sarahkhoojijean

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 10: Google Glass, the self-tracking device that sees and hears. (Sarah Khoo)

In Crawford, Lingel and Karppi's article on self-tracking and wearables, they establish that the advancement of data tracking and technology have allowed the data collected to be stored in the databases of the digital companies, allowing for data to flow both ways within the social networks. The authors suggest that with such tracking devices being made accessible to the public, there are inevitable consequences with regards to the epistemological, legal and physiological aspects.

They use the weighing scale to illustrate the effects of having a self-tracking device so easily accessible and close to home. Once, the weighing scales was a tool used by professionals, such as doctors to keep track of their patient's physique. However, by allowing all individuals access to the weighing scale, and further marketing the device to serve the purpose of defining one's qualities. It has caused people to become overly obsessed with monitoring their measurements and maintaining the "perfect" results. The authors posit that with the growing trend of wearable self-tracking devices, this pattern would likely repeat itself more intensely, encouraging users to become very fixated on self-analysing their data. By portraying the concept of self-tracking as an ideal and important aspect of becoming a fully realised human being, it sets a standard that is based on embedded assumptions and norms, which is potentially very harmful for the users to base their identities on. They further highlight that users will not know how this data is being used, and who gets access to it. They bring up the economic value of such personal data — should companies acquire and capitalise on such information, how would one's perception of reality shift with the ever-changing set of norms being set by the market and thus the larger society? We can this phenomenon being reflected in the growing technology in the form of glasses.

With the steady advancement of technologies, many main companies of the digital space such as Google and Facebook have taken to developing face-mounted wearables. Google had released into the marketplace their relatively new product, Glass, which is a pair of spectacles that uses a small, lightweight wearable computer with a transparent display as the lenses, being marketed as "a hands-free device for smarter and faster hands-on work." Glass is being marketed towards companies, encouraging corporations to equip their workers with this device to aid them in their work. It promises users the ability to stay focused on their tasks with its intuitive interface, as well as improves accuracy and allows for real-time collaboration. This suggests that Glass will have the ability to record videos and audio in real time, and project images digitally through the lenses. Despite the potential benefits of these wearable devices, using the lens that Crawford, Lingel and Karppi offers, the implications of such devices seem to connote much more sinister possibilities. With these portable glasses potentially being able to track one's everyday life, it opens the door to many other possibilities. For one, that users have the ability to record every waking moment of their lives. This could potentially lead to an increasing sense of being so closely monitored, having to regulate their actions to maintain a "good" image. Instead of serving as a device that improves the users' wellbeing, it potentially threatens to become a surveillance camera that micro-manages the user.

Furthermore, as Crawford, Lingel and Karppi's article suggests, this device could potentially become adapted to appeal to the general public, exacerbating any negative implications that this device could lead to. For example, having a device that allows individuals to constantly record themselves would allow users to nitpick at every action and word, and creating a new need to refine their everyday habits to curate and portray their ideal concept of "self". This further expands into the possibility of commoditising all this data, intensifying the reach of personalised advertising.

As the authors mentioned, these devices often portray an inaccurate read of the data it collects. The weighing scale had set a standard that might seem ideal but in actuality is very much unhealthy. The same pattern of events could be reflected in these high-tech eyewear too.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 9: A disconnected, unrequited (cosmopolitan) intimacy between YouTubers and their audience. (Sarah Khoo)

In this week's reading, Lambert (2019) conceptualizes intimacy to be a "thing" that can be shaped and transformed, along with the time and its contextual developments. Intimacy is shaped by the ideologies that the individuals hold on to, and is often dictated by those in positions of power. Lambert argues that intimacy is not restricted to a physical presence or closeness, but rather a sharing of space, where "space" transcends into virtual, augmented, locative and even mental. The psychological conception of "being with" another individual also stimulates the intimacy in an interpersonal relationship. (During the lecture, Lambert had also conceptualized intimacy as a "being in" — being in a relationship, a family, sharing a certain boundary that allows for those within that boundary/"sphere" to be freely vulnerable. Again, this concept deals with the idea of space, while further suggesting that the Other is very clearly outside and cut off from those within the boundary.)

