Tumgik
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 10: Wearables and the Quantified Self (Jing Fei)
In Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of self-tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device, Crawford, Lingel, and Karppi (2015) argue that tracking oneself through wearables or other means is not just an individual activity because datasets are needed to contextualise this data, from which feedback depicted as accurate is given to users with the guarantee of granting them the autonomy to become a better version of themselves through self-knowledge. The idea that self-tracking can lead to self-improvement is not anything novel, explored through the popularisation and movement of the weight scale into the domestic sphere. However, feedback given to users from modern self-tracking is often based on datasets with standardised norms that does not account for differences like people who are differently abled, thus holding biases and assumptions that are not made explicit to users while being portrayed as the objective truth. What corporations that collect users’ data do with it and how they use it is also seldom made known, which begets privacy and ethical issues. Additionally, the authors contend that by ascribing profitability to self-tracking data, users are commodified in increasingly many different aspects, and the data collected can never be taken back by the users, which breaks the illusion of self-tracking as an act of agency and an individual, private habit. Hence, the authors overall assert that self-tracking with wearables may seem to offer users autonomy and control over their lives, the data collected, in return, is used to control them to varying degrees and companies reduce them to commodities, bringing about a myriad of ethical issues.
I agree with the authors to a great extent that the self-tracking and wearables industry paint the data they collect as objective and the key to individual self-betterment but are in fact using this data to gain profit, rather than genuine interest in allowing users to better understand themselves as oftentimes, the data isn’t very accurate and ignores individual differences. Thus, I also believe that it is not possible to have datasets that can give users the accurate comparisons and feedback they want. On the topic of weight, I think that it is especially detrimental to market a standard weight that people should strive towards, as well as the equivalence of weight with health and value because every body is different, as seen from the authors’ example of people with eating disorders using self-tracking apps to perpetuate their unhealthy habits and compulsions. Privacy concerns with data tracking are also very salient, particularly since most companies are not forthcoming about what they use it for or how they store it. For example, Apple has created a programme called Sleep Cycle which is in-built in the Clock app on iPhones and is also available on Apple Watches, used to track sleep. It is not known how exactly this feature determines when a user is asleep, although Apple calls it the “in bed” period rather than sleep, which is more accurate and less misleading since the moment when one falls asleep is still hard to determine. Some users suggest that iPhones track the in bed period by using the phone’s microphone to record sound and movement, which I find horrifying because I personally have an iPhone and this would mean that my phone can hear everything in its vicinity, including personal conversations. Not only is this an invasion of privacy, this data will also be stored by Apple, and no one knows whether they will use it for or against users. In the legal realm, I think that it could be possible to use sleep data as an alibi in court to prove that someone was or wasn’t able to be at a crime scene. However, from my personal experience, Apple’s sleep tracking feature is not always accurate, thus, I agree with the authors that numbers do not always show the whole picture and we need to be careful about seeing it as reliable evidence.
References: 1. https://www.quora.com/How-does-iOS-bedtime-mode-know-when-Im-asleep-and-when-Im-awake  2. https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/52tua5/ios_bedtime_it_sees_you_when_youre_sleeping_it/
Tumblr media
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 9: Media and Intimacy (Jing Fei)
In the reading Intimacy, Cosmopolitanism, and Digital Media: A Research Manifesto, Lambert (2019) contends that previous scholarly definitions of intimacy are largely ambiguous because they are all ideological, with many different conceptions of what intimacy is. Lambert thus argues to view intimacy as existing within a sphere, particularly digital media as spheres, and to view it as a process that is changeable, rather than as a singular static idea as others have conceived. Cosmopolitanism is contrastingly encountering the Other, and should be viewed as openings instead of something that threatens the intimate sphere, which can lead to violence and unacceptance towards the Other. Hence, Lambert calls for “cosmopolitan intimacy” borne from the discussion of intimacy and cosmopolitanism that requires three facilitating factors: an environment that allows for spheres and openings that can lead to a start of recurrent interactions, the allowance of said recurrent interactions, and a digital media structure that cultivates cosmopolitan ideals.  
