kashforgold - Tumblr blog

[kashforgold]

My Top Tracks of 2016

So after months of struggle and conflict, I have conceded that I need to just settle on a list of tracks that I thought banged. This is it:

(visuals courtesy of my fly photoshopping skills)

Before I elaborate on this list, you need to know I have tried to limit this list. Anyone who has spent more than 10 minutes talking to me will know that I am obsessed with Our Lord and Saviour, Yeezus. If you’ve managed to guide the convo away from Kanye, I probably will mention that I am an ardent follower of Lord West’s disciple, The Rapper of Chance. And if you’ve gotten to know me really very well… Frank Ocean will have definitely popped up on the playlist.

In this list, I have imposed rules:

1. No Kanye West

2. No Chance The Rapper

3. No Frank Ocean

4. Avoid the glaringly obvious…

This final rule means I have had to take out a few tracks that have defined 2016 (Work, Black Beatles…), but I have included a few big hits I feel aren’t given the critical acclaim they deserve. Now I’m cutting the crap and starting from the bottom…

Level 5

James Blake - Noise Above Our Heads

I will happily tell you that I don’t know what James is singing about. The lyrics confuse me and parts are distorted to the point of being indistinguishable from noise… but good lord it is a powerful noise. I don’t need to know what James is singing because I feel it in his voice, I feel it in his instruments, I feel it in the layers and the distortions. This track creates longing, a melancholy hope, an unsatisfying acceptance. James Blake creates environments around his songs that push you not just to listen, but to feel, and this track is loaded with them feels.

Disclosure - Boss

I’m thinking back to Electronic music before Disclosure and I don’t remember it being this clinical and precise. Disclosure are clinical and precise, but they got just enough Funky for this Beat Junky. Firstly, that bassline rolling over throughout the track has some direct link to my arse. My movements once it starts are involuntary. I can try my hardest, but there will always be a little grind in my waistline when this drops.

Kodak Black & French Montana - Lockjaw

So who knew that excessive MDMA usage can cause your jaw to lock? What if I told you that in various ‘hoods’ pants aren’t worn low for style, they simply sagging under the weight of weaponry… Kodak Black and French Montana are depicting these 2nd World Problems in relatable scenarios, and with one of the smoothest flows I’ve heard all year. Kodak has had a solid year with killer flows, and on this track he flows in and out, around, inside, outside and all through Montana’s bars. They blend together the way you wish your Stir-Fry Noodles and Vegetables would.

Katy B x Chris Lorenzo - I Wanna Be

Apparently, this beat has been floating about in Lorenzo’s sets for a while. I can understand why. It hovers in that period just before dawn. You don’t want the night to end, but this would be the perfect conclusion. You don’t want the comedown, but this is the soft pillow you want cushioning you as you float back: sleepy and uplifting. There aren’t many scenarios where this song would feel right to me, but when it does, I know it will be magical.

Mist - Karlas Back

I saw a tweet that summarised this dude’s situation perfectly. It was something along the lines of “The only person from Birmingham allowed to speak is Mist”. All Brummies struggle in life with their misfortune of an accent, but this guy BANGS. Grime is dominated by Roadmen from LDN, so its refreshing to hear an exotic accent (yes, I did just call the Brummie accent exotic).

Danny Brown - When It Rain

Danny Brown sounds over the top and completely bonkers, so it makes sense for him to rap “When it rain, it pours”. Brown’s showing how extreme the world he knows is. Bullets are not raining, they’re pouring… This isn’t another rapper glorifying the violence he grew up in, nor is he looking back at it having escaped. Danny Brown shows you how this life be straight from the hectic streets! He ain’t slowing or dumbing it down for you. Danny’s out of his mind, and this shit is real.

Level 4

MØ - Final Song

This ain't as funky as Kamikaze, or as cool a song as Kamikaze. But it still gives me an energetic joy. It’s gotta be MØ’s quirky voice, or the odd emphasis she puts in at unorthodox points in words. but whatever it is, this song is trash and awesome.

Kungs vs Some guy and some other Bollocks - This Girl

The more you analyse it, you find a number of elements plucked straight from the catchiest tracks of recent years: a guitar riff lifted out of Get Lucky, trumpets that wouldn’t sound out place with Omi, a chopped up and screwed vocal in the bridge/chorus. There are probably more, but this is too vibey to even care. If a track makes you feel too glorious to analyse, its doing something right.

PARTYNEXTDOOR - Come And See Me

A song about one-sided casual relationships. PND gets some sassy lines in (”talkin lot about ‘we’, Oh you speak French now”), but this light bravado depicts him more as the antagonist. This whole song makes us empathise with his ‘victim’. PND and Drake make weak arguments for their case, but their ‘cold’ front is made weak and brittle. This track is a soft light on the fragile facade of heterosexual masculinity. 

Solange ft Lil Wayne - Mad

The Angry Black Woman is being asked why she always gotta be so mad. This song isn’t complex at all. It’s as though, not only is Solange explaining that there is a lot for her to be mad about, but she’s dumbing it down for us sheep. The double standards and discrimination are clear in society if you know where to look, and Lil Wayne offers some examples. But Solange keeps this track very maternal, and it gets more comforting with every listen. It’s a protest song that is aware that anger and proactivity achieve nada. The revolution is gonna be patient and will delicately empower us to pick apart the lies.

Giggs ft Donaeo - Lock Doh

Giggs is barely even rapping here. A few carefully selected words, couple tings name-checked, a raw minimal beat, and Donaeo on the hook: somebody make some mash cos this looks like the recipe for a Banger!

Level 3

D.R.A.M. & Lil Yachty - Broccoli

Back in 2015, D.R.A.M gained a cult following. Hotline Bling was one of the best tracks of 2015, but I feel Cha Cha set the tone that Drake polished off. Many other artists have fallen away having gained an initial boost with a Drizzy connection. D.R.A.M looked like he was to follow this path. He was too weird, his great musical ideas to few and far between, and just seemed a bit too off-centre… *In walks Lil Yachty*. The kids love him and I appreciate the boyish immaturity he raps with. The Broccoli beat perfectly complements this boyish immaturity. Lil Yachty stole this track and looks set to get bigger, but hopefully not better.

Lil Uzi Vert & Future - Too Much Sauce

Lil Uzi Vert is another artist riding this new wave in Hip Hop with Yachty, and the aforementioned Kodak. His voice is a little whinier (in a good way) than your average rapper, and this track again is the springboard shooting Lil Uzi and his style up the wave. Despite Lil Uzi’s efforts, Future is the star of the track. Future is the blueprint of contemporary Hip Hop! His sound is all over this. Every other big track this year can be classed ‘Inspired by Future’. Every other rapper in this new wave is Future’s child. And my favourite word of 2016, is #Sauce.

Mura Masa - What If I Go

I love Mura Mama’s production and on this track he smashes it. It’s twinkly and swirly in the verses and the instrumental after the drop has just enough weight of bass. There’s an enduring sweetness that carries through the whole track. It’s like a Vienesse Whirl.

Alicia Keys - In Common

In Common keeps the rasp and Polish I expect from Keys’ brand of polished R'n'B, but mixes the flavours a little. Some genius in a studio polished off some slightly tribal drum beats which have no right to sound this smooth. This isn’t a normal beat, and this Alicia isn’t singing a conventional song. She is embodying the wooing process of today. She’s breathlessly nervous during the flirtatious part, then she sounds strained and stuck between options when she tells me that we have way too much in common. And then she’s announcing with certainty that I’m messed up too. And still I have no idea whether I’m in or not…

Level 2

Skream - You Know Right

I was on the M3 stuck in the 50mph zone when I caught this, mid-track, on Radio 1. It intrigued me, so I stayed. It was building up to something and it felt like forever. Still in the 50 zone, and still the track was building. The end of the limit was ahead, and the track switched up. It had to be turnt up. I was getting turnt up. I was at the end... I'd made it... but what do I do now? The song silenced to offer me a moment to think. Man, machine, and music were in a magical moment of synchronisation. BOOM! 

This track is everything great in British Electronic music. Elements of house, trance, dnb, two-step, garage. To fully appreciate these, you need to listen to the full-length version. It's a prime example of escalation. It's a demonstration of how the same beat, with the right escalation can switch from hard, to melt your face gassy

Yuna ft Usher - Crush

Instead of the awkward, terrifying, uncomfortable trainwreck I went through, I wish my first crush was more like this. Pure, innocent, untroubled. A little coy, with destiny guiding you where you needed to be. This track feels like its been touched by destiny. Every stage of the song seamlessly flows and blends. Usher and Yuna seem to be able to feel each other’s vocals and glide through this 4 mins making you wish it would never end.

Drake - Fake Love

Drake is the zeitgeist of 2016. He was on your radio, your phone, your fake news, your memes. But people still don’t understand that Views is probably his weakest album! The only track Drake dropped in 2016 that would make it onto his greatest hits (due 2018), is Fake Love. Some of Drizzy’s best work comes from his throwaways: Club Paradise, We Made It, Ransom, Draft Day, Hotline Bling, Dreams Money Can’t Buy, 9am in Dallas, 5am in Toronto... I could go on. IYRTITL was a mixtape of experiments that became one of his most critically acclaimed bodies of work. 

Drake is at his best when he’s experimenting, switching things up, venting. Fake Love is just this. He sliced up the tropical dancehall vibe he popularised w/ Rihanna, switched his style to mimic young Tory Lanez, and sprinkled a little of Hotline Bling’s Cha Cha magic. It shouldn’t work as well as it does, but there’s no point complaining because Drizzy is gonna keep dropping the catchiest bangers.

Level 1

Flume - Never Be Like You

I’ve not liked Flume for a while. It stemmed from an early disliking of some his remixes. Not my cup of tea. And I’ve swerved around this teacup since, but then I heard Never Be Like You. Turns out this Flume kid can create audio magic.

Contrary to all the OTT maximalist stuff I associate with Flume, this sounds like its being forcibly restrained. There's an angst being held back, with twinkly hope popping through in sweet bursts. It's disjointed with silent patches specifically placed to enhance the overarching rise and fall. This wave is coursing throughout the whole track, constantly gathering momentum until the end when your ears yearn for it to crash, that never comes. This is an exhilarating, breathtaking journey that exhausts you, but never truly ends, no matter how many times you try to find one.

Beyonce - Hold Up

The reason I had to allow Beyonce in this list is because everyone else would have you believe Formation should be up here. They are mistaken.

Look at the origins of this track. Ezra Koenig tweeted “hold up... they dont love you like i love you”. This already sounds like it could’ve been Vampire Weekend’s most profound song ever. Then Diplo, the most influential producer this decade, gets Ezra into a studio and they create a demo converting this tweet into the shell of a masterpiece. *In walks Queen B*

Ezra probably repeated the ‘They don’t love you like I love you” for rhythmic purposes. Beyonce, with the torturous relationship of Lemonade, flipped the spine of the song. First, its ‘Hold Up, please don't hurt me like this’ and then its ‘Slow Down, you ain’t never gonna get better than me’. Each line has its own angle on the revelation of this infidelity. There’s a feminist strength in this song and Bey’s delivery adds an independent defiance. The beat carries a bumptious swagger to gloss over the delicious rage Bey is ready to ‘fuck her up a bitch’ with.

The reason this tops the list is unexplainable. The instrumental is on sitcom level of comical. On any other beat, this song would be nothing special. But they combine gloriously. Beyonce’s sweet, sharp Jam is so much more fulfilling with Diplo’s salty, gloopy Peanut Butter. It's another one of this universe’s mysteries as to why this piece combines so well together, but Diplo has a knack for this, and Bey’s gonna slay regardless.

[kashforgold]

Why every Singh is my ‘Friend’

I made a new friend today. Never met this guy before, didn’t even speak to him, we barely acknowledged each other, but we went back hundreds of years. He was driving a bus, and I was walking by. He was old, whereas I’m relatively young. We both had a beard and turban (pagh).

Both are widely known symbols of Sikhism but there is a more personal connection you can only really understand if you’re one of us (Singhs). Nonetheless, I offer you my take, split into four parts. The first two parts identify why we connect on a one-to-one basis, and the final parts relate to a wider network that we Singhs share.

