jackdigitalcommunities-blog

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Hey thanks for the support @101661945! I’m with you on the fact that Wikipedia cannot be trusted all of the time, and wiki vandalism is one of the big concerns here. I think though in the majority of cases it’s kind of just silly pranking, like the Emma Stone example you’ve given, and can be easily identified by most readers.  Outright lies are pretty quickly fixed by the wikipedia community. In the case of perhaps more subtle, biased writing that bends the truth or opinions/ ideological bias... These may go undetected slightly longer, but compare that to any other form of media? I can honestly say I’d trust Wikipedia over Fox news. The crowd sourcing nature of wikipedia means that ever editor has to answer to the entire community. In any given journalism or media company they answer only to themselves. 

Crowdsourcing is awesome.

A bit late on this entry, but THE VLOG IS BACK!

Crowdsourcing is awesome. In so many ways, it is the realisation of what some of the earliest pioneers of the internet had envisioned - universal collaboration and access to knowledge.

Wikipedia is probably the gold-standard here. It is one of the most influential collections of knowledge in the world and has been compiled entirely by individuals who contribute and refine the content without the need for a central authority (Lee & Seo 2016, p.15).

“A feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse” - Aristotle (in Waldron 1995, p.564)

As early as Aristotle it seems that epistemological discourse has theorised ways that humans might be able to effectively share their collective intelligence, and Wikipedia (and the internet in general) seems to be the best solution to date of having the sum of human knowledge recorded and made available.

Crowdsourcing recognises that knowledge, when shared with the world, becomes a powerful tool for the greater good (Hess & Ostrom, 2007, p.8), and also that knowledge is cumulative and thus necessarily improved by having more people involved and adding to it.

It is generally at this point in the blog that I break out the “however” and go on to show the downsides to the technology and muddy the waters a bit on where I actually stand. I am going to say “however” because I want to present a balanced view, but I will come back to clarify my position with an important mention. However… There can be downsides to this kind of freely accessible commons. Wikipedia ‘vandalism’ is a humorous way of hijacking the system.. Many a teacher and professor has warned students to avoid wikipedia because “anyone can post anything”… Lee and Seo find that on Wikipedia, as the community of contributors has matured and the competition for revision has grown, dominant participants have emerged who may not necessarily have better information to contribute, but are just more assertive and active in their revisions and defense of their opinions (2016, p.19). In other words, when everyone is invited to contribute to a discussion, the ideas that are heard most are those that come from the individuals who speak loudest and most frequently.

Here’s where I want to clarify my position. Of course there are downsides to every innovation and technology. It is important to air these and debate them, but not use them as a way to dismiss or inhibit the progression of technology. I watched a great video recently by Alec Watson on his YouTube channel, Technology Connections. Through an analysis of the technological development of the LED traffic light, he illuminates what he calls the “but sometimes problem”. In his video he describes how LED traffic lights improved upon incandescent bulbs in almost every single measurable way, yet their one downside (vulnerability to snow) was used by critics to try and suppress the technology. The fallacy he describes, can be applied to many instances of how we as a society adopt new technology.

So please go ahead, contribute and be a part of building humankind’s collective knowledge.

References

Hess, C & Ostrom, E 2007, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, MIT Press, Massachusetts.

Lee, J & Seo, DB 2016, ‘Crowdsourcing not all sourced by the crowd: An observation on the behaviour of Wikipedia participants’, Technovation, vol. 55-56, pp.14-21.

Technology Connections 2018, The LED Traffic Light and the Danger of “But Sometimes!”, 14 May, viewed 19 May 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYO1TObNz8>

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Hi Mo,

I find the legislative side of this issue intriguing - you mentioned Brodie’s law, a positive step for workplace bullying, but it doesn’t seem like legal action can really help in the case of cyberbullying amongst children.  @studentlifeforme​ posted about Gabriella Green, a 12y.o girl who was bullied by classmates until she committed suicide. It raises a conundrum, can or should the perpetrators be punished? As they are just children themselves. And any 12 y.o. child involved in this behaviour probably isn’t fully aware of what they are doing and the repercussions to begin with, so tough legal precedent isn’t going to be something that deters them.

boyd (2014, p.152) contends that cyberbullying isn’t really any different to regular bullying, but that the comments made online are semi-permanent and public, unlike verbal schoolyard insults that do not linger. I’m not so sure I agree, I think cyberbullying is inherently different and I feel it has something to do with the way users feel protected online when they aren’t speaking face-to-face. Wakefield (2015) talks about the screen as a perceived barrier of protection by users involved in cyberbullying.

With all that in mind, I like the idea of having tough legislation in place to punish bullying, but I don’t think it will be effective when it comes to children, and more needs to be done.

References

boyd, d 2014, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, Newhaven.

Wakefield, J 2015, ‘Why are people so mean to each other online?’, BBC, 26 March, viewed 28 April 2018, <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31749753>

Trolling and social media conflict

In today’s world, social media has become a large part of our lives, with many of us using it on a daily basis and it’s not just us using it, our friends, advertisers, celebrities, government and even the royal family use it!

With such widespread use of the internet and social media, most users will encounter some form of cyberbullying or trolling during their use.  The office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner released some research insights and found that in 12 months ending in June 2016 8% of kids and 19% of teens were cyberbullied.  

Cyberbullying can take many forms including:

·         Being socially excluded

·         Called named names

·         Receiving repeated unwanted online messages

·         Had their accounts accessed by someone with their consent

·         Had inappropriate private photos of them posted without their consent

Cyberbullying and Trolling what is the difference?

Trolling can be described as a person who intentionally upsets or starts arguments with other people by posting hurtful or provocative comments.  The goal of a troll is annoying or angering people and they hid behind the veil of anonymity.

A troll’s purpose is to:

·         Be offensive or argumentative

·         Derive pleasure from annoying others

·         Search the internet for bait

·         get attention

·         feel powerful

·         gain recognition

·         upset the victim

Cyberbullying is the deliberate and reoccurring harm inflicted on someone using the internet or mobile phone.