I largely agree with Lambert that intimacy and spheres tend to be more exclusionary than inclusive and is an ethical issue that requires a reimagining that he has provided, that intimacy is fluid and not a static ideal. However, I am sceptical of the feasibility and effectiveness of his prescriptions for an environment of “cosmopolitan intimacy” in an age of growing distrust and political discord, especially on digital media. From my own experience on online platforms like Twitter, many people encounter others with vastly different backgrounds and opinions which aligns with Lambert’s first facilitator towards creating a cosmopolitan environment, but they often butt heads and are unable to agree with one another or at least come to an understanding, particularly about social issues like sexism and racism. Even with my own friends who are considered part of my intimate sphere, we have had debates over such issues and some of them end up wishing not to contact each other anymore, signalling the desire to shrink their sphere instead of augmenting it. Still, there are rare moments where some people have been able to have a civil discussion and even learn from each other, which gives a glimmer of hope for Lambert’s vision of an ideal cosmopolitan environment that does not see intimacy as a conflict of interest but is accepting of the differences.
Tumblr media
What conversations on Twitter are normally like
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 8: Media and Play (Jing Fei)
Pelletier (2005) in  Reconfiguring Interactivity, Agency and Pleasure in the Education and Computer Games Debate—Using Žižek's Concept of Interpassivity to Analyse Educational Play, asserts Žižek’s argument that virtual identity construction in education is political in a way where our relationships with others in society, our presence and reality are underscored by our desire for interpassivity. Interpassivity is how games and other technology makes players passive respondents by shifting our agency to them and fulfilling their requests, which Žižek believes provides us pleasure. Over-identification with games’s rules also allow for interpassivity and enjoyment of games, rather than what games’ elements represent. Thus, this identification shows how our ideologies and how they are preserved.
I agree with Žižek to some extent about interpassivity in gaming in education that it is a fantasy to fulfil the requests of the Other, which in turn determines our relationships and how reality is constructed in games where people only focus on the Other’s needs rather than their own. On the other hand, I think that this depends on the nature of the game itself. For instance, Kahoot, an educational quizzing game, is based on students correctly answering questions that their teacher set in the least amount of time to get the highest points, for which the ranking is shown. Hence, students are competing out of their own desire to be first place rather than the game’s desire. In fulfilling their own desire, students also fulfil the game’s needs of having students and teachers use it, but I think that the fulfilment of students’ individual desire is stronger.
I would say that pleasure from games used in learning is also the sense of achievement one experiences when they win the game through playing by the rules of the game; it is through such over-identification that enables players or students to have fun with it and feel good that they could win without taking any shortcuts. However, I agree with the author that the other scholars’ imaginings of the cyberspace are not technically wrong, such as finding fulfilment through the immersion in sensations that allows us to ignore reality and what we identify with, such as our values. For example, in the game Among Us, some players designated as imposters are allowed to kill others with the goal of getting away with it. I personally enjoy the game and find the sound of characters being killed oddly satisfying, even though I believe that murder in the real world is morally wrong. Therefore, I think that interpassivity also allows the game to be enjoyable because the rules dictate that the imposters should kill, which removes moral responsibility from them since it is what is supposed to happen for the game to progress.
Contrarily, I disagree that such identification in games necessarily influences our behaviour in everyday life because it suggests that students would learn to obey authorities in real life and ignore their independent opinions and thinking, lacking their own agency. I don’t think that educational games would have such a strong impact because they are generally still not as engaging as regular games that can make people addicted to playing them and become too immersed in that virtual world.
Tumblr media
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 7: Consumption (Jing Fei)
In Chapter 2 of Understanding Bourdieu, Webb, Schirato, and Danaher (2002) explain the work of Bourdieu, namely his conceptions of habitus, cultural capital and cultural fields. Bourdieu contends that habitus, the semi-unconscious adoption of values and inclinations towards which people will act that is determined by their cultural place, is portrayed as an inherent quality that informs their practices, but can simultaneously be changed to suit the cultural contexts that people are in. Cultural capital is then, curated taste and consumption behaviour that is presented as something that is to be coveted that can elevate their status in a cultural field. Cultural fields are social worlds whereby individuals with their own habitus and differing levels of cultural capital compete to raise their position or maintain the established hierarchy. One can suddenly gain great cultural capital while still maintaining the habitus of a lower class, which Bourdieu asserts to be preventive of such people from increasing their status in a cultural field. These all allow oppression to be reproduced and perpetuated, even by the oppressed who are complicit because of misrecognition wherein they view their oppression as the natural order of society.
