digitaltowns

[digitaltowns]

Signing Off

Thank you online Digital Communities class teaching period 1, 2018! It has been enriching to read your thought provoking posts about all things relating to online communities. I wish you all the very best of luck and bid you adieu.

[digitaltowns]

Farmville vs. Real Farms

See the full Image by Shane Snow via Mashable

[digitaltowns]

Social Gaming: It’s not all fun and games.

Social gaming refers to a segment of online games that enables interaction between players and as of 2017 the industry is estimated to be worth US$2.15 billion in the United States alone (Statista 2017). When social gaming first launched on Facebook in 2007, it grew very rapidly on the platform (O'Neill 2008). The graph below shows the most popular games available through Facebook and surprisingly, Candy Crush is still significantly more popular than its competitors.

Most Popular Facebook Games as of June 2018, Based on Number of Daily Active Users (in millions)

(Source: Statista)

One interesting by-product to come from the industry of social gaming is that following the popularity of social games, some developers took advantage of their momentum and began to create applications that convert the points gained by players into tangible donations for charity (Swallow 2013). See more about this and some examples of developers via Forbes.

(Image via Mashable)

However, it’s not all fun and games. Gaming communities can often experiences issues such as misogyny, trolling and targeted bullying. An online conflict spilt over into the real world in the case of 'EVE Online', a massively multiplayer online game that involves role playing and encourages foul play to an extent (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014, p. 77). During a fan convention panel that took place in a real-life, a player who plays a notorious, aggressive character and seeks to provoke others in the game acted the persona of his character whilst giving a presentation (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014, p. 89). In the presentation, he took it too far by singling out other players that he had harassed in the game, making light of suicide and giving out personal information (de Zwart & Humphreys 2014, p. 87-88).

Participants in online communities can be physically located anywhere in the world due to the affordance of social gaming that removes physical barriers. On the subject of legal jurisdiction online, Byassee (1995, p. 219) wrote "traditional legal paradigms do not fit this interaction because they treat the interaction as occurring entirely in the real world locations in which the participants reside". Although this article is now 23 years old, Byasse's statement still holds true and jurisdictions continues to be a challenge with online dealings as the laws differ from country to country. As such, the laws are constantly evolving to determine the best course of action to deal with infringements in online communities, including gaming communities. With regards to the case of EVE Online, Suzor & Woodford (2013, p. 13) found that existing legal frameworks do not take into account the change in community norms and thus are ineffective for regulation in social gaming.

So, whose responsibility is it to police interactions in the realm of social gaming? Should the onus be on the company that develops the game, player communities or law enforcement in the offending users' country of origin?

References

Byassee, W.S 1995, 'Jurisdiction of cyberspace: Applying real world precedent to the virtual community', Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 197 - 220.

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

O'Neill, N 2008, 'What exactly are social games?', AdWeek, 31 July, viewed 7 June 2018, <https://www.adweek.com/digital/social-games/>.

Statista 2017, Social Gaming - Statistics & Facts, Statista, viewed 7 June 2018, <https://www.statista.com/topics/2965/social-gaming/>.

Suzor, N & Woodford, D 2013, 'Evaluating Consent and Legitimacy amongst Shifting Community Norms: an EVE Online Case Study', Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1 - 14.

Swallow, E 2013, 'How social games are changing the world',Forbes, 23 March, viewed 7 June 2018, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericaswallow/2013/03/23/social-games/#2fc2fe6b377e>.

[digitaltowns]

Can you believe how much information we are sharing with strangers about ourselves?

I’m positive that it would be way too easy to find out a ton of information about me from my social media profiles too.

[digitaltowns]

But First, Let Me Take a Selfie.

Capturing a photo used to be a precious thing, something finite to be saved for particular occasions. Since the introduction of digital cameras followed by mobile phones with built-in cameras and ever increasing affordable storage capacities, there is virtually no cost to capturing photo. This has lead to people capturing more images than ever and sharing them online in order to garner likes. Social media has given us the ability to share these photos in a way that allows us to carefully craft an image of ourselves that we would like to portray to the world.

