultures that you can be a part of through hashtags (using or searching). The one I think of most often is food Instagram, where you make everything you eat look pretty, and take a picture of it to post to your account. This trend had foodies in a chokehold for a long time. It seems now that Instagram leaked out into the real world and everything has to look Instagrammable. It mentions it in the book but there are entire museums and pieces of art that are specifically there for you to take Instagram pictures of! Rainbow Vomit in Dallas is the most boring exhibit but people buy tickets just to take cute pictures for Instagram.

Instagram definitely doesn’t have the hold on the social media world that they once did (Tiktok probably holds that spot now), but Instagram paved the way for a lot of these social networking platforms even though they were not the first ones around. In my humble opinion, despite the changes in algorithm and ownership change to Mark Yuckerberg, Instagram is still a top contender in the world of social media and changed the landscape for people whether it be through culture, photography or even getting a job as an influencer.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #10

From the book this week, I want to focus on a few topics rather than just writing short blurbs about each chapter.

First, I want to talk about the phenomenon of “Parental and Child Influencer” SPECIFICALLY how children SOMETIMES LITERAL BABIES have hundreds of thousands of followers. Arie and Lauren Luyendyk are a married couple that rose to Instagram fame from the Bachelor franchise. We aren’t here to talk about them directly, though. Their two-year-old daughter Alessi @alessiluyendyk has 352,000 followers, and their newborn twins have 312,000 followers @luyendyktwins. This is bonkers. Now, of course, these children aren’t running these accounts. Both of their bios say, “account run by mom and dad.” What’s even weirder is that the parents post using their children’s voices to give the sense that it’s the actual children talking.

The book describes these children as “a ‘micro-microcelebrity’ (Abidin 2015a), the child of an Influencer or existing micro-celebrity who is knowingly situated online as part of their parent’s online presence, often branching off into “their own specific spaces and accounts” (Leaver, Highfield, & Abidin)

What I am about to say has become a recent topic of conversation online, so I am sure most of you have seen it before. These kids are not old enough to decide if they even want that kind of attention, let alone have pictures of themselves up for hundreds of thousands of people to see. If it were me, I’d be PISSED at my parents.

*Insert long pause of me trying to make sense of this*

I mean, whatever floats your boat, I guess.

Okay, we are moving on!

FINSTAGRAMS!!!! Let me just say; I LOVE Instagram. It is my way of digitally scrapbooking my life.

Okay, so bear with me here because I promise I WILL get to the point. From 2017-2018, I noticed many of my peers creating “finstas,” an account for all the stuff they couldn’t post on their existing account, if you catch my drift. BUT! I noticed that finstas died off, at least in my realm, throughout 2018, and now people use their private stories on Snapchat. However, I have also noticed that people are beginning to give less of a sh!t on their main profiles of Instagram and are starting to adopt that fintsa vibe to their main feeds.

Okay, here comes the point. The book mentions that “Finstas are a backlash against the picture-perfect pristine ecology of Instagram normativity, undoubtedly popularized by social media Influencers. Such separate, distinct and unlinked accounts thus allow them to escape ‘the pressure to create a beautifully curated Instagram account’ (Jean 2016), rebel against the ‘overly stylized content shared by celebs and so-called influencers’ (Shah 2017), and expose the ‘artifice of normal social media’ (Luckhurst 2017).” (Leaver, Highfield, & Abidin)

WELL, I am finding that people and influencers alike (at least the ones I follow and interact with) are treating their main feeds with way less pressure creating this more casual and “it’s okay to not be perfect feel,” which is so fun! (incoming “Nobody’s Perfect” reference via Hannah Montana GIF)

As this may be my last blog post (GUYS DON’T BE SAD), I want to say that I really enjoyed writing for you all, and I hope you enjoyed reading! (thank you to those who told me I was funny my ego really enjoyed that) Byeeeeeee :)

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #9

I cannot even lie; this book intimidates me A LOT. As a white person, I am here to be an ally and a listener. But, sometimes, heck, maybe even most times, I feel it is not my place to provide my opinion or input on “Blackness.”

With that being said, allow me to attempt to provide my thoughts eloquently. 

I would like to start by conveying the educational value of Black Twitter to the rest of Twitter. As a white person, I am not aware of SO MANY things in the Black community besides what is obvious. Even though what is obvious, I am still not privy to underlying themes and details. I found myself becoming more educated than ever before on Blackness through the events that occurred throughout 2020. During this year, I was exposed to Black Twitter content, mainly consisting of general education on what XYZ means to be a successful non-black ally.

There is a section in the book that discusses “The Great Reveal” of Black Twitter. Brock states that “Arguably, Black Twitter would have remained undiscovered by outsiders—or curious academics—without the hashtag and trending topic feature.” Thus, the magic of Twitter strikes again. The platform Twitter provides for “niche” topics to be seen is impressive, and I argue that Twitter brings the best exposure potential as a platform.

Another thing Brock mentions that I liked is his idea that, “Unfortunately, mainstream explainers tend to obfuscate Black cultural origins by attributing the phenomenon to white folk. They would get away with it too, if it wasn’t for those meddling kids—that is, Black Twitter’s heterogeneous and wide-ranging net of media sources that are on alert for any mention of American Black culture.” (We all know by now that I love coupling humor with more serious topics.) He means here that, unfortunately, Black cultural origins are sometimes unclear/unintelligible (thank you to the dictionary) due to white people. And he, also, unfortunately, is not wrong!

