notaschoolblog

[notaschoolblog]

Social Media Governance (Week 10)

Due to the rapid growth and development of digital communities, spaces such as social media do not satisfactorily govern and regulate the speech of their userbases. Especially due to curated communities like subreddits and the increasing usage of algorithms to feed users agreeable content, the prevalence of ‘self-serving echo chambers’ (Maloney 2019, p. 9) seems to be increasing and opening gateways for real-life harm against marginalised communities.

The subreddit r/gaming is a prolific example of this. As a very ‘masculinised social space’ (Maloney 2019, p. 3) (see my Week 9 post) predominantly used and moderated by men, it has become a notorious hotspot for misogyny. As an echo chamber, ‘the predominately male userbase feels relatively comfortable engaging in transgressive, indeed often offensive, ways’ (Maloney 2019, p. 6): they know even their extreme opinions will be supported there.

Despite how specified these communities are, they are in no way few-and-far-between. The existence of the manosphere—especially the recent overwhelming influence of Andrew Tate (Rich & Bujalkagence 2023), and harassment campaigns such as #GamerGate (which has its own subreddit) have created a ‘networked harassment’ (Marwick & Caplan 2018, p. 547) of women online.

Importantly, this behaviour is not a new phenomenon, as similar groups like the Men’s Rights Activists, which was popularised in the 1970s, began as reactionary to contemporary feminist movements. The shared outlook between the MRA and the manosphere is not that women are fighting for equality against patriarchy to improve society, but rather that ‘the failings of [Western] culture’ (Bean in Marwick & Caplan 2018, p. 546) are the fault of so-called misandrists seeking to destroy the ‘holy’ Western society via diversity. This idea eerily echoes purist nationalist talking points, as these men position themselves as victims who must be on the side of ‘revalorizing masculinity’ (Blais & Dupuis-Deri in Marwick & Caplan 2018, p. 546).

Larger governing powers do sometimes step in though. A few years ago, Reddit terminated r/incels on account of its deeply concerning threats against women, and while this made the community more inaccessible by forcing them to relocate, it also furthered their own victim mentality.

 Other movements to resist this hyper-masculine culture are social ones by other internet users. For example, the subreddit r/gamingcirclejerk intentionally counters r/gaming by relentlessly mocking them through irony (hence ‘circle jerk’) and being aggressively inclusive instead.

To be clear, the misogyny of the manosphere and gaming culture are undoubtedly examples of online hate crimes, as they are ‘motivated by hostility or prejudice against [...a protected…] group’ (Haslop, O’Rourke & Southern 2021, p. 1420). In efforts to avoid discriminatory targeting, women are ‘more likely to self-censor what they post online…to minimise the risk of experiencing further harassment’ (Haslop, O’Rourke & Southern 2021, p. 1421). Thus, a gendered ‘digital divide’ (Jane; Van Dijk in Haslop, O’Rourke & Southern 2021, p. 1420) is established, and is not being adequately governed.

The false, unequal dichotomy of misogyny vs misandry is often excused as inoffensive, personal beliefs which should be protected under ‘free-speech’—but should this really be allowed when it evidently causes so much danger for minority groups that go unrecognised in their marginalisation?

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Haslop, C, O’Rourke, F, & Southern, R 2021. ‘#NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture’, Convergence, vol. 27, no .5, pp. 1418–1438. 

Maloney, M, Roberts, S, Graham, T 2019, ‘Introduction’, Gender, masculinity and video gaming, Palgrave, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28262-2_1

Marwick, AE & Caplan, R 2018, 'Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment', Feminist media studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543-559.

Rich, B & Bujalkagence, E 2023, 'The draw of the ‘manosphere’: understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men', The conversation, February 13.

Solon, O 2017, 'Incel': Reddit bans misogynist men's group blaming women for their celibacy, The guardian, viewed 8 May 2023, <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/08/reddit-incel-involuntary-celibate-men-ban>. Square-Enit 2022, Evolution of gaming graphics!, 18 February, viewed 8 May 2023, <https://np.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/svijft/evolution_of_gaming_graphics/hxg2u84/>.

