loadingmediacontent-blog

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

You only see people’s good side on social networks. You only see the best moments of their lives. We never reveal our darkest moments online. Remember this the next time you find yourself comparing. Remember that you are comparing your bad side to someone’s good side. It’s a flawed comparison.

TheMindMovement (via themindmovement)

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #8 (Final): Twitter vs. Weibo

Before this week I had limited knowledge regarding China’s social media landscape - all I knew was that the main apps and social network sites that I use everyday are blocked over there. I, like many others, had the unfortunate misconception that China had less access to content or were missing out on the benefits of our social media platforms, however this just isn’t the case. What’s more, is that some believe China is actually leading the way when it comes to social media (Chiu, Lin & Silverman 2012).

Rather than having no social media at all, the restrictions have instead “resulted in a flourishing home-grown, state-approved ecosystem in which Chinese-owned properties thrive” (Crampton 2017). In other words, China have their own equivalents of popular platforms like our Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Though, according to Crampton (2017) from China Business Review, while this comparison in platforms between international versions is helpful for someone like me, it can also be misleading. Although they may seem similar at first, China’s social media platforms and the online behaviours that occur can actually vary. The specific case that I found the most interesting when researching was the differences between Twitter and its ‘equivalent’, Sina Weibo. 

At first glance, Sina Weibo looks to be late to the microblog phenomenon launching a few years after Twitter. However, the platform is the most popular microblogging platform in China by far. Specifically, it “consumes 90% market share of China’s microblogging services”, and managed to gain “more than 140 million users in less than 2 years, while Twitter gained 200 million users in less than 5 years” (Falcon 2017). Not only that, but as shown below, the platform is set or on track to actually surpassing Twitter in monthly active users (Huang 2017).

The leading feature that tends to link the two together is the same emphasis on posting 140-character messages. However, this is where it gets really interesting. 140 characters is rather short in English as one would know if they’ve used Twitter. However, since each character in Chinese is a word, you can therefore write quite a lot more in the same number of characters. As further explained by Crampton (2017), “114 characters in Chinese translates into 434 characters in English”, which is well beyond the Twitter limit. Hence, despite having similar affordances, pre-existing differences in culture and language have changes the platform entirely. It essentially turns microblogging in China into a more blog-like platform.

Not only does it allow users to write more at once and is therefore different to Twitter at it’s most basic level, it is also argued to be better than Twitter in general. Check out the below video if you’re interested, which essentially summarises how Weibo managed to take advantage of what was already occurring elsewhere and transform it into something more. 

Some actually refer to Sina Weibo as a hybrid of Twitter and Facebook (Persinos 2015), which perhaps also explains why it is considered better or not just a pure Twitter clone. All in all, the platform isn't just a business - it seems to be a cultural phenomenon in China. It’s crazy (and quite embarrassing) for me to learn that there are entire large-scale markets and platforms out there that I am just simply not aware of. 

References:

Chiu, C, Lin, D and Silverman, A 2012, 'China's social-media boom', McKinsey and Company, viewed 20 May 2017.

Crampton, T 2017, Social Media in China: The Same, but Different, China Business Review, viewed 20 May 2017, <http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/social-media-in-china-the-same-but-different/>.

Falcon 2017, Twitter vs. Weibo: 8 Things Twiter Can Learn From The Latter, Hongkiat, viewed 20 May 2017, <http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/things-twitter-can-learn-from-sina-weibo/>. 

Huang, Z 2017, China’s Twitter clone will soon have more users than Twitter, Quartz, viewed 20 May 2017, <https://qz.com/918410/chinas-twitter-clone-sina-weibo-wb-will-soon-have-more-users-than-twitter-twtr/>.

Persinos, J 2015, This China-Based Hybrid of Facebook and Twitter Is Set to Soar in 2016, TheStreet, viewed 20 May 2017, <https://www.thestreet.com/story/13361093/1/this-china-based-hybrid-of-facebook-and-twitter-is-set-to-soar-in-2016.html>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #7: What’s Social About Gaming?

Before I begin this post I’d like to state the obvious - I am not a ‘gamer’. Growing up, I did enjoy playing The Sims, RollerCoaster Tycoon and The Simpsons: Hit & Run with my sister, and there was also a phase where I was in love with my Playstation 2 and Nintendo DS. But that’s about it; if you asked me to explain what Minecraft or World of Warcraft are in this post, I’d probably struggle. Although I am not interested in playing a lot of the games that others do and regardless of my rather limited gaming knowledge, I’d still like to think I have a good understanding or at least interest in the role they seem to play in our society. 

Something that I hear people talk about a lot is whether playing a game can actually be a social activity. Yes, I would agree that there could certainly be issues when people, especially children, only socialise through games. I saw it myself during my last few years of high school when waling past the lower year levels. Instead of playing on the field or talking near locker bays, I’d see lines of kids sitting against a wall on their iPads (which the school provided funnily enough), and you guessed it - they were playing games. Maybe they were playing against each other, but regardless, they weren’t interacting in the way that we would traditionally define as being social or forming meaningful connections.