Through the term "cosmopolitan intimacy" Lambert suggests that the concept of intimacy is very much connected to the social, cultural, political and material elements. Intimacy encompasses all, and does not discriminate between differences. Aside from the three key enablers established (firstly, that for intimacy to be established, there has to be an uncomfortable beginning. The second enabler is the repeated, intentional interaction. Finally, cosmopolitan consciousness is required to compel such an activity.), Lambert expresses that the digital platform has greatly afforded individuals a multitude of abilities for relationships to foster, untethered by the barriers of differences. The online platforms foster a relatively safe space as the interactions that are facilitated on those platforms are sufficiently protected. (Users are well able to turn away from the interaction when the intensity of the intimacy gets overwhelming, and there are no dire threats or consequences — the online space puts a great distance between the two parties while still being able to foster a strong perceived intimacy.) Lambert further examines the cosmopolitan intimacy while regarding the media infrastructures, self-tracking community, and other aspects. However, I am interested to consider how the digital space has managed to bridge the wide, unseen gap between users and allow for such a tangible, lasting intimacy to be forged. To probe further, I wonder how this intimacy has been modified, shaped to become a product to be sold to those who desire that intimacy but cannot find it anywhere else, and address how this intimacy is often a disconnected, unrequited one, leading to a problematic relationship being formed.

In this blogpost, I look to the online media platform that is YouTube, and the phenomenon that is YouTubers. I would describe a "YouTuber" to be a social influencer who creates content in the form of videos for their audience. These videos mostly comprise of vlogs (video blogs) that showcase their daily lives, and video entries of errant thoughts that these individuals want to share with the public. I believe that for YouTubers, success is reaching that target number of subscribers, gaining traction in terms of views, watch time et cetera. Thus, they are highly motivated to keep an attentive fan base, and their viewers would only choose to stay if they are invested in the content, or care for these YouTubers. As a result, YouTubers foster an illusion of intimacy with their viewers, to create an agency for viewers to keep coming back to catch up with their favourite YouTubers. They speak into the camera, looking directly at their audience and addresses them as "you". They welcome viewers into their personal space, whether is it their own home, or around their school/workplace, bringing their fans along with them for quick grocery trips. Fan interactions are also usually encouraged ("Comment down below your favourite __ and I will try my best to reply you!") YouTubers often show their vulnerable sides, sharing with their viewers when they go through personal, painful experiences. They build strong "relationships" with their audience, in hopes of creating a fanbase that will faithfully stay to watch and support their content. This intimacy proves to be cosmopolitan as well, as it crosses over the differences between them — the YouTubers address all their fans the same way despite any differences in cultures, beliefs or differences of any kind.

And it works. This strategy has proven itself for years, since the early 2010s during the era of Zoella, PewDiePie and Lilly Singh, to present day with even greater variety of content (family vloggers, streamers, podcasters etc.). The "realness" that these YouTubers emulate facilitates a strong, "genuine" connection between Them and their audience, such that their audience would feel like they can empathise and connect with their idols in such a strong, intimate way. The sense of intimacy and interpersonal connection is very much real, as the viewers perceive it to be. In this phenomenon that is being a YouTuber, the manifestation and dynamic of intimacy has yet shifted again. It introduces a disconnected sense of intimacy. A commodified intimacy. A profitable intimacy. Selling one's attention in a packaged, 10 minute video for viewers to enjoy, collecting their attention and reaping the benefits from it.

As these feelings of intimacy escalate, it has frequently led to some fans overstepping their boundaries. Some fans have even extreme measures, going directly to the YouTuber's home to get a chance to meet their idol. It is evidently a great invasion of privacy, especially when the fans are strangers to these YouTubers. The disconnected relationship between YouTubers and their fans are made clear through these situations. Intimacy has translated itself so clearly and strongly from the YouTubers to their fans, while the YouTubers themselves feel little attachment to them. Thus, the medium that is YouTube evidently allows for such intimacy to be transmitted, overcoming the need for physical closeness or even any acknowledgement of one's existence, for one to still perceive themselves to have an intimate relationship with another. Therefore, I find that Lambert's analysis of the intimacy cosmopolitanism to be very much evident, and even problematic in this context.