A cyber bullies purpose is to:

·         Get revenge

·         Feel empowered

·         Gain popularity

·         Harass and threaten

·         Humiliate

·         Intimidate

For a further explanation of the difference between the two check out this YouTube video - 

What can we do about cyberbullying and trolling?

The Office of eSafety Commissioner works together with some social media sites as partners to remove cyberbullying material.  Their Tier scheme partners such as Snapchat, Flickr, YouTube, and Facebook are recognized for the safety measure they have put into place, these include:

Terms of use that prohibit cyberbullying material being posted on their sites

A complaints system which facilitates removal of cyberbullying material

A nominated person that the office liaises with regarding complaints about cyberbullying material.

The office’s role in dealing with cyberbullying complaints also acts as an early alert system for their social media partners by identifying particular at-risk children and broader systemic cyberbullying trends.

Brodie’s Law  

Brodie’s Law is Victoria’s anti-bullying legislation which began in June 2011 and made serious bullying a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.  Brodie’s Law was introduced after the tragic suicide of Brodie Panlock, who had been the victim of relentless bullying at work.  Brodie’s Law applies to all forms of serious bullying including online cyberbullying and applies to any area of the community and on the internet including email or social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

 References

Behind the News, What is the difference between cyberbullies and trolls?, 27 August 2014, viewed 27 May 2018 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js39KbiUfmY>

Hanson, J, 2018, ‘Tolls and their impact on social media’, University of Nebraska, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://unlcms.unl.edu/engineering/james-hanson/trolls-and-their-impact-social-media>

Justice and Regulation, c. 2018, Safer Communities, viewed 27 May 2018, <http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/safer+communities/crime+prevention/bullying+-+brodies+law>

Legal Aid Victoria, c 2018, Find legal answers, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/find-legal-answers/discrimination-harassment-and-bullying/bullying-online-or-school#section-header>

Lohmann, RC, 2014, ‘Trolling or Cyberbullying? Or Both?’, Psychology Today, 28 January, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/teen-angst/201401/trolling-or-cyberbullying-or-both>

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

That story about Gabriella Green is horrific, I hadn’t heard of it before. For me what makes the issue so important is that the bullying is often perpetrated by otherwise good kids. Of course the actions of the bullies are irredeemable, but I don’t believe those other kids really wanted to cause the death of their classmate. Clearly, when good kids do horrible things like this, there is something about the particular form of communication that is making this possible. 

There is something dissociative about using the internet. Even when not anonymous, there is a sense that the online world is not connected to reality and things like social media seem to be treated as if they are part of an online game, rather than as an extension of real life interactions.

I’ve heard advice along the lines of “if you wouldn’t say it to their face then don’t say it online” - that seems like a good starting place for educating children.

Trolling and Bullying

Social media is a very strong and efficient way to communicate and influence and spread messages all over the world within milliseconds.  When people of all ages have access to the internet at all times of the day all over the world they have two choices, they can either put positive content and spread positive messages or put negative content online and promote and spread negative messages. When you are online you have to be careful on what you post as this can have drastic affects on the audience (people watching) and the person the message is directed at.

An example of using the internet in the wrong way, called trolling was of a 12 year old called Gabrielle Green who was just an innocent young girl who went to school at Surfside Middle School. Gabrielle suffered tremendous bullying from two former school peers. One 12 year old girl would send her text messages and communicate on social media with her putting her down and calling her horrible names. This girl also spread rumors all over social media being Facebook and numerous other platforms stating that Gabrielle had STDs and exposed very sensitive details of her life. Another boy  told police he had a phone conversation with Gabrielle and she advised she tried to kill herself and then he said “well if you’re going to to do it, just do it” and ended the call. Minutes later Gabrielle hung herself with a dog leash.

Cyberbully and trolling is so destructive and literally take lives every week all over the world.

This is an example of how social media trolling can be used in positive way, see below a video that makes the racist people accountable for their actions.

This is an example of how social media trolling can be used in positive way, see below a video that makes the racist people accountable for their actions.

Quote from the creator of this video  - I want people to share this video for two reasons. Firstly because although we like to think we live in a culturally inclusive society, sadly this kind of stuff isn’t that uncommon. I know I’ve copped my share for being brown and all my ethnic friends have a story or two. It’s a thing in this country, let’s not pretend it’s not. And secondly so this video gets back to these three in particular. I want you guys to see this in the sober light of day so you can see how truly pathetic you are. - (Checkpoint Media 2012)

References:

2 arrested for cyber-bullying after 12-year-old girl’s suicide. (2018). Retrieved from http://abc13.com/2-arrested-for-cyber-bullying-after-12-year-old-girls-suicide/2983420/

Caught on camera racist Australian abuse girl smash bus window YouTube (2012)  <http://bit.ly/2j2duNx> 

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Really agree with the stance you’ve taken here - there are a lot of benefits to gaming, so long as it doesn’t descend into an addiction.  I’m a casual gamer, but I’ve recently been getting into retro gaming and have been having some gaming get togethers with work friends. We play my N64 or some classic arcade games on emulators. It is a really good social activity for us and offers an alternative male bonding to just going out drinking, or watching footy and drinking, or playing golf... then drinking.

As a kid I was into Runescape and Habbo Hotel, played mostly with my friends from real life and I have to say my experience was very similar to what is described by Kim, Yoo & Kauffman (2013, p.11) where social gaming promotes formation of new relationships and strengthens existing offline relationships. My best friend and I played Runescape daily for about a year around Grade 6 or 7. Neither of us are heavy gamers these days, but I do look back and think that bonding experience was very formative for us.

I found Runescape specifically taught me a lot about map reading and some basics of metal ore and alloys, etc. Certainly, as you mentioned there is the problem solving and lateral thinking. I also used to lead clans into dungeons and I’m sure there was the formation of some leadership skills coming through there.

Kim, K, Yoo, B & Kauffman, RJ 2014, ‘Valuation of Participation in Social Gaming, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 18, Iss. 2, pp.11-50.

“Mum...bathroom, BATHROOM”

Online gamers are often stereotyped to be socially awkward, nerdy, overweight and disconnected from the real world. The title of this blog references South Park’s iconic episode ‘Make Love not Warcraft’ where the characters become addicted to the popular ‘massive multiple online role-playing game’ (MMORPG) ‘World of Warcraft’. View the clip below to see the stereotype I describe (I warn it is a little crude). 