(Image via Awol Junkee)

One important form of image in the age of visual communities and social imaging is the selfie. Now a commonplace term in the technological world, a selfie is defined as a photograph that one has captured of oneself in most cases using a smartphone or webcam that is then shared via social media (Wickel 2015, p.1). There have been many projects attempting to understand the phenomenon of selfies such as the large scale and slightly controversial "Selfie City", see http://selfiecity.net. However, let us a discuss a different question that is often asked, do you believe that the act of taking a selfie and/ or posting it online is an act of narcissism?

(Selfies are so popular that they even go their own song!)

Wickel (2015, p. 3) wrote that there is a high correlation between selfie culture and narcissism noting that the top three reasons that millennials gave for regularly posting selfies were indicators of narcissistic behaviour. Conversely, a study conducted by Barry et al. (2017) found that there was a lack of association between self-reported narcissism and the posting of selfies, suggesting that posting selfies may just be a normal method of online communication. Unfortunately some have noted that taking constantly taking exuberant selfie can take a negative toll on a persons' self-esteem (Moses 2018). Meanwhile, Lange (2009, p. 72) wrote that "securing someone's attention in person is an ongoing, managed process that easily and frequently breaks down". Perhaps one of the main motivations for someone to frequently share selfies is to ensure that they can continue to captivate an audience and remain relevant in the online world.

Personally, I align with Vivienne & Burgess' (2013) view that personal photographs are a communication tool that enable us to tell our narrative. I do not believe that the act of taking a selfie and sharing it is inherently narcissistic as people often share these photos in an effort to provide a life update to their family and friends. Besides, people were getting self-portraits painted to hang on their own wall long before selfies existed.

References

Barry, C, Doucette, H, Loflin, D.C, Rivera-Hudson, N & Herrington, L.L 2017, '"Let me take a selfie": Associations between self-photography, narcissism and self-esteem", Psychology of Popular Media Culture, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 48 - 60.

Lange, P.G 2009, ‘Videos of Affinity on YouTube’, in P, Snickars & P, Vonderau (eds), The YouTube Reader, National Library of Sweden, Stockholm, pp. 70-88.

Moses, M 2018, 'The Truth About Selfie Culture', The New Yorker, 20 April, viewed 28 May 2018, <https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-truth-about-selfie-culture>.

Vivienne, S & Burgess, J 2013, ‘The Remediation of the Personal Photograph’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 279 - 298.

Wickel, T.M 2015, 'Narcissism and Social Networking Sites: The Act of Taking Selfies', Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1 - 22.

[digitaltowns]

An aesthetically pleasing breakdown of crowdsourcing forms

By Deloitte via Gov2020

[digitaltowns]

Who you gonna call? Crowdsourcing in times of crisis.

(Image: ‘Teachr - Noise to Signal’ by Rob Cottingham via Social Signal)

Lately, Facebook has not been in anybody's good books (get it? Books. Ha.) due to the privacy scandal that saw data firm Cambridge Analytica harvest unauthorised data from more than 87 million Facebook users (ABC News 2018). However, when they introduced the 'Safety Check' feature on October 15, 2014, it seemed that they did have good intentions in respect to their users (Gleit et al. 2014). This feature allows users to mark themselves as 'safe' during times of crisis and is designed to automatically prompt users who are within the radius of affected areas based on personal location information provided to Facebook to use the feature to notify their friends and family members of their status with regards to the crisis. As well as this, the feature can also serve to form a centralised information hub and map of the areas affected by disasters to assist emergency response crews in planning for action.

Originally, the designers behind the 'safety check' feature imagined that it would be activated during natural disasters as a central hub to determine the safety of people in the affected areas (Fitzpatrick 2015). However, in one instance on November 13, 2015 the feature was turned on during the terror attack in Paris allowing people to stay connected during the attack even from across the world and this was the first time it was used for a non-natural crisis (Fitzpatrick 2015).  In another instance, during the Pulse nightclub mass shooting in Orlando in 2016, Facebook's 'safety check' kicked in 11 minutes before police had officially confirmed the situation and helped to ease the stress of an individual as his friends began to check in as safe (Metz 2017).