[notaschoolblog]

Gaming Communities (Week 9)

For what’s generally seen as a solo, isolating hobby, video games have pretty much always involved community, spectatorship (Taylor 2018, p. 1) and interpersonal involvement. Games don’t exist solely on the platforms they run on though: with the internet, content like live-streaming on websites like Twitch, YouTube, or Facebook have created online communities centred around specific games or gaming in general. Furthermore, these communities aren’t only focused on the entertainment side of gaming; the existence of wikis, forums, subreddits and discord servers allows for largely community-sourced knowledge about games to be shared. Gaming culture is that it is very masculine dominated: the assumed ‘gamer’ is young, white or East Asian, and middle-class. Despite the ‘nerdier’ (and thus ‘unmasculine’) connotations of unathletic, indoor activities like gaming, patriarchy is upheld via a ‘geek masculinity’ which ensures that ‘women are actively subordinated in, and excluded from, presumed male spaces through acts of vitriolic misogyny’ (Maloney, Roberts & Graham 2019, p. 28). An extreme example of this was the harassment campaign #GamerGate, which sought to ‘fight back’ against rising political correctness in video games by doxxing and threatening prominent women in the gaming industry. This campaign is emblematic of the ‘seemingly leaderless…toxic technoculture’ (Massanari 2017, p. 333) that has perpetuated and encouraged misogyny in the gaming sphere.

The domination of hegemonic masculinity in gaming is perhaps most obvious when looking at the state of esports. Only 35% of esports players are women (Interpret cited in Rogstad 2022, p. 196) and only 5% of those are professional players who compete at the ‘top level’ (Hilbert cited in Rogstad 2022, p. 196). This disparity is largely attributed as a result of hegemonic masculinity, not the ‘alleged physiological superiority of men over women…[as it] is not as central to the virtual nature of eSports as it is in other [traditional] sports’ (Rogstad 2022, p. 209). Instead, ‘eSports appear to possess a hyper-masculine culture like traditional sports, including the objectification and exclusion of women’ (Rogstad 2022, p. 209), making it especially difficult for women to establish themselves as professionals in the field, let alone get their male counterparts to see them as ‘equals’. Moreover, this hegemony isn’t limited to who has power within the industry, it is also important to note that sports are a ‘media event’ for a ‘global audience’ (Taylor 2019, p.2), who would have certain presumptive expectations for who they will be watching play. Made in Melbourne, a globally acclaimed indie game called ‘Untitled Goose Game’ was developed by House House using Unity and was released in 2020. Despite being a short and simple game, it features a diverse cast of characters. The Melbourne indie game scene as a whole tends to push to be more ‘ethically considerate and inclusive’ (Keogh 2021, p. 219) than mainstream studios, who instead may focus their attention on their games as financially successful products. While many have been taking steps to appear more inclusive in the past few years, the depth and genuinity of this can be questionable.

The lack of diversity shows that adherence to social hegemonies goes way up the line, it is cyclical in that over time gaming culture has established a broad ideal of compliance to the status quo which it feeds its audience, and in turn, the audience expects it remains that way and gets aggressive when it even slightly deviates.

