junfoong

[junfoong]

🧠 WEEK 7: Yasss, Queen. That fit slayyy

ok look, hear me out... I know that thrifting is cute and I love a good ootd moment but this topic had me questioning about my shopping habits. It's more of a whether it's "sustainable or if I'm just romanticising my Depop addiction. 🤤

Well, it was not supposed to be a guilt trip about fast fashion although I'll have to admit the status were a bit of an alarming and terrifying... It was about how we engage with the world through the things we support, share, and consume; it's not just about voting or denouncing online bullies. Apparently, there is a global environmental catastrophe even affecting that $5 tank top I purchased "just for layering." Wow , isn't it fun... ☺️

We discussed how ethical involvement, community values, and, in this case, the use of social media to advocate for change are all aspects of digital citizenship. Venetia La Manna and Tiffany Ferguson are two fashion influencers that are genuinely using their platforms to highlight the negative aspects of fast fashion and educate the public about sustainability. It's donating: ✨activist posts ✨on Instagram.

I mean, I knew fast fashion was bad, but reading the actual stats... That hits different :

10% of the world's carbon emissions come from this business.

It causes 20% of the global water pollution (yikes)

Approximately 8.2 million tons of garments are discarded in the landfills annually according to Statista, 2022; Brewer, 2019

I mean well , that's not set in stone...

At this point, where does digital citizenship fit into this picture???

It's about using technology "responsibly and positively," according to the eSafety Commissioner (2022). Additionally, that covers the content we decide to approve of, repost, or remove. Posting your secondhand clothing, following a slow fashion creator, or sharing an infographic are all examples of micro-acts of participation. While they don't provide a solution for every problem, they do indicate something.

It's crucial to keep in mind, though, that not everyone can afford to purchase sustainably, and that doesn't make someone a bad citizen. Though it's not always available, slow fashion is fantastic. Recognising these gaps and filling them without stifling the movement are other aspects of digital citizenship.

Anyways , for the sake of the earth, I'll be wearing the same shirt for the remainder of the semester , just like the cartoon characters ✊🌱

References : 

Topic: Banking industry in Indonesia. (2024). Statista. https://www.statista.com/topics/9658/apparel-market-worldwide/

Pookulangara, S., & Shephard, A. (2013). Slow Fashion Movement: Understanding Consumer Perceptions—An Exploratory Study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.002

McKinsey & Company. (2024, November 11). The State of Fashion 2025: Challenges at Every Turn. The Business of Fashion. https://www.businessoffashion.com/reports/news-analysis/the-state-of-fashion-2025-bof-mckinsey-report/

Maiti, R. (2025, January 20). The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion, Explained. Earth.org. https://earth.org/fast-fashions-detrimental-effect-on-the-environment/

[junfoong]

🧠 WEEK 6: hashtag me 😌💅— (feat. Reposting Isn’t Enough But It’s Something)

Eughh, so apparently posting an infographic on your story isn’t as interesting & ✨aware ✨ as I thought since it could be also represent a type of citizenship. Yay. Welcome to the life of digital whereas scrolling is political and platform acts like basically the new governments… (Well, they are technically owned & controlled by tech bros instead of elected representatives.) 

  “Digital citizenship refers the capacity to engage in online society in a more responsible and critical manner.” - Council of Europe (2022) 

In other words, it’s not just doomscrolling, trolling or whatever this is — but actually more engaging, thinking and being chronically online… 

It’s giving ✨moral responsibility✨ with a WiFi connection. okay gurl slay but go ahead i guess???

Well, being online means going beyond merely existing in a digital realm: it involves interaction. However, the catch is that the internet lacks neutrality since social medias like TikTok & Instagram  effectively determined on who was heard and who fades into algorithmic obscurity. According to Poell Nieborg and van Dijon (2019) noted — we have transitioned from merely being active on social platforms to having our lives influenced by platformisation. It’s so common as we all acknowledge that whether the algorithm thinks if you’re cute today only depending on how  powerful as the engagement gets. (Well, it knows you are cute in every single second 🥹) 

Hashtags = politics now 📑

Pretty sure that we all did came across people mentioning that #blacklivesmatter, #justiceforkimgaram #idolmistreatment and thought of if it helps or make any difference. Well , if you did post any hashtags that is so called trending , this is what Bruns & Burgess (2015) called the hashtag publics — fleeting communities formed around feelings, urgency, and disorder. Zappavigna (2011) refers to it as ambient affiliation, a term that appears poetic until you understand it signifies forming trauma connections with unfamiliar individuals through popular discussions. 

Let’s be honest, much of our activism today is quite literally online. Theocharis et al. (2023) stated that contemporary political engagement encompasses commenting, resharing, and even following a political account. That passive-aggressive retweet of a politician? Civic participation, classic. 😌💅

However, not everyone receives the same opportunity. Algorithmic bias, censorship and gaps in digital literacy — all factors that result in certain individuals going viral whole others are muted into obscurity. So, yes, you are a digital citizen now but not everyone has the same access and the atmosphere is regulated.  