(Image: Facebook via TIME)

Before the 'safety check' feature was introduced by Facebook, people were already turning to online platforms for communication in times of crisis as phone lines often go down. For example, #QldFloods was used on Twitter to share information in 2011 by ABC, Australia's official emergency broadcaster (Posetti & Lo 2012, p. 34). Furthermore, during this crisis the ABC conducted a trial of a live map on the platform Ushahidi that showed problem areas created by the floods based on information that was crowdsourced online (Posetti & Lo 2012, p. 36). Even if the information is a bit scattered as situations begin to unfold, I think that social media is a vital source of crowdsourced information during times of crisis due to the speed at which information can be disseminated. Considering that making a phone call during an emergency only informs one person whereas an action such as marking yourself 'safe' on a social media platform can instantly be seen by all of your family and friends.

References

ABC News 2018, 'Cambridge Analytica harvested data from more than 87 million Facebook users, whistleblower says', ABC News, 18 April, viewed 29 May 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-18/cambridge-analytica-employee-testifies-before-uk-committee/9670192>.

Fitzpatrick, A 2015, 'This Facebook feature kept people connected during the Paris Attacks',TIME, 14 November, viewed 29 May 2018, <http://time.com/4112882/facebook-safety-check-paris/>.

Gleit, N, Zeng, S & Cottle, P 2014, Introducing Safety Check, Facebook, viewed 29 May 2018, <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/introducing-safety-check/>.

Metz, C 2017, 'How Facebook wants to save the world', Wired, 2 February, viewed 29 May 2018, <http://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-inside-story-of-how-facebook-is-transforming-disaster-response>.

Posetti, J & Lo, P 2012, 'The Twitterisation of ABC's Emergency and Disaster Communication', The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 34-39.

[digitaltowns]

Online Trolling: An Infographic Presented by Best Psychology Schools Online via Mashable

[digitaltowns]

Trollolol

(Image by Steve Brodner via TIME)

Did you know that the word 'troll', which internet users tend to attribute to the creatures that hide under bridges waiting for prey actually originated from a term used to the described the catching of fish through the use of a baited line behind a boat (Thacker & Griffiths 2012)? The term was first used online in the 90s on Usenet forums, which was an early platform of online discussion boards and has slowly evolved to today's complex definition beginning with a person who seeks to provoke others online (Jukes 2012, p.36). The scope of an online troll is now broad and for me personally, I have used it to describe anyone from a person who performs the act of 'rickrolling' by sending a 'funny video' that turns out to be a link to Rick Astley's 'Never Gonna Give You Up'. I have also referred to groups of people who band together online to post hateful comments as trolls.

(Image via MemeDroid)

On social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram, the users who seek out others with the intent of antagonising them are commonly referred to as trolls (McCosker 2013, p. 5).  In a 2014 survey, it was found that 70% of internet users aged 18 to 24 had experienced some form of harassment and 26% of women in that same age range had been stalked online (Stein 2016). What is it about the online realm that gives normal people the urge to heckle another person? The motives of internet users who intentionally create negative digital spaces by antagonising people have been strongly linked to reduced non-verbal cues, decreased inhibitions and degrees of anonymity that lead to regular people transforming into online bullies (Milne 2010, p. 171). For me, this phenomenon can be likened to perfectly calm people who become aggressive towards other drivers when they are driving simply because they don't see other vehicles as containing an actual person but rather just as cars.

I used to think that when people spoke about trolling they were just referring to pranking someone to annoy them for a laugh without causing real harm. However, the bottom line is that so much of this now leads to full-blown online bullying that causes negative effects in real life. I think the best way to fight these online bullies is to beat them at their own game but then do you, in turn become the troll? It’s a vicious cycle.