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Chia, A, Keogh, B, Leorke, D, & Nicoll, B 2020, ‘Platformisation in game development’, Internet policy review, vol. 9, no. 4. DOI: 10.14763/2020.4.1515. Keogh, B 2021, 'The Melbourne indie game scenes: value regimes in localized game development', in P Ruffino (ed), Independent videogames: cultures, networks, techniques and politics, Routledge, pp. 209-222. League of Legends 2009 [Video Game], Riot Games. Macgregor, J 2022, Overwatch creators explain they didn't use King's 'creepy' diversity charts, PC Gamer, viewed 30 April 2023, https://www.pcgamer.com/overwatch-creators-explain-they-didnt-use-kings-creepy-diversity-charts/. Maloney, M, Roberts, S & Graham, T 2019, Gender, masculinity and video gaming: analysing Reddit’s r/gaming community, 1st edn, Springer International Publishing, Cham. Massanari, A 2017, ‘Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit’s algorithm, governance, and culture support toxic technocultures’, New media & society, vol. 19, no. 3, SAGE Publications, London, England, pp. 329–346. Rogstad, ET 2022, ‘Gender in eSports research: a literature review’, European journal for sport and society, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 195-213, DOI: 10.1080/16138171.2021.1930941 Stardew Valley Wiki 2023, Stardew Valley Wiki, viewed 30 April 2023, https://stardewvalleywiki.com/Stardew_Valley_Wiki. Steam 2023, Untitled Goose Game on Steam, Steam, viewed 30 April 2023, https://store.steampowered.com/app/837470/Untitled_Goose_Game/. Taylor, TL 2018, ‘Broadcasting ourselves’, in Watch me play: Twitch and the rise of game live streaming, Princeton University Press, pp.1-23 Wu, B 2014, GamerGate response, 14 October, viewed 30 April 2023, https://twitter.com/BriannaWu/status/522038018392477696?s=20.

[notaschoolblog]

Face Filters (Week 8)

The usage of augmented reality filters began on Snapchat in 2015 (Barker 2020, p. 208) and has since had a major role in self presentation online, especially on Instagram (Rettberg 2014, p. 1). The way this has actualised tends to promote narrow, exclusive and unrealistic body standards that are often recognised by users as unattainable but nonetheless ‘necessary to achieve in order to obtain social acceptance’ (Coy-Dibley 2016, p. 6). Through this comes an obligation and expectation of aesthetic labour (Elias, Gill & Scharff 2017, p. 5) to reach these impossible standards. This ideal is deeply Eurocentric: historically, photography has only been considerate of white appearances (Rettberg 2014, p. 28), making it even more inaccessible to non-white, non-Western users (Miller & McIntyre 2022, p. 7).

As the usage of filters is largely focused on beautification, it has become thought of as a feminine practice. This is riding off the expectation of women to ‘enhance’ their natural appearance, previously this was solely achieved through make-up and plastic surgery—which has, in a sense, been digitised through face filters. For men, using face filters (which have been deemed feminine by society) calls into question their presumed heterosexuality and masculinity (Lavrence & Cambre 2020, p. 9). Thus, if men are in earnest using face filters, they are opening themselves to ridicule by mainstream, hegemonic society. This is relevant to the concept of the ‘digital-forensic gaze’, in which online pictures are scrutinised to ‘negotiate their implicit authenticity claims’ (Lavrence & Cambre 2020, p. 2)—as in, users scouring images posted on social media for evidence that they’ve been edited in some way. When users recognise the usage of a ‘natural-looking’ filter, they call it out like its usage is inherently deceptive and lesser than if the image was unedited. However, if an image was posted to social media unedited, it’s either deemed lower quality or it becomes the special focus of the image.

Face filters aren’t all negative though, they can be used to positively explore digital identity. They are an accessible form of personal expression, and can help users easily cultivate how they want to be seen online. While face filters are ‘arguably still firmly embedded and created within the confines of the oppressive [patriarchal] pressures…women are not ignorant to their own oppression, they see through their oppressive conditions even as they may comply with them’ (Coy-Dibley 2016, p. 6). It is ultimately a voluntary participation into this culture around face filters. …Mostly. What about when face filters are automatically added to someone’s digitised appearance without their consent or awareness?