Keep reading

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Gaming for good!

Well we’ve heard enough about how videos games are turning teenage brains into goo and causing violence and mass shootings. Let’s have a look at the potential for positive benefits from social games.

  As many as 86% of students in Korea use the internet to play games, and 60% said that fun and entertainment is the main activity that brings them to the internet (Lee in Baek, Ko & Marsh 2014, p. 130). As such, online gaming is thought to be one of the most significant gateways to children developing computer literacy.

Online social games like Farmville, have been found to have educational benefits to children, as they promote cooperation and collaboration as well as resource and time management (Lee in Baek, Ko & Marsh 2014, pp.131-132).

Minecraft has become a remarkable phenomenon within schools with endless applications for education. The social aspect of the game is central to its value and benefit to children. Blyberg (2015) outlines how the game has helped formed important physical social participation sites for young people in schools and libraries (p.28). Wily librarians are using these gatherings as an opportunity to issue library cards and get them back into reading (ibid).

MMORPGs, while perhaps aimed at a slightly more ‘serious’ gaming audience, also have educational benefits. They promote social interaction, formation of new relationships as well as the enhancement of existing offline relationships (Kim, Yoo & Kauffman 2013, p.11). These particular social interactions are closely connected to the overall enjoyment and pleasure associated with the game, meaning that not only are MMORPGs more attractive to a lot of gamers but also, those gamers will benefit more from these types of social games. (ibid. pp.12-13).

Kim, Yoo & Kauffman liken the gaming experience to appreciation of music (2013, pp.13). I’d propose taking that comparison even further and placing social gaming alongside any other example of ‘healthy’ social interaction: like sporting clubs or attending social events. Why not?

Gaming addiction and violence remain important issues, but I feel there are enough benefits to outweigh the negatives and I think caution should be taken before extreme actions are made. For example, what if schools or parents took a conservative approach and completely banned games like Minecraft for children? Think of all the fantastic educational benefits and social skills students would miss out on.

References

Blyberg, J 2015, ‘The Kids on Your Block’, School Library Journal, Vol .61, Iss. 4, pp. 28-29.

Kim, K, Yoo, B & Kauffman, RJ 2014, ‘Valuation of Participation in Social Gaming, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 18, Iss. 2, pp.11-50.

Lee, S 2014, ‘An Analysis of a Social Network Game in View of Consumption Education Class’, in Y Baek, R Ko & T Marsh (eds), Trends and Applications of Serious Gaming and Social Media, Springer, Singapore, pp. 129-142.

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Ubiquitous Photography

The photograph and home video have moved away from their traditional purpose as a memory aid and have now found a new usage as a form of communication. We can call this Networked Visuality, where we connect and communicate through the sharing of images. Taking and sharing of vast amounts of digital photos has become a part of everyday life (Hand 2013, p.3).

There are three defining features of photography technology that have led to the current social usage of photography in daily lives. Ubiquity, instantaneity and ephemerality.

Ubiquity

It seems now that everyone has a smartphone that can not only capture images, but share and view the images produced by others. The universal standards and compatibility of digital files, as well as the capabilities and low cost of the hardware have allowed for digital photography technology to be in everybody’s hand at all times. With this mass adoption of technology, the distribution of images has extended from personal or private to public and global (Hand 2013, p.8).

Instantaneity

I wonder if film-based photographs gained a special place in our lives as keepsakes, in part because of the time and artistry needed to produce them. There is evidence that the commodification and mass use of photography had an impact on public perception (Hand 2013, pp.6-9). Digital photographs are instant, needing no developing, processing or printing. Combine that instant image production with the internet and social media networks and now the image sharing becomes instantaneous too (Burgess & Vivienne 2013, p.6). Compare this to the traditional past-time of breaking out the holiday photo albums over a coffee.

Ephemerality

I find this aspect to be most interesting, and in many ways counter-intuitive. To many of us, photographs represent a freezing of time, to record memories and somehow capture something that has passed and keep it forever. But the way we now use photography is completely unlike this romantic notion. Consider Snapchat or Instagram, which have features that allow for photos to be shared only for a 24-hour period and then they vanish. Even on other social media platforms like Facebook, images only last a day or two before they are replaced by newer posts and pushed off the front page of the news feed. On Facebook those images are saved to our profiles, but are rarely accessed again compared to the initial 24-hour run. I find the same phenomenon occurring with personal photos that I take on my various devices. I have thousands upon thousands of images, probably a couple of photos of each day of my life since the last 5 years. This abundance of images being saved and stored has, somewhat counterintuitively, meant that photos function less as a memory aid and the value of a single photo is much less. There’s just too many photos for me to go back through and enjoy, and in any case I’m just going to add more photos tomorrow.

Personally, I do feel a bit of cognitive dissonance about the concept of photography because I do hold on to this idea of photos being these sentimental, memory capturing things that last forever, and yet nothing about the way I interact with photos on a daily basis reflects this.

References

Burgess, J & Vivienne, S 2013, ‘Remediation of the personal photograph and the politics of self-representation in digital storytelling’, Journal of Material Culture, vol. 18, iss. 3, pp.279-298.

Hand, M 2013, Ubiquitous Photography, Polity Press, Cambridge.

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Crowdsourcing is awesome.

A bit late on this entry, but THE VLOG IS BACK!

Crowdsourcing is awesome. In so many ways, it is the realisation of what some of the earliest pioneers of the internet had envisioned - universal collaboration and access to knowledge.

Wikipedia is probably the gold-standard here. It is one of the most influential collections of knowledge in the world and has been compiled entirely by individuals who contribute and refine the content without the need for a central authority (Lee & Seo 2016, p.15).

“A feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse” - Aristotle (in Waldron 1995, p.564)

As early as Aristotle it seems that epistemological discourse has theorised ways that humans might be able to effectively share their collective intelligence, and Wikipedia (and the internet in general) seems to be the best solution to date of having the sum of human knowledge recorded and made available.