Here are some examples of YouTubers addressing the issue of having fans show up at their house, and warning other fans not to do so.

Jenna Marbles: don't come to our house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HcoFZv6_AE

PewDiePie: Don't come to my house.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-i1P6pxxk

James Charles: JAMES CHARLES FANS ARE SHOWING UP AT HIS HOUSE!! (This is not ok!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WewtXrX3xCE

This is another video I was particularly inspired from while writing this blogpost up. It features Toast, a gaming streamer who made it clear to his fans that he is "not your friend", directly telling his audience not to idolise the people they watch and to just enjoy the content as casual viewers.

Disguised Toast: Toast is not your friend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4yxglfssQk

Lambert, A. (2019). Intimacy, cosmopolitanism, and digital media: A research manifesto. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(3), 300-311. doi:10.1177/1077800418806600

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 8: Interactivity, Agency and Pleasure in online banking? Who would have thought?

Pelletier (2005) presents the phenomenon that is the gamification of education. She posits that gamification incorporates three salient characteristics to education — interactivity, agency and pleasure. Interactivity positions learners at the core of the learning experience, allowing them to fully connect and thus be immersed in the learning process. Agency then refers to learners being directly involved in the changes and decisions made during the learning process. Finally, pleasure suggests that by gamifying the learning experience, learners derive the fun and enjoyment that naturally comes with play. Learning becomes less strict, and learners are given more space to experiment and try out new ways to approach their work. Learners would thus have more room for errors and be less adverse towards failure. She borrowed ideas from Žižek's theories focused on cyberspace and its subjectivity, focusing on interpassivity. Žižek posited that there is a fundamental educational trait to games, as they allow players to experiment with the different factors. These concepts then define the interactive aspect of the online space. He focused on the social aspect of education, and posited that by gamifying education, learning is facilitated with the learners as players, responding to stimulations and are made to act on prompts. Interpassivity then describes when users remain as a passive player while spectating another active source.

(Pelletier then outlines the 3 different aspects on cyberspace that Žižek has theorised, substantiating with another separate view.

Games serve as pain relievers. This notion insinuates that the online space allows users the freedom and flexibility to explore certain aspects that might seem taboo in the real world, allowing the individual control, free choice. Thus, by gamifying education, learners are able to have free control over how they learn, negating forced training and instead adopting a more "natural" way of education that learners can derive pleasure from.

Games are sensual temptations. This interpretation suggests that gamification leads to no actual takeaway, but rather that the experience is felt in a very vivid and abstract. Thus, when education is gamified, there is a risk that learners are so focused on playing that they cannot internalise what they were meant to learn.

Games are replicas of non-virtual life. This draws on the aspect of games where individuals are able to customise their own "avatar" that will represent the in-game persona they decide to portray. This would allow learners to actively take on problem-solving roles,

Games serves as dramatic stages for reality construction. This last point is posited by Pelletier, differentiating the online from real life. She states that for one to be able to truly, actively be themselves, they would have to detach themselves from their physical identity and instead be an "Other". This would allow one to fulfill fantasies freely as it will not be tied to their real self. By incorporating gaming into education, learners are able to embody the role of being a creator, having the power to manipulate the different aspects of education.)

I find that the points Pelletier highlight on the gamification very salient in the creation of Huat Pals by Google Pay. Google Pay is an online payment system, serving as a digital wallet conveniently packaged into a phone application. Its many features include transferring amounts of cash to other Google Pay users and making transactions to other businesses. Huat Pals was a campaign that started during Chinese New Year 2021. Google Pay had managed to gamify the concepts of online payments by incorporating the different core features of the banking application into daily challenges. The activity involved collecting 5 characters: Rara, Lenny, Neo, Ah Huat and BBLoh (Figure 1). To redeem Huat Pals, users had to complete daily challenges and answer trivia questions related to Chinese New Year (Figure 2). The prizes Google Pay offered were very enticing, such that users that collected all 5 characters would win a scratchcard containing a value between $8.88 to $88.88 (Figure 3). Thus, this incentivised users to consistently fulfil the daily tasks, maximising the number of characters they were able to redeem in a day in hopes of finishing their collection.