Our Shared Suffering

Sikhs are a nomadic diaspora. Fancy words for saying we have no real geographical base and that we connect through our disconnect from our shared home. This is the contradiction that defines our existence pretty accurately: we have spread from a homeland that we don’t really have. But Sikhs have always been a contradiction. We were created as a contradiction to the violently exclusive ideologies of the Hindus and Muslims. The physical appearance associated with Sikhs was designed as a contradiction to norms and to make us stick out.

Feel free to disagree, but I believe that as a turbaned and bearded Sikh, I am as detached as it gets from any society I could find myself in. Though I am technically British, I’ve never truly been able to feel it. Through no fault of their own, and no matter how nice their intentions are, the ‘White Majority’ will never be able to fully acclimatise to me because of society, and the way I’ve been designed. We Singhs wake up in a world we are familiar with, but is not familiar with us.

“Sikh friendly jumpers are a myth! I tease it over praying I only slightly loosen my pagh.”

“I bet it’s easier to organise shit when needing a helmet is barely inconvenient.”

(from a conversation I had earlier this week)

My new pal and I both relate with these, and many more minor, daily inconveniences. They all combine to create doors to society. We can get through them, but will always have to worry whether our pagh will fit. That’s one side of our brethren. We’ve been living with these difficulties that subtly isolate us. We greet each other to share the burden of our struggles and offer console. Merely seeing another Singh is a reminder we are not alone.

Our Collective Safety

The other side of this connection, from my view, is to offer protection. To understand this a little better, let me give you on a brief history lesson. 

Sikhs have a bloody history: we’ve died to protect the religious freedoms of others, we’ve died to establish our own, we’ve died to defend against British oppression and then in rebellion, we’ve died at the hands of our own Indian government, and now we experience racist persecution.

We are a glaringly obvious target, but this history has left us militarised in the face of injustice and persecution. I personally have suffered abuse aimed solely at my appearance, and it’s humbled me. From experience I can confirm, adversity is the most effective skin thickener. I can take the abuse I suffer, but I refuse to let anyone else. My self-esteem has been shattered, but I will use the remaining shards to protect yours.

We Singh’s have each developed our own coping mechanisms in solitude, and understand coping comes at a cost. We individually will suffer, but the hospitality we are taught from birth refuses us to allow anyone else to suffer in our presence. Every time I greet another Singh, it comes with a promise to defend their liberties. This isn’t done grudgingly either. I relish this opportunity to safeguard one of my own in this cruel world.

During the early stages of my current job, the Singh's in the company sought me out to welcome me. Before I even got to remember the names of people I would be working with on a daily basis, I was having lunch and tea breaks with the homies. I have been 'out-out' in unchartered regions and when another Singh spots me, we're officially mandem till the lights come on and we bid each other adieu, or depending on our sobriety, when we meet again.

The empathy we share and our protective comradery means that whenever I see one of my kin, I will offer a nod of acknowledgement, and commitment. Even eye contact is enough sometimes.  I don't think these were intended consequences of the Sikh 'Uniform', but it defines who we are in a way that I don't think any other division in society could replicate.

My Role as an Ambassador

But there is a cyclical side to this too. Our appearance defines the way we interact, but because we are a very visible minority, we each identify ourselves as representatives of our Singh Brethren.

It's a consequence of evolution that the human mind uses visual stimuli and past experience to jump to quick conclusions, however presumptuous or inaccurate they may be. The impression I leave on those less acquainted with Singhs will define how they interact with my kind. I take it upon myself to develop a positive association with pagh and beard, but also set the boundaries for interaction.

In doing this, am I living my own life? My interaction with others is purposeful. I'm never truly myself because I'm trying to be someone that other Singhs will appreciate. I've barely been able to develop a true sense of self because I'm too occupied with setting a precedent that's beneficial for my fellow Singhs. We not only share our pagh, beard and experiences. We share an existence. Almost everything I do, in some way, is to improve this existence.

My Friends I'll Never have to Meet

The older friend I made today in many ways has probably shaped the life I live today. All Singh's live in an interconnected web where I may be improving the life of some I’ll never even meet. Our connection is extended through space and time via the people we interact with. We are a social network. All other Singh's across the world are my ‘friends’, and the medium we use is you.

[kashforgold]

Is there a European citizenship today?      (an essay from 2015)

This essay was written way back in the early summer of 2015... But how wrong was I???

There is a European Citizenship in existence today. There are 3 distinct processes which led me to this conclusion: analysis of historical events in Europe, a theoretical model of post-war Europe, and conclusions derived from the Eurobarometer survey. In this report, I will first explain how certain events in the history of Europe have contributed greatly to this collective feeling among EU citizens. Then I will proceed to explain how the theory of Post-nationalism can be applied to the case of Europe effectively. Next, I shall expand on the conclusions from certain sections of the Eurobarometer survey whilst ending on the limits of ‘European Citizenship’ discovered in the survey.

The first of these events was the European Convention of Human Rights and eventually the formation of the European Court of Human Rights. Held amongst the Council of Europe, the convention established unity among 47 states on fundamental freedoms and human rights. Traditional citizenship established equality within the peoples of a state on the basis of nationality and could exclude aliens, but the convention superseded this and entitled the citizens of all these states (many who’d go on to join the EU) to a basic set of rights and freedoms. This legally put Europeans on a par with each other.

The extension of the convention into a court that could challenge any member state came along in 1953. The European Court of Human Rights ensured people could challenge state activity that could be considered hindering the provision of these rights. This was especially important in the protection of groups that chose to be identified ethnically and not nationally: Romani. The Roma people do not have a particular state that would guarantee them freedoms. They instead have been subject to much unfair treatment throughout Europe which the ECHR has since investigated, and attempted to help these individuals receive the freedoms they are guaranteed. By providing equality for EU citizens, the ECHR has created a population with a collective source of wellbeing and freedom which would have traditionally been offered nationally.

After the creation of the ECHR, the European Economic Community was created in 1957, and expanded in 1973. By 1979 there were 9 members involved in the first EU Parliamentary election. The EU parliament became the first branch of the EU to hold elections with direct citizen interaction. These elections provide citizens with a stake in a body beyond the nation state whilst also legitimising the supranational institution in the conscious of the public. With elections, the EU became less of a distant entity affecting the lives of others and became a present body affecting the lives of Europeans and accountable to said Europeans (Moravsik, 2002).

Come 1986, the Adonnino Report was created for the sole purpose of fostering an EU identity amongst citizens. It encouraged the establishment of the commonly used Europe flag and the use of Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ as an anthem for all EU events (Adonnino, 1985). These symbols are commonly recognised as European. The existence of symbolism like this allows for a sensory relationship for between the EU and its citizens. National anthems and flags of the state have been synonymous with the nation state but now the EU can boast these. The EU can now be seen in a fashion similar to that of a state and can attain some of the allegiance.

The Single Europe act has had the largest legislative effect on enhancing the European sense of citizenship. By 1993, the ‘Four Freedoms’ were in place meaning goods, services, capital and people could move freely within the EEC. By allowing people to move between nations, the geographical border between nationals and immigrants was removed. There were still non-nationals, but they now couldn’t be alienated with the immigrant label. By giving EU nationals the liberty to move and settle throughout Europe, they were in a sense liberated from allegiance to a single nation with the state replaced somewhat by the Europe as now only the European boundaries limited movement.

These citizens were also given the opportunity to stand and vote in local and European elections in many of these states. The right to vote in and stand for election was limited to nationals but now this act has been extended. The convention was elections made states accountable to citizens giving citizens the responsibility to vote. This relationship created citizenship as it was this form of representation could only be offered within the state. With the extension beyond the state border of voting rights, an individual’s representation isn’t solely dependent on a state. Citizens are no longer limited by a state on receiving representation in the political sphere.

The traditional model of state membership has faced pressures that have caused a tendency towards Soysal’s postnational model of ‘membership that transcends the boundaries of the nation-state’ (Soysal, 1994). The author refers to membership formation having superseded the dichotomy of ‘the national citizen and the alien’, creating a need for an expanded form of membership. This form of membership differs most drastically from traditional state bound citizenship on these distinctions: Basis of Membership, and Legitimacy.

The traditional citizenship provided equal rights and obligations on the grounds of shared nationhood (Basis of Membership) which was legitimised in a constitution. In Europe, these national rights have been replaced by international human rights legitimised in the ECHR. Whilst before, individuals created a sense of citizenship bound by shared nationhood, Europe has created a postnational sense of citizenship bound by universal personhood. This comes across most clearly when one considers refugees without a state being protected by a nation within Europe because of these inalienable human rights.

These inalienable rights are legitimately granted by a transnational community whereas under the traditional model, the state determined national rights. With globalisation, nation states are no longer in complete charge over the treatment of their citizens. State sovereignty is breached with the jurisdiction of many matters up for contention. Transnational communities are needed to ensure the rights of individuals in the face of transnational threats to the freedoms of European citizens. Organisations like the EU, NATO etc. are ensuring the protection of these freedoms. Citizens can, must, and are no longer look to the state on these matters.

Beyond this theoretical frame of Europe, exists Europe, in which the Eurobarometer has been surveying public opinion for decades. It has assessed the views of European citizens on whether they feel European or not. Since 1992, between 51% and 63% of EU citizens surveyed saw themselves in some way ‘European’. This could be completely European, (NATIONALITY) & European, or European & (NATIONALITY). Of this statistic, one ought to bear in mind that vast fluctuations between states exist with 46% and 44% of Romanians and Greeks respectively feeling European whilst 77% of Luxembourg residents and 70% of Croatians feel European. The UK and Ireland remain outliers to these stats also but mainland Europe harbours a majority of European citizens.

The study also finds that Europeans feel united by Culture, History, Economy, and Sports (in that order). The Europe polis does see itself linked merely through geography. The study finds that this has been a trend not drastically altered by the economic downturn. The collective identity of Europe was seen similarly before 2008 as it is now. Despite this inference, the economic downturn has affected perceptions on closeness to other EU citizens. ‘In countries where the crisis has been most acute, a majority feel closer to other EU citizens, but overall fewer than half of Europeans feel this way’. Despite this drift, we know that the closeness exists between EU citizens, but it fluctuates with external factors.

One can see the fickle nature of EU citizenship. During crisis, individuals, and nation states are quick to blame the EU and revert to protectionist dialogue. Whilst a new sphere of citizenship exists, it hasn’t offered citizens the level of safety and comfort that the nation-state may ensure. Radical steps may need to be taken to take more control from nation states to garner a stronger EU citizenship but this would upset the transnational structure upon which Europe is founded. On the other hand, the EU could remain the scapegoat during times of collective stress and the hero during prosperity. The EU is an independent body from governments that can withstand the scorn of disapproving citizens and it ought to, thus ensuring citizens remain content with the nation states that have ensured peace and stability. There does exist a European citizenship today, but the security of Europe is dependent on this citizenship not being absolute or necessary for citizens to maintain.

Most of the points I make are valid, but evidently, judging from brexit, I was wrong on a few major claims:

EU citizenship is definitely a fickle relationship

Steps taken by the EU to wield greater influence over nation states have upset the transnational structure

48% of UK voters have some allegiance to this ‘European Citizenship’

Brexit suggests

 EU cannot withstand ‘the scorn of disapproving citizens’

The security of the EU was dependent on citizens maintaining this relationship

Our #VoteRemain campaign was not resonant enough... but life goes on 🍃

[kashforgold]

Do you even EU?

A poll concerning the upcoming EU referendum has compelled me to to write this. Many seem to be under the idea that there is a correct answer. As with most political issues, there is no right answer. Britain is full of groups with conflicting interests. Who are you to suggest the welfare of another cannot be justified?

The poll in question was conducted by TNS and suggested the Brexit support had reached level footing with the remain campaign. I find this worrying as I believe it is in my interest that we remain in the EU. The reasons behind this put candidly: holidays are much easier and I would like to work in Europe at one point.

Is it wrong that I’m focusing on my own selfish needs? Hell Naa! Vote in your own interests people. In the conventional election voting, you’re electing someone to represent your interests but in this case nobody else is going to think about you. I implore you to actually consider your position. Voting to leave does not mean you’re xenophobic and voting to remain doesn’t mean you agree with everything David Cameron says.

Most stories you hear in the media refer to the bigger picture but you need to ignore that and focus on you!