That being said, social games do exist. Well, according to some people that is. Soon after Facebook and other platforms launched, it was quickly realised that gaming was becoming one of the most popular uses for the sites. The relatively new genre of gaming has been said to “add a new social experience to gaming”, and it has integrated into the very social media platforms and networks themselves (Nettleton & Chong 2013). This includes FarmVille, that game you’re either beyond sick of hearing about or secretly still playing.

Or if you actually have no idea what I’m talking about, the game is still available to play here: https://www.facebook.com/FarmVille/

To gain a better understanding of whether these games truly allow players to socialise, it might be valuable to look at how different people define social games. After all, it is still a relatively new concept and there doesn’t seem to be any universally-agreed definition yet.

Interestingly, some believe that social games should extend further than those that exist on social media (Livingstone 2011). As in, perhaps social video games like Wii Sports and Guitar Hero and major online social gaming platforms including through Xbox Live should also be recognised in the same category. Livingstone (2011) thinks of social games as those where there is more emphasis or enjoyment playing with friends than there is playing against them; “It’s more about a shared, fun experience with bragging rights than classic ‘winning’”. Others that are supportive of the term tend to emphasise one of its key features: social interaction. The fact that they allow players to communicate and interact directly with one another creates awareness of another player’s presence, actions and achievements while providing the ability for multiple players to play at the same time (Nettleton & Chong 2013).

The growth of the online social games industry has also led to some criticism. Research has been undertaken as to the limited level or lack of sociality through these games, despite often being situated and relying upon social networks. According to one study, visiting the game space of friends arguably offers no real meaningful interaction, and players may also be required to have a certain number of ‘friends’ or request items from others to progress in a game (Boudreau & Consalvo 2016). Thus, players ‘use’ their network more than they play with their network. I can personally relate to this, as even during my short-lived time playing Candy Crush I would often get annoyed at having to wait for these friend responses. It could therefore be said that at least some of these ‘social’ games don’t really require direct engagement.

What is undeniable is that social and other relatively new forms of games are “being adopted by increasing numbers of the population, being played in multiple locations and being incorporated in multifaceted ways into people’s lives” (Willson & Leaver 2016, p. 3). The debate may continue exists over the ‘social’ part of the term with the number of varied opinions there are. No matter what though, social games will no doubt be sticking around.

References:

Boundreau, K & Consalvo, M 2016, ‘The sociality of asynchronous gameplay: Social network games, dead-time and family bonding’, in M Willson & T Leaver (eds), Social, Casual and Mobile Games: The Changing Gaming Landscape, Bloomsburry Publishing, pp.77-88.

Livingstone, I 2011, What is a social game, Games Brief, viewed 12 May 2017,<http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/01/what-is-a-social-game/>.

Nettleton, J & Chong, K 2013, Online Social Games – The Australian Position, Addisons, viewed 12 May 2017, <http://www.addisonslawyers.com.au/knowledge/assetdoc/1496179efe668027/Online%20Social%20Games%20-%20The%20Australian%20Position.pdf>.

Willson, M & Leaver, T 2016, Social, Casual and Mobile Games: The Changing Gaming Landscape, Bloomsbury Publishing, Google Ebook Library.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #6: Public Health - #ItsOKToTalk

It was quite shocking for me to learn that 83% of internet users seek health information online (Fox 2011). This actually made me worry, as I immediately applied this to the issue of self-diagnosis. What do I mean by this? Well, those times when you type your symptoms into Google and suddenly you’ve managed to scare yourself into some awful conclusion without actually being diagnosed by a medical professional. Yeah, I’ve been there too. That being said, there’s certainly a lot more to the internet being tied with public health information. This week I’m actually going to go a little deeper and explore a more specific angle of the topic, which is mental health’s relationship with public campaigns or activism that utilise social media. I think this is quite important as while we are talking more about mental health and mental illness that ever before, there’s still a long way to go. 

It’s no lie that our health experiences in general have become more public, which also applies to the conversations we are having about mental health and illness. Unfortunately, mental illness rates are still on the rise and especially in youth (Pearce 2017). Though notably, I do feel as though because so many were not previously as open about their struggles, perhaps a lot of people were struggling in silence than we realise. I believe that this increase in health communication, especially through the increase in mental health campaigns is one of the main benefits of social media. Social media has essentially provided us with a new platform or dimension to health care as it can be used for communication across and between all publics, and ultimately improving health outcomes (Moorhead, et al. 2014). Content on social media is also sharable, meaning that the spread allows health information to be more available or accessible.

Online campaigns, activism or social media marketing therefore have immense potential to achieve incredible and fast social impact amongst an extremely large audience. This is extremely important for issues involving mental health, as the more people become aware, the more support is likely to follow. Now I should mention that I do hear people attribute the rise in mental illnesses to things such as our smartphones, social media platforms and everything that comes along with that. However for the purposes of the post I’m focusing more on the notion of the campaigns on these platforms that seek to reduce issues of stigma and encourage more people to be in touch their wellbeing and seek help when needed.