By incorporating a gamified activity to online banking, it has evidently increased the interactivity, agency and pleasure derived from using the platform. The daily tasks prompted users to use the application everyday, normalising the use of Google Pay to deal with daily transactions. This encouraged greater interaction and thus familiarity with the platform, while supplying users with the element of fun and excitement that came with collecting the characters and keeping fingers crossed they got the rarer characters like BbLoh. Furthermore, as users are actively engaging with the activity, users are afforded greater agency, who are given the responsibility to collect all the characters in order to redeem the cash prize. The activity of the users determined whether or not they were going to meet requirements of the daily tasks, and were given agency to seek out opportunities to maximise their redemption of characters. Finally, the idea of having fun while transacting money has never once been something I considered possible, but lo and behold, Google Pay has done it. I was genuinely invested in Huat Pals, transferring $10 everyday to my other friend who would transfer me it back, just so the both of us would get that 3 huat pals. I had messaged distant acquaintances just so we could exchange huat pals, and I even asked people from group projects whom I had met for the first time this semester if they already had Google Pay accounts. The competitive spirit in me kept me fixated on this activity, trying so hard to collect all the characters. At one point, it was no longer about the incentive, but mainly my desire to finish the game. Collecting a new character gave me a sense of excitement and fulfilment, and it was admittedly quite fun to reach out to my friends to exchange Huat Pals and lament about not getting BbLoh. Ultimately, Google Pay achieved its goal of making users accustomed to their platform, as I have been using it more frequently now to make transactions (going out of my way to ask vendors if they accepted Google Pay since it is much more convenient than paying in cash). Thus, I believe that Pelletier's point that gamification increases interactivity, agency and pleasure is very much reflected in Google Pay's Huat Pals.

(my apologies for such a long reflection!)

Pelletier, C. (2005). Reconfiguring Interactivity, Agency and Pleasure in the Education and Computer Games Debate—Using Žižek's Concept of Interpassivity to Analyse Educational Play. E-Learning and Digital Media, 2(4), 317-326.

Figure 1: Huat Pals

Figure 2: Daily Challenges

Figure 3: Scratchcard

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 7: Field, Cultural capitalism and Habitus (Sarah Khoo)

In this week's reading, Ignatow and Robinson (2017) explore the concepts within the digital landscape put forward by Bourdieu, looking to the Field, Cultural Capital and Habitus theories in particular.

Bourdieu's describes the field to be a network of interpersonal relationships that are primarily influenced by economic, social and cultural capital, positioning the different players within this system accordingly. The various fields are governed independently, and those within the field seek to gain as much capital as possible to establish their position and relevance among others. Capital indicates social status in this case.

Cultural capital is described to be a substantial indicator of "internalized ability and aptitude" and "externalized resources which are scarce and socially valued". It essentially rewards an individual with status and power when accumulated. Among the concept of cultural capital are economic, information and digital capital. These forms of capital are used as tangible pawns to exchange for cultural capital, which in turn indicates social classes and were a key component to the transferring of power in society. For example, wealth creates opportunities for education and experiences, which become skills and networks, motivation and ability, ultimately equipping the individual with greater cultural capital.

Finally, Habitus refers to when the field the individual is in becomes normalised, forming the guiding principles to their cognitive processes and behaviour. Actions, personality and lifestyle are salient influences to the habitus, serving as cues for individuals to identify, evaluate and compartmentalise where others are positioned within their own field.

Ignatow and Robinson highlight that Bourdieu's theories are representative of digital sociology, especially when looking at digital inequality. The authors further elaborate on how the theories are remarkably relevant to recent studies on digital social science despite the theories being formed many years ago, attributing it to Bourdieu's focus of empirical research and prowess in the digital landscape. Thus, they maintain that the theories posited by Bourdieu still remain prevalent in the digital network society, and thus social positioning remains a fundamental aspect in online communities.