Crowdsourcing recognises that knowledge, when shared with the world, becomes a powerful tool for the greater good (Hess & Ostrom, 2007, p.8), and also that knowledge is cumulative and thus necessarily improved by having more people involved and adding to it.

It is generally at this point in the blog that I break out the “however” and go on to show the downsides to the technology and muddy the waters a bit on where I actually stand. I am going to say “however” because I want to present a balanced view, but I will come back to clarify my position with an important mention. However… There can be downsides to this kind of freely accessible commons. Wikipedia ‘vandalism’ is a humorous way of hijacking the system.. Many a teacher and professor has warned students to avoid wikipedia because “anyone can post anything”... Lee and Seo find that on Wikipedia, as the community of contributors has matured and the competition for revision has grown, dominant participants have emerged who may not necessarily have better information to contribute, but are just more assertive and active in their revisions and defense of their opinions (2016, p.19). In other words, when everyone is invited to contribute to a discussion, the ideas that are heard most are those that come from the individuals who speak loudest and most frequently.

Here’s where I want to clarify my position. Of course there are downsides to every innovation and technology. It is important to air these and debate them, but not use them as a way to dismiss or inhibit the progression of technology. I watched a great video recently by Alec Watson on his YouTube channel, Technology Connections. Through an analysis of the technological development of the LED traffic light, he illuminates what he calls the “but sometimes problem”. In his video he describes how LED traffic lights improved upon incandescent bulbs in almost every single measurable way, yet their one downside (vulnerability to snow) was used by critics to try and suppress the technology. The fallacy he describes, can be applied to many instances of how we as a society adopt new technology.

So please go ahead, contribute and be a part of building humankind’s collective knowledge.

References

Hess, C & Ostrom, E 2007, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, MIT Press, Massachusetts.

Lee, J & Seo, DB 2016, ‘Crowdsourcing not all sourced by the crowd: An observation on the behaviour of Wikipedia participants’, Technovation, vol. 55-56, pp.14-21.

Technology Connections 2018, The LED Traffic Light and the Danger of “But Sometimes!”, 14 May, viewed 19 May 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYO1TObNz8>

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Bullying on Social Media

No time to vlog this week - just a boring text post.

Social media has a bad reputation for being a site of bullying, trolling and abuse. There are many examples we can point to where things have gone horribly wrong. As a high school teacher, for me and many of my colleagues it has been one of those never ending issues. And a problem that we are seemingly no closer to solving than we were when social media first arose back when I was in school in the mid-2000s.

http://www.marbellafamilyfun.com/avoid-cyberbullying.html

There have been numerous high-profile teenage suicide cases specifically linked to social media, and as many as nine out of 10 teenagers using Facebook report to have witnessed bullying taking place on Facebook (Nobullying 2016). Some of the major concerns about social media’s role in bullying relate to the use of mobile devices, meaning that victims are seemingly unable to escape as the bullying seems to follow them everywhere. There is also the phenomenon of users on the internet being more likely to say things they wouldn’t say in a face-to-face situation, due to the perceived protection of the screen as a barrier (Wakefield 2015).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES6nUrsVFQU

But boyd sees it slightly different, contending that there is nothing in the technology itself that would cause more bullying, just that the nature of social media platforms means there is a record of these comments and posts making the behaviour more visible to others (2014, p.152) hence it is noticed by adults whereas bullying that occurs on the school-grounds leaves no record and it goes unnoticed. There is an argument that the visibility and permanence of social media posts makes bullying at these sites more impactful (Uhis, Ellison & Subrahmanyam 2017, p.S69). Bullying online is not just between the bully and the victim, but potentially out there for the public to see, possibly making the situation more embarrassing and impactful to the victim. The silver lining here being that if the bullying is made public then there is a better chance of it being discovered by someone who can report it or help.

I tend to fall somewhere in between on this issue. Any kind of solution that assumes the technology is the root of the problem, or calls to ban social media is unlikely to actually address the causes of bullying amongst young people. Having said that, I think there are a host of reasons for why young people should not be on social media including privacy and exposure to inappropriate content, and the bullying issue probably adds another to the list.

REFERENCES

boyd, d 2014, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, Newhaven.

NoBullying.com 2016, ‘Social Media Bullying Has Become a Serious Problem’, NoBullying.com, viewed 28 April, <https://nobullying.com/social-media-bullying-has-become-a-serious-problem/>

Uhis, YT, Ellison, NB & Subrahmantam, K 2017, ‘Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence’, Pediatrics, vol. 140, Iss. s2, pp.S68-S70.

Wakefield, J 2015, ‘Why are people so mean to each other online?’, BBC, 26 March, viewed 28 April 2018, <http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31749753>

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Slacktivism - VLOG POST

This week, I’m trying out my weekly post as a vlog instead, let me know what you think.

In 2015, Paris was hit with a horrific terrorist attack that ignited global support through social media. The hashtag #jesuisparis was used prolifically and Facebook launched a filter that allowed users to apply the french flag over their profile picture to show support (Rowley 2015). But what difference did this “support” make?

This case could be viewed as an example of slacktivism, referring to users who will get invloved in a cause only as far as clicking a “like” button or showing some kind of superficial support, but not taking action that could actually lead to social change (McCafferty 2011, p.17-18). This is closely connected to a point I was trying to make in last week’s post regarding politics: what we are seeing here is the barrier to participation being lowered so that more people can be involved, but simultaneously the quality of participation is lowered too. Concerns have been raised that this hollow form of activism could negatively affect real-world initiatives because people have a false sense of making a difference and feel they have done enough simply by liking or sharing (Milosevic-Dordevic & Zezelj 2016, p.113).

Is it possible that those people who were tagging #jesuisparis and changing their profile picture, may have been assuaged by their token efforts and as a result did not go on to make more of an effort?

It has been counter-argued that this “weak-tie” form of activism, can still lead to meaningful action as it provides a kind of stepping stone or gateway (Milosevic-Dordevic & Zezelj 2016, p.118). Indeed so-called slacktivism doesn’t seem to prevent traditional meaningful action, it may actually increase it (ibid. p.117).