I largely agree with Bourdieu’s notions of class and power and its reproduction in cultural fields through factors like misrecognition, universalisation and cultural capital, especially how these concepts can reinforce and uphold the places of those in higher positions. For example, my parents used to subscribe to children’s TV channels such as Disney and Nickelodeon but I had friends who did not have access to such channels, either because their parents couldn’t afford it or just didn’t see it as necessary, and only watched free kids cable channels like Okto. Some of my friends and I who could watch the shows on these subscribed channels would jokingly say that our friends who didn’t have no childhood or are uncultured. I also had another friend who voluntarily made fun of herself for not having watched Disney shows when we were talking about it in a casual conversation, and although it’s just a joke which none of us really took seriously, I realised that this is ultimately rooted in class and socio-economic differences because it largely dictated the differences in our cultural capital. Consequently, I think that this mirrors the sentiment of misrecognition on my friend’s part, and symbolic violence by seeing it as “natural” and accepting that her cultural capital is considered lower and thus making her lesser in some ways to others’. While there is no actual systemic oppression based on it, but rather, what I feel is a symptom of classism, it could be just because we know that it’s such an arbitrary thing so it’s not really anything important. However, I think it’s possible for people to actually discriminate against others based on such small things like this and even exclude them from social gatherings and such, which can limit upward class mobility for those with perceived lower cultural capital and further encourage oppression.
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 6: Precarity and digital labour (Jing Fei)
In Chapter 2 of Hustle and Gig: Struggling and surviving in the sharing economy, Ravenelle (2019) argues that in the gig economy that claims to provide people with temporary jobs and encourage entrepreneurship or sustainable income, the meaning of words such as “trust” are oft misconstrued to increase corporations’ marketability and profit. Gig economy platforms portray themselves as communities, or Gemeinschaft, when in reality, they are more like Gesellschaft, a larger society that where people are unable to trust each other and rely on legal institutions to have security when dealing with others. Labour is also casualised whereby gig workers are categorised as independent contractors, absolving companies of typical employee responsibilities and put workers at much greater risk than normal employees, creating insecurity and anxiety. Consequently, this has increased economic and social inequality as the wealthy who take on gig work can afford not to worry about such precariousness and can make significant profit from investments like houses, while the lower-class only experience instability and are unable to earn much, with some companies paying them below minimum wage. Altogether, Ravenelle is critical of the gig economy as it allows workers to be exploited by a “technologically enabled early-industrial system”, instead of resolving societal problems as it is promoted to do.
I agree with Ravenelle that the gig economy ultimately puts workers at a disadvantage and does not provide a stable side income as it claims to do, and it exacerbates existing issues in society rather than mitigating them. Regarding trust between gig workers and other users who employ their services, credit ratings and reviews easily create a false sense of trustworthiness and tedious background checks of gig workers by the companies only further imply to users that gig workers cannot be easily trusted.
While Ravenelle criticises this lack of trust compared to that in Gemeinschaft, I think that it is illogical to not have such measures to authenticate people on gig economy platforms. There are people who will take advantage of such platforms and use them to carry out illegal activities. For example, people have been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by Uber drivers, or even murdered by people posing as drivers as in the case of Samantha Josephson. Thus, such regulations may reduce the chances of crime. Furthermore, algorithms that platforms use don’t allow workers to build up reputation in any way other than through ratings and reviews, thus, it cannot be compared to Gemeinschaft. It’s also hard to build long-term relationships between workers and users as for example, in ride-sharing services, people normally get a different driver every time, so people booking a ride can't choose drivers that they trust, if any. Therefore, I largely agree with the author that the gig economy exploits its workers and worsens social problems, but the concept of trust between them and other users is more complex and cannot be imagined using older concepts like Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft.
Reference: 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/uber-driver-kidnapping-women.html
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 5: Participatory Culture vs. Participatory Democracy (Goh Jing Fei)
Social Media as Participatory Culture, from Social Media: A Critical Introduction, is largely a critical response to Jenkins’ work about participatory culture by Fuchs (2013). Fuchs’ main argument is that Jenkins’ reductionistic view of participation as a cultural aspect only is flawed because of the significance that participatory democracy has on social media and its users. Social media and the Internet is ultimately controlled by big-name companies that profit by exploiting users, thus, users cannot be seen as participating. Ownership, particularly, is an issue that Jenkins ignores when it is greatly intertwined with gaining wealth, but is something many prosumers, that is, consumers who are simultaneously content producers, do not have the rights to over their own content. Fuchs also posits that Jenkins wrongly equates fan culture with political movements and resistance as they aren’t logically or evidently linked to one another, and that Jenkins simply wants to believe that he himself is resisting exploitative industries and corporations by participating in fan culture.