The first campaign that comes to my mind is #ItsOKToTalk, which I personally saw quite a lot of in my Facebook newsfeed late last year. The campaign urges men to talk about mental health problems, with the ultimate goal of reducing suicide rates. Celebrities, including comedian Ricky Gervais, were quick to jump on board, and it took off globally across multiple social media platforms. Interestingly, #ItsOKToTalk wasn’t actually issued through a public health channel like Beyond Blue which I actually had assumed. Instead, it started by Irish Rugby Star Luke Ambler who wanted to raise awareness for men’s mental illness and suicide, after his brother-in-law Andy took his own life the previous year (Rizkallah 2016). 

When asked more about his motivation behind starting the movement, Ambler said the following:

“Sometimes men don’t want to talk as they feel ridiculed or think that they’re putting a burden on their families. Then if you try talk about it with the lads, it ends up being turned into banter. I began to think that there was nowhere Andy could have gone and spoken to anyone about what was going on” (Wilson 2016).

This was an important to talk about, as suicide, in particular male suicide, is a much bigger issue than some may think. On a global level, statistics show that “one man commits suicide every minute” (Foster 2016). This research also outlined suicide as the biggest killer of Australian males under 45, and in 2015, 80 per cent of all suicides in Australia were men.

I personally really liked this campaign. It is a great starter for a very important conversation, and encouraged the reverse of the old age stigma of male masculinity that enforces the idea that men shouldn’t show weakness which can then translate to not seeking help. Though, I haven’t actually seen much of the movement this year. It therefore raises the question of whether this leads to superficial engagement or ‘slacktivism’. This was which was covered in a previous post, however I did come to the conclusion that the term is unfair to be used to cover the efforts of all who use social media for protest or for awareness of important issues. Yes, it is definitely important to determine whether online campaigns like these actually promote behaviour in terms of seeking help. However, no one can deny it’s power in providing a supportive environment for males to speak out, and with the amount of males that actually got involved, I would still consider it a success.

If you are concerned about your own, or another person’s mental health, please contact your local GP or Lifeline on 13 11 14 for immediate help.

References:

Foster 2017, #ITSOKTOTALK, Prahran Psychology Clinic, viewed May 6 2017, <https://www.prahranpsychologyclinic.com.au/blog/itsoktotalk/>.

Fox, S 2011, The Social Life of Health Information, 2011, Pew Research Center, viewed May 6 2017, <http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/05/12/the-social-life-of-health-information-2011/>.

Moorhead, et al. 2014, ‘A New Dimension of Health Care: Systematic Review of the Uses, Benefits, and Limitations of Social Media for Health Communication’, Journal of Medical Internet Research. 

Pearce, L 2017, Mental Illness Is Still On The Rise In Australian Youth, Study Shows, Huffington Post, viewed May 6 2017, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/04/11/mental-illness-is-still-on-the-rise-in-australian-youth-study-s_a_22034649/>.

Rizhallah 2016, The Viral Social Media Campaign #ItsOkayToTalk Needs To Be About More Than Just A Hashtag, TheVine, viewed May 6 2017, <http://thevine.com.au/society/mental-health/itsokaytotalk-aussie-men-need-know/>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #5: The Relationship Between Social Media and Disaster Response

This week is all about crowdsourcing, which is quite the contrary to last week’s topic of trolling. Instead of looking at the ways social media can be misused to bring others down, crowdsourcing can be instead used in a way that explores the opportunity to help others when placed in the context of a crisis situation. That being said it does, like everything, come with potential challenges or disadvantages. However, by the end of this post (spoiler alert) you’ll come to find that I am still very much in support of it for use in responding to areas affected by natural disasters and other serious situations.  The easiest way to explain crowdsourcing in disaster zones is to go back a step and define the term at it’s most basic level. As stated by Rouse and Gonsalves (2011), crowdsourcing simply involves “outsourcing tasks to a broad, loosely defined external group of people”, with the intention of introducing new or more developed skills that will ultimately lead to the achievement of a goal. It should also be noted that this usually occurs through the use of technological developments and social media tools. Businesses have been increasingly known to use crowdsourcing through innovative competitions or programs that get valued customers involved in the production and promotion processes. Doritos is said to be one of the first to take advantage of crowdsourcing and its benefits with their 10 year long ‘Crash the Super Bowl’ contest (Speier 2016). 

Top 10 The Best Doritos 'Crash the Super Bowl' commercials of 2015

Marketing chief tells the story behind the 10-year-old ‘Crash the Super Bowl’ and new strategies for brand engagement. The company has given out millions in prize money to the best consumer-created ads, while these every-day individuals also get their ad to air during one of Doritos’ Super Bowl prime advertisement spots. Although it’s clear this can be a great tool for businesses to outsource organisational tasks white building consumer relationships, crowdsourcing’s use during times like these is definitely more important than for Doritos and the Super Bowl...