Are your finances linked strongly to the national budget?

If yes, then the savings made on the EU Membership Fee could result in you being financially better off. That is if we ignore the private investment we recieve because of our membership.

Will the potential loss of investment result in me losing my job?

BMW has reminded it’s employees of the benefits of the EU market place. Without this, many car manufacturers could leave the EU. But what may remain in the capacity to expand for british owned car manufacturers (McClaren, Morgan...)

Do you work for a UK business?

You’d assume that anyone working for a UK business would benefit from trading with the EU, but what if the EU is undermining sections of British manufacturing by being able to retail at a lower price?

Do you work in finance/banking?

If we leave the EU, Britain’s banking sector will contract. But Barclays suggest that if Brexit were to occur, the loss of one of EU’s largest economies could cause the EU to collapse. Britain would then be a european banking haven.

Are you unemployed?

It could be that a european has taken ‘your job’ in which case they ought to be ‘sent back’. Don’t forget though that there exist employment opportunities throughout Europe that you could take advantage of, and catch a tan while you’re there.

Do you like holidays?

Right now, its easy to just pick a cheap European flight and get out of the country. It may be just as easy for criminals to come in and out.

Realistically, is easier transnational policing going to directly affect you?

Who the fuck knows...

What I have attempted to highlight above is the level of conflict regarding this issue. I believe I personally benefit from EU membership, but the whole point of this post is that this may not be the case for you. You have your own set of circumstances and need to sit down and actually consider, what is best for my own interests.

I am in the remain camp. That factor that I believe most affects me is the control of UK’s border. I enjoy the freedom to travel throughout Europe and I also have a number of european friends for whom travel would become much more awkward. I believe my life is made richer because of multi-culturalism and I would hate for others to not have the opportunity to learn from and love our European siblings.

It may be easier to blindly follow a view, but it could be more profitable if you attempted to quantify the personal cost and benefits of our EU membership. Given how close the polls suggest the referendum is (ignoring the pesky Shy Tories), your vote and vocal support could potentially make a difference.

[kashforgold]

No Tabla’s were harmed, or even used...

Korg Volca Beats + Behringer UCA202 + Adobe Audition

Struggled on sound quality and volume

[kashforgold]

An Unexpected Jihad

Social Media & Self-Censorship

Gone are the days when I was young and carefree; I could post/tweet exactly whatever I chose without even contemplating there could be repercussions. Now I find myself carefully considering which wording would be most sensitive or what the background in my picture suggests about me... 

Maybe now as I attempt to become a functioning cog in society, I need to accommodate the conventions of said society into my life. This is not me undermining my self-worth... I am fully aware of how fantastic a human I am, it's just that nobody now cares how ‘fantastic I am. 

I’m now expected to work, vote, procreate, complain about things, and die whilst society continues to repress humanity. No school I know of teaches you how to successfully ‘adult’. You just go through your twenties with a series of seemingly insignificant realisations that accumulatively change your behaviour till you’ve become your dad. I digress. What I was getting at was that without the safety net of education, family, youth, you have to change yourself and your online image to attract partners to go through life with you, and employment to finance your suffering. 

Wherever you look for advice on Job Hunting, you’re told to regulate the online profiles you have made as you will be judged on this. As I haven’t had the opportunity of employing anyone, I am gonna assume this is what all employers do. Now I’m worried about tweeting my friends suggesting they fellate themselves having read their take on Arsenal FC’s latest misery.

Facebook’s Memory feature is a constant reminder of how bravely forthright I used to be. Though I have never engaged a pig in coitus, I bet Cameron’s glad it never made Lord Ashcroft’s Snapchat. Kids nowadays can’t possibly be expected to regulate their huge online image. Give it 30 years and the dirt available on the day’s public figures will be overwhelming. Back when I was a teen I posted updates on my defecation... now I’m worried about the impact this could have on a promotion that doesn’t exist yet.

Most people are already very selective of the images they display online. From my own personal process, the vetting stages are currently: ‘Does my turban look slick’; ‘Am I dressed fly’; ‘Does it portray me as interesting’; and most importantly ‘Will it cross the Instagram barrier of displaying the no. of likes’. Now I am starting to consider so much more. I avoid pictures on a night out so I don’t portray myself as an alcoholic. Not holding a toy gun is an easy way to avoid looking like you just enjoyed a weekend Terrorist Camp retreat. 

To fashion a conclusion from this disjointed line of thought, should we censor ourselves and carefully manipulate the image we display online to fit societal requirements? I think not. Behaviour like this slowly trickles its way into defining who we are. If someone does believe in ideals I’d find offensive, I’d like to know about it. It goes to a more sinister level than dispute. It's an easy way to herd the public into thinking a certain way, It makes a population more docile, and most importantly, it wouldn't be fun living in a world where you can't be free to express yourself.

[kashforgold]

The role of Influentials in Kesha vs Dr Luke

I’m not here to pick sides or voice any opinion of either party involved in this debacle. I am putting forward what I have been observing but for fear of being villainised I state that I do consider myself a feminist and I haven’t researched this topic so you may know more about this than me.

Taylor Swift

As with most things in Pop music, I begin with Taylor Swift. From what I’ve read on the topic, before the $250,000 pledge, Swift was not as vocal as her peers in supporting Kesha. This caused uproar as a female icon was not living to expectations of her. She was being vilified for not supporting a cause that she had nothing to do with. As far as many people were concerned it didn’t matter what Taylor truly felt until she published it with 140 characters.

This leads me to 2 conclusions (one of which I will elaborate on):

Twitter is a hive of mob activity

Celebrities are caged by their image

I always maintained that Taylor Swift is a facade but the backlash she received has made me revise this opinion. She shares an identity with the public that is beneficial for her and is what society wants her to be. You could liken it to The Matrix: the public reject the real world for the matrix providing Taylor maintains a satisfying image. I guess I shouldn’t comment on how fake I think she is since she is bound to this image by the millions who look up to her as a role model. Taylor Swift along with many celebrities is paid to host an identity of society’s choosing.  

So assumptions I make are that this particular individual’s image was created by herself, her fans, media, management etc..., this image compels what this artist expresses, and fans use twitter to regulate the artist's actions. I am not claiming I know Taylor’s actual opinions on Kesha’s case, but she is not free to fully express herself without risking severe outcry. I am sure there are many influentials tweeting insincere support for Kesha to please their fan’s expectations.

I’m sure this began with influentials and followers offering sincere support for Kesha, but it reached a point where it became a norm. Support amongst tweeters was intense and loud, and then became propagated to the point where to not be vocally on Team Kesha resulted in vilification.

Team Kesha vs Patriarchy

An interesting aspect of this villification is it required nothing from male influentials. A largely female audience took ownership of the Team Kesha campaign and turned it into a battle against not just an alleged rapist, but a patriarchal one. With the case now being treated as a gendered battle, an influential (like Taylor) risked their feminist credibility if they voiced anything but unflinching support for Kesha.

Also, if you re-read the last paragraph, you’ll see I cautiously made use of the term rapist by clarifying it is still at this point an allegation. Rape is such a powerful word that any association with the term could ruin a career. Many Team Kesha artists have vowed to never work with this undoubtedly talented producer. Dr Luke’s career has taken a colossal hit due to unproven allegations. In this case, Team Kesha have made Dr Luke guilty till proven innocent.

In my social media browsing, I have come across many females who bravely acknowledge the history of this case and how current evidence is not sufficient enough to prove abuse took place, but they phrase their opinion in a careful manner to again avoid vilification or protect their feminist credibility. Team Kesha don’t fear this as any extreme views are lost within the louder noise, like a mob.

Throughout all this, the only party I see benefitting is Kesha. Her last big single was three years ago and now she is back in the limelight. Opinion towards her is overwhelmingly supportive. She is applying pressure on Sony and Dr Luke to relax their contract terms. I am not saying her accusations are lies (I cannot prove that), nor am I saying that this was masterminded (I cannot prove that), but if an experienced Judge is ruling that Kesha’s allegations lack proof and that her contract is absolute, I won't participate in this Team Kesha noise. However, I don’t think I’m brave enough (nor do I want to) to take on Kesha’s mob and show any support for Dr Luke.

[kashforgold]

Mean Girls and the Monetisation of Snapchat

The story of Snapchat reminds me of the tale of a young Cady Heron and her brush with the Social Media Elite.

Snapchat began life as a private girl. All about security and privacy, away from the incentives of profit and popularity.

Then she got popular! People began using her, which made more people want to use her so they knew how it was. 

(from left to right: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat)

And Snapchat was all cool with that. She handled the popularity, but she knew what it was all about. She had her priorities straight.

Then October 3! She started thinking about making money (getting jiggy with Aaron Samuels)...

Now she’s all bout that hustle. To quote Drake, she’s a “boss bitches wife-ing niggas’.

She’s getting what she wants using this façade of a persona (making money through selling filters to be used as advertising).

This narrative would suggest Snapchat will experience a dramatic decline, and Facebook will get hit by a bus

The main point of this post was to highlight how Snapchat has been able to create a profitable business model and join the social media heavyweights. I had intended to do a blog explaining how innovatively Snapchat has integrated advertising into its service, but then I watched Mean Girls...

[kashforgold]

[kashforgold]

My Dissertation (Abstract)

Twitter is an increasingly popular social media platform that is dominating online electoral battles across the globe. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign is the most prominent early examples of how effective a tool twitter can be for a political candidate. The use of twitter by candidates has been studied predominantly on individual basis. During the research of this topic, no comparative studies of twitter usage could be found

There is a lack of studies that are distinguishing within twitter, the many techniques that can be employed. This study analysed the twitter activity of UK party leaders Nigel Farage (UKIP), and Natalie Bennett (Green Party) between the MEP elections of 2014, and the general election of 2015. It was found that Farage engaged in activity attributed to an ‘information source’ whilst Bennett’s activity, relatively, could be likened more to the activity of a ‘friend’. Bennett also shares this relationship with her followers as can be seen from her increased propensity to respond to tweets, whereas Farage strongly tends to compose twitter content and select relevant content to retweet. Beyond this, a link was identified between the interactivity on twitter and follower count. If follower could be associated with popularity, this link could prove beneficial to political candidates if studied further.

Our data was limited in its nature as it was qualitative, and in this, ignored the effects of external stimuli, context, and causality regarding interaction. To further research in his field, these would need to be assessed to provide a more nuanced analysis of twitter strategies. However, this could result in complicating the simplicity in the model created and used in this study.

Introduction

Twitter is commonly seen as the 21st century’s revolution in democracy (Parmelee and Bichard, 2012). Others are more sceptical of twitter’s potential to alter the electoral landscape and see it more as an evolution of democracy (Baran, 2011). Wherever there is a democratic election, the likelihood is the coverage is not without mention of the social media platform. The effect on politics is undeniable. Whilst most do see it as a tool for democratisation, what is less discussed, is its capacity to manipulate the tweeting electorate.

The electorate have turned it into the largest arena for discussion possibly since Athenian democracy. No other democratic innovation has placed such a huge quantity of an electorate, within conversational proximity of each other, in real time. With so many potential voters, deliberating policy issues, there arises the potential to hijack debates and direct voters towards specific views. Whether this is the case is difficult. Having the choice to subscribe to certain accounts, limits the exposure of an individual to points of view they may not wish to view. Whilst definitely deliberative, it could be suggested that twitter may not be the neutral, fertile arena that could spawn political dialogue.

Traditional Media is now accommodating twitter within its coverage. In an attempt to dominate the zeitgeist, the aim of many outlets is to trend and thus expose an idea to a huge audience. Firms now employ experts to engage in PR activity through twitter as they realise the potential to expose the firm to new potential customers. Political interests have not been left behind in this medium. Parties, interest groups, politicians, activists, and many more are vying for the mass attention that twitter has the ability to generate within minutes. Events can now be broken into public view by a twitter user tweeting about hearing an explosion in Boston or seeing a US military helicopter where it has no business to be. This exposure could be valuable to these political actors seeking to further their own interests.