I agree with the authors. A substantial proportion of the human population are connected to the online world, and the digital space holds strong influences on society. Online trends inevitably influences users to perceive them to be norms, and thus those prominent among online social worlds possess the ability to dictate cultural capital, and what is deemed socially acceptable and even superior is constantly fluctuating. For example, the concept of thrifting has taken a complete 180. Patronising thrift shops used to be an indicator of being in the low socioeconomic status, and it was regarded as shameful to be wearing used clothes.

However, since the mid 2010s, more and more people have taken a liking to thrifting, whether is it to shop secondhand in the name of incorporating more sustainable habits, or following the trend that glorifies the unique and vintage aspect to thrifted clothing. Popularised by more affluent and influential opinion leaders, thrifting had evidently been elevated to indicate superior habits, becoming cultural capital that others began to incorporate into their own lifestyles. Thrifting has since become the new "in" thing, and "vintage" and "secondhand" are now keywords indicating one being fashionable. What was once an indicator of the lower class has now become popularised and part of the higher social class as well, becoming a habitus among individuals in these fields that valued fashion. The prevalence of thrifting is reflected in the recent arguments that thrifting is becoming gentrificated, proving that the norms and mindsets with regards to thrifting have changed. Thus, the digital social worlds indeed have strong influences on real life fields, dictating the cultural capital and shifting the habitus of societies.

Ignatow, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 950-966.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 6: Are the networks of the gig economy really more "Gesellschaft" than "Gemeinschaft"?

In this week's reading, Ravenelle (2019) offered insights into the sharing economy, describing it as the phenomenon where individuals are made able to connect and offer their goods and services to others in the "society" who require them, through companies that offer a platform for these networks to convene. Ravenelle placed great emphasis on the network of users being more of a "society" than a "community" — she used the term Gesellschaft to describe these users, depicting the interpersonal relationships between this network of people to be more structured and impersonal. She also introduced the term Gemeinschaft to be a community that fosters interpersonal relationships. Ravenelle detailed her research, interviewing individuals who were part of the companies that fell under the gig industry, such as Airbnb, Uber and TaskRabbit. In this reading, Ravenelle elaborated more on the sharing economy, providing many examples on how it has led to the devaluing of labour as well as the increasing of economic insecurity and worker vulnerability.

The gig economy presents individuals with the opportunity to tap into the resources (amenities, skills) that are already within their reach, letting these resources work for themselves. For example, Airbnb positions themselves as a platform that allows users to open up any extra space in their home for others to temporarily stay in, making use of the property that they already own while being able to earn extra cash on the side. Another example is grab — as the company positions themselves as a platform that allows users to tap into their ability to drive and their available resources that is their car, users would be motivated to become Grab drivers because simply, why not? Earning the extra income for not much sacrifice or effort in return is arguably more attractive than the fixed, tiring job they have that offers little to no autonomy. Thus, it is an attractive offer, to be able to get a relatively higher income for less effort/time.

Looking through the lens that Ravenelle offers, I wanted to look at how I viewed my tuition "gigs". Private tuition is very much a part of the gig economy where most tutors undergo a very similar route to secure the job, especially if they go through a tutor coordinator. To illustrate the similarities, I will outline the process the personally experienced and compare them to the gig economy. Since I already possessed good knowledge on the syllabus for primary school students, had a good grasp of the subjects and was comfortable teaching and interacting with children, I made up my mind to tutor primary schoolers, particularly for mathematics and english. I first had to look for opportunities to tutor by liasing with a tuition coordinator, whether is it through a company (eg. AceTutors, TutorCity) or through telegram channels that broadcast listings and detail the information about the potential student (student's level of education, pay rate, area they live in etc.) (Screenshot of examples attached below!). I was then connected with the tutor coordinator after expressing my interest in a particular listing. When I officially accepted the job, I had to give a portion of their earnings for the first two sessions, and from there onwards, I continued my lessons privately. The tuition is a temporary job that makes use of my knowledge of the syllabus as a resource. However, it is a more long term gig compared to those Ravenelle had mentioned.