I guess logging on is no longer solely for amusement.

It’s digital politics. It’s platform drama. 

It’s hashtag citizenships —— whether you appreciate it or not. 

References : 

Home. (n.d.). Digital Citizenship Education (DCE). https://www.coe.int/en/web/digital-citizenship-education/home

‌Yilmaz, I., Akbarzadeh, S., Abbasov, N., & Bashirov, G. (2024). The Double-Edged Sword: Political Engagement on Social Media and Its Impact on Democracy Support in Authoritarian Regimes. Political Research Quarterly, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129241305035

Chia, A., Keogh, B., Leorke, D., & Nicoll, B. (2020). Platformisation in game development. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/platformisation-game-development

Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter Hashtags from Ad Hoc to Calculated Publics 1. https://snurb.info/files/2015/Twitter%20Hashtags%20from%20Ad%20Hoc%20to%20Calculated%20Publics.pdf

[junfoong]

🧠 WEEK 5: keeping up with the Public Sphere?

ok let's be real or "reality TV real"

Despite it being labelled as trashy or superficial, reality TV still continues to dominate the ratings...

Keeping Up with the Kardashians (KUWTK) is one of its most iconic examples. But beyond the fake lashes as well as the drama edits, reality TV actually plays a major role of in shaping the public discourse, digital communities and even identity politics. Let me further explains on how reality TV functions not just entertainment but as a creator of digital communities & parasocial intimacy...

📺 So what is reality TV, really?

Reality TV is less about “reality” and more about emotional spectacle. Scholars define it as a genre where “ordinary people engage in unscripted action” (Nabi, 2007) — though let’s be honest, how unscripted is The Bachelor when there's a helicopter date every episode? 🤔

Despite being dismissed as shallow entertainment, reality shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians (KUWTK) plays a significant role in shaping digital publics, performing identity, and turning private life into consumable content — all while influencing how audiences talk about gender, fame, and authenticity.

On the surface, Keeping Up with the Kardashians (KUWTK) is just a show about rich people doing rich things. But underneath the glam filters and dramatic edits is a very calculated kind of hypervisibility — where the emotions are over the top but weirdly feel “relatable.” Kavka (2019) argues reality TV offers the thrill of unpredictability wrapped in the comfort of constructed drama. Watching Kim lose her earring in Bora Bora? Iconic 💅 Also, completely ridiculous. And we ate it up!

Graham and Hajru (2011) argues that shows like MAFS and Wife Swap create hashtag publics — an online spaces whereas everyday people engage in a political talk through the lens of entertainment. Although KUWTK rarely addresses politics directly, fans regularly discuss serious issues on platforms like Instagram and Reddit: cultural appropriation, unattainable beauty standards, and the commercialization of personal trauma. These interactions form what Sakariassen (2020) calls micro-publics, where the personal becomes political.

According to the Arcy (2018), it refers to the way of reality stars are encouraged to “bare with the most intimate details” of their lives through online as a “digital money shot” — a moment of vulnerability that fuels parts of the drama as well as boosts engagement. Kim’s breakdowns, Khloé’s heartbreak, and Kourtney’s apathy aren’t just simply plot-lines — they’re monetized, serialized emotions. Audiences get invested, not just because it’s entertaining, but because it feels real.

This relates to parasocial relationships — one-sided emotional bonds with celebrities — as originally defined by Horton and Wohl (1956). KUWTK serves as an ideal example of how viewers believe they have a personal connection with the Kardashians, despite the fact that their content is meticulously crafted. Abidin (2018) refers to this as measured amateurism — the equilibrium of being relatable and sustaining celebrity status! This is also a common method used in the Kpop industry.

The lecture also highlighted how fandoms form passion-centric communities. According to the information provided by Porter (2015), these spaces become identity markers, with fans using in-group language like “Bible,” “momager,” and “giving glam” to demonstrate their affiliation. Keep in mind that the fandom is always secure as online trolling and celebrity harassment often get downplayed as “just drama,” despite the serious repercussions involved.

Even if the KUWTK might be filmed as a guilty pleasure, it truly uncovers much about on who we are, how we connect, and how reality TV blurs the line between entertainment, self perception and spectacle.

References:

Arcy, J. (2018). The digital money shot: Twitter wars, The Real Housewives, and transmedia storytelling. Celebrity Studies, 9(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2018.1508951

Graham, T., & Hajru, A. (2011). Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere. European Journal of Communication, 26(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323110394858

Bruns, A. (n.d.). Digital Public Spheres in Australia Introduction: Many Publics in “the” Public Sphere. https://snurb.info/files/2019/Digital%20Public%20Spheres%20in%20Australia.pdf

Horton, D., & Wohl, R. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049

‌