If I can go interdisciplinary for a moment, I would link this idea to the low floor, high ceiling concept in pedagogy. This being the idea that the best kind of contexts for learning are those that are easy to enter, but allow for a great amount of growth and improvement (McClure, Woodham & Borthwick 2011). I think this is where I fall on this issue, that although it might seem frustrating to see all of these people posting about their minimal participation and superficial efforts to help a cause, at least they are in the room on the ground floor.

Admittedly, many or even most may stay at that basic level of action, but some may follow on to become more involved. I also think there is potential for clever campaigns to make the most of the slacktivists, i.e. make it as simple as possible to make a real difference. Campaigns such as those that simply ask social media users to give their support by forwarding on a pre-written letter to a politician. Or campaigns that let users make small donations and make a post about that support.

REFERENCES

McCafferty, D 2011, ‘Activism vs. Slacktivism’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 54, iss. 12, pp. 17-19.

McClure, L, Woodham, L & Borthwick, A 2011, ‘Using Low Threshold High Ceiling Tasks’, NRICH, September, viewed 22 April 2018, <https://nrich.maths.org/7701>

Milosevic-Dordevic, JS & Zezelj, IL 2016, ‘ Civic activism online: Making young people dormant or more active in real life?’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 70, iss. 1, pp.113-118.

Rowley, L 2015, ‘How to Change Your Facebook Photo to Paris Flag Blue, White and Red’, Mic, 14 November, viewed 21 April 2018, <https://mic.com/articles/128552/how-to-change-your-facebook-photo-to-paris-flag-blue-white-and-red#.1Xioo627V>

IMAGES

https://mic.com/articles/128552/how-to-change-your-facebook-photo-to-paris-flag-blue-white-and-red#.1Xioo627V

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11996735/Paris-attacks-How-to-change-your-Facebook-profile-picture-and-other-ways-you-can-help.html

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Well done Florencia - very well-written post,

I find this idea interesting that folks are tired of just donating money and instead want to take real action. I tend to agree with the sentiment, but am worried if it is the case that social media users think that their clicks and shares are more powerful or valuable than crucial funding for worth causes. Putting aside those corrupt organisations that don’t use the money properly... For a worthy cause, a $20 donation is going to go further than a retweet.

I’d be interested to know if it is the case that organisations are finding it more difficult to raise funds because people are feeling like they’ve already done their part through a bit of “slacktivism”.

I don’t entirely believe this to be the case. It could be possible that now people who are able to donate still do, and those who couldn’t afford it and never had a way to participate before, now have these new digital activism methods. But, if there is any truth to this idea you’ve brought up, that people are getting sick of donating money and turning to digital activism, I think thats a concern and social media users need to be educated on what is a worthwhile action to take.

Just ‘like’ it?

Life is busy! We are always running from one thing to the next struggling to find time. Enter technology: Providing the tools required to “get s&*t done” so we can meet ALL of our objectives.

Many question if technology has taken over our lives preventing the occurrence of an uninterrupted dinner or afternoon at the beach. Devices have already surpassed social convention to become a safety guard, one that allows us to hide behind our software during awkward conversations or moments we consider boring.

In this distorted reality we are sincerer in text than in person and visually represent ourselves to perfection. This virtual self alludes to excellence in all aspects, social (Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat), professional (LinkedIn, Slack) and soulful. No, I’m not referring to the Beygency, but rather soulful as the emotional aspect with which we nurture, often through helping others. Activism is an act of civic duty that in one way or another strives to improve our surroundings. In the good old days, one could include these to be acts of volunteering at specific locations or attending sit-ins.

In today’s modern, tech obsessed era there is no need to get out of ones snuggie to save the world because, of course, there’s an app for that. Every charity, NGO or movement has social media behind it to ensure they are seen and heard. This flat structure of earned media ensures accessibility for any and all with a cause, to publish it online and capture an audience. There have been many examples of viral campaigns which have gained traction and brought important issues to light like the #bringbackourgirls crusade and the recent #marchforourlives.

Social media platforms have provided a new array of options for global citizens or e-activists. One can participate, share, like, comment, donate, attend events and e-sign petitions. One can also inform themselves about current campaigns, their setbacks and accomplishments. This tie creates a personal link and solidifies a bond rather than donating ‘blindly’ to a cause. It also means the activist will be more than likely to continue a relationship with the organisation rather than a one off donation.

Currently, even digital activism is easy but the question then begs, is this enough?

Like me, many have grown tired of the traditional ‘donation’ pathway, losing faith not only in its administrators but also its effectiveness in reaching victims.

Amnesty international (Australia) has a mass following and relies purely on public support as they do not accept donations from government or political organisations as a matter of policy. While their online community is enormous, they are well aware that the digital self alone cannot make sufficient impact. Their volunteer base boasts activists willing to protest at any location around Australia in days or hours. This is of course possible because of the communication power of the internet  but they are aware that without the physical people power, many of their successes would not have been achieved. In order to counter act slackitivsm they regularly promote protests and gatherings. Recent public demonstrations include rallies for Same Sex Marriage and the Manus/Naru Island Refugees. They offer free Workshops (as per below) providing citizens activist resources. 

While I don’t believe the current problems faced are any less than those before us, I do think we are unaware of how to channel our energies. You see, Martin did not have a tweet, he had a dream and while today he probably would have had both, without action there is no change.

We need to begin thinking outside the screen to ensure technology assists our actions without dominating them.

References:

Amnesty International Australia, (2018), Community Sponsorship Activist Resources - Amnesty International Australia, [online] Available at: https://www.amnesty.org.au/cspresources/ [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]

Earl, J, (2016), ‘Slacktivism’ that works: ‘Small changes’ matter, [online] The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/slacktivism-that-works-small-changes-matter-69271 [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]

Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets : Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Pluto, London.