Another interesting point that was brought up was the connection between Twitter and the phrase “if you snooze, you lose.” Insinuating that half of the context of a Tweet lies in the time it is read. Twitter is a fast-paced platform, and I do agree that timing is everything. However, a Tweet’s meaning could 100% get lost if the moment is gone. Thus, to successfully contribute to the space, timing is everything. This goes for both composing/publishing content to reading/interacting with it as well. A double-edged sword, if you will. Now, the way this idea specifically ties into Black Twitter, “as a slow response to the signifyin’ hail results in invalidity and the inability to perform to an appreciative audience” (Brock, 2020). Meaning, if you snooze on the opportunity, you lose the audience.

I genuinely get so nervous about topics such as these because I only want to do good and, as I said, be an ally. I hope I did this book justice and, as always, see y’all next week.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Hey there Rexanna! As always, you have kept my attention throughout your response. You have such a way with words. Okay, now onto the serious stuff. Since I enjoyed how you portrayed your “aha” moments, I will focus on a couple of those. In terms of number three, while I agree that this can be the case and probably is most of the time, I would argue that with the new fact-checking tools platforms have incorporated, mainly about political topics, this is less common than we may think. Now obviously, we have the extremists who think everything is a hoax blah blah blah, but those with a sound mind (lol this is bonkers) I think are smart enough to decipher what is real versus what is not.

Oh man, number four. It is true; unfortunately, politicians know that we suck at discerning authenticity online, and they have taken this and RUN with it. It is so interesting to see how some politicians have tried to take on this “I am a relatable influencer” persona to appeal to the masses. This happens on both sides!!!

Political Implications of Life Online, and the Dangers of a Disconnected Democracy.

In the first week of class, we discussed the question, “Is online life real life?”. My feeling, at that time, was that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more of our lives are playing out online.

Before the pandemic, many of us used the internet and social networking sites to connect with others and learn about the world around us. However, throughout the pandemic, the internet has become a metaphorical umbilical cord, tethering us to our social, professional, and academic lives.

There was a point in each of the articles this week that made me stop and say, “This is why we cannot live our lives solely online!”. We NEED some element of face-to-face, in-the-flesh, human interaction for society to function.

Here’s a breakdown of my “aha” moments from each article:

Dvir-Gvirsman: A preference for partisan media sources does not make someone eventually turn into a political extremist.

Flores-Saviaga and Savage: What we see online is not always true, and trolls know how to hijack data voids to push their own agenda filled with disinformation.  

Kleemans et al.: Generally speaking, we suck at distinguishing what online is real and credible from what is not real and not credible. More often than not, we believe what we see online.

McGregor, Lawrence and Cardona: Politicians know we suck at discerning authenticity online (see above) and may use this to their advantage by sharing strategically “personalized” campaign content through social media.

Groshek & Koc-Michalska: The 2016 presidential election could have had a very different outcome if we had focused on talking to our offline networks rather than our online networks.

The findings from Groshek and Koc-Michalska’s (2017) study regarding the 2016 presidential election really stood out to me. This study examines how varying levels of active and passive political engagement with online and offline networks contributed to the support of populist candidates in the 2016 election cycle.  

The findings show that those who relied primarily on television for political coverage were more likely to support Trump or Clinton, and passive social media users were more likely to support Trump. This was not surprising, as I remember Trump and Clinton dominating the media channels I used.

Looking back on that time, my perception of the media’s narrative for these two candidates was: “Clinton is the favorite. First female President, let’s make history! Oh, don’t pay any attention to Bernie over there, this is just a phase.”

“Look at these ridiculous tweets from Donald Trump, this is a great topic-filler on Good Morning America because he’s so outrageous, and will never be elected. Clinton is obviously going to win, so no point in covering any other candidates over at the GOP.”

Again, these are just my personal memories. If you remember it differently, I’d love to hear your experiences with the 2016 presidential election because talking about politics with people who have diverse backgrounds and perspectives, online and especially offline, is so important. ​

Speaking of why offline political conversations are important… Groshek and Koc-Michalska (2017) also looked at the impact of offline network heterogeneity on populist candidate support, and this is the part that really got me:

“In fact, having a diversified network of offline communication did result in increasing the likelihood of supporting populist political actors from the left and the right, namely Sanders and Carson, by 1.39 and 1.91 times, respectively.“ ​(Groshek & Koc-Michalska, 2017, p. 1400) [emphasis added]

Like Groshek and Koc-Michalska found, I had a lot of conversations with people offline about the candidacy of both President Biden and Former President Trump. This article made me think:​

If we talked about politics offline as much as we do online, would the results of the 2020 election be different?

Also… Who came up with the ridiculous etiquette rule that it’s rude to discuss politics?

​Why are politics a topic we steer away from? Honestly, I know more about my friend’s sex lives than I do about their politics.

I found this great blog by R. Shawn McBride that provides a compelling argument for why we should be leaning in and engaging in political conversations.

​For example, Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory, and the public and media’s shock that he actually won, is a prime example of how our political system is disconnected from the truth. ​​

“Somehow enough people that supported Donald Trump’s cause existed, but most people didn’t know that. And that’s scary for democracy. Our lawmakers go to work with a distorted view of what we, the people, want. Laws might be passed based on that distorted view.” - R. Shawn McBride

McBride goes on to discuss how big decisions on things like Artificial Intelligence and cryptocurrency are on the horizon. And, with the majority of U.S. citizens abiding by the old adage of “never talk about politics in polite company,” our lawmakers run the risk of making the wrong decision for the future of our nation.