Political leaders, one would assume are attempting to control this medium and use it to its full capacity. Obama is perceived to be a result of enormously successful twitter activity and which leader wouldn’t want to achieve a fraction of Obama’s success? Obama engaged on twitter with a strategy. If we assess McCain’s relatively poor use of the medium, we find that twitter must be used in an effective way to utilise its capacity to dictate electoral outcomes.  It could conversely be true that twitter has no real effect on electoral outcomes, popularity, or public opinion. We cannot be certain until we study how candidates using twitter in varying fashions, affect the mentioned variables.

This study will be primarily focusing on differentiating how political candidates use twitter in dissimilar ways and identifying patterns to its use. With this it is possible to identify the use of a strategy (implicit or explicit). Our successful attempt found rudimentary strategies that can be identified empirically. Limitations to our study meant that these strategies are vulnerable to the critique that they do not account for activity beyond twitter. Despite this, what has been achieved is a quantitative measure of twitter use, and the successful differentiation between users using twitter in starkly different methods. This could act as a starting point for other research ready to tackle the suggestions outlined in the further research section.

The secondary aim was to determine the effect of these relatively different twitter uses on electoral outcomes. To assess this, we will be working under the assumption that the popularity of political candidates on social media can lead to electoral success, as was the case with Obama in 2008. Popularity is the primary aim for many politicians in their attempt to be elected. It dictates a large fraction of the actions of a politician. If twitter can be confirmed as having the potential to generate public support, the twitter landscape may become more politicised as more candidates flock to take advantage of the media. This study finds some correlation between twitter activity and our chosen measure of popularity, but this remains a correlation. Until causality is determined this avenue of research cannot be effectively pursued.

Literature Review

History and Development of Twitter

Twitter began in 2006 as the brainchild of Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone and Evan Williams that went on to have 288 million monthly active users as of March 2015. The premise of the site was allowing users to post microblogs/statuses limited to 140 characters. This idea had evolved from the original premise where an SMS could be made visible to a larger group of friends (Carlson, 2011). Despite many countries still allowing for SMS status updates, twitter has adapted to become the largest online micro-blogging platform. As a public microblog, anyone can find a ‘tweet’ by an individual or group, especially so if they subscribe to these tweets and ‘follow’ the account. This greatly expanded the range for communication in comparison to private emails focusing on a one-to-one dialogue providing the parties have agreed to correspond. Despite the similarities, twitter outdoes blogging on the easily digestible 140 character limit, and how it allows for exposure to a greater quantity of messages in a feed.

The benefits of twitter include the improved facilitation of social interaction as opposed to traditional blogging. There exist 3 ways of interactions on a user-to-user basis: mentions, retweet, and favourite. Other users can be directly ‘mentioned’ in a tweet, upon which they receive a ‘notification’ making the recipient aware of this contact. One would find ‘mentions’ commonly in ‘replies’ to tweets whereupon a thread of the interaction is created, or less commonly, in tweets directed at particular users. ‘Retweets’ take a tweet by a user, and reposts it onto the retweeter’s ‘wall’ and to the timeline of his ‘followers’. In doing this the tweet is exposed to a larger audience beyond the following of the initial tweeter. To ‘favourite’ a tweet saves the tweet onto a list accessible to the user and the ‘activity feed’ the company have recently introduced. The rationale behind this act can vary from showing appreciation, acknowledgement, agreement, or saving the tweet for easy access.

Importantly, twitter popularised the mass use of the ‘hashtag’. During the late 80s hashtags were “used to categorise items like images, messages, video and other content into groups” on internet forums and group chats (Digital Marketing Philippines, 2014). The first recorded use of the hashtag on twitter was by Chris Messina in regarding his thoughts on “contextualization, content filtering and exploratory serendipity within the Twittosphere” (Messina, 2006). With development, twitter eventually enabled users to follow ‘#’ with a buzzword, causing the tweet to be incorporated into a stream containing all tweets featuring this #buzzword. This incorporated a forum style structure into the medium allowing people to interact regarding certain topics and events. An example of use of this in a political context was the ‘Twitter Town Hall @ The White House’. Tweets containing ‘#AskObama’ were relayed through to the White House. Of the 110,000 plus tweets, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey moderated a selection of questions Obama would respond to via a televised stream. Alongside this engineered hashtag exists a more organic form whereby a topic or event is converted into a hashtag by users wanting to instigate dialogue. Many commentators agree that without local, and predominantly black, users initiating the #Ferguson hashtag, the social unrest may not have reached the level it did or even receive the mass media attention it was offered.

Twitter Usage and Users

Use of these interactions depend on the relationship users share. There exist two main structures of relationships: friends or followers. If two users reciprocate follows, they can be known as ‘friends’ whereas, if a user chooses to ‘follow’ another without receiving a follow back, the relationship is of the follower kind. Java et al (2007) delved further into twitter to identify the types of users engaging in these relationships. They categorised users as Information Source, Friends, and Information Seeker. The two of most interest to my study are the former two. The Information Source is deemed so due to the “valuable nature” of their updates, which in this instance would be the account of a party leader. The Friend user becomes relevant when we consider the high level of interaction they engage in. Aforementioned, high interactivity online can have a causal relationship with liking and psychological affinity, making this a potential variable in the popularity of a candidate.

When considering the ‘friend’ and ‘follower’ relationships, the former relies on two-way communication whilst the latter engages predominantly in one way communication. Twitter is innovative in how it expanded the follower relationship to include a one-to-one, yet visible to many structure of communication (Burton and Soboleva, 2011). Information Sources can engage in a public dialogue with followers similar to Natalie Bennett’s twitter strategy, which shall be clarified in the data analysis. What is unconventional about these direct interactions is that they are visible to the many others who follow the tweeter’s account.

Barack Obama’s use of Twitter in the 2008 Election

2008 was a pivotal year for twitter and its politicisation due to its use by then presidential candidate Barack Obama. By 2008, social media had become an effective marketing tool. However, when comparing Obama 2008 to other campaigns, Cogburn and Espinoza-Vasquez (2011) ‘found that no other campaign gave these social media tools such a central role’. Since then, much thought has gone into understanding the importance of web 2.0 in Obama’s election campaign, in particular twitter.

Before the presidential election, Obama had to win the Democratic nomination against Hilary Clinton who was backed by the Clinton Political Machine. The well-known opponent, Clinton, could dominate traditional media using the influence she already had and the financial support her name could attract. The sunk costs of using social media were significantly lower than newspaper, television, and radio. Whether we see it as a tactical decision or a compulsion due to limited funds, Obama embraced social media (Qualman, 2009).

Having rejected public funding, Obama used this groundwork encouraged supporters to donate, leading to a record breaking total approaching $750m in the 21 months preceding the election (Bradley, 2008). The campaign made use of multiple platforms to ‘engage constituents directly’ (Solis, 2008) and foster an environment that consistently encouraged many to offer small donations, and thus creating the bulk of a gargantuan budget. His team also made no hesitations in asking for donations.

As we delve more specifically into the use of twitter in this context, we see it more as an instrument through which Obama could attract followers (Cetina, 2009). According to Cetina, Obama was the charismatic ‘outsider’ CEO able to save the failing company. But what is not clear is how this charisma is translated through the medium of a tweet. This whole text attributes Obama’s electoral success to many people seeing him as charismatic. This was achieved through television and radio, where his loud and deep voice coupled with his articulation impressed potential supporters. With the limits of 140 characters and maybe an image, what is it that could attract support?

Could it be the competence and availability of this medium that is engaging followers? A particular article published just before the mass spread of social media found of political candidates “that an increase in interactivity (on a website)… contributes to a corresponding increase in the level of liking as well as the level of psychological affinity” (Sundar, Kalyanaraman and Brown, 2003). Having taken a functional view on interactivity (hyperlinks), participants were randomly exposed to one of these three scenarios: “a Website for a political candidate with no extra links (low interactivity), the same site with a link to access extra information about the candidate (medium), and a form function with a link to the candidate’s e-mail address to facilitate correspondence with the candidate (high)”. The results determined that those with little or no political interest were swayed by the increased interactivity to perceive the candidate as ‘significantly more caring and sensitive’, whilst the politically savvy were detracted by the high interactivity.

An explanation for the decreasing affinity with the interactivity made is regarding the use of the interactive tools. Sundar et al’s study was conducted in a short time frame in which any input by the participant could not be responded to. Those with little or no political interest were swayed by the appearance and opportunity for interaction whereas the politically savvy may have disillusioned by the unresponsiveness of this opportunity for interaction not generating a response. Whilst this study may be outdated in the medium it studied, this particular conclusion is highly relevant to the Obama campaign. Timely and personalized e-mails were a key factor in helping Obama break records for online fundraising (Cogburn & Vasquez, 2011). They would be signed by prominent members of the campaign and timed alongside interactions and key events. The design of this interaction system allowed the campaign to make the constituents feel they were being kept “in the loop” and as if they were “personally close to the candidate”. This high level of interactivity, incorporated with the almost immediate response system, allowed this particular campaign to avoid the flaw that Cogburn & Vasquez identified in their study that led to the disillusionment of the politically savvy.

From the 2008 Obama campaign and literature regarding it, I find a consensus that social media had a positive influence on Obama’s eventual success. It provided a means of direct communication with the electorate in real time. From his BlackBerry, Obama was able to get a message to his followers (and many others) immediately after any significant event, and keep the public up to date with his campaign. Twitter, in particular, provided an advantageous and beneficial platform for this communication. Through this, the public were induced into a feeling of proximity to the campaign. Also, twitter allows for communication to avoid any media framing. Tweets are directly available to the masses without filtration by mass media. Whilst mass media may be able to report in more depth than a 140 character tweet, the restricted tweet offers a message that is easily read and understood (more lucid to the public). Despite this effective usage of twitter, there exist limitations in its influence on electoral outcomes. It is suggested that these may not be down to inefficient usage but inherent characteristics of the medium and the inconsistend use of twitter within society.

Twitter and Electoral Outcomes   

Much of the literature regarding twitter in a political context is regarding its use as a variable that could predict electoral outcomes. One of the most prominent studies of this kind was conducted during the 2009 German election (Tumasjan et. al., 2009). The researchers identified that twitter’s extensive use for ‘political deliberation’ resulted in the quantity of mentions of a party reflecting the election result. This correlation was strengthened when it was found that joint mentions of parties resembled offline political ties and coalitions.

In an article denouncing the influence of twitter on political outcomes, Baran (2011) suggests twitter is a “bubble”. The term is highlighting the fact that a majority of the eligible population do not exist on the “tweetosphere” (conclusion drawn from Canadian population data). Twitter cannot be heralded as the newest revolution in democracy if it does not involve a majority of the electorate. Furthermore, Baran believes that the engaged “bubble” is a politically engaged fraction, many with pre-established opinions, who will exclusively follow users complementing these opinions. With only a fraction of the population engaged through twitter, and many of these users reinforcing their views rather than challenging them, it is easy to see twitter as an “evolution” of mediums for political dialogue, but not revolutionary.  

What Baran does account for is that at the time of writing, 90% of the Canadian population did not have a twitter account but twitter is a growing medium. The youth are engaged on twitter more so than the older members of the electorate. With time, the elderly will be replaced by twitter literate youths, which, in addition to the medium’s growing popularity, could lead to somewhat correcting this deficit. Also brought to attention is the evolved nature of the message in comparison to traditional media. Twitter has encouraged communication to be instantaneous if it is to capitalise on the temporary zeitgeist. This fast paced communication occurs beyond the boundaries of official filters and press releases. What was initially the role of the columnist can be carried out concisely over twitter by reporters and commentators.

Despite the clear example of success demonstrated by Obama, the UK parliamentary elections are yet to experience a significant impact from twitter. All the leaders of the major and growing political parties in the UK are frequent twitter users. During the election of 2010, twitter was used extensively to deliberate, but the use of it by the candidates has not been documented on and assessed in detail by scholars in comparison to elections in other nations (notably US & Iran). Also from the literature on twitter, I couldn’t find studies that attempt to identify patterns in twitter usage by competing political candidates or that challenged conceptions on the influence of twitter on popularity of party leaders. Despite the inconsistency of this study within the poli-twitter canon, what was taken from these readings was a collection of terminology and concepts used to conduct this study.