There’s no arguing against social media having rapidly become a key source of information and intelligence during disasters. Even social media platforms such as Facebook have taken note that users are heading to their sites for disaster communication and information with their implementation of the ‘Safety Check’ tool, which I’m sure most people are familiar with. It essentially works by tracking what users are posting about; “if enough people in an affected area post about an incident, Safety Check is activated” (Facbook 2017). While I have seen the odd person check in as safe as some kind of joke (they were not involved and just trying to be a troll), I still believe it is a really great tool especially to tell friends and family you are safe while also being able to find or provide help. 

While radio and tv and other means remain important, I believe social media provides qualities that traditional forms lack. Information is now interactive and can be spread at rates faster than ever before. Thus, social media is also being used as a key method for aid organisations to communicate efficiently and effectively to their audience, while also putting pressure on traditional media distributors like news channels to conform by setting up their own social media pages. Moreover, stakeholders on the ground are now ‘citizen journalists’, meaning that anyone has the potential and power to contribute to both the discussion and response. A key example of this was during the 2011 Queensland floods, whereby the crisis and its aftermath was mapped out through the power of ‘Ushahidi’. The interactive map, as seen below, was made up of information provided by both verified and unverified reports hence locals were also involved (Middleton 2011).

According to Holmes (2011), the main issue with allowing publication of unfiltered, community-supplied content is that communication may be hindered through spread of misinformation (at a rapid speed thanks to social media). There is therefore a struggle to find balance between timeliness of information and its verification. On top of this, sometimes the important or valuable pieces can and do become lost amongst the clutter or noise of unintended or misinformation. At the time, the ABC themselves stated that the map was an “experiment in gathering information from the community” (Middeton 2011).

On the other hand, crowdsourcing’s ability to provide stakeholder ‘sense-making’ and allowing time-sensitive information to be shared quickly to citizens and crisis managers should not be looked over. (Holmes 2011). It also means the community themselves can help locate problem areas, and contribute experiences. For example, in the Queensland floods, people actually felt compelled to provide evacuation advice to others on the basis of their own experience (Bruns et. al 2012). Social media has essentially changed the crisis communication and crowd-sourcing landscape, providing real-time experiences from people in the impact zone as opposed to just journalists. 

In times of severe, life-threatening crises, communication is key. Crowdsourcing has essentially shifted the way problem solving occurs and the speed of communication in disaster zones, and despite the negatives, it should be considered essential in bringing awareness, aid and ultimately increasing chances of survival.

References: 

Facebook 2017, Safety Check, Facebook, viewed 27 April 2017, <https://www.facebook.com/about/safetycheck/>.

Holmes, W 2011, Crisis Communications and Social Media: Advantages, Disadvantages and Best Practices, viewed 27 April 2017, <http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=ccisymposium>.

Middleton, S 2011, Mapping the Queensland Floods, ABC, viewed 27 April 2017, <https://open.abc.net.au/explore/1643>.

Rouse, M & Gonsalves, C 2011, Crowdsourcing, Tech Target Network, viewed 26 April 2017, <http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/crowdsourcing>.

Speier, K 2016, 4 EXAMPLES OF CLEVER CROWDSOURCING CAMPAIGNS, Mainstreethost, viewed 27 April 2017, <http://www.mainstreethost.com/blog/four-examples-of-clever-crowdsourcing-campaigns/>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Social media is a powerful tool to reinforce habits of thought. The things we’re exposed to on a daily basis sink into our bones, become a part of our core. What we choose to surround ourselves with will inevitably shape our thought patterns, outlook and mindset. It’s important to consciously choose the things that influence our subconscious minds. Whether we like it or not, we’re conditioning ourselves; we may as well use that process constructively. 

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #4: To Feed or Not To Feed The Trolls?

With the rise in popularity of social media, society has never before had more access to public communication. However, with this there also comes social media misuse which includes the long-run trend of being an internet troll. According to Urban Dictionary (2004), ‘trolling’ involves “being a pr*ck on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can”. Okay, so maybe urban dictionary isn’t the most credible source in the world especially when it comes to definitions, but how could I not go past it for such a well-known internet slang word? 

Anyway, I think the key here is the emphasis on someone being entitled to engage in this activity purely because the internet allows them to do so. We’re presented with these platforms that let us submit anonymous and potentially harmful comments to someone we most likely don’t even know with lack of consequences, so this means it’s okay... right? Moreover, one of my person issues with the concept is that it is subjective in nature. There are varied views on whether trolling is acceptable, let alone how far its scope extends. What has come to be called trolling for someone may mean something entirely different to another. In a general sense however, I believe it is often taken too far and the actual word is being used as an excuse for the people who make unsolicited and often disturbing comments online. It almost seems impossible now as to where we can draw the line between harmless banter and blatant bullying, especially when there is also no universal definition of bullying (Boyd 2014).