With that, I disagree with Ravenelle that the gig economy comprises of an impersonal Gesellschaft societies. Looking to my own experiences, this tuition gig involves forming very lasting interpersonal relationships with both my tutee and the parents. It would allow me to sustain my job for a prolonged period of time as they put their trust in my capabilities. Furthermore, there has to be a certain level of trust from both parties, the workers trusting the consumers of their service to be reliable in payment and such, while consumers put their faith in the products or services provided to be reliable as well. In the case for tuition, parents are putting their children's education in the hands of the tutor, entrusting the responsibility of their academics to the tutor. In turn, tutors are to maintain strong relationships with both parties to both keep their job for a prolonged period of time (despite it being temporary as the tutee eventually grows up and no longer requires tuition), as well as to get potential offers from other parents through referral.

Through this analysis, I conclude that while Ravenelle's points are certainly valid, it still very much depends on what the gig involves. For example, what these workers are working with, such that if it is on something important, say teaching your precious child or grooming your beloved pet, there has to be a certain level of trust involved between both parties. By establishing a closer relationship, there would also be more opportunities for this gig worker to be employed by the same person again, say they required further assistance with the same issue. However, if the service required is not of high stakes, then perhaps the networks fostered would be much more "Gesellschaft". Therefore, I disagree with Ravenelle that the networks formed within the gig economy is a largely impersonal and Gesellschaft one.

Ravenelle, A. J. (2019). What is the sharing economy? Chapter 2 in Hustle and gig: Struggling and surviving in the sharing economy (1st ed.). Oakland, California: University of California Press.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Free Labour, from smaller creators to bigger (Sarah Khoo)

In this week's reading, Free Labour, Terranova (2013) posits that the active users of media contribute greatly to the engagement and activeness of these online platforms. By creating and uploading content that engages the community and perpetuate interactions, users provide free labour to the bigger corporations behind these social media platforms. Terranova elaborates that this free labour substantiates the economic value in the digital economy, while also being a voluntary contribution that these creators are not compensated for by the beneficiaries of their efforts.

While Terranova's theory focused on how the larger corporations were exploiting these individual creators for free labour, I would like to apply this theory to how larger creators might make use of the labour of their fans to propel their own popularity and income, without reimbursing the original creator for their labour. This phenomenon of free labour is reflected in the content produced by YouTuber Felix Kjellberg, known on YouTube as Pewdiepie. The introduction sequences of his recent videos makes use of fan creations that mimic the introduction sequence of another popular YouTube channel, Cocomelon. PewDiePie is a Swedish YouTuber, who had garnered great popularity as a gaming channel back in 2010. Currently, the majority of his content has deviated from gaming, instead focusing more on reviewing other online content, such as internet memes curated by his viewers on his Reddit channel, to episodes from reality television. Mid 2020, it was brought to media attention that CocoMelon, a YouTube channel that produced content for children, has been gaining traction and was close to surpassing Pewdiepie's massive follower count. In hopes to maintain being the second-most subscribed YouTube channel, Kjellberg had taken parodying CocoMelon's introduction sequence in an attempt to 'trick children into thinking they are watching CocoMelon's video'. While this was meant to be jest, his followers had taken this in stride, posting their own versions of parodies to both YouTube and Pewdiepie's Reddit forum. The sheer amount of effort and creativity that went into incorporating Kjellberg into the introduction sequence subsequently led Kjellberg to use these clips as introduction videos, where every video Kjellberg put out had a unique, fan-made introduction video. This led to the growing meme that was CocoMelon introduction parodies, which circulated among most social media platforms and further boosted the popularity of Kjellberg 's channel. I had found this a very sweet and touching gesture on Kjellberg's end, as he was actively acknowledging the hard work of his fans and going a step further to appreciate their efforts. It allowed these creators to gain more attention and recognition for their art and thus had helped some of these creators grow in followers.