Grace, R, (2017), Australians making fewer donations to charity, report finds. [online] The Age. Available at: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/australians-making-fewer-donations-to-charity-report-finds-20171205-gzz2gs.html [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]

March For Our Lives, (2018), Our Mission to End School Shootings | March For Our Lives - March 24, 2018, [online] Available at: https://marchforourlives.com/mission-statement/ [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]

Youmans, W, & York, J 2012, 'Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements’, Journal Of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329

Image references:

Newman, D, (2014), The Role Of Paid, Owned And Earned Media In Your Marketing Strategy, [online] Forbes.com. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2014/12/03/the-role-of-paid-owned-and-earned-media-in-your-marketing-strategy/2/#4623afa43cd4 [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]

Wikimedia Commons (1963), Dr. Martin Luther King, [image] Available at: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/martin-luther-king-jr-much-radical-message-dream-racial-brotherhood/ [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Hey Joel,

I guess the Trump situation is linked to my major concern, as I posted about this week. Basically, what is the cost of lowering the barriers to political discussion?

Social media has been heralded by some as allowing a wider range of people to participate in discourse, at any level thats accessible to them. Unfortunately for many people, that level is only as much as a like or a short comment here and there. Do we really want important discussions around serious issues like healthcare, environment and immigration - issues with genuine consequences on the lives of others - to devolve into memes and shitposting? Trump as an example, one of the most important people in the world, apparently thinks that Twitter is appropriate site for serious discussion. We’re talking short, 1-2 sentence posts with no context being used to actually influence politics.

It’s crazy.

It started with a #hashtag

(above) Political cartoon. Source: Pinterest

On Twitter, the general discussion around politics in Australia can be followed, or participated in, by searching the hashtag #auspol (Rambukka, 2015 pp. 18). The Australian community has become proficient in using different hashtags for following different political issues:

-      #qt to follow Question Time – the publicly broadcasted hour of debate during Parliament sitting days;

-     #qanda for commenting on the weekly politics show on the ABC;

-     and each state and territory has their own politics tag, for example NSW has #nswpol, Victoria has #SpringSt (an odd one out which represents that Parliament is on Spring Street in Melbourne), #taspol, etc.

News: #auspol – The Twitter hashtag Australia can’t live without – Mashable

B&T Weekly, (2017), writes by mid 2017 #auspol had been tweeted 3.5million times by political followers. Whilst that might seem a lot, in comparison, Australian Boy Band 5 Seconds of Summer have been tweeted about almost half a billion times using the hashtag #5SOS.

Jericho, (2017 pp. 113) describes the importance of journalists covering politics needing to be on Twitter, and suggests that if a journalist is not active on Twitter, they’re giving themselves an automatic handicap. Announcements and news is appearing quicker and quicker on Twitter, before making it onto news websites, leaving journalists to fight out who gets the best clicks through to their sites after people have already found they key information through the social media site.

Now let’s leave Australia and do the dive to the most talked about person on Twitter, Donald Trump.

Sigh.

I can’t believe how much we’re talking about him based on what he tweets!

Related news article: How Trump Wins Twitter – Slate

It’s important to note that Trump has been a regular user of Twitter since 2009 (Osborne & Roberts, 2017). From 2009 and pushing his empirical products such as golf courses and beauty pageants, to him tweeting about seeing Lada Gaga in 2010, starting to find his political voice in 2011, through to the post-Presidency win FAKE NEWS tweets, Trump really can claim to be an avid user of Twitter, and How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a new Political Language is a great read as it shows all his tweets with explanations as to what they’re about, so you can try get inside his head and understand what he’s trying to share.

Do you follow politics on social media?

Jericho, G 2013, The Rise of the Fifth Estate : Social Media and Blogging in Australian Politics, Scribe Publications, Brunswick, Victoria.

Oborne, P, & Roberts, T 2017, How Trump Thinks : His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language, Head of Zeus, London.

Twitter celebrates 10 years of the #hashtag, 2017, B & T Weekly.

Rambukkana, N 2015, Hashtag Publics : The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks, Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers, New York.

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Politics on Social Media

There’s no denying it, whether it’s serious discussion on policy and decision making, or playful parody of certain lampoonable politicians, politics has made its way into our social media feeds. The question is: is that a good thing?

The facebooking politician is seeking to create a relationship with constituents that is more direct and personal. This can be seen as an opportunity for opening up political discussion and allowing for a closer connection between decision makers and citizens. Social media in particular offers a media site that is user-centric and not controlled by any particular commercial or state institution (Loader & Mercea 2012, p.3). At face value, it appears to be a system where people can talk freely about politics without censorship or bias from media gatekeepers.

Politician use of social media also has the effect of providing a more personal and relatable image of that politician. While traditional media represented politicians only by their professional and scripted personas, social media affords a more personal and apparently more real representation (Colliander et al 2017, pp.277-278). Providing this kind of balanced representation can help a politician attract greater interest and increase voting intention (ibid. p.283).

Social media also allows for more informal discussion that is more accessible to most people. The average user can contribute to political discussion at their own leisure or to whatever extent or form they feel comfortable, moving beyond the “constrictions of rational deliberative exchange” that has been the previous mode for political discourse (Loader & Mercea 2012, p.5). This means more people have the opportunity to be engaged in political discussion, whether it is a well-thought out critique of policy, a more emotive or layperson’s reaction, a parodic meme or simply ‘liking’ as a show of approval. Social media can also be seen as a level playing field free of restrictions of class power and economic inequality (Dean 2013). Ignoring the not so trivial digital divide, on social media all are apparently free to participate in political discussion. If it seems too good to be true, then of course it probably is. The trade off is that our public and digitised political discussion has become a commodity to Dean has identified the materialisation of our democratic exchanges as “communicative capitalism” and points out what may be the true value of those political discussions, as data to be captured and used for marketing purposes (ibid.)

I’m not totally sold on this assumption that more people involved automatically assumes an improved version of democracy anyway. It’s great to have more people involved, but is there a trade-off in quality of discussion when any one is involved and people take the discussion less seriously? Perhaps we should be more concerned when something that has serious implications on the lives and wellbeing of people devolves into memes and shallow and simplistic, sentence-long opinions. Apparently in this participatory culture, you don’t need to be informed, you just need a Facebook account.

Colliander, J Marder, B Lid Falkman, L Madestam, J Modig, E Sagfossen 2017, ‘The Social Media Balancing Act: Testing the use of a Balanced Self-Presentation Strategy for Politicians using Twitter’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 74, pp. 277-285.

DCU School of Communication 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3 - Jodi Dean, 3 July, viewed 15 April 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>.