Methodology

Terminology

A study very relevant to the study that I have proposed is that of Cha et al (2010). This study attempted to measure the influence of twitter users through the medium. The conclusions of it are better understood once the terminology they use has been explained. ‘Indegree’ refers to the number of followers a user has. The influence this could generate is through the larger audience exposed to this user’s tweet. ‘Retweet’ influence is also due to the exposure of a tweet as ‘follower’ users may forward to their followers. ‘Mention’ influence is seen as influence through a user being able to engage their followers in dialogue. The study computed an influence ranked list from a random sample of 6 million users.

Comparing these, they conclude that high ‘indegree’ does not correlate to influence. The top 10% percent of users displayed a strong correlation of 0.638 of ‘retweets’ against ‘mentions’. The correlation of ‘Indegree’ to ‘retweets’ and ‘mentions’ was 0.122 and 0.268 respectively. Mentions may also simply refer to the user rather than to engage with them (which could explain why it is greater than the ‘retweet’ correlation). What this study also demonstrates is some inclination as to how a user may build influence. Upon identifying 3 popular topics on twitter (Iranian Elections, Michael Jackson’s death, and Swine Flu), the likelihood of retweets and mentions was examined over time amongst users tweeting about all 3. The most influential users held significant influence over all of the three categories, suggesting influence is maintained by latching onto popular topics.

The study was also able to create a list of 233 users with high influence across all three of the initial measures. The top users in terms of indegree were predominantly news organisations, followed by celebrities, and then topical influentials. The topical influentials in the study displayed the greatest mention influence and a growing retweet influence beyond celebrities. The authors suggest that these users have an incentive to maintain popularity through twitter due to the remaining groups having other methods of promotions. Politicians would lie within these two categories of user. They have methods of promotion beyond twitter and a level of celebrity status, yet retain a tendency to tweet about political issues extensively.

Natalie Bennett and Nigel Farage are the heads of two parties experiencing a significant growth in support. They also occupy opposing ends of a rudimentary left and right political spectrum. The parties are also synonymous with particular policy regions: environment and migration. Most importantly they are using two different twitter strategies. On first inspection, Farage’s tweets are written with clarity in mind. The emphasis here is on promoting content through the links to other relevant content in tweets and his retweets. Bennett’s tweets are directed more towards interaction. The quantity of Bennett’s retweets is higher, but the significant difference is the response rate of Bennett compared to Farage. On Bennett’s ‘wall’, mentions are overwhelmingly apparent.

A skim through the twitter walls of each user provide some evidence on which one can be led to believe they may use twitter with different strategies, but this cannot be certain until it  can be quantified. Primarily this study has aimed to empirically identify and quantify the twitter strategies used by each of the aforementioned UK political candidates. The study by Cha et al split twitter activity into ‘retweets’, ‘mentions’ and ‘tweets’. These classifications of twitter activity were starting points which, upon some refinements, were used to determine what type of twitter activity could define the strategy. In addition to this, with the data, it was possible to identify if there was any effect of twitter activity on the popularity of the user. The ‘indegree’ measure used in the study would be relevant in identifying popularity, despite the argument that this could not be used to imply influence.

With these rules established, data could be collected from the native twitter website. All the twitter updates posted in the period were categorised using the aforementioned conditions as ‘mentions’, or ‘retweets’. If the tweet satisfied the conditions for neither of the groupings, it was labelled a ‘standard tweet’. For each day during the duration of the study, the type of tweets each candidate composed and posted was assessed.

Source of Data

In the attempt to identify the use of strategy, twitter had to be mined for data. No programs offered the data required so the sourcing had to be done manually. This involved sifting through individual tweets and classifying them. This was carried out during April 2015 on the native twitter website. The ‘tweets’ accessed resided under the heading “tweets & replies”. Presumably this is in order to separate one-to-one interactions from those users uninterested in them. Once off the default ‘tweets only’ list, replies to other users were displayed. Without this data, we would have been unable to discover the intent to which the most engaging use of twitter could spur the popularity of the candidate.   

The time period selected for this test was from November 1st 2014 to 31st January 2015. The rationale for selecting this may not suggest optimality, but was appropriate given the constraints. One of the largest constraints was that of time as scrolling through twitter and 2632 tweets took more time than anticipated. What was predicted to take a day, took a week. Capping the data range at three months provided enough data to identify repetitious twitter activity. Original intentions were to begin from July 2014, quite some time after the MEP elections had taken place on May 22nd 2014. These elections may have had an influence on twitter activity, potentially skewing results during the period. Campaigning for this election could’ve led to a greater fraction of growth in twitter ‘indegree’ independent from the candidate’s twitter activity. This extends to the 2015 General Election campaign. This study was conducted during a period where users may be noticeably more politicised than usual, but to access data from late 2013/ early 2014 would have been excessively time consuming. Ideally, data would have been collected during a four-year period in order to aggregate the activity during a national and European election.

Classification of Tweets

All activity available during this time period was assessed. Individual ‘tweets & replies’ were sorted into one of three categories: ‘tweet’, ‘response’, and ‘retweet’. A ‘retweet’ was identified with ease as it could take one of two forms:

The original ‘retweet’ forwards a tweet beyond the initial audience, but was designed within twitter to have the outcome integrated into a single button. They are identified as they bear the avatar of the initial user, with the green ‘retweet’ icon and the user by whom it was retweeted, above.

This ‘retweet’ involves copying the text tweeted by a user initially, and inserting it into a tweet being composed, preceded by “RT @username:”. Variations of this can be used, but they all involve the “RT” to clarify it is a retweet, and the “@username” to refer to the user being retweeted and make them aware of the subsequent use of the content they had composed. Some twitter clients allowed for the “RT @username:” to be inserted automatically.

The latter method of ‘retweeting’ bore similarities to the structure of a form of ‘response’. The response could take three forms: ‘modified tweet’, ‘reply’, ‘mention’.

The ‘modified tweet’ allows for user B to take user A’s tweet, modify the text, insert a short reaction, and relay it to user B’s followers, whilst notifying user A. The similarity to “RT” occurs in the use of two letters to distinguish the type of tweet, and the tagging of user A. In this case, the letters used are “MT”.

This ‘mention’ tags user A within the tweet (@ is not the first character), composed by user B. This commonly acts as a precursor for dialogue, or uses the tag simply for the name value.

The ‘direct’ reply refers to user A at the beginning of the tweet. This is accommodated within twitter’s coding and allows for other users to keep up with the stream of the conversation.

The similarities between the second form of retweet and the ‘modified tweets’ follow a similar structure whereby they both began with the two letters, RT and MT respectively, followed the original ‘tweet’ or an extract from it. The ‘modified tweet’ differs as characters are removed from the initial ‘tweet’ to accommodate some text responding to this tweet. It allows for the candidate to expose part of the original tweet to a wider audience as it may contain interesting content. These types of twitter activity overlap in that they both expose content from a user to the candidate’s own followers, but this study is interested in the extent of interaction. The ‘modified tweet’ is distinctly more interactive as it provides this user with a reaction from the candidate. The reciprocity of this positions it alongside ‘replies’ in the scale of interactivity.

The traditional ‘reply’ is most distinct from the three in that it begins with the ‘tag’ of the user being responded to (@username). This reply is on the ‘walls’ of both users but the reply is only made visible on the timelines of those following both users. If an individual does not follow both users they are still able to see the tweet on the wall of either user within the ‘tweets & replies’ tab.

A user, in this case a candidate, may prefer the response to be visible to all her followers. To achieve this the candidate may begin her tweet with a full stop followed by the user’s ‘tag’: .@username. . This allows for the response to be displayed on the ‘wall’ of the candidate. Followers of the candidate will also be able to view the response, but the history of the conversation will not be available unlike in a ‘reply’. This shall be referred to as a ‘mention’. Conventionally, a ‘mention’ occurs when a user inserts the tag of another user when referring to them in a tweet. Twitter discriminates between ‘mentions’ and ‘replies’. If the ‘@’ character is not the first of the tweet, twitter will not see it as a response as it is not equipped to analyse the context of the tweet. As the tweets of candidates were collated manually, it was possible to determine whether it was a form of interaction or the ‘tag’ used for name value simply by reading the tweet

Natalie Bennett’s data was problematic in the sense that she had used the mention structure outlined when using the tag of a user for name value. These tweets had no referral to any previous tweets. The use of the name was simply to refer to a user in the beginning of a tweet but not to have the tweet consigned to privacy. When sifting through tweets bearing the ‘mention’ structure, the context of the tweet had to be analysed in order to decide whether to categorise it as a response to a previous tweet. The following examples demonstrate the distinctions made.

This is the ‘mention’ structure used as a standalone tweet in which the user tagged is present simply for name value.

This ‘response’ uses the ‘mention’ structure but is a reacting to a user asking Bennett to support their cause. With context, this tweet can be considered a response.

The mentions not deemed a response were categorised as standard tweets. Standard tweets also included all tweets by the user not beginning with “RT”, “MT”, or “@”. In most cases, these tweets are aimed at exposing content to followers, whether it be a link, an image, or text. The majority of Nigel Farage’s activity came under the ‘standard tweet’ category. The few that Natalie Bennett composed were used occasionally to pose questions and encourage discussion. This may be seen as more interactive, but the assumption of all the forms of ‘response’ is that the candidate has understood a tweet and chosen to react, which this type of tweet does not satisfy.

Data

Identifying and Quantifying Strategy

The initial part of the study was to establish empirically that each of the candidates was using a different twitter strategy. Going through the tweets, one could clearly see patterns regarding twitter activity and twitter usage. In the three months, Nigel Farage posted 572 tweets compared to Natalie Bennett’s 2060 (this includes all three types of activity). Natalie outnumbers Nigel on a 3:1 ratio in overall activity showing she is a more prolific user of the platform. The volume of tweets by each user is a difference between the twitter strategies of both these candidates, but the type of activity the candidates engage is also noticeably unalike.

Natalie Bennett’s activity is focused on the more interactive posts whereas Nigel posts more standard tweets in comparison. Natalie Bennett’s activity breaks down as 12.34% ‘standard tweets’, 38.06% ‘responses’, and 49.51% ‘retweet’ out of the 2060 tweet large sample whilst Farage’s activity is 76.22% ‘standard tweets’, 1.92% ‘responses’, and 21.85% ‘retweets’. What this suggests is that the two candidates used twitter in considerably different ways. Farage’s activity significantly avoided any reciprocal dialogue, and any interaction in terms of ‘retweets’ existed between him and predominantly prominent users such as UKIP MPs, the UKIP account and organisations. Bennett seemed much more prepared to engage with users and relay much more content through to users via the medium. From the percentages we can identify these disparities during the whole period. However they only display a mean from which we cannot reliably infer the use of any consistent strategy.

To improve our understanding of each candidate’s strategy, the daily usage of each type of activity would have to be assessed relative to total activity. Daily twitter activity was broken down to derive the relative usage of each type of activity. In doing this, some values were displaying error due to days where an absence of twitter activity resulted in the calculation 00. In this case we added the condition that if total activity equalled 0, the relative value would be replaced with 0. The graphs below shows this for each candidate over the 3 month time period.

These graphs reinforce some of the inferences made earlier. With Farage’s data, there is an evident strong tendency to ‘standard tweets’ and contrastingly avoid ‘responses’. With Bennett’s data we have the same clearly defined preferences. The trend lines in this case help clarify that her twitter activity reveals a preference towards ‘retweets’, and is less inclined towards ‘standard tweets’. These graphs cannot serve as proof of a specific strategy used by the candidates as the trend lines aggregate all data without considering the likelihood of any day to follow the identified trend. To do this, the deviation exhibited by the relative usage of each type of twitter activity must be calculated.

Using data processing software allows this process to be carried out within a few clicks. The software used in this instance was within Microsoft Excel. Our sample data was simple enough for excel to process without the need for more powerful and nuanced programs. The ‘standard deviation’ (s), and ‘average’ (x) functions were used to help us understand the dispersal of the data from the mean:

A larger standard deviation would tell us that the data deviates further from the mean. A potential issue with our data in this calculation would exist on days where twitter was not used. In these instances, the data was manipulated by formulae in a way that a day with no twitter activity would apply the value of 0 to the relative usage of each tool (‘standard tweets’, ‘responses’, and ‘retweets’). This would exaggerate the standard deviation towards 0. These days were ignored for purposes of achieving a more accurate deviation value which excluded 31/12/14 for Bennett, and for Farage the 1/11/14, 5/11/14, 23/11/14, and 30/11/14.  