References

Jukes, P 2012, The Fall of the House of Murdoch: Fourteen Days That Ended a Media Dynasty, Random House, London.

McCosker, A 2013, 'Trolling as provaction: YouTube’s agonistic public’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New MediaTechnologies, vol. 20, issue 2, pp. 127 -128.

Milne, E 2010, Letters, Postcards, Email: Technologies of Presence, London, UK, Routledge.

Stein, J 2016, 'How Trolls Are Ruining the Internet',TIME Magazine, 18 August, viewed 25 May 2018, <http://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/>.

Thacker, S and Griffiths, M.D 2012, 'An Exploratory Study of Trolling in Online Video Gaming’, Cyber Behaviour, Psychology and Learning, vol.4, issue 1, pp. 3-17.

[digitaltowns]

Do we see fewer crowds taking to the streets like this since the rise of social media?

[digitaltowns]

Changing the World: One Click at a Time

(Image: OccupyCentral/ Umbrella Movement via Reuters/ Bobby Yip)

It is easier than ever for people to support cause, stand up for something they care about or to start a debate with someone about a topical issue - you don't even need to get out of the bed in the morning to begin getting involved in any of these things. Social networking sites have created platforms that allow people to have their voices heard across a wider scope and start movements. In the past we have seen some cases of activism that garnered mass followings, which ignited online such as #IStandWithAhmed and Kony 2012 both causes may have gone widely unnoticed if not for the worldwide traction received due to social media campaigns. The #IStandWithAhmed campaign gained so much attention from tweets that the president even decided to chime in at the time:

(Image via @POTUS44)

Unfortunately, being able to show your support for causes with such ease through small actions such a retweet, posting a status, commenting on a YouTube video or signing an online petition has created 'slacktivism'. This also known as 'subactivism', a term that refers to small-scale actions based on political or ethical agendas that stay submerged in everyday life (Bakardjieva 2009, p. 96). Kony 2012 was one example of a movement that seemed to gain attention overnight after viral when a documentary of child recruitment by African warlord Joseph Kony was uploaded to YouTube. It gained international attention and Rihanna even weighed in on the issue but in the two years following, the issue was all but forgotten and Kony still evaded capture (Sanders 2014).

It is not as easy as it appears to create a movement using social media that incites change as those passionate about the issue are required to continuously work to hold the fragile attention of the internet world to receive ongoing support (Morozov 2010). An example of social media excelling in the field of activism and protest is the function of 'plan to action'. Social media allows the decentralised sharing of opinions between the masses whilst simultaneously enabling centralised few-to-few contact between people to create a plan for action (Joyce 2010). The Occupy Central movement, which happened in Hong Kong in 2014 was a mass movement that lasted 79 days and involved up 100,000 participants sitting in high traffic areas across the city (Connors 2015). This movement showed a brilliant use of social media in uniting and coordinating the masses as social messaging applications were used as the primary source of communication.

(Image by @EricAllie via Twitter)

References

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

Connors, A 2015, ‘Hong Kong’s umbrella movement: A Timeline of key events one year on’, ABC News, 28 September, viewed 27 April 2018, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/timeline-hong-kong-umbrella-movement-one-year-on/6802388>.

Joyce, M 2010, Digital Activism Decoded: The New Mechanics of Change, International Debate Education Association, New York.

Morozov, E 2010, ‘Virtual vs. Real Protests’, New York Times, 9 December, viewed 27 April 2018, <https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/29/can-twitter-lead-people-to-the-streets/virtual-vs-real-protests>.

Sanders, S 2014, ‘The ‘Kony 2012’ Effect: Recovering from a Viral Sensation’, NPR, 14 June, viewed 27 April 2018, <http://www.npr.org/2014/06/14/321853244/the-kony-2012-effect-recovering-from-a-viral-sensation>.

[digitaltowns]

Must have been a blast two years ago

(via @JamColley)

[digitaltowns]

Should Politicians Engage in Web 2.0?

