izzydigicom

[izzydigicom]

Week 7: Face filters

A step up from post- production modification, comes the terrifying, real-time masking of reality. Face filters move with your face, making it too easy to fake eye colour, a full face of makeup, or even lip fillers, in a perfectly natural looking video.

With the obscuring of boundaries between fake and real, comes digitised dysmorphia– we lose our sense of what to expect when we look in the mirror, and become suddenly disappointed when met with visible pores.

Rettberg (2014), describes this phenomenon perfectly:

‘After we see an object several times, we begin to recognize it. The object is in front of us and we know about it, but we do not see it – hence we cannot say anything significant about it.’

Scrolling through our filtered feeds daily, we become blind to the artifice, falsely convinced that heavily filtered images, are natural. To think what effect this must have on our expectations for ourselves– a never-ending digital catalogue of images, is much different to the odd gossip magazine cover.

What may be most concerning about this escalating phenomenon, is how normalised it has become. Isabelle Coy-Dibley notes that gendered differences clarify the seriousness of digitised dysmorphia, considering the heteropatriarchal standards it is largely based around. Coy-Dibley (2016), proposes that if as many men were to have the same anxieties over their looks as is normal for women, this would be considered ‘pathalogical’.

Though this establishes this ‘preoccupation and fixation on looks’ to be considered unhealthy, in society, it is still ‘culturally perpetuated through the pressures induced by our idealized-image-saturated society.’ (Coy-Dibley, 2016, p.3).

This brings us to another interesting observation– as much as we condemn it, a looks-obsessed digital society is all too easy to perpetuate.

A study found that the things we are exposed to in social media influence what we post:

‘Users who saw posts with more positive words used more positive words in their own posts, and vice versa.’ (Rettberg, 2014, p.24).

So, does this mean we consciously monitor our angles, clothing, and many other elements of our posts, to match the standards we see?

Even if your personal answer is no, you may be surprised at the degree to which this may be true.

Sources

Coy-Dibley, I, 2016, “Digitised Dysmorphia” of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image, Palgrave Communications

Rettberg J.W, 2014, Filtered reality: Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves, Palgrave Macmillan, London.

[izzydigicom]

Week 6: Digital citizenship and body modification

In discussions of social media, talk of facades is commonplace, but more so in the metaphorical sense– a highlights reel of perfect moments, fake smiles. But what about physical appearances? Body modification has become so common online that in most places it is undetectable. For many, this is the real danger.

A vicious cycle of audience engagement and performer appeal comes into play here: social media users rise to popularity on the basis of good looks, and consumers are most exposed to content from those with digital popularity. As a result, your average user is faced with majority unattainable images. Further, performers with the desire to rise to microcelebrity status, learn to alter their images in order to join the popular faces and bodies so many users are faced with daily. Hence, these posts can be referred to as aesthetic templates.

But is it as simple as this? Is everyone who edits their images on social media, primarily motivated by popularity and admiration? I would say, for many, this is the mere coping strategy against the force of other ‘realistic’ images setting disproportionate, unrealistic standards.

However, given social media’s power when it comes to enlightening groups of people on topics of marginalisation, subverting the ‘perfect’ edited Instagram body type, must be done carefully. With discussion of self-image comes nuanced input regarding topics from eating disorders to fatphobia, to racism.

See below, post by @Lesforyoga on Instagram:

@Lesforyoga via Psychology Today

In an attempt to lift the spirits of those discouraged after comparing their bodies to their Instagram feed, Les compares what would be considered an ‘insta-worthy’ image, to one highlighting features considered unflattering.

Lacy-Jade acknowledges how this approach can be more harmful, than helpful:

Lacy-Jade Christie for MamaMia

‘My body and my rolls are there 100 per cent of the time. There is no photo angle or position where I can pose where I don't have rolls. I can’t use filters or poses to shrink myself so that I fit within societally enforced unattainable standards of beauty (ie. thin and white).’