Farage’s results are very telling in that they provide clear evidence that a strategy exists regarding his twitter usage. The xresponses is 0.01, which can be interpreted as 1% of the total tweets during this period being mentions. The deviation tells us that the average distance of the sample from this mean is 0.05, a very low deviation. From this table, it can be concluded that ‘response’ activity on twitter was very consistently low.

‘Standard tweet’ activity on the other hand was high making up 0.79 of his total activity. ‘Retweets’ took up 0.20 of his activity and both had standard deviations of 0.19. Given that 0≤x≤1 (the ratios on any active day must total 1), we can deduce that there are tendencies Farage’s twitter activity usually exhibits which goes to suggest that that there may be an implicit strategy. The graph below highlights this with clarity.

The median was used on this graph as it is not significantly affected by the extremities that may skew x, and through x, the standard deviation. The lines are x±δ. The range displays the average distance from the mean, and within this range a value could be predicted to lie. More accurately this can be applied to activity over time. For ‘standard tweets’ and ‘retweets’ there is no overlap showing that Farage distinctly prefers ‘standard tweets’. ‘Retweets’ and ‘responses’ have some overlap, but the deviation of ‘response’ is too small to suggest Farage’s strategy makes greater use of mentions compared to ‘retweets’.

Bennett’s results may seem more complex. However they also display some clear tendencies. Whilst Farage displays partiality to ‘standard tweets’, Bennett does not favour them. The mean ratio of ‘standard tweets’ from total activity was 0.14 with a deviation of 0.16. This may not display the same level of disfavour Farage’s least popular method, but stweetsis the second lowest deviation from the data.

The most popular use of twitter by Bennett were ‘retweets’, followed by ‘responses’. ‘Retweets’ dominate, taking over half of her twitter activity. The deviation at 0.2 is not substantially large. The deviation for ‘responses’ is smaller at 0.18. This implies Bennett is more consistent with ‘responses’ compared to her ‘retweeting’.

When plotted onto this graph, it is evident that Natalie Bennett does not follow a strategy as rigidly as Farage. Her ‘response’ activity deviates across her ‘retweet’ and ‘standard tweet’ levels. However, the latter two however do not cross each other on the graph. This allows us to distinguish a preference for ‘retweets’. Another noticeable feature of the graph is the smaller deviation of ‘standard tweets’ and how the median is conspicuously nearer the lower bound. The smaller deviation is the result of the minimum value of 0. The results contain a large proportion of days on which no ‘standard tweets’ are posted by Bennett (18% of the sampled days = 0). These would cause s to tend towards x-0, which happens to be lower than the deviations of the other tweet options. The median could also be skewed below the mean due to an indisposition towards ‘standard tweets’ causing its proportionally high disuse.

Analysis of the Strategies used

Having assessed the data gathered, tendencies have been identified which suggest strategic use of this form of social media. Nigel Farage’s twitter strategy can be summarised in order of the likelihood of his twitter activity: 0.78 ‘standard tweet’; 0.20 ‘retweet’; 0.01 ‘response’. The ‘response’ activity is consistently low and on the basis of the data, is unlikely to deviate on a given day. There is a clear and strong favour towards ‘standard tweets’ displayed by all the graphs of Farage’s data. As the deviations of all types of activity do not overlap, the proposed strategy of Nigel Farage can be assumed as consistent and a reliable predictor of how Nigel’s twitter activity may pan out on a given day.

Natalie Bennett’s data offers a more disputable strategy suggestion. ‘Standard tweets’ at 0.14 are her least favoured, whilst she is more likely to ‘retweet’ users on a given day than ‘respond’ (the ratio being 0.51 to 0.34 respectively). Unlike Farage, there is not a single dominant type of activity used by Bennett as she is more likely to deviate from the preferences aggregated within the data relative to Farage. Bennett’s affinity for ‘standard tweets’, whilst very low, is more likely to vary relative to her level of ‘response’ activity. The conclusion that can be confidently drawn is that Bennett is more likely to ‘retweet’ than post ‘standard tweets’ whilst ‘retweeting’ levels may occasionally supersede these tendencies.

These follow some patterns discussed in the literature review. We can reintroduce the theories of follower/friend relationships on twitter and the information source/friend types of user. The friend relationship and user overlap considerably in their online activity when applied to our scenario and may even go beyond our study with their labelling suggesting an inter-relatedness of the theories. The information source is unlikely to engage ‘response’ activity and will therefore experience a ‘follower’ relationship from users. These users could look to this user for ‘valuable information’. On the other hand, the friend relationship and user type engage with each other in a two-way dialogue. ‘Responses’, and less likely, ‘retweets’, in this case will be used often whilst not ruling out the use of ‘standard tweets’. The former user/relationship can be identified by a reluctance to ‘respond’ whereas the ‘friend’ is likely to engage in high levels of ‘response’ though not necessarily relative to other activity.

Nigel Farage’s twitter usage is consistent with the activity expected of an information source. ‘Responses’ are seldom used as they are ineffective in relaying information to the masses. ‘Retweets’ forward information offered by others and ‘standard tweets’ contain the potential to reach your follower audience and beyond with a composed tweet. Farage regularly uses twitter by ‘retweeting’ tweets consistent with UKIP policy (quite often the UKIP account and the accounts of UKIP MPs). The lack of ‘responses’ in his daily twitter usage is also very suggestive of consistency in his strategy.

The UK Independence Party is commonly associated with anti-EU rhetoric. This is extended to the issues relating to migration. This topic can incite discussion of racial discrimination which many people have passionate views about. It is commonly known that twitter is “racially and ethnically diverse” (Fox, Zickuhr and Smith, 2009) and through this, groups otherwise neglected by mainstream media to influence agenda setting, most recently with ‘#Ferguson’ and ‘#BlackLivesMatter’ (Desmond-Harris, 2015). Farage, as the face of UKIP, is the visible target for those tweeting negatively in a reaction to some of his party’s racially insensitive rhetoric. Responding to this activity could be easily misconstrued by sensitive users. It is assumed information sources find one to one interaction ineffective, but in the case of Farage the motivation described above could be more relevant to the context.

Natalie Bennett’s activity identifies more with the ‘friend’ than Farage, but that doesn’t place her within this category. With the ‘friend’ user, it has been established that they engage in more ‘response’ activity than information sources. If Farage is assumed to be our benchmark information source, then Bennett’s activity would contrastingly be classified as a ‘friend’ user and ‘relationship’. The information source in this case cannot be considered perfect as the results show the user engages in ‘response’. Our results tell us that, comparatively, Bennett engages in more ‘friend’ activity. Her preferred activity on twitter is ‘retweets’. Within this classification of type of user, the individual engaging in retweets is labelled an ‘information seeker’ as they forward on the information they gather. Whilst an ‘information source’ is identified by the activity they neglect, the ‘seeker’ and ‘friend’ can be differentiated by the activity they prefer. But in doing this they are by no means mutually exclusive.

Bennett’s activity would suggest that she is an ‘information seeker’ and a ‘friend’ due to her affinity to ‘responses’ and ‘retweets’ compared to ‘standard tweeting’. What this theoretical approach does not account for is the nuances in content of the tweets and the content of the tweet. The data collected here does not account for these. However during the manual gathering of the data, it was evident that Natalie Bennett was not an ‘Information seeker’ or a ‘friend’ in the strict sense of the type of user. Much of her ‘retweet’ activity could be interpreted as an attempt to validate tweets concurrent with the Green Party’s policies, and to further publicise attempts by other users to promote the activity of Natalie Bennett.

In classifying the strategy of these political party leaders, we cannot simply position them on a scale similar to that of ‘information source’/‘information seeker’ or, ‘Friend/’Follower’. Whilst Farage strongly identifies as an ‘information Source’ and relates to users in a follower relationship, Bennett’s activity is much more nuanced. Her ‘response’ activity could be related to her policy discussion, as could Farage’s lack of one to one interaction. This section of the study helps us identify strategy but it is limited in its ability to classify strategy due to the data collected being without the qualitative classification required to understand the nuances and context of the activity.

Relating Twitter Strategies to User Popularity

Methodology

The measure of popularity in this case is the rate at which each candidate attained followers. To better visualise compare the data, an index of 0 was set, and 1 on the beginning and ending totals respectively across all the data analysed. This acted as a normalisation so the growth rates of each variable could be compared along the same scale. Where the variables are near the ‘user’ growth schedule, a relationship could be related.

In conducting this study there existed limitations as to how to source data. The predominant rationale behind using these figures was the proximity of the variables. The twitter activity and the follower count both exist within the social media. A disadvantage of this proximity is both of these variables can be considered dependent on external factors. Twitter usage may be affected by external events as analysed by HP Laboratories (2011) in their attempt to detect events through social media usage. Follower count could also very easily be related to mainstream media coverage making the candidate more prominent, thus encouraging the electorate to follow their activity.

Another limitation of the method used to attain these graph could be in that in an attempt to better visualise the growth, the start of our sample is manipulated to diverge from and converge to 0 and 1 respectively. This has distorted the values at the beginning and end of our sample. In addition, being able to display a graph on which the schedules suggest there is a correlation between two variables, is not enough to infer a relationship.

Given the limitations the data collected isn’t ideal in outlining the effect of twitter activity of the different twitter strategies on the tweeting electorate. What we can attain from these graphs is a suggestion to the effectiveness of the strategy of gaining popularity within the twittersphere. In this case popularity is simply defined as the quantity of followers. Whilst most studies of the effect of twitter on the popularity of candidates asses those who are successful in their election, using candidates from two growing parties without the prestige and mainstream coverage of the larger parties, allows us determine whether there can be a suggestion that twitter is effective to the parties.

Comparative Analysis of Strategy & Popularity Data  

With Natalie Bennett, we have evidence that suggests a relationship between twitter activity and follower growth. The schedules for Bennett slope in a similar fashion, experiencing concurrent acceleration and deceleration in growth. ‘Responses’ reflect the follower growth curve most. It is the curve deviating least from the follower growth. We cannot ignore the similarities between the slopes of all the activity types.

With Farage, the ‘retweet’ schedule somewhat reflects the trends experienced by the follower growth. Its fluctuation above and below the latter curve suggests it may not follow similar trends and may not react similarly to external shocks or concurrently. From the 15th December 2014 up until 17th January 2015, the ‘retweet’ and ‘follower’ schedules take similar paths converging to 1. This period may not be skewed considerably by the methodological flaws, allowing us to determine some correlation between ‘retweet’ activity and popularity.

More specifically, Natalie Bennett has used ‘response’ in order to thank users for following her. The identification of a correlation does not allow for a justified suggestion of causality. This relationship could be the result of users or even external factors that may encourage users to follow Natalie Bennett, and then for her to respond.

Though causality cannot be inferred, what we can see is evidence of a relationship between ‘retweet’ activity and popularity on twitter for both candidates, ‘responses’ being more so for Bennett. This study is by no means conclusive, but the importance of twitter activity cannot be excluded from discussion of the popularity of candidates until it is possible to model causality and determine whether ‘indegree’ influences twitter activity.

Conclusion

This study set out to achieve two objectives: to identify and quantify twitter’s use as a tool for political candidates, and to determine the influence of this tool on the electorate. With regards to the primary objective, our method quantified strategy, but then goes on to suggest that quantifying strategy may be inconclusive. To quantify, the strategies must lie on a continuous scale, yet there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Other methods could be used to visualise the relationship between the three types of activity used such as a radar graph:

With this trichotomy we can determine the relative quantity of twitter activity, but what we cannot decipher from the quantitative measure used in collecting our data is the nature of the use of the three activities. Standard tweets could be regarding any topic. ‘Responses’ could be used to exclusively interact with a political ‘elite’ (Farage), or to thank the twitter electorate for increasing the popularity of a user and to engage in dialogue regarding a party’s agendas (Bennett). To conclude the primary study, the attempt to quantify twitter strategy was successful but proved inconclusive as the strategies are responsive to interaction from other users, external stimuli, and context of dialogue.