Locally in Australia and internationally, enabling a seemingly closer connection between individuals and politicians is perhaps the greatest change that the use of social media in politics has brought on. This connection is utilised both by individuals to rally politicians for changes and by politicians to present themselves on a more personal level to gain votes.

When I was in primary school, I recall one weekend visiting a nearby high school with my mum and dad - it was federal election day. As we walked past the crowds of people campaigning for the various political parties outside the entrance to the school gym, I asked my parents who they were planning on voting for. I also decided to give my opinion and as I was a kid, the person I suggested they should give their vote to was just the face I had seen the most on TV. Now with Web 2.0 available, politicians with less financial backing have a stronger ability to reach a large audience and become a known face that would not have been accessible to them through traditional media outlets.

Social media can be a very a powerful tool for politicians if it is used in a successfully engaging way. For example, in 2007, Kevin Rudd and his team created the Kevin07 campaign utilising a website, YouTube, Facebook and MySpace and this captivated Australian voters under the age of 35 (Ward 2008, p. 12). This campaign still continues to be referenced as a leap forward in the use of new media in politics (Chen & Walsh 2010, p. 47). Following this campaign, many politicians began to join social networking sites in 2009, however most were unable to embrace the new media fully and retreated as members of the public started to use the platform to communicate to the politicians how they felt about them (Jericho 2013, p. 255).

(via Davis 2007)

On the other hand, a poor history on social media can have the opposite effect and create a negative reputation of someone who decides to go into politics. Speaking to a group of high school students in 2009, Barack Obama advised them "be careful about what you post on Facebook, because in the YouTube age whatever you do, it will be pulled up again later somewhere in your life" (The Sydney Morning Herald 2009). This is entirely true for anyone and even more so for public figures who have their every move scrutinised. It is a shame that this might continue deterring politicians from engaging in social media because it is much easier for some members of the community to get in contact through social networks rather than by sending an email or a letter. I hope this changes sooner rather later to grow the interest of the  generation when it comes to politics.

References

Chen, P.J & Walsh, L 2010, ‘E-Election 2007? Political Competition Online’, Australian Cultural History, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 47 - 54.

Jericho, G 2013, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate,Scribe, Victoria, pp. 254 - 278.

The Sydney Morning Herald 2009, 'Barack Obama is… warning about 'stupid' Facebook posts', The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 September, viewed 13 April 2018, <https://www.smh.com.au/technology/barack-obama-is-warning-about-stupid-facebook-posts-20090909-fg93.html>.

Ward, I 2008, ‘Kevin07. Labor’s pitch to Generation YouTube’, Social Alternatives, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 11 - 15.

[digitaltowns]

Different Uses of Social Media Platforms

(via CollegeHumor by Susanna Wolff)

[digitaltowns]

1A: Our Social Experiences and the Affordances of Social Media

Pew Research (2018) reports that 69% of Americans now use some form of social media and over 70% of those survey participants who responded yes also confirm accessing it daily, it is safe to say that that social media is integrated into our daily lives. The landscape of social media platforms and the way that people use them is continuously evolving. This is largely attributed to affordances, which are inherent in all social media platforms. Affordances are the various actionable uses that something physical or intangible allows by design, which may be applications that the designer had not considered their product being used for (Norman 1994). An example from the context of social media is the way Facebook has evolved in response to the way users were utilising the platform organise gatherings and remain up to date with social events. It is evident from usage statistics that Facebook is deeply integrated into daily life for many people with 74% of social media users accessing Facebook everyday (Pew Research 2018).

There has been many occasions where I have deactivated my Facebook due to the time consumed from my use of the platform and I have even considered deleting it altogether. This desire to cut my ties with Facebook sprung up again in light of the Cambridge Analytica data mining scandal involving more than 50 million users (Hindman 2018). However, after some deliberation, I decided that it would be too difficult without it due to the affordance of collaboration and getting in touch with new people from class for group projects. I am not alone in this as students confirm that "Facebook is important because of its convenience" (Debatin et al. 2009, p. 95) and "Student Life without Facebook is almost unthinkable" (Debatin et al. 2009, p. 83). Thus it is true that my social experience in terms of university life is bound up with Facebook although I try to use at little as possible.