–Christie, L, 2020.

To compare these images so people can ‘feel better’ about not looking like the first image, is to feed the damaging logic that the first image is ‘better’. The algorithm feeds this logic enough. Though, the ubiquity of similar ‘instagram vs reality’ posts from slim Instagram users, showcases the dangers Instagram poses to its users, not only by the use of filters and favouring posts with a certain look, but by causing people to perpetuate the same logic– even if they claim to be against it.

And so, the rise of cosmetic surgery can be hugely attributed to social media culture. Even if we try to tell ourselves our ‘imperfections’ are natural, and okay, we still see them as just that–imperfect.

This leads to formerly ‘luxury’ procedures trickling into the interest pools of lower-income, ‘everyday’ social media users. According to a study in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, ‘Board-certified plastic surgeons are underrepresented amongst physicians posting top plastic surgery-related content to Instagram’(Dorfman et.al, 2018).

As if we didn’t have mental health and body image to worry about already, one of the world’s biggest social media platforms, is promoting risky procedures for our physical health too.

Former snapchat star Anika makes for a perfect example of how this starts– what started with enjoying some fun filters, led to her living more self-consciously. Anika would think to herself, ‘I’d like to look how I look with this filter that makes my nose look slimmer’, and soon began to monitor the way she sat in real life, so that nobody could catch a bad angle of her nose (Hunt, 2019).

With social media blurring the line between fake and real more each day, our self perception suffers immensely– such is the phenomenon, selfie dysmorphia (more on that in week 7).

Sources

Christie, L, 2020, “Fake fat is all the rage.” The glaring problem with your ‘Instagram vs reality’ posts, MamaMia, https://www.mamamia.com.au/instagram-vs-reality-trend/

Dorfman R, Vaca E, Mahmood E, Fine N and Schierle C, 2018, ‘Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3, March 2018, pp 332–338 

Engeln, R, 2019, Do “Instagram vs. Reality” Posts Make a Difference?, Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/beauty-sick/201912/do-instagram-vs-reality-posts-make-difference

Hunt, E, 2019, Faking it: how selfie dysmorphia is driving people to seek surgery, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/23/faking-it-how-selfie-dysmorphia-is-driving-people-to-seek-surgery

[izzydigicom]

Week 5: Digital Citizenship

“A good digital citizen is a person with the skills and knowledge to effectively use digital technologies in a positive way to participate in society, communicate with others, and create and consume digital content” –Office of the eSafety Commissioner, NSW Department of Education

Digital citizenship, in basic terms, refers to an individual’s public participation online. In the way that a traditional citizenship grants its holder to contribute to society, digital citizens make use of the web to build communities, contribute to social change, and even climb social ladders.

Political engagement is increasingly enabled via these dynamics- almost like in physical society, it’s widely seen as shameful, to take up digital space without putting energy towards your beliefs and social justice values.

With over 26k posts, the Instagram hashtag SilenceIsCompliance is an example of how popular this rhetoric is among users. This message was pushed greatly in the recent resurgence of the Black Lives Mattermovement in 2020.

The following post is an example of the kinds of things I saw on my feed daily, in the period closely following the murder of George Floyd:

Alex Tran via Instagram

During this time, I also noticed a huge increase in the amount of people I follow, posting political content. My feed was flooded with information passed down from activism accounts, organisations, and popular black public figures. Whilst this helped me find my way to reliable resources to educate myself on important topics, and sent me to trustworthy organisations, the same methods of sharing can have harmful effects.

The pressure to break one’s silence affected many inadequately educated public figures and microcelebrities, resulting in huge sections of the internet participating in an insidious spread of misinformation, harmful advice, or offensive ‘trends’ designed to show support, which ended up neutralising important black voices. Not to mention how one wrong click could lead millions to donate to a fake fundraiser, or sign a petition they do not know enough about.