​"If we don’t have the hard conversations and reach agreement on important decisions, someone else will make those decisions for us. And we’ll all be the passengers as our world is shaped by others.“ - R. Shawn McBride ​

To close, I’ll leave you with Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s The Danger of a Single Story. I believe this is especially relevant to these readings but also to our current sociopolitical climate.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #8

Second screening is something I often do. I will stream a tv show or movie and have Twitter open, interacting with a community also streaming the same thing. Back in my One Direction Twitter days, this was a common practice of mine and my mutual followers called "live tweeting." My little community would watch things, whether it be a tv show like SNL or performance, and live-tweet the whole thing as it was happening, allowing us to have a conversation about what was going on as it was happening. The feeling of absolute chaos and FUN I felt discussing what was going on in real-time is something I look back on fondly. I also think this type of environment is what shaped my Twitter personality into what it is today. And what is it? You may ask. Well, not to toot my own horn, but my Twitter is hilarious.

Now let's dive into this week's readings.

The first article presents this same idea using "How to get away with Murder" and Black Twitter. The practices of second screening and co-viewing have opened up a space on Twitter for the Black community to engage in conversation about Black womanhood through Annalise Keating. These practices have also allowed discourse on the harmful stereotypes of Black women as the show shatters those stereotypes and opens the door for culturally accurate information—a specific example is mentioned in the scene where Annalise's mother is seen brushing her hair.

Now, when I reference my One Direction days, I fully realize the way I participated in these practices is not nearly as significant as the example explained in this article. Furthermore, as a white woman, I will never fully understand the impact of these practices' space for minority groups.

Moving on!

Ah yes. Second screening and politics. *Cracks knuckles* I think we all remember the climate on Twitter during the 2020 election. Specifically, those of us who participated in second screening during election debates and real-time when the votes were coming in, whether actively or passively. During the 2020 election, Twitter was, I would argue, the perfect place to be during these events (if you, you know, are a sane human who knows what information to look for). As these events unfolded on-screen number one, screen number two was full of additional information and memes and "tea" oh my! (Wizard of Oz reference incase you missed it and just think I have bad grammar). No, but really, I would argue that the 2020 election was INTENSELY affected by this idea of second screening.

"A significant number of young adults "go newsless" (Pew, 2012). Okay yeah, sure, in terms of traditional news, but I, however, get PLENTY of news on Miss Twitter. Some advice for my news outlets: if you want us "young people" to listen, USE SOCIAL MEDIA. And don't just "use it" I mean REALLY USE IT. Hire someone young, preferably gen z, and see that the sky is the limit. Okay, on a more serious note, this article goes into how youth make choices about how they consume news media from their parents. So, right now, we are in a bit of an awkward shit because our parents only had traditional news media, whereas we now have the whole social media aspect we have grown up with. However, I feel like this blip in the space will eventually even out as my generation begins to have children, as both parties will have social media. As for right now, I think some listen to their parents (boring), and some go out and find the news themselves.

Media Multitasking. My specialty. So, you know how to make the streaming service app screen tiny on your phone and have it still play while you are doing other things? Well, in my not so humble opinion, this is quite possibly one of the best things Apple has done recently. Of course, some of my friends think I am insane for doing this, but I like to see it as being efficient :).

Well, folks, that's all the words I have to offer you today. See you next week!

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #7

I can’t lie, this article gave me a headache. The author believes that Critical Technocultural Discourse Analysis “is a problem-oriented analytical approach to digital (née internet) objects and phenomena” (Brock). What I got from the background is that the author does not like/agree with the use of CTDA based on that it assumes access to the digital world “improves the lives of underrepresented groups” (Brock).

Listen. I LOVE a good meme. This article says a lot about meaningful messages, and sure, that’s a thing, but personally, my use of Twitter is purely for shits and giggles. Maybe I am just not in the sub-category of people who go to social media to be inspired? I find myself rolling my eyes at most of the language Rieger & Klimmt uses in this article. Like they take it too seriously for my taste. I guess I am just not the intended target audience. I think my main issue with this is they refer to meme sharing as meaningful, whereas I don’t connect meaning with funny memes.

The way different cultures/places use social media differently will always intrigue/perplex me. For example, every time Delwar (shout out to you Delwar) shares his experiences in social media, coming from Bangladesh, I am always just like, “wow.” The article mentions the “normative structure of social media platforms” (Costa). But with such varying uses all over, what does normative even mean. Does it even exist?

The article also says, “It shows that the uses of a technology intended by its designers are different from the actual uses” ding ding ding!!! This makes sense.

In general, I think it is challenging to come to a hard and fast conclusion about anything regarding social media. So looking at context collapse outside of the little city in Turkey is far above me.

Counterpublics in social media is CRUCIAL for so many different reasons. Without these, the awareness of “non-dominant” beliefs and topics would not generate much-needed buzz and discussion. This article focuses on the transwomen network counterpublics. “cyberspace provides a revolutionary tool for creating, sharing, and preserving trans histories that would otherwise remain untold.” (Rawson). This counterpublic has generated much-needed awareness and education about the topic and continues to challenge the “dominant” norm of gender.

For this article, I am going to focus on this little blurb. “Services that are not primarily ‘social media services’, such as Spotify, may also contain a significant social media element” (Hayes & Marshall). So, let’s talk about Spotify Wrapped for creators. No matter how small the creator, each creator gets their own Spotify wrapped with statistics such as how many listeners, listening hours, etc. This feature Spotify provides gives independent musicians an excellent tool in their careers. Spotify also creates playlists for its users titled “Discover Weekly,” which most often features smaller and independent artists. I would say Spotify is one of the best platforms independent musicians should take advantage of.

As always, until next week. :)

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #6

Listen, I already see that we have an Instagram article for this week, and I am excited about her, so I am inclined to get the rest out of the way. Sorry in advance? Let me break it down for you. Article titles are italicized so it’s easier to know what I’m talking about. (P.S the articles are talked about/mentioned in order). Here we go!