Boyd (2014) believes "bullies are not evil people who decide to torment for fun; those are sociopaths who are struggling with serious issues of their own”. If we take this on board, it seems as though there could be a level of distinction as trolling is often used for purposes of entertainment or fun. That being said, I don’t see how someone could get enjoyment or pleasure out of making someone angry, embarrassed or hurt which is often said to be the case for trolls (March 2016). Determining one’s intention is also difficult; we do not receive the same understanding of tone in an online written message than in verbal conversation, and despite one’s intentions they may still provoke the same harmful impact on the receiver.

Regardless of ones intentions or whether trolling is right or wrong, the response/advice has often been to simply ignore it if it comes your way. In other words, ‘don’t feed the trolls’.

I am lucky enough to have never experienced online bullying or trolling directed at me. Despite this, I am still aware of how bad it can be due to how public social networks are. If I were to scroll through the Youtube comments on someone I follow’s most recent upload then I’d be almost guaranteed to find some kind of trolling. For the past year or so, I’ve noticed that some of these Youtubers and media influencers often use Snapchat to rant about their experience with internet trolls and the harassment they receive on a daily basis. I can’t even imagine how it would feel to receive so many daily insults about my looks, personality, values, behaviour and even friends and family and feel powerless. So, I completely understand these people being publicly upset about it as ignoring someone saying things like that is easier said than done. I too would want to stand up for myself if someone were to post something nasty online about me, otherwise I’d be worried it would suggest to them that I’m okay putting up with it. However, following these rants, often these individuals are then told to also ignore the comments and simply focus on those who are posting nice things instead.

The reason given for not fighting back is usually the idea that we shouldn’t give trolls what they want, which is the satisfaction of getting an angry reaction (March 2016). I do understand this, as trolling is only considered successful if it has sparked a response like this. March (2016) argues if they aren’t receiving this negative social reward, then “their motivation to engage in this behaviour will likely diminish”. Something still bugs me about this though. Maybe it’s because what you write online is still technically you saying something, even if you’re shielded by an anonymous account (Lafrance 2016). If you were to say some of the things that are said by the diehard trolls in person, there would likely be some form of consequence. So, just because these comments are occurring online shouldn’t make it any less awful or serious. Sure, we can ignore the trolls but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that there issue. Maybe we should be encouraging more action and not just giving these people the impression that engaging in this behaviour is okay if no one is there to stop them.

I don’t understand this newest age of trolls that simply take things too far, and I never will. How did we get from basic memes and rick-rolling to now using the word to cover up harassment including death threats? This is a much more complex and serious issue than I first would have thought, which explains why there is such confusion and debate about responses. It seems that no matter what solutions are devised to fight the issue (ignoring or not), trolls are still going to troll; we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

References:

Boyd, D 2014, ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, pp 128-52.

Lafrance, A 2016, Should We Feed the Trolls?, The Atlantic, viewed 12 April 2017, <https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/hungry-hungry-trolls/478548/>.

March, E 2016, ‘Don’t feed the trolls’ really is good advice – here’s the evidence, The Conversation, viewed 12 April 2017, <http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657>.

Urban Dictionary, trolling, Urban Dictionary, viewed 12 April 2017, <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Slacktivism at its finest.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #3: Is Digital Activism an Effective Medium for Change?

When I hear people speak of ‘activism’, I tend to firstly think about the arguably more obvious and physical examples such as rallies, organised protests, street marches, or strikes.

That being said, the internet (specifically social media) has also been highlighted as another method. Digital or cyber activism involves the use of these internet tools to promote certain ideas while gathering support at the same time (Al-Dosari 2014). However, putting digital activism on the same level or podium as traditional means of activism has certainly proven controversial; there are varied opinions regarding whether it is truly valuable in today’s society. Perhaps this stems from the debate over the concept of sociability existing on social network sites. 

Before exploring both sides of the discussion, it would be best to quickly go back to the basics. According to Henrik Bang (2005), activism “expresses a collective enterprise for keeping the state accountable to their needs of civil society”. This also extends to other dominant powers such as mainstream media, specific corporations, academic institutions...you get the idea. Activism is essentially making an effort to promote (or impede) social, political, environmental or economical change. In that case, if we apply this to a digital sense then it can be quite clear that efforts to make societal improvements certainly do exist online as these sites already serve as venues for shared expression. The question is though, is this enough? 