Vromen observes that ad hoc involvement in politics has increased as a result of digital engagement (2017). Scrolling through newsfeeds where we are overloaded with information from all sides, it’s easier for many, particularly younger users, to engage in politics in individualised ways rather than as ‘committed members of formal groups’ (Vromen, 2017).

A shift to this individualised approach facilitates populous and enthusiastic action towards single campaigns, from people with varied levels of political involvement. Pressing issues (especially for young people), find a sound platform via social media, its fast-acting participants spreading anything from educational texts to fundraising efforts. Take Greta Thunberg, whose trending hashtag spread so far to strike back up conversation among world leaders regarding climate change.

Sean Gallup for Getty Images

Whilst hashtag publics have proven to be beneficial to many movements (see above for the result of #schoolstrikeforclimatechange), the lack of boundaries within certain platforms make them chaotic places for engagement. Take #auspol, for example, described by Axel Bruns as a place “where there is a lot of very spirited debate ... which can sometimes be very strong in tone, possibly abusive."

media platforms are increasingly used as direct news sources, ‘bypassing the editorial media’ (Pew Report, 2016). Considering this, what effect will heated discussions on these same platforms, often with ill-informed or extreme biased opinions, have on digital speculators? Within a single hashtag like #Auspol, one may find anything from direct news reports to niche debates– so where can we draw the line on what is trustworthy, or beneficial, on such free-reign platforms?

Further, what does this mean for politicians? Will their campaigning over social media, designed to appeal to young people through digital literacy, authenticity, and personality, obscure our vision of their true intentions?

Sources

Bogle, A, 2018, #auspol: The Twitter tag that Australia can't do without, Mashable, https://mashable.com/2016/03/21/twitter-australia-auspol/#4tvfXtsZUEqV

Hockenos, P, 2019, The Kids Are Taking Charge of Climate Change, Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/04/10/the-kids-are-taking-charge-of-climate-change/

Tran A, 2021, Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/fucktheabuser/

Vromen, A, 2017, Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement The Challenge from Online Campaigning and Advocacy Organisations, London : Palgrave Macmillan

[izzydigicom]

Week 4: Reality TV

As much as we don’t like to admit it, there is something captivating about reality TV. It’s the type of guilty pleasure that sucks you in, and before you know it, all your rationale against this constructed media reality, has gone out the window. Even once we are aware of how orchestrated, exaggerated, and deceitful such programs are, we are still enticed by its entertaining grip.

Reality TV’s influence is amplified by audience interaction with it, via social media. Many of these conversation spaces often have a ‘political dimension’ (Van Zoonen, 2005), making them important within the public sphere, even among other exclusively political, hard news – based digital publics.

The importance of these conversations should not be overlooked, as they ‘contribute to the web of informal conversations that constitutes the public sphere’ (Graham et.al, 2011).

Individuals who feature on reality TV are forced into performative roles in their own lives, when in their ‘everyday’, supposedly authentic depictions of self via social media, they walk on eggshells around sensitive topics, and sensor or withhold personal beliefs to appeal to their loyal audience– one formed around a producer’s depiction of themselves, nonetheless.

This phenomenon is well articulated in the following quote:

Individuals [in the net-based public sphere] increasingly organize social and political meaning around their lifestyle values and the personal narratives that express them. –Graham et.al, 2011.

This pertains to audience criticisms of Reality programs as well– see below how the observation that the first three evictees of Big Brother 2020 were people of colour, leads to a conversation between fans:

This is what makes digital publics so important– big brother fans who may not be so engaged in political issues, become part of educated conversations like this.

It’s interesting to observe audience dedication to the affairs of these ‘stars’ across multiple platforms. The desire to engage our voyeurism extends beyond the TV into other means; our minds are adapted to such an involved perspective in each other’s lives over screens, and the drama of reality TV feeds this just enough for us to seek out more.