Personalization, gender, and social media: gubernatorial candidates' social media strategies

All I have to say is… *screams* sometimes it goes too far.

Helping populism win? Social media use, filter bubbles, and support for populist presidential candidates in the 2016 U.S.U.S. election campaign

So we are still talking about filter bubbles, huh? Alright then… (this is a JOKE).

Fake news makes me want to Kermit sewer side. (this is also JOKE).

Anti-Latinx Computational Propaganda in the United States

Hmmm, I wonder how social media discussions around the Latino Community changed during the 2018 midterm elections? What could it possibly be??? Perhaps a racist president contributed to the shift? Who's to tell for sure? (if you didn't get my sarcasm bit just now, this is your official confirmation. Also, maybe get some humor.) ((I'M KIDDING… maybe)).

At the LEAST, it does not shock me how the subreddits consisted of mainly "extremist voices, such as pro-Trump political trolls" (Saviaga & Savage, 2019). I disrespectfully refer to these people as "trumpies."

((I guess we ARE getting political in the chat)).

The discussion around the Latinx community in 2018 became essentially that of anti-immigration. The trumpies, including Trumpy himself, had MANY strategies for spreading and generating engagement around Latinos. I just, HOW did this happen? I know the answer, but still, H O W. Anyways, good riddance, and that is all I ultimately have to say.

Media audience homophily: Partisan websites, audience identity, and polarization processes

*yawn* audience homophily *yawn* what a boring world that must be. Of course, audience homophily is "somewhat associated with ideological polarization, intolerance, and accessibility of political self-definition" (Dvir-Gvrisman). Literally, the basis of being so intolerant of other opinions and viewpoints is self-polarization. I could get mad speaking about this, so let's make this section snappy. I would argue that audience homophily hurts the individual more than the general public because that specific person is locking themselves in a bubble. As we all know, one crazy with extreme views cannot change the world (even if they think they can). So, that's that on that. NEXT!

Picture Perfect: The Direct Effect of Manipulated Instagram Photos on Body Image in Adolescent Girls

*Cracks knuckles* Let's get INTO it. (TikTok sound). I could genuinely go on for hours, maybe even days, on "the direct effect of manipulated Instagram photos on body image in adolescent girls." But we do not have the time for that, so I digress. I still find myself encountering body image issues on Instagram when I KNOW most of it is fake, and yet here I am. (Chunky quote incoming). As stated in the abstract,

"Results showed that exposure to manipulated Instagram photos directly led to lower body image. Especially, girls with higher social comparison tendencies were negatively affected by exposure to the manipulated photos. Interestingly, the manipulated photos were rated more positively than the original photos. Although the use of filters and effects was detected, reshaping of the bodies was not noticed very well. Girls in both conditions reported to find the pictures realistic. Results of this study implied that the recent societal concern about the effects of manipulated photos in social media might be justified, especially for adolescent girls with a higher social comparison tendency" (Kleemans et al.).

The reason why I grabbed this quote right from the abstract is that for those of you who are not familiar with this "dilemma" (?) (if that is what we can call it) sums it up pretty dang well.

The measure this study used to measure "girls' social comparison tendency" intrigued me because I feel like they hit the nail on the head regarding the sentences they used at each point of the Likert Scale. So here I am reading these sentences, and I am like, "well sh!t I could check a box next to all of these."

I also!!!! Find it a little whacky that "Those with a higher level of education generally had a more positive body image" (Kleemans et al.). This obviously makes sense, but living in the Instagram world, it is a pretty even playing field.

So as we all probably already assumed, "These results imply that the common practice of Instagram users to manipulate and tweak their appearance in pictures can have negative con- sequences, at least for the girls who are prone to make social comparisons" (Kleemans et al.). Let us not forget that there is an apparent negative vibe (whether insecurities/body image issues) involved with the person editing and posting their "altered" body. I have been guilty a time or two when it comes to editing my body on Instagram. My main besties are teeth whitener and the matte tool (sweat/oily skin be gone!). However, I vividly remember this one time when I edited my forehead (so I don't keep y'all here all day; I'll preface with the size of it is an insecurity of mine). After I posted said photo, I was like, d@mn I look good! I wish I could look like this without editing, so that's a sucky mindset to have. I got more than usual comments complimenting my appearance on this particular post, so THEN I was spiraling in my head thinking, well, I'd be more liked if my stupid forehead was smaller. What I am getting at with this blurb is that THIS sucks for everyone, and in my opinion (backed up by this study) is that no one feels great in this situation. Which sucks.

I know, I know. I favored one article more than the others. But you cannot just give me a juicy article about Instagram and not expect me to ramble. Also, sorry for another long one. Oops.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #5

This week's articles take some social media platform and personal network interconnectedness and spin-off in various directions on how that all works and operates. So buckle up, folks!

Gaslight gatekeep girl boss. Kidding! I had to say that because the abstract of article one said, "This study examines contemporary gatekeeping" (Groshek and Tandoc). Anyways! I felt like I had to throw in a bit of humor because this article tackles a heavy topic. This article dives into Twitter and its impact and role in the activism environment post-decision of the officer who shot and killed Michael Brown being acquitted from all charges. Let me begin by saying I remember this time on Twitter very well. One word I can use to describe it is heartbreaking. The article uses this situation to study and dissect how platforms like Twitter give way to a general audience (in this case, activists) and no longer cater to journalists, gatekeeping the narrative. Anyone can say anything and have it liked, retweeted, and replied to in a space like Twitter. Thus, creating a space for "regular people" to contribute to the news space and even drown out the journalists.