I largely agree with Fuchs that prosumers are inadvertently exploited by large corporations no matter how much other scholars try to paint a rosy picture of it, especially corporations that own the platforms that users use, where their creativity is often treated as products that such corporations can essentially steal and have the right to use for monetary benefit, leaving creatives with nothing. An example would be Katie Woodger, who had her work stolen by Disney and was used to make merchandise, without giving any credit or royalties to her. Woodger is not the only artist who suffers because of this; many digital artists have also had their art stolen by shops who put their designs on shirts to be sold, and sometimes, these shops are fake and used to scam other users of their money.
I don’t think there is a solution for this because for such prosumers, especially those who only make art for their enjoyment and want it to be shared with others who will appreciate it, can only afford to use free mainstream platforms such as social media, where it is easier for their content to reach larger audiences and for creators to gain a following. Artists who make art for a living can use subscription-based platforms such as Patreon, but those who are just starting out may still need to use social media to promote their work, at least until they gain enough of a following on platforms where they get paid. Fuchs states that the exploitation of users can never stop under capitalism and the power that big corporations have, and that some users like being exploited, which he criticises and seems to implore users to be more critical of their usage. Furthermore, corporations are unlikely to change their business models because they have been proven time and time again to earn them the most profit, no matter the cost. Even if their exploitative practices have been revealed to the public, such as Amazon forcing their employees to work during a surge of Covid-19 cases, and many people on social media calling for a boycott of said services, there will always be people who will continue using Amazon, especially due to the monopoly and power it has, mostly in America.
However, in the case of digital artists and creators that I mentioned, they often have no choice but to let themselves be exploited as there is currently no better alternative for them to earn a livelihood or simply for wanting others to notice and appreciate their work. In contrast, this also shows that Fuchs’ view that users can only be exploited is simplistic to some extent as social media does help some creators earn money, as there are users who like their work that are willing to pay for it or commission artists to make art for them, and that some users have to rely on such platforms and corporations, even if they get exploited in some way. 
References: 1. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/27/california-investigations-amazon-workers-coronavirus 2. https://www.boredpanda.com/people-caught-copying-plagiarism-stealing-art-knockoffs/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic 3. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50817561
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 4: Media industries (Jing Fei)
In The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Horkheimer and Adorno (2012) argue that popular culture, through products and entertainment like films and music, has been increasingly commodified, leading to the elimination of autonomous and critical thought which perpetuates the dominant capitalist order. This is due to cultural producers being reliant on other industries that are profit-oriented, causing their products that were once considered art to morph into tailor-made standardised commodities that utilise the same blueprint within the same art form, ensuring their easy consumption by the masses. Such products are passed off as different from one another when they are actually alternatives of the same content, its consumers also having no individual qualities. Thus, the masses’ attention is captured by these products instead of the misdeeds of the capitalist ruling class. Altogether, the authors criticise the culture industry for reducing art into meaningless commodities and the masses who blindly consume media uncritically, with no independent opinions.
I disagree with the authors to a certain extent that the culture industry only leads to the creation of standardised products with unthinking consumers as there are artists who are unafraid of making products that deviate from the set blueprint dictated by their respective industries. Neil Breen, for example, is an independent filmmaker whose films’ form is vastly different from the industry’s norms and formula that the masses are used to, like using high-definition footage and aesthetically pleasing film sets. Breen’s films are shot with a camera of much lower quality than is the norm in the film industry; his film sets are not visually pleasing, and the special effects used are poorly edited as if it was intentionally meant to be bad. His films also often have multiple plotlines woven into one film which are clumsily put together in a seemingly random and unrelated manner, unlike many popular films that strive for coherence in plot where events tend to unfold in a similar and hence predictable manner. Therefore, I disagree that standardised products are the only way that entertainment can exist under the culture industry when there are people who are creating art without following the industry’s formula. 
However, I agree that culture has been extremely commodified as artists who are genuinely interested in creating art not just for mass acceptance, often struggle to earn money. Neil Breen himself recommends other artists to get a second job for extra income, showing how it’s hard to create profitable art that is diverges from popular culture’s formulas. 