Arguments for: Those who do believe in online activism and its benefits to society tend to contend elements of community visibility, solidarity and mobilisation, or that it is “better than nothing” (Rintel 2013). Social media platforms are argued to play a vital role in expanding the reach through networks, and therefore assisting like-minded activists to come together and potentially take part in further action. Some believe there are little to no differences as to the specific platform used, though others claim otherwise. One analysis stated that for a revolution to occur, Facebook tend to be used to form groups and set the dates, Twitter produces the logistics and news dissemination, while Youtube shows the world. All together, they ultimately connect people to a cause (Gerbaudo 2012, p.3). In my opinion, I do agree that these networks are important and useful in terms of spreading ideas with a large reach, creating awareness, prolonging a social movements lifespan and starting important discussions between those that may otherwise never have met in ‘real’ life. It should be noted though that research from the University of Washington highlights the fact that digital activism does tend to work best when it is in conjunction with street-level organisation (Edwards, Howard & Joyce 2013). Effective digital activism also supposedly requires use of a number of social media tools as opposed to just tweeting alone for example.

Arguments against: I briefly spoke about the main issue with activism in my last post when I reflected on the statement that “the Revolution will not be tweeted” (Jericho 2012). This is based on the widespread view that activism requires real, offline connections as opposed to being built around weak ties that aren’t deep enough to generate any change. As noted by Rintel (2013), those skeptical about digital activism tend to base their reasoning on the idea of ‘slacktivism’ and that attention or awareness should not be treated the same as action. 

If this is the case then many of us have fallen victim to slacktivism, whether it be undertaking the ALS ice bucket challenge, sharing a video, liking a page, signing a petition, ‘supporting’ KONY 2012 or updating our Facebook profile picture to a certain filter overlay in order to support a certain cause such as marriage equality. These are all great examples of what is considered thoughtless or lazy and essentially too easy to be valuable. There is also hint of an altruistic undertone; for a moment we feel good about our contribution to ‘activism’, yet then simply move on with our lives and are unlikely to give it a second thought. Steven Mazie (2015) explains it as “a means to the end of social gain, rather than of social change”. 

So yes, I do agree that there are elements of slacktivism online and I have certainly been guilty of it at times, however I think it would be unfair to generalise this as an entirety. In other words, online activists are not all slacktivists. There are countless examples of how digital activism has proved just as effective as what society would consider as traditional or ‘normal’ methods of advocation for change. Not only that, but even some of the common examples of what is though to be slacktivism have indeed led to some form of significant action despite what skeptics may think. For example, many online petitions have actually changed decisions by major corporations, for example policies related to survivors of sexual assault or local photography permit requirements (Earl 2016). One study regarding the 2011 Occupy movement and the 2013 Gexi Park protests actually found that those who created virtual content as opposed to being involved in the live protests were “at levels that [were] comparable to core participants” (Groetzinger 2015). There may also be a crossover, as it was also said that those who supported online movements are actually more likely to contribute to physical activism. 

At the end of the day, social media did not create activism; this notion was around well before Web 2.0. It merely acts as an additional platform or tool that allows citizens to promote and gain awareness, and in some cases support protest and revolution. Perhaps by being caught up in what the ‘right’ way to protest is, maybe we end up missing the point entirely. Instead of focusing on the differences between forms of activism and creating a certain standard of who is a ‘real’ activist, maybe efforts should instead be simply trying to find ways to include everyone and therefore making use of all practices including social media. After all, changes in society start by engaging as many people as possible, and if social media can assist in that while potentially prolonging the lifespan then I don’t think it should be looked past at all. 

See below for references. 

References: 

Al-Dosari, S 2014, Studying pros and cons of digital activism, Arab News, viewed 7 April 2017, <http://www.arabnews.com/news/569451>. 

Bang, H 2005, ‘Among everyday makers and expert citizens’, in J Newman (ed), Remaking governance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere, Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 159-178.

Earl, J 2016, ‘‘Slacktivism’ that works: ‘Small changes’ matter’, The Conversation, viewed 8 April 2017, <http://theconversation.com/slacktivism-that-works-small-changes-matter-69271>.

Edwards, F, Howard, P & Joyce, M 2013, “Digital Activism and Non-Violent Conflict,” Digital Activism Research Project, Seattle, University of Washington, pp. 1-23. 

Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets, Pluto Press, London. 

Groatzinger, K 2015, ‘Slacktivism is having a powerful real-world impact, new research shows’, Quartz, viewed 8 April 2017, <https://qz.com/570009/slacktivism-is-having-a-powerful-real-world-impact-new-research-shows/>.

Jericho, G. 2012 ‘How many votes are there on Twitter?’ in The rise of the Fifth Estate: social media and blogging in Australian politics, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, Australia, EBL eBook Library, viewed 7 April 2017, pp 254 – 278.

Mazie, S 2015, ‘Three Big Problems With Facebook Activism’, Big Think, viewed 8 April 2017, <http://bigthink.com/praxis/facebook-is-fraying-not-saving-the-world>.

Rintel, S 2013, ‘‘Slacktivism’ vs ‘snarktivism’: how do you take your online activism?’, The Conversation, viewed 8 APril 2017, <http://theconversation.com/slacktivism-vs-snarktivism-how-do-you-take-your-online-activism-13180>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

So true…

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #2: Social Media + Politics = ???