Article two is a study that dives into "a three-step classification of Twitter topic-network, utilizing four social network concepts and their subsequent measurements of connectivity patterns" (Himelboim et al.). In doing this, the article brings up one of my favorite things to talk about! That being, "six degrees of separation." This study uses the six degrees of separation to give meaning to the connection among people within a network. If you do not know what six degrees of separation is, I HIGHLY suggest you look it up because it is pretty freaking cool… I am waiting… Okay great! Now that you are more familiar, let me make some connections. Using six degrees of separation and Twitter, we can dissect and analyze how Twitter users get to the information they see and how the interconnectedness of what a person follows, likes, and retweets contributes to their overall feed. The study ties in six degrees of separation in determining how information can spread on tightly or loosely connected individuals!

Pervasive awareness is defined as "Short asynchronous exchanges via computer-mediated communication that are 'ambient' and integrated into daily life" (IGI Global). Article three argues "that this pervasive awareness is a result of frequent, short, asynchronous exchanges through social media. In the case of social support, status updates may be a particularly good medium for awareness" (Lu and Hampton). The article uses Facebook to support its argument. When individuals do things like post a status update or whatever, they share personal stuff with their audience. To give an example, say your grandma posts a status update detailing the damage of her home post-hurricane Ida, her network, or people, then leave comments of "I am so sorry" to well wishes and general support. Interactions like this are pervasive awareness. I think this study using Facebook to dissect this is the perfect platform to do so.

I am going to lump articles four and five into one paragraph because they are both politically driven. To make a long story short, social media platforms are now officially part of the political playground. Social media platforms are a place to find candidate information, party information, GOOD NICE, FUN information. But also… a breeding ground for false information. However, with the 2020 election, we saw fact-checking on platforms emerge! How FUN!!!! Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram now have little banners under certain content (primarily political) that informs the user of that content's "truthfulness." It is so interesting that the current political climate has led to independent platforms to monitor what is shared and then go as far as to flag the contents of what has been shared. Man, what a world we live in, huh.

Last but certainly not least, article six dives into the #righttobeforgotten debate. *cracks knuckles* The introduction states, "Every day millions of individuals worldwide produce and upload user-generated content in the form of comments, likes, images and posts. For most users, the creation of content and the engagement with others' content are a fun and rewarding routine that is integrated into their everyday rhythms and practices" (Yang et al.). A little TLDR (too long did not read) basically the #rightotbeforgotten is users wanting the right to "eliminate" certain things from the internet? In other (better) words, users want the right to decide and disclose what personal info is public. OF COURSE, influencers have a role in this because what do they not have a role in? (pretty much nothing is off-limits these days). The article has a chart that depicts influencers' role in the hashtag, and what we can see from that chart is that the influencing accounts that had credibility in the topic have more engagement, reach, and interaction. "Our analysis of influencers shows that important players are individuals who are experts in the area" (Yang et al.). So, these "important players," AKA people who know what they are talking about, were able to get "ordinary citizens" involved in the debate conversation, thus furthering the broad reach of the hashtag.

This post is a thicc one! If you made it all the way through, congratulations! And as always, see ya next week.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Hey there, I am kind of obsessed with your intro. The dry, blunt humor gets five out of five stars from me. The question you asked, “how does the media environment of a given country affect potential bubbles being formed?” is so interesting. When I discuss topics like this, I immediately pull from my own experiences as a white, in her 20’s, American, female. With the political climate in the U.S. the past few years being so… hostile (we’ll go with that word), it provides a unique, and I would argue perfect, breeding ground for more “solid” filter bubbles. I could go into a deep spiral about this but let me try and move away from that to avoid a headache. When thinking of places with less internet access or places with different political systems, my mind begins to spin and rethink how I have processed how I interpreted this book. I think it would be interesting to see the comparison with actual data.

9/30 Are Filter Bubbles Real?

This book was more or less spoiled in its entirety by Betteridge’s Law of Headlines aka “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” We didn’t actually need to read it. Three stars out of five.