The twitter electorate are a fraction of the electoral register. However this fraction is increasing and twitter has become the popular forum to host debate. To influence this fraction of the electorate looks increasingly important to electoral success, demonstrated notably by Obama (Pew Internet, 2008; Cetina, 2009; Cogburn & Vasquez, 2011). This study does not determine causality from which it can be assessed how to increase popularity amongst this group, but it identifies evidence to suggest a relationship exists between the activities of ‘retweeting’ and ‘responses’, and ‘follower growth’. With polls suggesting that the Green Party are popular amongst young users (YouGov, 2015), who also happen to be avid twitter users (Fox et al, 2009), any suggestion, even as inconclusive as ours, ought to be studied further.

Further Study

The failure of our study to account for interaction from other users, external stimuli, and context of dialogue must be corrected if one is to categorise twitter strategies used by political candidates. The methodology used in our study is sound, but would be better applied over longer time periods. Twitter’s existence from 2006 limits the data available. With regards to time, the effect of external stimuli could be discounted by removing certain time periods from the study. Our definition of mentions may be a little broad to fully understand its usage. If debate, gratitude, and the provision of information could be differentiated between, we could better define the nuances used within our ‘mention’ category. To identify the context of dialogue, sophisticated word recognition software could be used. This would allow the data to identify disparities between twitter activity regarding certain topics, and even identify the effect of external stimuli with spikes in certain term usage.

To improve the understanding of how twitter may effect popularity could extend to potentially determining electoral outcomes. In an attempt to visualise a relationship, the integrity of the data was compromised. This must be avoided, with a method that allows for correlation to be determined. Causality must also be detected to prove any influence credible. Increasing the range of political actors could allow for regression techniques to identify the effects of certain twitter activity relative to inactivity.

References

Baran, Y. (2011). Social Media in Campaign 2011: A Noncanonical Take on the Twitter Effect. [online] Options Politique. Available at: http://www.earnscliffe.ca/insights/wp-content/uploads/june-july-2011-baran.pdf [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Bradley, T. (2008). Final Fundraising Figure: Obama's $750M. [online] ABC News. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6397572&page=1 [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Burton, S. and Soboleva, A. (2011). Interactive or reactive? Marketing with Twitter. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(7), pp.491-499.

Carlson, N. (2011). The Real History Of Twitter. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-twitter-was-founded-2011-4?IR=T [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Cetina, K. (2009). What is a Pipe?: Obama and the Sociological Imagination. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(5), pp.129-140.

Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F. and Gummadi, K. (2010). Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In: Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. [online] Washington, D.C.: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Available at: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/viewFile/1538%20Amit%20Goyal%2C%20Francesco%20Bonchi%2C%20Laks%20V.%20S.%20Lakshmanan%3A%20Approximation%20Analysis%20of%20Influence%20Spread%20in%20Social%20Networks%20CoRR%20abs/1826 [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Cogburn, D. and Espinoza-Vasquez, F. (2011). From Networked Nominee to Networked Nation: Examining the Impact of Web 2.0 and Social Media on Political Participation and Civic Engagement in the 2008 Obama Campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1-2), p.202.

Dahlgreen, W. (2015). Greens tied with Conservatives among young people. [online] YouGov. Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/13/greens-tied-conservatives-among-young-people/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Desmond-Harris, J. (2015). Twitter forced the world to pay attention to Ferguson. It won't last.. [online] Vox. Available at: http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7539649/ferguson-protests-twitter [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Digital Marketing Philippines, (2014). The History and Power of Hashtags in Social Media Marketing (Infographic). [online] Available at: http://digitalmarketingphilippines.com/the-history-and-power-of-hashtags-in-social-media-marketing-infographic/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Fox, S., Zickuhr, K. and Smith, A. (2009). Portrait of a Twitter User: Status Update Demographics. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

HP Laboratories, (2011). Evention Detection in Twitter. Tech Reports. [online] Available at: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2011/HPL-2011-98.pdf [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Java, A., Xiaodan, S., Tim, F. and Belle, T. (2007). "Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities." In Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis, pp. 56-65. ACM.

Lenhart, A. and Fox, S. (2009). Twitter & Status Updating. [online] Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project, pp.4-6. Available at: http://fortysouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Twitter-and-status-updating.pdf [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Messina, C. (2006). Groups for Twitter; or A Proposal for Twitter Tag Channels. [Blog] Factory Joe Blog. Available at: http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/08/25/groups-for-twitter-or-a-proposal-for-twitter-tag-channels/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Qualman, E. (2009). Socialnomics. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, p.Chapter 4.

Solis, B. (2008). Is Obama Ready To Be A Two-Way President?. [online] TechCrunch. Available at: http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/15/is-obama-ready-to-be-a-two-way-president/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2015].

Sundar, S., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J. (2003). Explicating Web Site Interactivity: Impression Formation Effects in Political Campaign Sites. Communication Research, 30(1), p.33.

Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P. and Welpe, I. (n.d.). Election Forecasts with Twitter - How 140 Characters Reflect the Political Landscape. SSRN Journal.

[kashforgold]

My Dissertation (coming soon)

This time a year ago, I was clueless about what I’d be doing regarding my dissertation. Exams were atop of me and below me lay notes. Eventually, come easter break, I decided to knuckle down, get some data, and try to work out what I was gonna do about this. A month later and I had a dissertation.

After a long hiatus from blogging, I’ve decided to get back into the habit. It's a nice space for me to articulate my thoughts regardless of whether anyone is paying attention or not.

I’ll start this by uploading my dissertation onto Tumblr tomorrow...

Title: Something about Twitter and how Political Leaders could use it to affect Electoral Outcomes

Grade: 68

[kashforgold]

Do I blame Islam for the problems in Iraq?

No I don't! That would be a horrible thing to say, blaming all religions however could be justified.

The battle in Iraq is between distinct factions within Islam. The Shia's are battling for control over their own people in a predominantly Sunni state. This may not have been problematic until democracy was imposed upon the Iraqi population. Democracy inherently is most responsive to majorities, which the Shia's are not. One could empathise with them.

But then I came to understand the differences between the two. In the practicing of faith, the two differ very little. Why then is there a problem with the authority of the state?

It's funny that this whole story begins with disagreement regarding the successor of their final prophet. History shows since then they've always had differing views on the succession of power. My view is that they may disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Very few of us enjoy the thought that we are anonymous part of a group. In order to further define oneself, groups are often joined in order to feel part of a movement. 

Further to this, dispute brings purpose to life. Humanity would live in peace if we all could agree on matters or at least let things be, but this would be incomprehensibly dull. Death would be the main thought on peoples minds. In order to avoid the fear associated with death, why not make grand historical wars and form pointless grudges to make life an even greater distraction from the inevitable end.

It may all bubble down to a humans selfish need to divert their own attention away from death and busy themselves by creating as many bonds to life - here and now.

The fear of death then is the ultimate problem. Some may be afraid of the unknown following it whilst others despair that they will not accomplish enough before there time is up. Rest assured everyone in some way is afraid of death. If humans were immortal we would realise the pointlessness of the differences we highlight or fashion between ourselves.

[kashforgold]

The legitimacy of UKIP

My sympathies to Nigel Farage for the criticism he has received in recent weeks. As a politician he ought to be as clear and upfront as he can, as should all of them. Recently comments he's made about Romanians have been well publicised. This is part of a larger media wide scheme to brand Farage as a racist.

I do not know whether he is a racist or not, but that is what the media is trying to portray him as. The Guardian's recent quiz comparing UKIP to the BNP was, in my opinion, a bit extreme. We don't see quizzes comparing his comments on contractionary policy to those of the Tories.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson interviewed him for the sole purpose of receiving an apology. To him, I say:

1. Thank you for distracting us from UKIP policies that may lead to more informed voter choice

2. You're aggressive interviewing made me feel sorry for him. You've turned Nigel into a victim 

Nigel Farage is a legitimate political leader. I conducted a small study which suggested he is seen as a better leader than most of those of the other parties. The media however are trying to turn him into a joke. I can't say whether this is because they fear him, or they are against his policies.

The point I'm (rather badly) trying to make is that we should treating him seriously. His support has got him so far, and to dismiss his progress as a joke or a phase could be dangerous to society. Don't condemn UKIP supporters... listen to their concerns and attempt to pinpoint the source of their unrest.

Images make good news, the underlying problems do not (me, 2014)

[kashforgold]

I said I'd post my #POMUS essay and here is a little selection of some bits & bobs

How effective is internet/digital media as a tool for marginalised minority groups to change norms and stereotypes?

  The internet is the latest development to drastically change conceptions of time and space, especially with relation to communication. In a postmodern sense time and space are now almost negligible with the capabilities humanity now has to interact with persons whilst disregarding the space between them and time taken to reach them (Negroponte, 1996). Being exposed to the world on this scale has resulted in 2 effects: acceptance and exclusion. “To defend against imposing alien worlds,” the more conservative citizen “seeks security through homogeneity and excludes groups that are different” (Harvey, 1989). With this they resist any changes to the norms they’ve accepted and live by. An individual closer to liberal thought could be more accepting by actively accommodating, or ignoring the differences completely. The use of the internet by both of these reactions to marginalised ethnic minority groups, has been assessed by many (see Castells, 2013; Couldry and Curran, 2003). However these have tended to focus on the more glamorous topic of revolution and power. The idea of soft power (J. Nye, 1990) is much less discussed within the realm of political discourse regarding marginalised groups.

Joseph Nye coined the term soft power when arguing against academics predicting a demise in American power and global influence. He suggested with the emergence of an information based economy, the US could keep its global influence with more subtle method. By setting an attractive example, other countries would be inclined to act in a similar fashion. The US has in recent history emphasised the importance of freedom and liberal values. The language of America (English) also happens to be used globally. With technological developments making it easier to bypass geographical distances between countries, the ideals that America prides itself on could be broadcasted across the world. American exceptionalism is inherent in much of the content created in the US. Coupling the positivity towards America that this content depicts, with the desirable values of freedom etc…, and the exposure that technology has provided, one can understand how the United States have retained their hegemonic level of influence without much military use.  

He however could not have predicted just how the information economy would grow in order to exert influence that could be regarded as soft. From the information economy, internet media has expanded into a realm of communication containing different mediums. They could be advertisements, news outlets, blogs, social media (personal and commercial use), websites, and many more. Two ways of sorting these groups is into mediums that create or represent topics for discourse, and those that accommodate this discourse. These aren’t mutually exclusive. News outlets, advertisements and websites would fall in the former, whilst Blogs and social media could fall in either. The blogs and social media are more likely to create topics that are citizen led (Shirky, 2011). This makes it the most likely medium through which a marginalised minority group could affect opinion. In this work, I shall assess how effective these media’s are in perpetuating and changing norms.

  How Digital Media can be used

Much research in the past had been unaware of social media when they claimed “that the Internet tends to complement rather than displace existing media and patterns of behaviour” (DiMaggio et al., 2001). Many concurred that powerful social actors were developing the internet to pursue their own agenda, as had been done with other mediums including TV. Until the advent of social media, the internet could be considered an arena of interaction between small groups, and between the aforementioned powerful actors and citizens. Before social media, digital media happily slotted into the framework outlined in Chomsky & Herman’s Manufacturing Consent (1988). Elites were able to curate the content provided by digital media. One would assume that a particular individual is in this elite bracket because the current political climate allows them to be so. Changing norms that are unfair to certain factions of society could prove detrimental to the distribution of power, so the elite have an incentive to “stick to the status-quo” (High School Musical, 2006). 

The primary cause for this hegemonic use of the internet being challenged is the increased socialisation of certain systems within internet communication. Social media platforms allowed for information to be more effectively distributed beyond the control of the elites. In the commercial aspect of the internet, “historically, companies were able to control the information available about them through strategically placed press announcements and good public relations managers” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). With increased traffic in social internet usage, firms and elites are less able to control the flow of information which can be detrimental to their interests. One could write a review of a product they consider poor, and firms would be unable to prevent others from being exposed to it and reacting unfavourably towards the firm. Many anti-establishment rallies have also organised via social media.

Here I depicted a scenario in which the moderators of content are actively challenged because of social media. I propose that marginalised minority groups don’t have to go to these ‘extreme’ or directly against particular parties. With the latter it may not even be possible to choose a blameworthy target. With media that now avoids the norms traditional media is founded on, and extends to an almost unlimited reach, marginalised minority groups can create content that could help alter the norms of society that prevent their inclusion. This content does not have to be restricted to being obviously political.