If I’m going to be completely honest here, I should start by mentioning that I’ve never had much of an interest in the world of politics. I know, I know – here we have just another teenager who seems to be more interested in what her friends are up to on Snapchat or what celebrities are posting on Instagram, as opposed to those who make the real decisions that tend to make a pretty big difference in the world. Yeah, I should probably be more interested in that. So here I am, with little knowledge about the majority of politicians, yet I am all too aware of their online presence. Social media and politics – on paper these two don’t really sound like a great combination to me, and perhaps there is some truth to that. That being said though, I do believe there are also advantages for both politicians and us.

Just a few years ago, it would have been unheard of to be able to directly contact politicians the way we can now. Today, it seems that your brother, uncle, grandmother or dog can simply send a Tweet right over to their local council leader or even Donald Trump (maybe not your dog). It’s clear that the active participation on social media has become an increasingly important element in political communication, in particular during elections. I’d assume that this is mainly due to the attempt to try and win back or connect to a larger and more specific audience; these are the young people, who like me, are often not as interested. In other words, it is evident that many politicians are trying to be more relatable. So, has this worked? Does the use of social media indeed enhance the political space, or has it backfired? 

First, let’s look at the positives. The main thing that comes to mind is that people are not confined to simply being informed about political events by traditional media, which alone has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. What’s great about this though, is that it does allow for us to have more engagement or perhaps power - we are able to have our say publicly and view other people’s responses, as opposed to just discussing what we are told with a friend who has similar views to us. It also cannot be denied that social media has allowed for increased awareness, which is extremely important in this context. These sites can then be used to “create the spark that fires movements”, especially with a wider reach than before (Jericho 2012). And yes, social media is very good at engaging young voters - in fact it is argued that Barack Obama was the first to utilise social media and its users during his campaigns. From a politician’s perspective, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have not only become another platform to broadcast on, but also a place where politicians can interact with journalists and supporters. It therefore allows for easier communication along with the ability to advertise, promote and therefore reach voters without actually paying for anything (Murse 2016). 

As I mentioned before, the actual concept of politicians having social media accounts does have its downsides. Many candidates often have social media professionals managing their accounts, as allowing unfiltered content can (and definitely has) caused controversial issues that have negatively affected entire careers (Murse 2016). Many politicians may have also shifted away from social media when they realised that feedback from the public is not always so positive, especially when anyone is able to speak their mind despite their level of knowledge about an issue. Moreover, some believe that activism require real, offline connections, or in other words, “the Revolution will not be tweeted”, as social media is built around the idea of weak ties or connections (Jericho 2012). I personally believe one of the main issues with the rising use of social media, is that often information is distorted by misleading and inaccurate facts.

This brings us to memes. 

(I apologise for any inappropriate content in this video, but you get the idea).

Making fun of politicians has essentially become mainstream. Anyone can create an funny image or video relating to politics that can go viral, and though this humour may seem innocent, memes can either aid or disrupt politics (Hsu 2016). Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy a good meme sometimes, and they do hold the benefit of sparking interest and spreading the word. According to Axelrod (2016), “memes have the potential to be powerful in an era where likeability can be a deciding factor in elections”. Though, in this context I believe memes are arguably making us take politics less seriously, which could be problematic. By sharing a meme about something ridiculous that Donald Trump has said, does this mean we are making light of the situation rather than being simply alarmed? I know I for one really didn’t think he actually intending on building that damn wall with all the jokes around it. Maybe that was just due to any remaining faith I had in the guy (unlikely).  Regardless of whether the positives outweigh the negatives or vice versa, this relationship between political campaigns and social media and everything in between will only continue to grow. Participatory culture has ultimately made its way to politics, and I guess we appear to have ourselves a more civil society.

References:

Axelrod 2016, The Role of Memes in Politics, Brown Political Review, viewed 2 April 2017, <http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/03/role-memes-politics/>. Hsu 2016, The Dank Memes That are “Disrupting” Politics, New Yorker, viewed 2 April 2017, <http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-dank-memes-that-are-disrupting-politics>.

Jericho, G. 2012 'How many votes are there on Twitter?' in The rise of the Fifth Estate: social media and blogging in Australian politics, Scribe Publications Pty Ltd, Australia, EBL eBook Library, viewed 2 April 2017, pp 254 – 278.

Murse 2016, How Social Media Has Changed Politics, ThoughtCo, viewed 2 April 2017, <https://www.thoughtco.com/how-social-media-has-changed-politics-3367534>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Post #1: Is Tumblr a Blog or Social Network Site?

If someone were to ask me this question on the spot, my initial response would probably be to say a blog. The main reason for this is that I tend to not think of Tumblr on the same level as something like Facebook, in terms of its social aspects. Perhaps this is due to my personal online habits and stereotypes about different websites, as well as my lack of knowledge about the full extent of Tumblr despite having my fair share of short-lived Tumblr ‘blogs’ in the past.  I was never one to create my own content or directly communicate with other users; I merely ‘re-blogged’ other users’ content that I found entertaining or valuable. At the time, I did not view this as being social as I was not connecting with people in the way that I would traditionally talk to people on other platforms. It appears that the concept of a ‘blog’ may in fact be skewed for most people (Walker-Rettberg 2013).