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Barker, J 2020, 'Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat', Fashion, style & popular culture, vol. 7, no. 2-3, pp. 207-221. Coy-Dibley, I 2016, ‘“Digitized Dysmorphia” of the female body: the re/disfigurement of the image’, Palgrave communications, vol. 2, no. 1, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 16040. Elias, AS, Gill, R & Scharff, C 2017, Aesthetic labour rethinking beauty politics in neoliberalism, AS Elias, R Gill & C Scharff (eds), 1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. Lavrence, C & Cambre, C 2020, ‘“Do I look like my selfie?”: Filters and the digital-forensic gaze’, Social media + society, vol. 6, no. 4, SAGE Publications, London, England, p. 1–13. Miller, LA & McIntyre, J 2022, ‘From surgery to Cyborgs: a thematic analysis of popular media commentary on Instagram filters’, Feminist media studies, Routledge, pp. 1–17. Ohlheiser, A 2021, ‘TikTok changed the shape of some people’s faces without asking’, MIT Technology Review, 10 June, viewed 26 April 2023, https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/10/1026074/tiktok-mandatory-beauty-filter-bug/. Rettberg, JW 2014, ‘Filtered reality’, Seeing ourselves through technology, Palgrave Macmillan Limited, United Kingdom. Tate, V 2021, A Reckoning with Photography’s Exclusivity, Getty, viewed 26 April 2023, https://www.getty.edu/news/a-reckoning-with-photographys-exclusivity/).

[notaschoolblog]

Body Modification in Visual Media (Week 7)

The idea of microcelebrity, defined as ‘the commitment to deploying and maintaining one’s online identity as if it were a branded good’ (Senft 2013, p. 346), is becoming increasingly relevant to how digital citizens navigate themselves online. Even for users with less notable online presences, social media provides a new accessibility for users to become ‘prosumers’ (Ritzer & Jurgenson 2010, p. 21): they have roles in both producing and consuming online content.

The branding of these online identities are directed by how much their visibility can be maximised. Particularly recently, social media sites have been honing their algorithms in an attempt to be able to more accurately cater to users (and thus keep them using their site longer). Users who are aware of the algorithm and who can successfully utilise it to gain visibility are able to maintain the status (Marwick 2013, pp. 77) of microcelebrity.

On Instagram, microcelebrities will appeal to specific aesthetic templates to create a mainstream, easily identifiable and consumable image. The way in which this actualises does vary, but one major way is by gender (and by extension, sexuality). Ideal physical traits associated with femininity or masculinity are emphasised (either through physical regimen or artificially via editing programs such as FaceTune or Photoshop) to create an exaggerated ‘performance’ (Carah & Dobson 2016, p. 3) of gender online–although these ‘gendered’ traits are strictly presented in a hegemonic, cisgender manner to remain unquestionable to the biggest consumer base possible. Furthermore, these performances, especially for women, evoke the ‘porn chic’ (Drenten, Gurrieri, & Tyler 2020, p. 42) aesthetic as a form of sexualised labour (Drenten, Gurrieri, & Tyler 2020, p. 43) to maintain their online brand. The unprecedented ability to access (or even accidentally stumble across) and share pornography via the internet (Bran 2016, p.1) has seeped its way into internet culture as a whole, evident through the sexualised labour and branding of Instagram microcelebrities.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian)

Look at Kim Kardashian for example. In this Instagram post, her face is tilted upwards so only her thin nose and sharp jawline are really visible. She is wearing plain, minimal clothing with dainty gold jewellery, thus drawing focus to her body. Her shoulders are back, her hair is slightly draped over her shoulders but not obscuring her body, and she is posing on one leg to push her hip out. This all forms together to create a sexualised image using the porn chic aesthetic.

Moreover, the heteronormative image and ideology depicted by microcelebrities and uplifted by social media platforms is damaging to queer personalities online. Due to this hegemony, not only are they refused the same all-encompassing reach more easily obtained by their cis and straight counterparts, but they are also ‘systematically’ targeted by the social media algorithms on the platforms they use (Duffy & Meisner 2022, p. 286). Thus, their content is comparatively less visible than cis/straight creators on the basis of their identity being counter to cis- and heteronormativity.

These unattainable images (unattainable because they are limited, highly curated, and impossible for humans to actually exist as) also have dangerous ramifications for prosumers. Emblematic of this is Body Dysmorphic Disorder which concerns a dissonant perception of one’s body, now commonly influenced by unrealistic pictures seen online. Although, recently internet personalities have been addressing this directly, and attempting to encourage positive perspectives instead.