In conclusion, I agree that culture has been commodified to the extent of being an industry, but I do not agree entirely with the pessimistic view that it has only led to the erasure of autonomous thought and ‘true’ art because there are still people and artists who are willing to create products with a unique formula even if they may not be as economically successful as they could be otherwise. 
References:
https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2018/12/18/in-praise-of-neil-breen-an-auteur-who-finds-new-and-exciting-ways-to-be-bad-with-every-movie-he-makes 
https://25yearslatersite.com/2020/10/30/who-is-he-what-is-he-the-films-of-neil-breen/ 
https://litreactor.com/columns/neil-breens-5-hour-retrospective-taught-me-about-making-art 
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 3: Mobile Media (Jing Fei)
In Portable Objects in Three Global Cities: The Personalization of Urban Places, Ito, Okabe & Anderson (2017) studied how identity is constructed through mobile media and how people’s connections with physical locations and establishments can be understood through the usage of mobile media. The definition of mobile media included any kind of portable item that individuals use in relation to establishments and the physical environment around them, like credit cards and music players. Through the study, three ways in which mobile media is used in public spaces were discovered, which are cocooning, camping, and footprinting.
Cocooning refers to the creation of an individual personalised media space through the use of mobile devices in public spaces, and it is not tied to the physical location someone is in. This prevents others in the vicinity from interacting with the cocooned person, allowing them to have a private space where they can “kill” time by using their devices. Camping, on the contrary, refers to the setting up of mobile media in establishments for extended periods of time, showcasing one’s attachment to the location. At places where individuals have made encampments, they are more open to social interactions with other people there. As for footprinting, it is the tracking of people’s relationships with businesses, usually through membership cards, stamp cards, and the like. More cards have been digitalised, but most people are unclear about how the systems work and some feel that footprinting is an intrusion of privacy.
Overall, the authors assert that people’s relationships with public spaces are increasingly digitalised and this has led to changes in social norms such as cocooning becoming a way through which many people engage with physical locations. I agree with this because in my own experience, most people I see on public transport, including myself, usually create their own cocoons by using their mobile phones or by listening to music with their earpiece, shutting out the world around them. This is something that has become a norm in our digital age today while in the past, cocooning might have been considered rude. However, it is the opposite now. It can be interpreted as rude or annoying when people try to engage with those who are cocooned and immersed in their own private media space, such as when I witnessed a mother trying to talk to their child on the bus and their child getting annoyed at the mother for interrupting her private time. Therefore, this shows how the merging of private media and urban spaces have changed how we understand not only our relationships with the physical environment, but also with the people in it, which can be both good and bad. On one hand, social practices like cocooning lets us entertain ourselves when we might otherwise be bored with nothing to do, but it can also cause us to shut down to those who are close to us and possibly strain existing relationships. This makes navigating the overlap of private and public space more complicated.
Footprinting is another practice that has become a norm, and this is apparent in apps like PayLah. I agree with what one of the participants said about it being an intrusion of privacy, because every time I use a purchase online or offline with my debit card, it is recorded with the shop’s name and sometimes location, so my location can easily be traced through my economic consumption throughout the day which is rather scary. However, I think that there is a distinction between physical and digital footprinting. Physical footprinting like using stamp cards is less invasive than digital wallets or rewards apps because they do not keep any personal information that can be used to identify individuals which I really appreciate.
Tumblr media
Some of my stamp cards.
That being said, digital footprinting will probably become more prevalent because it is convenient, along with the government’s encouragement of a digitalised society through the movement of “going cashless”, not only in Singapore but also in countries like Sweden. 
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 2: Media Spaces and Demarcation with the Material World (Jing Fei)
Spigel (2015) in Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media gives an overview of the effect of TV on how public and private spaces are created in a social context, and how these spaces are connected since the existence of TV and newer media technology like mobile phones. Since the 1950s, TV often functioned as a marker of class, as well as a tool for the perpetuation of existing unequal societal dynamics like gender relations and racism against black people in the US. For instance, when TV became something almost everyone owned, it was treated like a lower-class object that the upper-class had to make inconspicuous in their homes, while still being seen as symbolic of a modern family. Spigel contends that there are also positive effects of TV, such as connecting migrants with their hometowns, changing power relations within the domestic media space, along with providing knowledge and acting as a form of escape for some people which allowed them to explore ways of living unorthodox to those around them.
