maisietuck4-blog

[maisietuck4-blog]

The pragmatics of emojis

Research by TalkTalk has found that 80% of us use emojis to communicate - they’re one of the only ways we can show tone and emotion in our on-screen conversations without having to constantly type things like ‘’hahhahahahhahahaha’’, or ‘’I’m so angry!’’ in our messages.

They can show feeling without having to explicitly talk about it

Doesn’t take much to work out which one of these woke up with a hangover:

They can soften our written messages too, for when we don’t want to sound too harsh:

…without the emojis, this would have just been mean.

Emojis are also great softeners when we’re angry – using the angry face emoji instead of words can save you from getting into trouble and saying something you’ll regret.

We also sometimes use emojis to add weight to our words, or even to replace them - everyone knows sending the laughing face is the best way to politely end a conversation that you can’t be bothered to reply to.

Although they can help us get out of conversations we don’t want to have, and are the perfect replacement when we’re lost for words, there’s definitely a time and a place for them. They’re not generally used in formal situations, and they can sometimes make things look less serious or insincere, so it’s best to leave them out:

(I think emojis would have made my boss even more annoyed in this situation)

We can sometimes have differing opinions of the meanings of emojis- I think the thumbs-up emoji should only be used if you’re annoyed, being sarcastic, or don’t want to talk. My dad just doesn’t get that…

In even more sensitive situations, it’s even more important to leave emojis at all costs. Some people can misunderstand the meaning of them and it can COMPLETELY change your sentiment:

So what’s the lesson here? Emojis are great, but in moderation. They help us to show tone and sentiment in our messages, but like words, they can also be misconstrued. If only there was a way to standardise what we all use them for.

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

[maisietuck4-blog]

The anti-social social media

In the age of social media, there’s not much that can’t be done online. Who sends physical party invitations instead of just creating an event on Facebook? Why knock round for someone when you could just pop up to them? And when was the last time you heard about someone going to a singles event or speed dating rather than just swiping on Tinder or Plenty of Fish? While it feels like platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are affording us to be more sociable, I can’t help but wonder if they are in fact simply allowing us to exchange the sincerity of face-to-face communication for convenience.

When I first got Facebook, the main way in which my friends and I used it was to write on each other’s walls and privately message each other. Similarly, when I joined snapchat, its primary use was to send snaps back and forth between individual friends. Nowadays, apps have evolved, and people seem to prefer to use them to post more publicly. The story features on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are increasingly becoming their most popular feature - I think this is one of the main reasons why they’re making us regress in our social interactions. The story features mean that you’re always aware what’s going on with your friends. They have hyperlinked features which allow us to show all our followers who we’re with, where we are, what the weather’s like, what we’re listening to and more. When we’re constantly keeping up with each other’s lives in a spectator-like fashion, we no longer need to reach out to each other to share what we’ve been up to.

The other day I was invited to an event on Facebook - my local pub is being sold to new ownership after 17 years, and this weekend they’re having a farewell party. On the event page, I had three options: ‘’going’’, ‘’interested’’, or ‘’not interested’’. I’m not able to go, however something felt very strange and impersonal to have such a blunt choice of responses to such an intimate event. Clicking on one of these options doesn’t elicit meaningful interaction as would an RSVP letter or phone call, and in my generation, it feels like this is how all social events are announced. Is the sentimental value of an RSVP letter or phone call being replaced by the convenience of being able to contact everybody en masse and respond with the click of a button?

This reminds me of another way in which it feels like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat are restricting the way we communicate: it’s increasingly popular for people to use social media as a medium for sharing announcements. Pregnancies, engagements, promotions and deaths make up a large part of most our news feeds - so much so, that you can now announce your engagement or your new job by simply changing updating your information on Facebook’s bio feature, and it’ll share it for you. There’s no argument that this is the easiest way to announce news: you can make sure that everyone receives the same information. The post can be revised, and, in sensitive cases, having a screen as a mediator can make the sharing of news much less nerve-wracking than reaching out to people individually and face-to-face. But could the restrictive nature of this medium be closing the door to further interaction from receivers? The ease of writing a short comment to express congratulations or condolences now seems to take precedence over picking up the phone to say it in person, and then perhaps having a catch-up which you might not have otherwise ended up having.

If we’re using the speed and effortlessness of social media updates and quicktime messaging which simulate face-to-face communication as an excuse to avoid the fundamental aspects of human communication, could we be risking becoming spectators to each other’s lives rather than participants?