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Brand, M 2016, ‘PL-01: Internet pornography addiction: Theoretical models, behavioral data, and neuroimaging findings.(PLENARY PRESENTATIONS)’, Journal of behavioral addictions, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1-64.

Carah, N & Dobson, A, 2016, 'Algorithmic hotness: Young women’s “promotion” and “reconnaissance” work via social media body images', Social Media + Society, vol. 2, no. 4, pp.1-10.

Drenten, J, Gurrieri, L & Tyler, M, 2020, ‘Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention’, Gender, Work and Organization, vol. 27, no.1, pp. 41-66.

Duffy, BE & Meisner, C, 2022, ‘Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility, Media, Culture & Society, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 285-304.

Marwick, AE 2013, Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Ritzer, G & Jurgenson, N 2010, ‘Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”’, Journal of consumer culture, vol. 10, no. 1, SAGE Publications, London, England, pp. 13–36.

Senft, TM 2013, ‘Microcelebrity and the branded self’, A companion to new media dynamics, Wiley‐Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 346–354.

[notaschoolblog]

The Slow Fashion Movement (Week 6)

The fashion industry is one of the most significant sources of pollution (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022, 2860-1), from the rapid rate at which clothing is produced to how quickly it is disposed of. This is emblematic of the broader issue with fast fashion: its prioritisation of consumerism over ethics, which has become increasingly detrimental not only in pollution, but also notably in carbon emission, landfill (cheap synthetic materials) and poor working conditions (sweatshops). 

‘The goal of fast fashion companies is to produce the most amount of fashionable and trendy apparel in the shortest amount of time, so consumers can keep up with the fast and ever-changing trend cycles and want to consume more products’ (Mehrjoo & Pasek cited in Chi et al. 2021, p. 101).

To counter this, the slow fashion movement has been gaining traction. Slow fashion refers to the ‘change in core values in the fashion industry’ (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022, 2860-1) to be more sustainable. This is evident through the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility, in which companies ‘help modify behaviour by raising awareness and generating consumer pressure on other companies to follow the higher ethical standards’ (Brewer 2019, 1902-6). For instance, The Common Good Company has a portion of their website dedicated to sustainability, and backs it up with verifiable evidence.

The discussion surrounding sustainability largely takes place online between digital citizens. This includes Corporate Social Responsibility as well as consumers who tend to emphasise the ‘humanitarian’ (Ladstatter 2019) aspect of slow fashion, as they are aware of the consequences of fast fashion. Special focus is placed on the quality and timelessness of their clothing purchases, in an attempt to ensure that the clothes that these consumers do buy will be sufficiently worn and used. A topical way this is addressed is through the ‘thrifting’ trend in youth culture, as clothes are given another chance to be used instead of ending up in landfills. Furthermore, finding long-lasting, quality ‘vintage’ clothing is heralded, as these pieces are often unique—and thus more valuable (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022, 2860-9).

Hopefully, the awareness surrounding fast fashion and the subsequent push for slow fashion will create a higher standard of ethics for clothing production.

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Brewer, M.K., 2019, ‘Slow fashion in a fast fashion world: promoting sustainability and responsibility’, Laws, vol. 8, no. 4: 1902.

Chi, T, Gerard, J, Yu, Y & Wang Y, 2021, ‘A study of U.S. consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants’, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 101-112.

Domingos, M, Vale, V.T., & Faria, S, 2022, ‘Slow fashion consumer behavior: a literature review’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 5: 2860.

Earth.org 2022, Fast Fashion: The Danger of Sweatshops, Earth.org, viewed 14 April 2023, <https://earth.org/sweatshops/>. 

Ladstatter, K, 2019, Thrifting: a growing trend in sustainable fashion. Uloop, Inc.

Sustainable Jungle 2023, Synthetic Fabrics: An Environmental Fashion Faux-Pas?, Sustainable Fabrics, viewed 14 April 2023, <https://www.sustainablejungle.com/sustainable-fashion/synthetic-fabrics/>.

The Common Good Company 2023, Sustainability, The Common Good Company, viewed 14 April 2023, <https://www.thecommongoodco.com/pages/sustainability>.