Jokes and slightly predictable naming tropes aside, Bruns’s challenge of the common perceptions around filter bubbles is phenomenal and points to the interdisciplinary utility of the social sciences, though maybe in a pass the blame/smelt it dealt it kind of way. Looking at the problem of online polarization through the lens of mass media will probably give you different data than through the lens of psychology, sociology, or a myriad of subfields in political science. I cannot speak to how that data would turn out, if it would conflict with Bruns’s findings or confirm it, but the nature of Bruns’s work invites these different perspectives, especially since this particular topic straddles the lines between so many fields. Most immediately I am reminded of Putnam’s Bowling Alone, an earlier centered more squarely in the electoral side of political science that pointed to diminishing in person group activities, such as the eponymous bowling leagues, and that this lack of cross pollination was causing increased isolation and encouraging political polarization. It is worth noting that Putnam’s work came out at the turn of the millennium, before Facebook was so much as a twinkle in the Winklevosses’ and or Zuckerberg’s eye, even so it still might point to a similar line in logic to Bruns’s. Putnam’s main concern was that there was a loss in shared experiences, but Are Filter Bubbles Real? points out that most people online have similar heat maps, that they come across more or less the same sources and data, just place higher priorities on certain topics through their acquired media literacy. Now, I am not so hopelessly, terminally online to say that reading and even interacting on the same articles on Twitter constitutes the same level of human connection as being on a beer league softball team, but if it was just about retreating out of public spaces and fora, there wouldn’t be so much shared digital patterns. I do think, though, there is a question to be asked here about media environments and how that might affect these particular findings. More specifically,  how does the media environment of a given country affect potential bubbles being formed? For instance, assuming traffic patterns stay similar and groups across the political spectrum generally come across similar news sources, how does the existence of a respected, independent, public news service (such as the BBC or Deutsche Welle) alter that landscape. As global as the internet has become, familiarity with news sources vary all the way down to the local level. So if there are similar traffic patterns (granted that if is doing a lot of heavy lifting) then wouldnt the levels of trust in those sites be different. Similarly, in places with restricted internet access or limited anonymity, how would those factors alter patterns? These questions arise at the cost of keeping a narrow, focussed slate of research, which definitely made for a more coherent, less noisy set of findings, but the wrinkles in different online environs do cause me raise questions about a book so intent on raising them itself, which I think is fundamentally, a good thing.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Let me get this out of the way. The spoiler made me LAUGH. The connection you made that filter bubbles continue to circulate because ~they are based partially on truth like any good lie~ was a fire point/connection. I wholeheartedly agree with you on that one. While we as humans are inclined to surround ourselves with content we like, we are also bound to be curious about other types of content. This fact is why I related filter bubbles to actual bubbles in that they can and will pop. And when an individual is done exploring and is ready to go back to what they know, they blow the bubble again. To tackle your point on politics and the funny joke you made about hashing it out on Facebook, I present to you this quote. “Like-minded users can help each other make sense of the world around them, while still often testing one another’s perspectives (sometimes aggressively so);” (Bruns). Social media platforms can take a small fraction of the blame, so we agree on that. However, I think the main issue (circling back to our discussions two-ish weeks ago) is the lack of education but not realizing the lack of education.

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

Are Filter Bubbles Real? by Axel Bruns explores the concepts of filter bubbles and echo chambers, their persistence (or lack thereof) in online communities, and the societal implications of these concepts. ​ ​ 

*Spoiler Alert*: throughout the book, Bruns shows that filter bubbles and echo chambers are not real.  

So, why have these buzzwords continued to circulate? I believe, like any good lie, it is because the concept of filter bubbles and echo chambers are based partially on truth. The truth is, it’s human nature to select who we surround ourselves with, and where, how, and what type of information we consume. Those who support the existence of filter bubbles and echo chambers argue that social media sites and their algorithms intensify our selectivity to the point where users are ultimately trapped in a bubble or chamber that only contains content and connections aligning with the user’s beliefs and preferences. The data in Are Filter Bubbles Real? show that this is not the case. First, we live in a media-rich world and are not limited to Facebook and Twitter as the only sources of information. The bubble/chamber concept assumes you exclusively rely on one of these platforms for all of your information. Second, people have preferences for communication and connections, but these preferences do not cause users to block any and all content they disagree with. In reality, platforms like Facebook and Twitter expose users to more diverse content due to context collapse. Is context collapse the key to a functioning democracy?

Context collapse is an important concept to keep in mind as we think about one of the main issues addressed in the book - how political conversations are carried out online. In the introductory chapter of the book, the functionality of democracy is said to depend on the “unsought, unanticipated, and even unwanted exposure to diverse topics, people and ideas” (Bruns, 2019, p.19). I would argue that this quote is an excellent illustration of context collapse, which you could say is the antithesis of a filter bubble or echo chamber. Taking this a step further, if context collapse is important to a well-functioning democracy, and social networking sites create high levels of context collapse, then maybe all we need to do to hash out our political issues is head to Facebook?                 ^ Just kidding. So, whose fault is it? If you spent any time online during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, then you probably rolled your eyes at the previous paragraph. The majority of Americans say talking about politics online is exhausting and frustrating. Our inability to engage in issue-based dialogues, whether face-to-face or online, is a serious threat to society. But, why are we unable to hold civil discussions about politics on social networks? What is the root cause of this? Bruns points the finger back at humanity, saying technology and the internet are not to blame. 

“Today, the problem in online and offline communication is not that citizens are sealed into hyperpartisan and extremist echo chambers or filter bubbles, but that too many citizens hold hyperpartisan and extremist views. The problem, in short, is polarisation, not fragmentation” (Bruns, 2019, p. 105). 

Bruns argues that as an individual’s level of political polarization increases, they become less willing to listen to the opposition. They still hear and see opposing content but are unwavering in their stance. ​ What is causing this polarization? Bruns cites issues like inequalities and political propaganda. I would say both of these issues are to blame for our present situation - systemic inequalities, amplified and inflamed by political propaganda on both sides of the aisle. I still blame Facebook (partially).

In the attention economy of the internet, algorithms favor the controversial. When is the last time you’ve seen a politically moderate post go viral? The current Facebook algorithm promotes posts that garner comments, and posts with “meaningful interactions” (i.e., replying and carrying on conversations in the comments) have even more priority in the newsfeed. Therefore, the most polarized among us are the ones we often see when we log-on to our social networks. I truly hope we have reached the peak of polarization in the U.S. and that the next few years bring more moderate, understanding, and bipartisan conversations to our online communities.  

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

First off, let me start by saying that I love your use of gifs in all of your blog posts. Also, I took Bruns’ explanation pretty literally, so I did not think of it in the way of removing blame from ourselves. But reading your perspective, I totally see that now. I agree that accountability is a prominent issue in the world of social media. I am guilty of blaming other components in my life when something goes wrong when in fact, I am also part of the issue. Looking at avoiding accountability in terms of filter bubbles is super interesting. Especially when you think about accountability in terms of education or lack thereof on specific issues. For example, an individual who perhaps says the wrong thing about something may claim, “well, I did not know any better” due to the content they see in their filter bubble. Personally, to me, that is ~bull shark~ (trying not to curse here). As pointed out in the book, it is nearly impossible to create a filter bubble without some kind of hole or way for other perspectives, etc., to get in.