Loader, B & Mercea, D 2012 Social Media and Democracy: Innovations in Participatory Politics, Florence: Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Hi Jessica, 

I like how you have mentioned the ability for social media to facilitate communication across previously discrete social contexts - you gave the positive example of Twitter making communication possible with celebrities. What are your thoughts on the negative side of the dissolving of boundaries between social contexts?

Context collapse, the phenomenon where all these different social contexts are merged in to one (Dennen & Burner 2017, pp.175-176) creates, what I feel is a real identity crisis. In my own experience of using Facebook, I am friends with my parents, high-school friends, work colleagues, etc. and there is always a balancing act of how I behave. I feel that my Facebook identity is neither here nor there, I cannot fully realise any of the personas that I would normally inhabit in these social contexts separately. In fact I believe I am on my third Facebook account, after having deleted previous accounts because of major changes in the way I was interacting through the platform, and not wanting to hang on to a post history that was intended for very different audiences.

Dennen, VP & Burner, KJ 2017, ‘Identity, context collapse, and Facebook use in higher education; putting presence and privacy at odds’, Distance Education, vol. 38, no. 2, pp.173-192.

The platform of Social Media

The value of a well-designed object is when it has such as rich set of affordances, that the people who use it can do things with it that the designer never imagines. – Norman, D 2011

Developing expertise and a deep understanding of social media platforms is all about how well you know their features, cultures of use – norms, practices, customs - their potential and limitations. In design language, this means understanding a platform’s particular ‘affordances’.

An example of a social media platform is Twitter. Twitter is both quite limiting in the way it can be used, and quite ‘open’ or public: Twitter allows users to maintain a public web-based asynchronous ‘conversation’ through the use of 140-character messages (the length of text messages) sent from mobile phones, mobile Internet devices, or through various websites.

Because tweets can also be directed to specific individual(s), even if she/he is a stranger or a celebrity, Twitter is unique in facilitating interactions across discrete social networks. (Murthy 2013, pp. 2–4)

As a first step towards understanding the kinds of social contexts in which social media platforms operate, it is important to look carefully at how they work. Developers of these platforms make constant changes, adding functions or removing them, changing settings, adjusting the interface or the features with which we interact.

Likewise, users are themselves always doing interesting things with the platforms, often against the grain, sometimes driving changes. Famously, this happened in the early days of Twitter when users devised their own system of linking tweets and making them searchable by placing the now widely used # (hashtag) in front of a word or phrase. 

The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg built a global community that brings people together. His vision of community opened a door to many variations of social media network platforms that exist today.  Social media platform is created to meet certain needs of the population.

Social media provides people with a range of benefits, and opportunities to empower themselves in a variety of ways. Users can maintain social connections and support networks that otherwise wouldn’t be possible, and can access more information than ever before. The communities and social interactions users form online can be invaluable for bolstering and developing people’s self-confidence and social skills.

Managing an online presence and being able to interact effectively online is becoming an increasingly important skill in the workplace. Being able to quickly adapt to new technologies, services and environments is already regarded as a highly valuable skill by employers, and can facilitate both formal and informal learning.

Reference

Ann Majchrzak, The Contradictory influence of social media afforances on online communal knowlesge sharing, viewed 12 April, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jcc4.12030

Michael A, Devito 2017, Platforms, people and perception: Using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media, https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/platforms-people-and-perception-using-affordances-to-understand-s

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Hey Chanelle, Great stuff! Love the way you have worked in visuals and video to your posts, giving me some great ideas to jazz my posts up a bit.

You’re spot on with the way self-representation creates these false realities of our lives. I am a casual instagrammer at best, but I understand the competitive aspect of acruing likes and followers and have seen the anxiety that people go through in creating these identities. But then, hasn’t this always been the way we construct social identities, to an extent? “Keeping up with the Joneses” as it was called in an earlier time. And there is something fundamental to representation in general that requires curation, some kind of decision on what interesting parts to include and what to discard. Consider a pre-social media social context: chatting around the water cooler in the office. In sharing what you got up to on your recent holiday, you’re going to want to tell everyone about the exciting parts, and will, without a second thought, exclude: 

the 8 hour flight where nothing remarkable happened and you watched 3 films and a bit of a crappy travel show

The time on the third night when neither of you could decide where to go for dinner and you got in to an argument and both just sat on the couch flicking around on your phones.

It’s like in an action movie, the character never eats or goes to the toilet, because nobody cares about that stuff, they just want to see the hero keep appearing in different places and punching up bad guys. Maybe we’re just really good at telling interesting stories.

1A.2: Instagram & the Notion of ‘Self-Representation’

It is no question that our social media platforms to have experienced phenomenal growth over the last decade, with new technologies consistently enabling an integration into our everyday lives. In the last year alone, the number of social media users worldwide has experienced a 13% increase totalling 3.2 billion users, with a consistent 4% year-to-year increase on the number of those users accessing those platforms from mobile technology (We Are Social, 2018). That works out at a new social media user every 15 seconds.

Excuse me while I try to process that..

These statistics confirm there are revolutionary affordances of social media that have influenced the way in which global societies tend to communicate and interact. In the context of social media, an ‘affordance’ is commonly described as the notion of different media platforms having different purposes and abilities, ultimately determined by analysing social media interfaces in alignment with technology and its associated users (Bucher & Helmond, 2017).

To consider the social context in which these platforms are utilised and their associated influences, we must first understand how they are constructed. Developers consistently alter the functionalities of their platforms to influence the way in which we connect and interact and similarly, users frequently generate trends within the platforms, which ultimately influence the way in which the platform operates (Swinburne Online, 2018). These strategic or spontaneous developments can influence the way online interactions are performed within the platform, and how we use them (Kaplan & Heinlein, 2010).

Let’s delve into an example of an affordance, and its ability to evoke influence.

Instagram and self-representation

There is something appealing about the ability to control our self-representation through Instagram. I’m sure we’ve ALL once found humour in considering the way in which people portray themselves on the platform, vs the person they actually are.

Instagram can be a positive tool for self-expression and enable users to interact based on shared interest in content, however it has also been a source of self-comparison which has been linked to psychological distress including depression and anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy (Time, 2017). Users have an ability to carefully construct the way in which their life is represented, posing a great influence on the way in which we behave socially.