[maisietuck4-blog]

If you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t open your mouth

The phrase ‘’keyboard warrior’’ is frequently used to refer to people who spend their time commenting negative things on influencers’ posts. It seems as though people really express their true opinions when they have the internet as a mediator. The who make comments know that they’ll never meet the person who they’re commenting on, and also that the celebrity will most probably never even see the comment. Take a post by some celebrities on Instagram and for each positive comment you find below it, you’ll find five negative comments.  People seem to be so vocal online about what they do and don’t like – it’s as if they can’t scroll past and not give their opinion. At the same time, the comment sections on other celebrities’ posts are full of positive comments from the public. This begs the question, what is it that makes the public dislike some influencers so strongly?

The foundation of morality is said to be based on five factors:

People’s judgements are often made on the basis the influencer’s morality or virtue- celebrities are judged for things they’re done, and it’s reflected in the comments under their pictures.

Female rapper Cardi B is known for being a stripper before she became famous for making music – this could be one of the reasons why the public don’t like her. She’s also admitted to have been involved in violent gangs, and to have robbed people – these aspects of her past could be offending the public on the basis of fairness/cheating. Although the comments on her pictures don’t explicitly mention her past, they reflect a generally negative opinion on her.

Interestingly, Nicki Minaj used to not be very popular with the public – I remember a time when there was a general opinion that she was fake and talentless, and she slipped under the radar for a few years and didn’t make so much music. Recently, it was revealed that Nicki Minaj and Cardi B disliked each other when they had a fight at an awards ceremony. Suddenly, Nicki seems very popular:

Jonathan Van Ness is on a Netflix show called Queereye, where he and his friends help people who are struggling financially and emotionally and give their lives massive makeovers. He’s very popular with the public - on the show he’s clearly friendly, humble and generous. People’s admiration for him is clear in the comments on his Instagram:

However, other another Netflix star, Maria Di Geronimo isn’t so well-liked. She made her fame on a reality show called Yummy Mummies, where her character is clearly exaggerated to show her to be materialistic, nasty and fake. She’s probably disliked on the moral foundation of sanctity/degradation: she isn’t sensible with her money, she doesn’t seem to have her priorities straight when it comes to parenthood, and she appears selfish. The basis of people’s dislike of her is clear in their comments. And it’s not like they’re subtle about it – people can get really, really nasty on there.

Comments are normally unanimously negative or unanimously positive – commenters seem to follow a mob-like mentality. This negativity can be very damaging to the individuals who it’s targeted at, and this highlights a downfall of the freedom of speech that we have in the comment section.

What do you think – is freedom of speech on the internet always  good thing, or has it gone too far?

[maisietuck4-blog]

How to make your post go viral: a step-by-step guide

Looking for internet fame? Want to get your post seen by millions of people? Jonah Berger, in his book ‘’Contagious’’, explains what he’s found it takes to make something viral on the internet. Before the era of the internet, the word ‘’viral’’ was only used in relation to illness. Now, it’s more commonly used to describe when something on the internet (a post, a picture, a video, a meme...) is circulated worldwide and shared by millions. Here’s what it takes:

1. Social Currency

Is your post something that will make sharers look good in front of their followers? People are more likely to share content which they believe will make them look cool. Obviously, this can differ between cultures and age ranges.

2. Triggers

A stimulus that keeps people sharing your content is going to make people more likely to circulate it. Make sure you remind recipients to keep it going - sometimes an incentive helps. Many businesses encourage circulation of their content by holding competitions with the condition that people entering must share their post with their followers. 

Sometimes, simply reminding people to share is enough. Vloggers often say something in their videos along the lines of, ‘’if you liked this video please share it’’

3. Emotion

Your post is a lot more likely to be shared if it appeals to the emotions of receivers - use your language to make your content emotive. And choose how you want to make people feel: happy? Angry? Sad?

4. Public

If something is popular already, it’s more likely to be shared. Although you might not already have a platform where you have lots of followers, being shared by someone who does can give your content a big boost. Aim to get your stuff seen by someone who has a large platform!

5. Practical Value

Useful stuff gets shared well. Can your receivers learn anything from your content? If not, try and add something that people will find practical and relatable

6. Stories

People. Love. Stories. Add an anecdote to help your content get further!

[maisietuck4-blog]

Is Tinder real life?

Multimodailty means that are so many functions on apps like Instagram, Facebook and Tinder that we can show all aspects of our personalities. We can share our favourite music, favourite pictures, and all branches of our social media. You’d think that this builds the perfect representation of you as a person - but is it all a bit fake?