(via Comics And Memes)

In contexts that we will further explore, the practice of anonymity that is allowed through the design of social media platforms is pivotal to the way people may use of certain platforms. Say, in the context of trolling and social media conflict being able to remain anonymous is the key to how our social experiences are shaped as that online anonymity removes perceived personal accountability from a situation (van der Nagel 2013, p. 3). For now, it is safe to say that the affordances of social media platforms would definitely have had an impact on our social experiences in this generation.

References

Comics And Memes 2013 [Image], one does not simply delete a facebook account, Comics And Memes, viewed 16 April 2018, <http://comicsandmemes.com/one-does-not-simply-delete-a-facebook-account/>.

Debatin, B, Lovejoy, J.P, Horn, A & Hughes, B.N 2009, 'Facebook and Online Privacy: Attitudes, Behaviors, and Unintended Consequences', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 83 - 108.

Hindman, M 2018, 'How Cambridge Analytica's Facebook targeting model really worked - according to the person who built it', The Conversation, viewed 16 April 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-cambridge-analyticas-facebook-targeting-model-really-worked-according-to-the-person-who-built-it-94078>.

Interaction-Design.org 2011, Affordances (Don Norman, 1994), viewed 16 April 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Zb_5VxuM>.

Pew Research 2018, Social Media Fact Sheet, viewed 16 April 2018, <http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/social-media/>.

Van der Nagel, E 2013, 'Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild', Scan Journal of Media Arts Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, Macquarie University.

[digitaltowns]

1A: Digital Communities/ Social Media

When I wake up each morning, it seems like the first thing I do is instinctively reach for my phone as I contemplate getting out of bed. Then I begin tapping on all the apps calling for my attention with that red dot in the top right corner. I am not alone in doing this as ReportLinker (2017) found, on a typical day a staggering 46% of Americans first check their smartphones as soon as they wake up and 31% go straight to social media apps. This is in part what Boyd (2012, p. 72) refers to when she describes the lifestyle of being 'always-on', where although we may not be activelybrowsing the internet during every minute of the day, the internet is always within arms reach. As such, there is a sense that I am always accessible and anyone that I wish to connect with is also accessible.

(ReportLinker 2017)

As I make my through feed after feed of updates from friends, I am at danger of staying in bed too long being immersed in an infinite scrolling session, yet I cannot help feeling disconnected from the news that I am interacting with through double-tap likes, reacts and emoji responses. Turkle (2013) makes the point in her TED-Ed talk 'Connected, but alone?' that at the cost of face-to-face interactions we are constantly connected to everything, each other, everywhere. Alone together is the term that Turkle (2013) coins for the times when groups of people are physically together and spending time with each other but their attention is focussed on their phones. I, like many others I am sure have experienced this almost every time when meeting up with friends for a meal. More than once, we have self-identified that the lack of attention we were giving to people who were present around us was so unacceptable that we decided to stack all of our phones face down on the table in an effort to have a real time conversation with each other.

Turkle (2013) argues that consistently exchanging short messages between one another are not equivocal to having one real conversation with someone as we not learn to know someone on a deeper level with these short exchanges. Furthermore, the way we use social media allows us to curate our image handcrafting the narrative of our 'self' (Wilken & McCosker 2014, p. 292). Are we truly at risk of losing our ability to converse with one another as we become more deeply absorbed in our smartphones and the online world where we have the ability to control the exact image that we would like to project?

References

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

ReportLinker 2017, For Most Smartphone Users, It's a 'Round-the-Clock' Connection, ReportLinker, viewed 16 April 2018, <https://www.reportlinker.com/insight/smartphone-connection.html>.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone? - Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 16 March 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c&feature=youtu.be>.

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

[digitaltowns]

An infographic comparing popular social media sites as at August 2017

Made by Leverage (2017)