Sitting here writing this, I realise the lines are blurred - Tumblr may not be all too different after all. When it comes down to it, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and countless other sites also allow users to share thoughts through text posts, audio, video, links... you get the idea. Also, in terms of affordances, who’s to say that a Facebook ‘like’ or ‘share’ means anything more than a Tumblr ‘like’ and ‘reblog’ - isn’t this still the same kind of social interactivity? More importantly, what makes Tumblr any less of a ‘social network site’ than any other online platform? What makes it any more of a ‘blog’?

Let’s take a step back, shall we. Or rather, keep scrolling. 

The key is to analyse the main elements that make up each term, hence then being able to slot Tumblr in somewhere amongst the two. What is a blog? This simple term has evolved into a short form of ‘web log’, and most definitions tend to rely on formal qualities. Evan Williams, one of the cofounders of the company that created Blogger.com, believes a blog is made up of three characteristics – frequency, brevity and personality (Walker-Rettberg 2013). In this case, Tumblr can most definitely be put into the blogging category, or at least microblogging. The user-generated pages on Tumblr do tend to consist of frequent and relatively brief postings, while being written in first-person by individuals who share a personal view of a certain topic or topics. According to Cross (2011), “following a blog is like getting to know someone, or like watching a television series”. This essentially means that a blog needs to be read overtime to be understood; it is not simply one post and therefore must be taken it its entirety. Moreover, Cross stated that the most prevalent kind of blogs in 2011 were the personal, diary-like pages who describe their personal experiences to a relatively small audience. However, I don’t necessarily think Tumblr is confined to this. Beyond the personal narratives lie music, fashion, comedy, gossip, and political kinds, just to name a few. I believe that Tumblr or even the idea of blogging as a whole has evolved in such a way that it is up to the user what they want to do with it. In addition to this, blogs are often considered social, so perhaps this is where the lines start to become blurry.  What is a social network site? Boyd and Ellison (2007) define social network sites or SNSs as “web-based services” that allow individuals to create a public profile within a confined system, have a list of online connections or ‘friends’, while also being able to go beyond this in terms of lists made by others within the system. The profiles are unique pages by which one can essentially describe and share themselves to others, which can include descriptors such as their name, location, interests and often photos. In terms of Tumblr, it is true that there is an emphasis on the creation of a personal, online profile, especially when considering the common ‘about me’ section. As for the network aspect, let’s go a little deeper.  Not only can we search to find and follow blogs that interest us, we are also able to interact with others outside of our direct list. When someone follows a Tumblr blog, all of its recent posts show up in a home feed, similar to how other sites work. This provides the opportunity to be exposed to even more users through those that we already follow (by them sharing and liking the posts of others). This ability to follow other people is similar to what we do on Instagram and Twitter, while also being able to ‘reblog’ as we ‘share’ on Facebook, as well as submit ‘asks’, comments or send private message to other users like we do on pretty much every other social network site. After just a little bit of thought it becomes increasingly clear that Tumblr shares an unbelievable amount of similarities with the sites that many of us often like to separate so distinctly. I have no doubt now about whether Tumblr possesses any elements of a social network.

So... what does this crossover mean for Tumblr? Walker-Rettberg (2013) believes traditional blogs formed the backbone of social media, and that blogs were social media years before the term was even introduced, which I do agree with. I believe Tumblr is not only a blog but also a kind of social media, much like how Facebook (and the rest of what we typically think of as social media sites) are also forms of blogging. Microblogging platforms like Tumblr essentially “allow for a more traditional type of blogging experience, while also allowing for the social networking features of Twitter (like following other bloggers)” (WebdesignerDepot Staff 2011). The bottom line: Tumblr is a platform. It merely provides a tool whereby users ultimately have the freedom and power to choose what they want to do with it. An individual may set it up as a traditional blogging format, use it strictly for social networking, or even a hybrid of both. This means that the definition of Tumblr goes beyond just its formal features – it is up to how each person chooses to use and therefore define it. 

References:

Boyd, D & Ellison, N 2007, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, pp. 210-230, viewed 27 March 2017. Cross, M 2011, Bloggerati, Twitterati: How Blogs and Twitter Are Transforming Popular Culture, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara. Walker Rettberg, J 2013, Blogging, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.  WebdesignerDepot Staff 2011, A Brief History of Blogging, WebdesignerDepot, viewed 26 March 2017, <http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/03/a-brief-history-of-blogging/>.

[loadingmediacontent-blog]

Social networking is like a club. Twitter is the dance floor, Tumblr is the bar and Facebook is the people crying in the toilets.

Renoirs (via renoirs)