[notaschoolblog]

Digital Citizenship (Week 5)

The term ‘digital citizenship’ is described as ‘the ability to participate in society online’ (Mossberger et al. 2008, p.1) with the rights and responsibilities present in traditional citizenships. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner for the NSW Department of Education (2023) describes the ideal digital citizen as ‘a person with the skills and knowledge to effectively use digital technologies to participate in society, communicate with others and create and consume digital content.’

Moonsun Choi and Dean Cristol (2021, pp. 362-364) identify three approaches to understanding digital citizenship. The first is the ‘unidimensional approach’, which is concerned with the education, communication, politics, and ethics of digital citizenship. This is especially in regards to issues like internet safety and cyberbullying. Also, this approach addresses the need for users to have technical and literacy skills to allow them to ethically navigate the internet and its influences.

The second is the ‘multidimensional approach’, which identifies the core components of digital citizenship as: digital ethics, media and information literacy, participation, and critical resistance. These components are affected by the user’s technical skills, local and global awareness, networking agency, critical perspective, and participation in internet activism. For instance, the existence of hashtag publics, such as #auspol. This digital public creates a space for discourse surrounding Australian politics to become more centralised and accessible. Here, users can mobilise others through ‘petition[s]..., contacting public officials, publicly following a political figure, posting written comments for other people, commenting on…posts, and forwarding political news’ (Theocharis 2023, p. 791); users have ‘platforms’ to share and discuss their opinions. Politicians also use their social media platforms for campaigning to users as a form of political engagement. These platforms are what digital citizenships are founded on and affected by. This process, known as platformisation, is more broadly illustrated as how the ‘business models, infrastructures, algorithms, and…practices’ (Casili & Posada; Helmond cited in Chia et al. 2020) of digital platforms become integrated.

It is also worthy to note that a user’s participation in critical discourse online is reliant on their literacy skills, as well as their ability to access the internet (see: the digital divide) to have these discussions.

This moves us into the ‘critical and radical approach’, which emphasises the digital citizenship of marginalised people, as they are often ignored and denied or excluded from the full rights of traditional citizenships. This approach explicitly includes intersectionality to achieve a more comprehensive look at how oppressed people with compounding marginalised identities are affected online.

Considering all these approaches, the concept of digital citizenship is important to understanding how users engage with society online.

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Chia, A, Keogh, B, Leorke, D & Nicoll, B 2020, ‘Platformisation in game development’, Internet Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 4. 

Choi, M & Cristol, D 2021, ‘Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education’, Theory into practice, vol. 60, no. 4, Routledge, Columbus, pp. 361–370.

Hanna, KT 2021, Digital Divide, Tech Target, viewed 30 March 2023, <https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/digital-divide>. 

Mossberger, K, Tolbert, CJ & McNeal, RS 2008, Digital citizenship the internet, society, and participation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

National Association of Independent Schools 2018, Kimberlé Crenshaw: What is Intersectionality?’, 23 June, viewed 30 March 2023, <https://youtu.be/ViDtnfQ9FHc>. 

Office of the eSafety Commissioner, 2023, Digital Citizenship, NSW Department of Education, viewed 30 March 2023, <https://www.digitalcitizenship.nsw.edu.au/about>.

Theocharis, Y, Boulianne, S, Koc-Michalska, K & Bimber, B 2023, ‘Platform affordances and political participation: how social media reshape political engagement’, West European Politics, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 788-811.

[notaschoolblog]

Reality TV (Week 4)

Reality television is the most watched, yet most hated genre of television. It has loosely been split into subgenres, including: gamedocs, dating programs, makeover/lifestyle, docusoaps, court programs, and reality sitcoms (Ouellette & Murray 2004).

Reality television is described as ‘unscripted action and interaction’ (Nabi 2007), usually between ordinary people who provide exaggerated and transgressive performances which ‘promise the thrill of unpredictability with the security of televisual contrivance (Kavka 2019, p. 7).