We’ve all heard the term #FOMO – representing the ‘fear of missing out’ felt by users when scrolling through what can be considered a fabricated representation of another user’s life. The affordance is self-representation, in that it’s considered beneficial for the user to express their life and experiences in a way in which they choose to portray, however the influence this has on the way in which we utilise the platform may be greater.

Users tend to act in ways that enable them to portray their lives through Instagram the way in which they desire to. One example of this influence is the inclusion of branded media walls at special events, and the way in which attendees pose against them to claim their attendance and portray a sense of self-importance or inclusion.

Check out this moving video portraying the ways we behave to represent ourselves a certain way on Instagram

Over to you.

Can you think of any further ways the affordance of ‘self-representation’ influences the way we utilise Instagram? What about other affordances of the platform?

References

Bucher, T & Helmond, A, 2017, ‘The Affordances of Social Media Platforms’, The SAGE Handbook of Social Media, London and New York: SAGE Publications Ltd, viewed 10 April 2018

Kaplan, A & Haenlein, M, 2010, ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business: Indiana University, viewed 10 April 2018

Kemp, S, 2018, Digital in 2018: World’s Internet Users Pass 4 Billion Mark, We are Social, 2018, viewed 10 April 2018

Macmillan, A, 2017, Why Instagram is the Worst Social Media for Mental Health, Time, 2017, viewed 10 April 2018

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Social Experiences

In unpacking the question of how our social experiences are bound up with social media platforms, there is an interesting circular relationship between the user and the platform that I feel is worth discussing.

One way of thinking about affordances, is that the users have an impact on the way a product is used, and therefore may shape future design iterations. Examples are endless, but one could point to Facebook users expressing for years that simply “liking” a status update isn’t enough, that they would like other ways to react to posts and eventually, in 2015, Facebook began to roll out alternative “reactions” (Russell 2017).

Another way to think about affordances is that users will simply find a way to make the product work for them, even if the product was not originally designed for that purpose. An example would be the way Twitter became a tool for real-time communication surrounding protests in the Arab Spring revolution (Bruns, Highfield & Burgess 2013, p.872).

So we can see that users exploit the affordances of social media products, but I’m also interested in the other way around - How does social media change our social experiences? Social media presents itself as a means to an end. A better way of connecting with friends, a faster way of keeping up to date, etc. But it isn’t just an extension or augmentation of existing social experiences. Just as the users can impact the way the product is used, social media seems to be fundamentally changing the way we socialise, even extending outside of the platform itself to our “real world” social interactions. We could think of this as the mediatization of social interactions.

Giaxoglou and Döveling have explored the fascinating behaviours of mourning on social media and what this means for the “mediatization of emotion” (2018, pp.2-3). Social behaviour, even in contexts so personal and intimate as bereavement, is apparently being shaped by social media.

Looking ahead to some upcoming topics, here’s what I’m looking forward to uncovering:

Is politics on social media a way of opening up democracy, or is it causing more division and closing us off from each other? What is the impact of our political views creeping into our other social contexts like friends and family relationships?

Trolling and provocation - When everyone is allowed an opinion, inevitably some will abuse it. How is the credibility of online discussion affected when anyone can participate and subvert?

References

Bruns, A, Highfield, T, & Burgess, J 2013, ‘The Arab Spring and Social Media Audiences’, American Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 57, Iss. 7, pp.871-898.

Giaxoglou, K & Döveling, K 2018, ‘Mediatization of Emotion on Social Media: Forms and Norms in Digital Mourning Practices’, Social Media + Society, Vol. 4, Iss. 1. pp.1-4.

Russell, J 2017, ‘Facebook Reactions: What They Are and How They Impact the Feed’, Hootsuite, May 15, viewed 15 April 2018, <https://blog.hootsuite.com/how-facebook-reactions-impact-the-feed/>

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Joe, I think algorithms is hugely important in the political social media context. The first thing that comes to mind when talking democracy and social media is the freedom to share or consume any opinion. There is choice. This seems great because I can follow up on what I feel are more accurate interpretations of the way things are and ignore what I might believe is “fake news”. But of course one man’s fake news is another’s truth - so herein lies the problem. Where perhaps we once relied on the fourth estate to help curate and inform us, now that responsibility is our own. And it’s hard not to abuse it. Eli Pariser (2011, pp.10-11) famously coined the term “filter bubble” to explain what happens when innocuous social media algorithms interpret our consumption habits and preferences and then feed us more and more of the same thing. A snowball effect ensues, where we are given constant reinforcement of our opinions because eventually that is all that is made available to us and oppositional views seem to have disappeared. A paradox of freedom and choice, apparently, is that we are locked in to our own existing ideologies and prejudices.

Pariser, E 2011, The Filter Bubble: What The Internet is Hiding From You, Viking, London.

Politics and Social Media, are they doing it right?

This week we talked about Politics and the role social media has in this day and age.

Social media can be a very powerful tool for politicians and groups trying to get their views across. It however is like a double edged sword, it can help get your view across very effectively or can also be your downfall.

Some examples can be seen with Oscar Morales facebook page that he created to show his disgust with the military arm of the Columbian communist party, also Wael Ghonim is another example of how a facebook page showing the abuse and death of a young boy by the hands of police, caused mass protests and in the end led to the president Mubrak stepping down from power.

Barak Obama is another great example of how politicians can use social media to influence people. Not only was he backed by some influential people such as Operah Winfrey he was able to use social media to engage with and bring to light issues that Americans were able to relate to and cared about. Obama was the first president to have his own twitter account and through this was able to use social media is a way that was never done before by politicians, through engaging and interaction with the American people. This is something that I feel most politicians should strive to achieve, instead of one way communication between people and government opening channels of communication through social media will not only be insightful for the citizens in issues that are currently being looked into but they are able to share with the politicians there concerns.

[jackdigitalcommunities-blog]

Affordance - Facebook reactions were designed to allow users alternatives to simply ‘liking’ a post, but users have found other ways to use the feature, as it affords a convenient and engaging voting system.