However, through the lens that Terranova's theory has provided, this seems to be a prime example of a large creator "exploiting" the works of smaller creators — there was no monetary compensation by Kjellberg for the efforts that had gone into creating these introductions. In this case, the creators of the CocoMelon parody videos are only rewarded with the honour of being recognised by the YouTuber they idolise, and the attention that comes with the millions of views that Kjellberg's videos accumulate. While Kjellberg periodically mentions individual creators by name and credits every contributor in the description of his videos, a majority of these creators often remain unknown to most of Kjellberg's audience. Furthermore, these parody submissions propel the activity and relevance of Kjellberg's channel, perpetuating the thriving and hyperactive space that is Kjellberg's social media accounts. These parody videos tap on a lot of creativity, with some making use of stop-motion, to a hand-drawn sequence inspired by Japanese anime. Therefore, I notice the semblance between Terranova's theory of free labour and how Kjellberg has been using of his fans' creations as his introduction videos.

These are some videos from Kjellberg's channel to further substantiate my point. First video mentioning CocoMelon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ill-HXjQWUs&t=135s First video using Cocomelon parody intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpP02s3EJ44 Compilation of many fan-made CocoMelon parody introduction videos (not from Kjellberg's Channel): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOhNXs-0dE8&t=700s A recent video (3rd December 2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOhNXs-0dE8&t=700s

Terranova, T. (2013). Free labor. Chapter 2 in T. Scholz (Ed.). Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Pp. 33-54.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 4: Media Industries and restricting creative freedom (Sarah Khoo)

In this week's reading, Adorno and Horkheimer (2012) posit that the media industry and its creators are no longer given much autonomy to create distinct and unique art. They argue that the capitalistic society today has led to the shift to a profit-oriented mindset among media industry and content creators. They strongly believe that the days of creative freedom that once defined art has become tainted with the need to make as much money out of it as possible. They assert that this has thus led to the commodification of culture by media industries, milking cultures as thoroughly as possible of any profit to be made. Therefore, the authors maintain the belief that the media industry has become stagnant and stale with the content it produces, or is able to produce. The creation of art has become restricted by the wants and demands of consumers as well as the need to maximise profits, consequently limiting creative control and thus limited the production of radical art.

Today, there are many social media platforms providing individuals spaces to express creative freedom and put out their creations for the public to view. This thus might bring about the illusion that creators thus are liberated from any restraints while creating video content, rendering Adorno and Horkheimer's arguments inaccurate. However, I still agree with the authors point of view, looking at YouTubers and the content created by them. There are many elements taken into consideration when creators decide on what videos to produce, such as how the public would take the content, the success of the video with regards to viewership, as well as the inclusion of sponsored products or services. I argue that YouTubers are often times dictated by their sponsors, framing their videos to fit the sponsored product as much as possible. I personally enjoy watching the videos that YouTuber Linh Truong puts out. However, I notice that her videos often make use of very clever and intentional ways to include her sponsors. For example, Truong made a video about her building a Personal Computer (PC), ending it off advertising Logitech's wireless mouse. Another particular format of videos of hers are bedroom makeovers or tours, where she would include sponsors such as Lull and Bed, Bath and Beyond, which are distinctly retail stores that sell domestic merchandise. While it does seem like she has creative freedom to plan, shoot and edit videos, effectively catering to both her creative endeavours as well as including her sponsors in unique ways, I wonder if this is actually reflective of capitalistic goals that restrict her from really creating anything she wants instead. She is bound by contract to speak good things about the sponsors and their product. She also has to frame her entire video to complement the product that is being advertised. Furthermore, she is encouraged to continually posts these types of content, so as to keep the sponsorship she has with these companies, and get greater profits. Truong is one of many other YouTubers who are bounded by sponsorships and profit gain, restricting their own creative freedom as a result of a capitalistic mindset. This clearly illustrates the point that the authors have posited. The YouTube algorithm constantly tracks and provides creators with data on how their content is performing with the mass public. It thus becomes a numbers game, as the statistics instruct YouTuber on what to create in order to maximise the number of likes, subscriber count and viewership count. This then leads to YouTubers producing similar content to maintain and increase the viewership count. The result of this is the standardisation and rationalisation of these creators' work, such that most if not all of the content of creators become similar in style and concept. This in turn results in the loss of creative freedom among creators, as creators are motivated to continue this cycle so as to keep up with the increasing trend of viewership and thus profits. Therefore, I believe that what Adorno and Horkheimer describe to be the commodification of culture leading to a loss of autonomy with regards to creative control and art production is very much prevalent even today, by looking at YouTube and the media produced by content creators.