Week 4: Filter Bubbles

I think the main point of the book is that Bruns thinks that filter bubbles are a way for us to remove the blame from ourselves and place it on technology for all the issues caused by social media. Bruns says that when things go wrong in society we just use technology as the scapegoat so we don’t have to take any real accountability ourselves. If we do not hold ourselves accountable then how will we ever fix any of the ills of society? At least that’s what I’m getting from the book.

I can agree with that to an extent. I really think there are a lot of times where people just don’t want to be held accountable. Like you have a month to do an assignment and you turn it in at the last minute but your internet goes out or your computer crashes and you lose everything. You can say oh it’s the computer, it’s the wi-fi, but you are also part of the problem.

But I also agree that technology is part of some of the societal issues we have. I don’t even know if this is related or makes sense in this context but something that comes to mind is young girls and body image. So many girls are affected by seeing other girls who edit their bodies and faces on social media. They get low self-esteem, they set unrealistic expectations for themselves and I think social media is to blame for that. Especially with things like snapchat and instagram filters. It’s kind of like a gray area because the technology is there to offer us the option to get so entranced in ourselves and with social media but at the same time we let ourselves get caught up in it.

Another thing is that it kind of sounds like he assumes that everyone has a wide range of media that they’re consuming and that just doesn’t seem likely. Did he even consider the people who don’t even care about getting information, let alone getting information from more than one place? Or what about the people who will really only seek out information that reaffirms their thoughts and opinions?

Like most things in life, I think Bruns is right up to a certain point, because certainly there are gray areas. Filter bubbles can be real but I don’t think they’re all extreme cases. I think sometimes everyone can be in their own filter bubble, especially depending on what platform you’re getting your information from. On Twitter you’re probably more likely to see random pieces of news just because of how Twitter is. On Facebook, that’s probably not so much the case.

Since algorithms are kind of 50/50, half based on your searches and half based on what the algorithm thinks you want to see, then blaming some some of society’s problems on social media is probably accurate 50% of the time. The other half, well I guess that’s on us.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #4

This week we tackle Bruns' book "Filter Bubbles." The terms echo chambers and filter bubbles are difficult to define. Bruns tries his best, saying, "At their core, though, they describe the properties of networks: offline and online; personal, social and professional" (Bruns). Essentially, echo chambers and filter bubble are a phenomenon that occurs when groups disconnect or isolate themselves from the network as a whole. This does not have to happen by a person's own doing, as an individual's surrounding community can also cause it.

The book mentions how filter bubbles specifically can be used as a political weapon. "President Trump will dismiss any critical reporting as 'fake news, so can politicians now accuse their opponents of 'living in a filter bubble,' out of touch with 'ordinary people'" (Bruns). This is a fair claim, but not how former (haha) President Trump intends to twist it. As individuals create an online community by choosing who and what topics to follow, they may corner themselves in a filter bubble where they only see political news catering to their personal views. However, as the book points out, it is almost impossible not to have at least a little leak through of opposing content and views. Especially with platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram flagging, fact-checking, and correcting "fake news." (God, I hate how this has become such a hot button term I am rolling my eyes).

Okay, enough of the political talk! Let us circle back to filter bubbles and online communities, specifically the limitations of echo chambers and filter bubbles. On any social media platform, it is EXTREMELY rare that any individual will become disconnected entirely from topics not in the community they have built around themselves. A good example I can think of is Twitter's trending page. Topics trending in the U.S. and the world are what a majority is talking about at a given time. Surely this will often fall out of an individual's specific community. Therefore, poking a hole in the filter bubble. What I am getting here is that filter bubbles are not concrete. They are particularly fragile, just as an actual bubble.

Another point I would like to bring up that is mostly a personal thought, but it does get brought up briefly in the book is that filter bubbling yourself can be kind of fun * shifty eyes emoji. * The ability to cater to any platform's content to mostly show what I like and want to see almost feels like a superpower. Logging on to my favorite social media platforms and being able to enjoy all the content I see (and being able to sift out what I do not want) ((thank you "not interested)) makes my overall experience more enjoyable. The book backs me up on this by saying this process can feel "empowering" and even beneficial. So long as the filter bubble I create for myself can be popped when needed. (Bruns).

Another week, another thought blog! This one was a doozie! Until next time :)

Get it??? Filter bubbles.... Bubbles from Powerpuff girls.... Okay bye.

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #3

Let's begin with a bold statement. The internet has a chokehold on me. Wow, that feels good to admit. But in all seriousness, the internet, i.e., social media, is a part of me. At the ripe age of 22, I would say my relationship with the internet has evolved into being ~healthier~ than it once was, however still codependent on my end. I remember a time (sadly not that long ago) where I would genuinely get upset if I felt "good content" I was posting did not get enough interaction or likes. SO, essentially what I was seeking (and still do seek just no longer detrimental to my mental health is attention.) ((Attention being the golden word)).

Now that my little intro is out of the way let's dive into the book for this week, The Internet Trap (which I THOROUGHLY enjoyed, by the way). In the beginning pages, the book states that its central argument "challenges claims that "money can- not reliably buy attention" (Hindman). See Google and Facebook. Anyone with a brain can immediately deduce that this claim is not valid. I mean, look at the chokehold Google and Facebook have on social media and advertising. This may be very dumb and naïve of me, but I genuinely pretend I do not see it when it comes to Google and Facebook's overwhelming monopoly on the internet. I simply choose to enjoy my silly little accounts.