This ‘televisual contrivance’ and the performances of the participants bring forth the idea of authenticity (Deller 2019, p. 163). In reality television, the participants cannot be depicted in an authentic way: the narratives demand drama, and even if they try to remain inline with a ‘truer’ perception of themselves, they are still subject to the manipulation of editors and producers. However, the participants are also able to utilise other platforms, particularly social media, to develop a more personalised representation of themselves. As reality television stars continue to discuss their shows on social media, an ‘ongoing narrative…across media platforms' (Arcy 2018, p. 488) is created. This is known as transmedia storytelling, which allows for diversified markets, new forms of engagement and audience participation, as these programs can now keep a closer connection to the audience between episodes, as well as garner a further audience through the inclusion of these other media platforms. Transmedia makes it so television is less reliant on itself as television, it now has supplemental components. In particular, stars will often interact with fans in a variety of ways and thus encourage the formation of parasocial relationships.

Reality television is ‘designed to elicit talk’ (Deller 2019, p. 153) and the social media spaces—the digital publics—where these television programs are discussed in detail hold frequent political discourse especially surrounding discrimination of race, gender and sexuality. Although, it is important to distinguish that it is audiences that are addressing the implicit biases they see in reality television, as reality television tends to remain hegemonic, assumedly for the comfort and easy-viewing of audiences not wanting to have their values challenged. Even explicitly queer shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race will still enforce gender rigidity as ‘the format of [the show] understands drag to be men that transform themselves into women’ (Chetwynd 2020, p. 33) and provides little wiggle-room for gender fluidity, despite this being an integral aspect of the lives of drag queens.

As a medium, television programs are restricted to industry standards and must maintain the status quo to at least an extent, otherwise the ratings, funding, and ultimately the show itself could be jeopardised. However, transmedia elements like social media are not as limited, allowing for further nuance and discussion, both from reality show participants as well as audiences.

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Arcy, J 2018, ‘The digital money shot: Twitter wars, The Real Housewives, and transmedia storytelling’, Celebrity studies, vol. 9, no. 4, Routledge, pp. 487–502.

Chetwynd, P 2020, ‘Postfeminist hegemony in a precarious world: Lessons in neoliberal survival from RuPaul’s Drag Race. (Critical essay)’, Journal of international women’s studies, vol. 21, no. 3, Bridgewater State College, pp. 22-35.

Deller, RA 2019, ‘Reality television in an age of social media’, Reality television: The television phenomenon that changed the world, Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 141–175.

Murray, S & Ouellette, L 2009, Reality TV : remaking television culture, 2nd edition., New York University Press, New York.

Nabi, RL 2007, ‘Determining dimensions of reality: A concept mapping of the reality TV landscape’, Journal of broadcasting & electronic media, vol. 51, no. 2, Taylor & Francis Group, Philadelphia, pp. 371–390.

Ouellette, L & Murray, S 2004, ‘Introduction’, in Murray, S & Ouellette, L (eds), Reality TV: Remaking television culture, New York University Press, New York, pp. 1-16.Velour, S 2023, Profile, viewed 23 March 2023, <https://www.instagram.com/sashavelour/?hl=en>.

[notaschoolblog]

Digital Communities & Tumblr (Week 3)

One of the most (maybe surprisingly) renowned social media sites in Australia is Tumblr, with 3.7 million monthly users (Civic Web Media 2023). The site was founded in 2007 by David Karp, and in the past 15 years, their distinctive user base has witnessed a series of tumultuous changes, particularly in regards to ownership and the value of their website, which culminated in the NSFW ban in 2018.