Let’s be honest - nobody is going to put up a picture on Instagram or Tinder which they don’t look their best in. No one’s going to share their guilty pleasure music on Tinder, they’ll share what they think will impress people. The fact that we have so many functions to share parts of our personalities on these platforms makes it feel as though we no longer need to find people in real life to see what they’re really like before we meet them- but actually, I don’t think this is the way.

The fact is, people are 3-dimensional and complex. You ca’t get to know someone properly if they’re only selectively showing you what they want you to see.

What do you think, is it time to put our phones down and meet people in real life?

[maisietuck4-blog]

u r dumped :-(

When we were younger, we would have ‘’relationships’’ where everything would happen in messages. My year 7 boyfriend would text me all day, but then ignore me and avoid me when I saw him at school.

It’s funny that as we get older, doing things over the phone is seen as rude and cheap. The idea of starting or ending a relationship over messages seems weird now, but I suppose there are worse ways to do things. Here’s a run-down of my five worst ways to be broken up with:

5. In a public place

There’s nothing more uncomfortable than the scene in Legally Blonde where Warner breaks up with Elle in the restaurant and she starts crying. That would be me. Please, if you’re planning to break up with someone, do it somewhere they can cry in peace - no one else needs to be involved.

4. Handwritten letter

No. Just no. Are we in the 19th Century? It’s even cringe to write love letters, let alone a break up letter. Leave it there.

3. Ghosting

‘‘Ghosting’‘ is a word I’ve recently learned for a phenomenon which people have been doing for years - it’s when you don’t explicitly break up with someone, but you just start avoiding them: ignoring texts, not meeting up with them, blocking their calls. This means that the dumpee ends up spending weeks working out what’s going on - am I being dumped? Are you playing hard to get? Have you died?

2. Snapchat

Snapchat would be so much worse than a text. It’s so casual and insincere - not to mention that the messages disappear as they go. If you’re going to break up with someone with a written message, then please do me a favour and at least use a texts or Whatsapp

1. Facebook relationship status. 

This would be the absolute worst. Imagine the embarassment of someone breaking up with you by CHANGING THEIR RELATIONSHIP STATUS. It’s one tier above doing it by Tweet. It’s just so public - instead of telling you directly, they’re announcing it to an audience which you’re part of. I can’t think of anything weirder than my mum finding out that I’ve been dumped via Facebook before I even know anything about it

[maisietuck4-blog]

Is there such thing as being too safe online?

When we were children, we were warned about not trusting people online: don’t talk to people who you don’t know and don’t give away your personal information. Why is it then, that as adults we have forgotten these rules?

We don’t often get warned of the dangers of buying online - many of us happily give away our details to websites and sellers which seem legit, only to end up being victims of phishing. We are so fast to tell out children how to act online, without educating ourselves on the dangers we face.

Is it time to make more of an effort to make adults more internet-savvy?

[maisietuck4-blog]

Do filter bubbles only exist in our online lives?

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/

I’ll be the first one to say it - I don’t often try new things. I have a close group of friends, most of whom are the same age as me, with similar interests, backgrounds and beliefs. I often watch same kind of TV and films. I read the news, but restrict myself to content from the platforms where my parents got their news when I was growing up: my mum buys the Guardian; my dad, being a proud Liverpudlian, will read anything but The Sun. I live in Reading, in a house of six girls my age who are very similar to me.

When I go home from university, I go out with my friends and we always bump into people who we have only seen a handful of times since school or college, and although this feels like a change, these people are in fact very similar to me. They all received a similar education, they grew at the same time in the city as me. Many of our parents went to university in together at the same time, others have known each other since school.

We do have the option to go out to a different area of the city where we are likely to meet people who we wouldn’t normally socialise with: we could go to the highstreet, where we would likely meet people from out of town; or I could go across town where the more upmarket pubs, clubs and restaurants are buzzing with professionals and business people who are very different to us. However, every weekend, we choose to go to the local pubs in town where I know we will end up spending the night with the same network of people as every other weekend. They are all a similar age to me, and they all went to one of my local schools or colleges at a similar time to my sisters and I. Even when I go on holiday, I go with my friends to places where we are surrounded by people similar to us. We stay in places which look like where we live at home. We eat the same foods as we do at home, drink the same drinks, go to the same kinds of places. 

It’s no surprise, then, that media networks such as Facebook, Instagram and Google have created algorithms to appeal to the way in which many of us choose to experience life offline. Of course it’s important for these platforms to be selective to a certain extent to be for their ads to be effective, otherwise its users would be overwhelmed by an information overload. Instagram shows us content depending on what material we’ve previously interacted with: on the explore page, I’m shown pictures of nail art, holiday destinations and dogs - content which I expect is pretty different to what my 14-year-old stepbrother is shown. While I have no complaints about these personalised algorithms other than the slight discomfort at the thought of my online activity being constantly monitored, I can’t help but wonder who benefits from online filter bubbles?