But, if you think about it, Google and Facebook have been able to pay their way to have a majority of the internet population's attention and have become two internet monsters by remaining at the forefront of the attention. A quote from the article states, "digital attention economy increasingly shapes public life, including what content is produced, where audiences go, and ultimately which news and democratic information citizens see." So, by this thought, Google and Facebook essentially have the power to control content. They have to be a little secretive, though, where personally catered content comes into play. So while on Google or Facebook platforms you see the ad they ~think~ you want to see, but ultimately it is still them deciding what to show you.

In my opinion, the main point of this book is to dissect that the internet is a "fierce competition for attention" (Hindman). Which, while true, does not make me want to use it any less or make me hesitant at all. I love this little place called the internet. I literally would not know what to do with my life without it! The internet can be a bad place, and there is no denying that. But my love for the GOOD parts of it rears its ugly heads when the debate of "is the internet good or bad" comes into play.

Did any of what I just said make sense? Now that is up for debate. When it comes to writing about the internet and social media, my mind RACES, and sometimes, I get lost in my thoughts, and whatever I say sounds and looks like word vomit. I hope it was enjoyed anyway, though! Until next week! Byyeee :)

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #2

To begin to answer the question, “Does Internet use provide a deeper sense of political empowerment to the Less Educated?” we must first acknowledge that access to any social media brings forth an opportunity to educate yourself on almost anything. I believe that politics and social media (especially now) can go hand in hand. However, it gets tricky with the spread of “fake news” and misconstrued information (which is infuriating by the way). So, the person who has access to social media must be educated enough to look further than the surface.

Let me also start off by saying that I get most of my political news off of Twitter. While this statement may alarm some people. I think, with further analysis, the worriers will realize that Twitter (with the right tools and !!!critical thinking skills!!!) can be a great source of news. Now that I have gotten this out of the way. I can begin to answer the question posed in the article. My simple answer is yes. But it gets more complicated the longer it gets thought about.

These “less educated” people sure do feel like they know more about politics and, yet we have some of them spewing absolute (I cannot even think of a word to describe it) garbage. (this happens on BOTH sides)

Upside: more access to voting resources and information

Downside: More access to nonfactual information

See this fun little quote from the article below:

“Various studies have found that the Internet provides an easier way to participate in the political process than is required offline (Gibson & McAllister, 2013; Hirzalla, van Zoonen, & de Rider, 2011; Vicente & Novo, 2014) and, relevant here, that education level does not affect the level of political participation online” (Best & Krueger, 2005; Brunsting & Post- mes, 2002; Enjolras, Steen-Johnsen, & Wollebaek, 2012; Koc-Mishalska, Gibson, & Vedel, 2014).

So, what this quote helps me personally prove is that social media provides the access to the platform and the opportunity to educate, but that also the education level that is already present does not affect participation in general. So, on a platform like Twitter, we have a space where experts, educated, and uneducated people are all participating and contributing to the political climate of the platform. While this is oftentimes tumultuous, at least it is getting talked about????? What a bright side way to look at that!

The article also mentions how platforms like Twitter have had an “equalizing effect.” Also, another GREAT point I that read was platforms like Twitter are an alternative source!!!! (the article mentions specifically for those of “lower socioeconomic status.”) However, I would argue that Twitter is also a great alternative platform for younger generations who are not as familiar with other established new sources/are looking to spread their wings and fly in terms of news sources!

To wrap this all up. If you could not tell already, I am an advocate for Miss Twitter. Stay informed, educate yourself, and for the love of all higher power PLEASE vote!

[thoughtsofamastersstudent]

Thought Blog #1

As a Gen-Z/Millennial cusp baby, I grew up on the tail end of the beginning of social media and grew along with the rapid development of what it has turned into. Because of this, I remember hearing about Myspace, but being too young to have one (thanks mom). However, still using early platforms like AOL messenger to talk to classmates (and yes my name was becca.awesomeness as every ten year old at the time had a similar embarrassing variation). Also, because of my placement on the generational switch, I was amongst the crowd of people who got to see social media come to life and “boom.” Twitter was first launched in 2007, but because of their age rules and my mom being a stickler for rules, I did not get my first account until 2012 (tea! I had a One Direction fan account) ((It was actually pretty successful)) and made a personal account in 2014. As for Facebook, by the time I was allowed to have one, Facebook had become a place for all those boring adults. So, I did not get a Facebook until after I graduated high school in 2017. When it comes to Instagram, I was quick to join. With the release of Instagram coming in late 2010, the first archived post I have is from mid-2011 which is crazy. What I find the largest difference is between social media today and back then is that being mutual friends with someone to interact with a see their content is not a component anymore. This very fact has allowed influencer culture to become what it is today. Today, I can follow my favorite human Harry Styles, see and love all of his content without him even knowing I exist (what a sad thing). While friends lists and mutual followings are still a thing in the social media world, the allowance of these big celebrities and influencers to have millions of followers whilst only following a few hundred themselves has created a booming environment for marketing. Now, one person can reach their audience of millions with a sponsored post or just sharing products they like. If social media was the same as it was back then, I cannot even imagine how marketing would work because social media makes it so easy now. My final thoughts are that social media has had me by the neck ever since I can remember, from my early Club Penguin days to my current Insta baddie/Twitter-loving self. I, for one, feel so lucky that I was able to grow up with and around it. Also, it is kind of fun to make fun of all the annoying millennial/gen z traits and claim all of the best haha. Without social media, I would not have majored in marketing for undergrad and I for sure would not be in this grad program. Do I love social media too much? Of course, I do! But I will choose to keep enjoying it and unpack what this does to me at a later time in my life.