Tumblr is largely recognised as a ‘counterpublic’ platform, due to its significant user base of marginalised identities—namely women, people of colour, and queer people (McCracken 2017, p. 151). Due to this user base, the site is seen as a welcoming and safe place, as evident in a study (Byron et al. 2019), where some queer users are interviewed and repeatedly claim Tumblr to be a refuge where they can find community. The affordances Tumblr enables (Burton 2017, p. 95) for its users: the use of tags, solely public posting, and (comparative to other social media sites) a minimal algorithm, help to form specific communities (majorly centring fandoms) while still allowing users anonymity and freeing them from the surveillance and timeliness that other social media sites prioritise. Instead, users will only optionally share private information about themselves, especially concerning their identity, to reach similar people with similar interests, but this is in no way required to use the site—Tumblr itself only asks for your email and birthday (which isn’t shared publicly). These affordances are relevant to Bruns & Highfield’s idea of ‘micro-publics’ (2016, p. 98), built on Habermas’ theory of the public sphere, which is described as:

[An ideal] place where “private people come together as a public” for the purpose of using reason to further critical knowledge which, in turn, leads to political change. The public sphere requires unlimited access to information, equal and protected participation, and the absence of institutional influence, particularly regarding the economy. (Kruse, Norris & Flinchum 2018).

As a microblogging website, political discourse is often discussed and fostered between users. One such instance of this is with the #bodypositive tag. The community posting here aims to be ‘authentic, accepting, and supportive’ of their peers, notably prioritising self-acceptance over self-improvement (Reif, Miller & Taddicken 2022). This digital community is only perpetuated by the users, and may only receive infrequent attention from official Tumblr blogs, making it relatively free from institutional influence. However, this community is still bound to the limitations of its platform, especially with the impact of the NSFW ban, thus Tumblr’s effectiveness as a potential public sphere is reduced with harsher user policies.

>REFERENCES ARE UNDER THE CUT<

Bruns, A & Highfield, T 2016, ‘Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere’, in G Enli, A Bruns, AO Larsson, E Skogerbo & C Christensen (Eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics, Routledge, United States of America, pp. 56-73.

Burton, JTD 2017, ‘Making space on the digital margin’, Doctoral dissertation, Camden Graduate School electronic theses and dissertations, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Byron, P, Robards, B, Hanckel, B, Vivienne, S & Churchill, B 2019, ‘"Hey, i'm having these experiences": Tumblr use and young people's queer (dis)connections’, International Journal of Communication, vol. 13, pp. 2239-2259.

Civic Web Media 2023, Australia’s most popular social media sites 2023, Civic Web Media, viewed 17 March 2023, &lt;https://www.civicwebmedia.com.au/australias-most-popular-social-media-sites/>. 

fandom 2022, Things we care about, 1 December 2:50 AM, viewed 17 March 2023, <https://www.tumblr.com/fandom/702360783634530304/things-we-care-about-well-tumblr-2022-was?source=share>. 

Kruse, LM, Norris, DR & Flinchum, JR 2018, ‘Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, Sociological quarterly, vol. 59, no. 1, Routledge, Berkeley, pp. 62–84.

lemkid 2023, About reblogging old art, 18 February, viewed 17 March 2023, <https://lemkid.tumblr.com/post/709570044895576064/i-love-that-posting-on-tumblr-means-that-people>. 

McCracken, A 2017, ‘Tumblr youth subcultures and media engagement’, Cinema journal, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 151–161.Reif, A, Miller, I & Taddicken, M 2022, ‘“Love the Skin You‘re In”: An Analysis of Women’s Self-Presentation and User Reactions to Selfies Using the Tumblr Hashtag #bodypositive’, Mass Communication and Society.

[notaschoolblog]

Tumblr University

Optional Uniform

ID

DORMS!!!!!

The Who/Sherlock dorms

Harry Potter/Narnia/LOTR Dorms

Pirates/History dorms

disney/disney princess dorms(you can put more posters,etc)

Directioner dorms(but put more ireland flags and more pics of the boys)

The sweet memories of 2012 tumblr

[notaschoolblog]

What? What? Huh?

In a truly mortifying turn of events, I'm living the real-life Tumblr University experience.

!Click to view all my weekly posts in one place!

Scary as heck disclaimer under the cut.

Portions of this site and the works within it are being produced with the intention of critique and/or educational use under Australia's 'fair dealing' exceptions to copyright (Section 40 & 41). However, if you feel your IP is being infringed, please contact my service provider (tumblr) with the appropriate DMCA requests, as I, the single author take full responsibility for the content of this site.