The EU’s recent GDPR regulations require that platforms must explain to users their use of cookies, and give them an option to opt-out.

Source: Instagram.

The targeted advertising opportunities which have been created by the use of online cookies which monitor our online behaviour and preferences are very beneficial to companies, artists and not-for-profit campaigns alike. I was speaking to my friend the other day who makes music on the side of his university degree. A couple of weeks ago, he paid Instagram to sponsor his post to people who are local and likely to enjoy listening to his type of music. I didn’t see the post on my feed, but my flatmate did - then a week ago, he received an email from BBC Radio Berkshire, to tell him that they were going to be playing his track. He’s an example of just one of many startups who are benefiting from the ready-made market which has become accessible through manipulation of filter bubbles. This makes me think that despite people’s objections, filter bubbles can be a positive thing. Advertising is, has been and will always be all around us, and I know that I would rather the platform be given to unestablished, independent and relevant artists and businesses rather than being bombarded with the information overload of adverts which are useless to me.

A lot of people worry about personalised algorithms online generating content which has a lack of diversity and variety, while others worry that online personalisation is dangerous as some users don’t even know about the unavailability of options on their personalised browsers. Many activists against these algorithms, like Eli Pariser (2011) argue that we should defy the bubble by deleting cookies, internet history and using internet settings where our behaviour isn’t cached, however I think that there are less radical ways to be more free on the internet.

It’s not like we’re trapped in these echo chambers - Web 2.0 means that participant-based websites are all around us, and everybody has an equal voice in the comment section. It’s important to remember, too, that we have autonomy over what we view on the internet. Even though some content seems to be one-sided and it may seem that you’re not being shown an accurate representation of reality, like in real life, we are always able to search and find new information which we have not previously surrounded ourselves with, should we wish to. 

I don’t think the media isn’t limiting us online by generating content which we want to see, but our online experiences are just conveniently becoming more similar to the way most of choose to live in real life - surrounded by the things we know and like. 

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/usingthebbc/cookies/how-can-i-change-my-bbc-cookie-settings/

References:

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.

[maisietuck4-blog]

Are we spoilt for choice on the internet?

My dad is always going on about how much harder he had it when he was at university. He proudly brags about how he wrote all his coursework by hand, and spent hours searching through library books for his research. Nowadays, if I want to do some research, I can type the relevant words into my Google search bar and I’ll be shown hundreds of results. I can browse through scholarly articles for hours, read books online, copy and paste links that I can come back to, and could even use a generator to write my references for me. He thinks we have it easy because we have the world’s largest catalogue of information at our fingertips with the internet.

However, I don’t think that finding information on the internet is necessarily the most efficient and straightforward way of working. As someone who gets distracted easily – and I mean very easily- I find the presentation of information on the internet overwhelming sometimes. Sometimes when you go on a website to find one piece on information, you get all kinds of different information jumping out at you in the form of multimedia and hyperlinks which take you to different websites. We’re having to use our brains to filter so much data simultaneously in a way which books don’t require us to do.

The non-linear layout of the writing and information on websites is often different to what you’d find in an academic book or journal. The segmented layout of data in books reads more naturally to those of us who seem to need to make an extra effort to concentrate, as they echo the way we would process information if we were being explained something face-to-face. Although online books often look similar to printed typography, our other sources aren’t always this simple. This makes me wonder, are we spoilt for choice on the internet?

OVERLOAD: Imagine using a website to find a single piece of relevant news, and being presented with 26 different external hyperlinks on your screen.

Source: www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

The organisation of information online means that we’re able to create our own reading paths (Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A., 2012) - we can leave a page when we want, and interact with similar topics. We can engage with multimedia and hyperlinks to expand on particular topics which we find to be relevant. The danger is that although hyperlinks can sometimes lead to data which expands knowledge and builds on what we have previously been learning, it can also lead to irrelevant and off-topic information which sends us off focus and can lead to an information overload in our brains. 

I suppose that in terms of studying, we do have it easier than our parents’ generation. However, although modern research techniques come with affordances like speed, efficiency, and the ability to revise online content, the constraints have to be considered too. We’re lucky with the technological advancements which allow us to access information so easily, but we have to learn to filter information and stay on-topic to make the most of them.

References

Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding digital literacies: A practical introduction. Routledge.