This is where Nye’s concept of soft power could come into play. Increasing the exposure of marginalised groups to the public can cause those that may have found the group alien to acclimatise themselves with the minority. The more that society is exposed to an image or group, the less alien it becomes. Social media allows for content to experience exponential growth in exposure. This content can be visual, as is the case in the Singh Street Style blog. This blog introduces the Sikh image to western fashion by merging fashion trends and styles from both. As a result of the content, some reputable designers have used turbaned models in their advertising including Gap, Alexander McQueen, and Luis Vuitton. This demonstrates a sort of soft power whereby by depicting compatible aspects of two different cultures visually enables the minority group to be viewed with more familiarity. Other art forms such as music can also combine distinct aspects of different cultures harmoniously and blur the criteria by which one may have differentiated the groups.

These mergers however may not be as inclusive as one would have assumed. Synergy is a concept much used in business and economics with regards to acquisitions. In a merger or an acquisition, the dominant firm is able to exclude or dissolve any sectors which cannot be combined profitably or cost effectively. Some minority groups would have to compromise some aspects of their culture that are incompatible with the dominant lifestyle. This highlights a bigger flaw in the design of social media. Despite its heavy involvement in our lives and discourse, it still remains a detached area outside of tangible time and space. Ideas and thoughts generated online won’t necessarily translate into physical effects and actions. Some have suggested slacktivism could be the problem. This occurs when individuals may be happy to engage in political discourse online but lack the motivation to cause an effect in society. Other theorists suggest many online individuals “engage in internet-based identity experiments” (Valkenburg & Schouten, 2005). The values one may hold online may not be transferred into everyday life. The current society in Britain has developed around mass media since the late 19th century. The internet has not yet taken complete control from traditional mass media over public opinion and political agenda setting.

Another problem associated with relying on social media for societal change is that all demographics within society may not be exposed to the content enough. Whilst excluding those who are obviously too young, unable to understand, or reach the internet, some would say the internet and social media is a tool of the youth of today however, members of “Generation X, increasingly populate the ranks of joiners, spectators, and critics” one may find online (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). Despite the reported increase in numbers, exposure to content aimed to change stereotypes is limited. Though internet is widespread, some are yet to imbed it into their daily lives (e.g., Barzilai-Nahon 2006; DiMaggio et al. 2004). Members of Generation X were politically socialised the marginalisation of some groups was accepted. It is more difficult for them to change the stereotypes and opinions so prevalent in the society in which they grew up. Currently, they are entrenched in current society through their tax paying, household responsibilities, and such to the extent where they have little incentive to participate in movements changing this. They are surviving within the system and their main use for internet would be socialising between people and groups they may already know, and seeking news content from the corporate sources they already trust, but through a different medium.

Another limit of internet and digital media is wealth. The internet has become increasingly commercialised in order to turn profit, as are firms in many other sectors. In traditional media, to give the impression of not compromising journalistic integrity the editors use routine built in to the news broadcasting system to hide economic intentions (McManus, 1994). This keeps it trusted and gives off the impression of legitimacy that the press used to have. Unlike mass media, digital forms of media have had a difficult transition process in monetising their business. Twitter integrated advertising into its application 2012 but made an effort not to hinder the user’s experience whilst using they are using the app. With other digital content providers, advertising remains easier due to its limited use on web 2.0. The problem arises when large firms may choose certain content providers that complement themselves. Offering them payment in return for advertising allows the content providers to spend more on increasing their own visibility and traffic online. This could lure people away from more critical sources of news towards news favourable to corporate interests.   

Despite these limitations on content that can be distributed by marginalised groups, the internet can still be effective in helping these groups become more accepted and involved in civil society. Through the inherent purpose of social media, marginalised individuals can share experiences. Were an individual experiencing abuse due to them looking or behaving differently, they’d feel alone. Knowing that they aren’t alone turns it from an individual problem to a failing in society for which,  using social media, a large number of people can be turned into a group, and then into a movement that can share the responsibility for their cause. The London riots in Tottenham were in part organised via social media. Although this particular example may have been popular due to opportunists seeking profit, it shows how devastating the organisational power of social media can be.

  The sharing of experience is a starting point of discourse. The marginalised can use the internet as a representational space to depict their own representation of space (Warf & Grimes, 1997). Despite the availability of news and educational resources, many would be unaware that marginalisation is even taking place if it weren’t for blogs and similar methods that represent space. If they were aware that something was happening, it may not have been evident to them the extent to which it was damaging lives. The internet’s emergence as a facilitator of discourse has allowed for knowledge to be spread and progress at a faster speed than ever. Barriers may be able to restrict content created to familiarise citizens with these groups, but the sharing of knowledge is harder to restrict. The internet was at first a connection between military bases, and then between academic institutions. The foundations of the internet are in sharing knowledge. Despite commercialisation, Wikipedia remains a huge source of knowledge that resists all commercial influences on its content. Blogs can also be free of commercial interests if an individual uses it in that way. These allow for discourse in social media, academia, and life to be founded upon facts and anecdotes free from corporate manipulation. The existence of these sources encourages discussion that is satisfying a social agenda as opposed to an underlying corporate one.

This source of knowledge could challenge the accepted norms and the power maintaining them. The concept of ‘knowledge/power’ suggests power and knowledge of norms are entwined in such a way that norms do not require enforcing (Foucault, 1977). By challenging the norms using the knowledge sourced from unbiased media on the internet, marginalised citizens can gain the power necessary to change the norms that affect their way of life. Norms are norms due to their unquestioned acceptance in society amongst citizens and those in charge. By questioning an existing norm, a marginalised group can highlight it to a populace that may have not been aware of its existence and just taken it for granted. This is the biggest blow to norms and stereotypes that can be made. By not being discussed or even noticed by the populace, its power couldn’t be questioned. With a marginalised group questioning the norm, other citizens may, simply by realising the norm exists, question its place in, and effect on society

  Conclusion

Changing norms and stereotypes deeply entrenched in society and the subconscious of citizens is no mean feat, but digital media is integral to doing so. Whilst traditional media still has influence over citizens, social media is the best way to organise similarly thinking individuals into collective action within today’s fast paced society. The ratio of contributors to moderators is so vast that it is almost impossible to prevent discourse once a group discovers and shares an unfair experience, as is the social nature of social media. Despite the easy process in making a flaw in society towards a small group known, the efficacy depends on a number of different factors

Persistence may be necessary as “without significant space in media… ideas are reduced to political marginality” (Castells 1997). Society now has a very high capital turnover which contributes to the high “turnover of ideals and values” because of which “prejudices may be easily changed” (Toffler, 1970). Broadcasters and commentators are now inclined to shift their topics much more quickly also, before many may be exposed to the story. To keep a particular movement in political consciousness is a difficult task but must be undertaken by supporters of the marginalised till the norm or stereotype has been almost unanimously displaced or replaced.

Society has now changed with technological progress that it requires an innovated way to represent marginalised groups. Before the spread of digital media, there existed forums and the social capital (Putnam, 2000) to provide routes by which these minorities could increase their exposure and involvement in society. Habermas (1991) noted that “As long as the mere existence of a press that critically-rationally debates political matters remained problematic, it was compelled to engage in continuous self-thematisation”. This press is now less prevalent in society and is in the process of being replaced by internet media. If this continues with citizens actively engaging with this media, the media should remain critical. This new form of critical press coupled with social media’s capabilities in bringing the issues of and minority groups, could provide the infrastructure through which marginalised minority groups can change public opinion, norms and stereotypes.

        References

Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital. Random House LLC.

Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity (Vol. 14). Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

Couldry, N., & Curran, J. (Eds.). (2003). Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Nye, J. S. (1990). Bound to lead: The changing nature of American power. Basic Books.

Shirky, C. (2011). Political Power of Social Media-Technology, the Public Sphere Sphere, and Political Change, The. Foreign Aff., 90, 28.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual review of sociology, 307-336.

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2008). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Random House

Ortega, K. (2006). High School Musical [Motion Picture]. United States: Disney

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

Valkenburg, P. M., Schouten, A. P., & Peter, J. (2005). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet. New Media & Society, 7(3), 383-402.

Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The information society, 22(5), 269-278.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. Social inequality, 355-400.

McManus, J. H. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware?. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Warf, B., & Grimes, J. (1997). Counterhegemonic discourses and the Internet.Geographical Review, 87(2), 259-274.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Random House LLC.

Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity (The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume II).

Toffler, A. (1990). Future shock. Random House LLC.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

[kashforgold]

The School of Yeezus

How amazing would the world be if we only accepted the best?

Good question! There once lived a man who didn't accept mediocre and he was villainised by the media as a cruel, vicious and deluded individual. His name: Kanye West.

He then became Yeezus! A beacon of hope for the preservation of quality, a symbol for all to band under to fight against exploitation.

Cut the crap! I think everyone should take a leaf out of his book. In a conversation with a friend, I came upon a trail of thought:

If we become more critical of product, ideas etc... the likelihood is we would suffer less of the ordinary and average. 

Innovation would be rewarded on a larger scale. Quality of products, institutions and life in general would be vastly improved.

Firms wouldn't be able to get away with built-in obsolescence and products built only to profit. Ineffective institutions would be incentivised to change or suffer the consequences.

The strain on resources

You could argue resources would be depleted at an even greater rate. Exploitation of workers would be even more prevalent due to firms compensating for their increasing costs.

But what if workers didn't accept being expoitation? This would need an effective welfare system allowing labour to survive till they found a fair wage.

So far all I'm asking for is people to not accept mediocrity, and government to keep their citizens alive... Not too much then.

This idea may work better within the confinements of the music industry

Shit, formulaic music wouldn't become popular. Artists innovating their sound, maintaining standards, and pushing boundaries would be recognised. Record companies would reward this sort of behaviour as it would be in the interests of their profits. 

Maybe the only way to fight the flaws within capitalism are too expect more from this system.

The Path of Yeezus (coming soon)

[kashforgold]

pOLITICAL cAMPAIGNING, to Scotland, TO gENOCIDE, to badgers

Campaigning requires money which the wealth are more likely to have access to.

This could be a precursor to corruption... money exchanged for favours.

If it were less costly any Tom, Dick or Harry could create a party.

Maybe we need more dicks in British Politics...

Actually Farage *allow it fam*

He is pretty funny though (that Moyes joke)

Comedians in power... FRANKIE BOYLE

But he's probably pro-Scottish Independence

Any PM would have little effect over the policies that do matter

FUCK YOU FOUCALT... Knowledge and Power aren't as synonymous as you'd have us think

Idiots control large firms which exert an unfair influence over institutions affecting my life

Everything comes back to Capitalism

Am I an Islamic Extremist?? I do have violent thoughts but lack the cajones to pull of a stunt of extreme devastation

Maybe the only way to fix the world is culling everyone invested in profiting by exploiting others 

humans are the problem #KILLALLHUMANS

poor badgers

[kashforgold]

Time and Space Compression

Many academics writing on postmodernism are in agreement that society has now compressed time and space into into here and now. Yes, it sounds quite a physic-sy concept but quite the contrary. 

Banksy 'Mobile Lovers'

If you think about it, everything is accessible. Global barriers are no longer an issue. I can contact people across the globe. Good can be transported at a low cost. Ideas are not limited geographically which allows for the concept of capitalism to permeate areas where it may not have been so prevalent. 

Whilst consensus is that this is all in corporate interests, I've seen emergence on a new importance of the local. In food markets, consumers apply a higher value to goods produced locally. They are assumed as being of a higher quality and more beneficial to society through the revenue they generate for producers. If we loosely extend this to political ideologies, people are concerned with external alien practices imposing on their identity.

Now to UKIP. They're the party most empathetic towards protectionist policies. Anti EU, anti immigration... are these nationalistic tendencies emerging in response to the compression of space?

So what I'm implying is Capitalism is battling Racism... 

Scary thought for me personally as I'm not particularly fond of either.

This was written just in response to a little thought I had whilst reading 'The Condition of Postmodernity' by David Harvey for my pomus essay. Didn't spend much effort on this so many bridges have been jumped... shoot me

Chucked in a lil' Banksy too (because i'm cool like that)