Ultimately, Spigel argues that although TV and other media devices does promote staying put in one place, it does not mean that homes are spaces of stagnation. Rather, TV lets us reimagine the demarcation between public and private spaces, where media spaces should not be seen as disconnected from the material world but as merging with it whereby people have autonomy over the type of environment they want to be in.
I agree with Spigel to a large extent that there is not such a distinct line that can be drawn between telepresence and domesticity, and the material world like what other scholars have claimed. In my own experience, I usually use mobile devices at home and not in public spaces which makes the argument that private media bubbles completely isolate individuals from the physical spaces they are in and cause them to just be “passing through” invalid. Furthermore, even when I use my phone in public, I do not feel that I am totally enclosed in my own private space and separated from the world around me. As Spigel mentioned, I am able to control when and where I want to be on my phone and when I want to focus on the physical environment around me. Thus, I think that the public and private space is interconnected in such a way instead of there being a clear boundary between the two as critics have said.
Apart from mobile devices, I also have a TV at home as many of my friends do, although personally I seldom watch TV now. This is in line with Spigel’s observation that while many people feel that TV is no longer a necessity, they still continue buying TVs to put at home. Additionally, when I watched TV more frequently in the past, I often talked about the shows I watched with friends, which shows how TV can also cross the boundary between public and private spaces in a positive way that can build social relations in the material world and public space. Hence, this also supports the idea that there is no definitive demarcation between domestic media spaces and public spaces.
On the topic of spatial homogeneity, while many people have TVs and mobile devices in Singapore, everyone arranges this space differently which in my opinion, makes it more heterogenous because it reflects individual differences and preferences. For example, my grandfather has two TVs, one in the living room and one in his bedroom whereas in my house, there is only one TV in the living room. My grandfather has a second TV in his room because he has mobility issues and he does not know how to use mobile devices like smartphones. On the other hand, in my family, TV is usually only used for watching the news by my mum, and this shows how spaces can be diverse according to different people’s preferences and needs. Generational differences can also impact how TV is used even within the same locality as seen from my grandfather and my family’s usage, therefore, I think that the variety of spatial customs do not only depend on site-specific differences.
0 notes
jingfei3205 ¡ 3 years
Text
Blog Post 1: Mediatization (Jing Fei)
In Chapter 2 of The Mediated Construction of Reality by Couldry and Hepp (2017), the authors contend that the social world is one where the different perspectives of individuals can be shared, especially through media, which can in turn signify their relationships with each other. These relationships are entrenched in the everyday life and actions, which is mediated to a certain extent. Mediatization then, is a process where the everyday is increasingly infiltrated by media that becomes an omnipresence. Thus, the authors assert that it is wrong to think of face-to-face (F2F) communication as the most essential component of the social world today and its construction, and mediated communication as a separate entity from it that is less important.
As an example, Korean pop (K-Pop) idols have increasingly turned to online platforms like Instagram and Twitter to build up their fanbases in recent years, showing how communication is becoming more mediatized. Within this social domain consisting of these idols and their fans that mostly exists online, there is also a chance for fans to meet K-Pop idols in person through fan meetings. Due to Covid-19, however, some K-Pop idols have started holding online fan meeting events through video calls which has previously never been done before. F2F communication is mediated in this sense. Although K-Pop idols and their fans are technically only meeting through a screen, both parties can still see each other’s body language and other nonverbal cues that are normally filtered out in most online platforms. The line between F2F and mediated communication becomes extremely blurred, hence, I agree with the authors that F2F communication should not be considered as fundamental in the construction of a social world because the world is increasingly reliant on mediated communication, which is intermingled with almost all aspects of everyday life.
Tumblr media
*NCT is a K-pop group, WayV is a Chinese subunit of the group based in Korea
Additionally, through this form of mediated communication, K-Pop idols are able to meet fans from all over the world, some of them who may have never been able to meet their idols otherwise. Even if Covid-19 ends, I think that entertainment companies may continue capitalizing on online fan meetings and not just physical ones since it has proven to be effective in bringing in profits from fans. Therefore, meeting K-Pop idols, either in person or online, further cements their relationship into everyday reality and strengthens the construction of this social domain where F2F communication can be equivalent to mediated communication and even intersect, supporting the authors’ claim.
1 note ¡ View note