I wonder how it feels for former stars to have their remaining media presence directed by an audience who may have been entirely misled about their character; is there a really much difference between maintaining this kind of act, and the we choose to put on for our own followers?

Although, the farce nature of such programs is what makes them appealing to so many;  Jones (2003), argued that audiences are aware that Reality TV is ‘far from authentic but deliberately suspend disbelief in order to indulge in something of a ‘guilty pleasure.’’ (L'Hoiry, X, 2019).

From my observations and research regarding reality TV, here are my conclusions:

1. The social media fanbases for reality TV programs create valuable digital communities, and open spaces for casual but valuable political discussion, as it offers an honesty and candidacy, that isn’t found in strictly political digital publics. 2. On the contrary, this can be dangerous for younger users susceptible to misinformation. 3. Reality TV is appealing because of the opportunity for real-time multimedia interactions with it. 4. However, much of the viewing pleasure comes from the fact that this reality is dramatized on screen.

So it seems, the appeal and benefits of reality TV, come into effect via the fine line between true reality and dishonesty– my question is, will it do more harm than good?

Sources Todd Graham and Auli Hajru, Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere,  European Journal of Communication 26(1) 18–32, 2011.

L'Hoiry, X, (2019) Love Island, social media, and sousveillance : new pathways of challenging realism in reality TV. Frontiers in Sociology, 4. 59

Philip Tostado, 2020, Twitter, https://twitter.com/TheToastyPhil/status/1270741873842286592?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1270741873842286592%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbs.com.au%2Ftopics%2Fvoices%2Fculture%2Farticle%2F2020%2F06%2F11%2Fbig-brother-australia-criticised-after-first-three-evictions-are-people-colour

[izzydigicom]

1. I’m not attractive enough to be a Youtuber, 2. Not popular enough for twitter, 3. Facebook is dumb.

MAGDA KNYSZYNSKI

[izzydigicom]

How does Tumblr function as a digital community?

2014 Tumblr user, magdafy, once said, “I picked joining Tumblr and staying active on here because, 1. I’m not attractive enough to be a Youtuber, 2. Not popular enough for twitter, 3. Facebook is dumb.” (Reeve, E, 2016). This seems to be the perfect illustration of Tumblr’s unique appeal to teens and marginalised groups. Though tumblr encourages frequent interaction, updates, and peeks into others’ personal lives, it isn’t awfully comparable to other common social media platforms. Tumblr is more than updating your followers on glamourised versions of ordinary daily activities, with the obligation to prove that your life is interesting and that you can look pretty. On Tumblr, it’s not even expected that you show what you look like, or reveal your identity at all. This anonymity creates a whole new freedom for people to engage with others based on genuine common interests, and reveal the richness of their inner lives without apology; Tumblr, for many, is a safe refuge from the pressures of presenting as socially acceptable versions of themselves.

This gave way to Tumblr establishing itself as a platform to house prolific counterpublics; marginalised peoples, by operating under pseudonyms in online spaces, were able to build safe communities via online followings. What’s more, internet popularity and virality, via features like reblogging, significantly enhanced such people’s reach to otherwise disengaged audiences on other platforms; Tumblr youth would then quickly find themselves engaging in political and activist content. The cultural impact Tumblr hereby created is exemplified in the condemnation by popular media of Tumblr’s ban on adult content in 2018 (McCracken et.al, 2020, p.3), as this would disenfranchise marginalised users of the platform, who had previously found it to be a unique space for free expression. Though this led many sex workers among other users to leave the site, to this day, Tumblr is known to house strong communities of LGBTQ+ members, people or colour, feminist activists, people with unconventional political ideologies, people in marginalised bodies, and those battling mental illnesses, among many other sidelined groups.

Sources

Reeve, E, 2016, The Secret Lives of Tumblr Teens, The New Republic, https://newrepublic.com/article/129002/secret-lives-tumblr-teens

McCracken et.al, 2020, a tumblr book: platform and cultures, University of Michigan Press, https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11537055