Here are the videos by Truong that I mentioned of!

The video sponsored by Logitech: building my first PC + desk setup (productivity and aesthetic)

The video sponsored by Lull: revamping my bed 🛏🌿💫

The video sponsored by Bed, Bath and Beyond: bedroom makeover 🌙  (cute + functional)

(Her videos are masterpieces, and I hope my blog post does not take away from the creative genius of her videos! And I hope you enjoy her content as much as I do)

References:

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2006). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. Media and cultural studies: Keyworks, 41-72.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 3: Mobile Media (Sarah Khoo)

In this reading, Anderson, Ito and Okabe (2017) explore how mobile media has shaped and transformed the everyday life of people living in urban spaces. Through their research, they focused on how people used these mobile media objects to interact with the environment around them, particularly the public spaces they are in and public infrastructure. These mobile objects were not exclusive to interpersonal communication technologies, and included other portable objects such as books and personal data assistants (eg. identity cards). Okabe et al. looked at how people were present with mobile media in urban spaces and categorized them into 3 parts: Cocooning, Camping and Footprinting. Firstly,  Cocooning was described to be the practice of using our mobile devices to preoccupy ourselves while in a public space, so as to maintain their personal space. Next, Camping refers to the a temporal yet prolonged period of stay, where an individual intentionally settles down in a public space, appropriating the space. Finally, Footprinting focuses on the portable devices people carry around, mediating and personalizing people's relationships to various establishments in urban space. The authors expanded on how the use of mobile media has become so prevalent in our everyday lives, especially for those with urban lifestyles. This has led me to ponder about how important the smartphone has become to my everyday life. I have become so desperately dependent on my mobile phone that losing my phone would feel so helpless, as if my entire self has been robbed from me.

Smartphones have transcended its original purpose of allowing users to communicate with others, transforming into a device that can practically do anything, at any time. From investing in stock to paying for a pack of chicken rice at the hawker center. Playing mahjong with friends on the go, to checking when the next bus is arriving. You could literally do all four things simultaneously too. It is incredible how easy the smartphone has made it for people to shift our attention from one thing to the next, making accessibility and productivity so simple. By having access to the internet, people are connected to anything and everything that is available, be it through mobile applications or websites. Consequently, I find that the phone is the prime example for all three categories of mobile media presence in my own everyday life, and thus fully agree with Okabe et al.'s points.

My phone is my primary form of mobile media that I use to "cocoon" myself in any public space. It is second nature for me to put on my earphones, connect them to my phone and play my go-to Spotify playlist every time I am commuting alone. Any idle moment is filled with me scrolling through Instagram or watching Netflix or TikTok. Having my earphones on allows me to block out the surrounding sounds, enabling me to be blissfully unaware of the people around me and humdrum of public transport. My phone keeps my attention occupied, and I feel significantly less tense as compared to when I don't have my phone for company, often looking anywhere just to avoid making eye contact with others, with fear of starting up a conversation with a stranger that would leave me feeling awkward and uncomfortable. In this instance, I am just passing through the public space, with no intention of prolonging my stay. Therefore, my phone allows me to keep to my personal bubble and I do my best to mind my own business. I occasionally get so caught up on my phone that I would even miss my stop, resulting in me having to do the walk of shame of alighting at the MRT next stop and awkwardly crossing to the other side of the platform to wait for the next train. Lucky no one's paying attention to me, and are usually on their phones as well.

I find that my phone is also effective as a device that would allow me to "camp" in a public area. It works just as well as any laptop or tablet when it comes to studying as well. I would often sit in public spaces such as libraries or cafes to catch up on recorded lectures, watch movies or even have Zoom meetings with my friends. My phone acts as the personal belonging that I place to 'put my roots down', claiming the space for myself and settling down, readying myself to spend a significant amount of time in that public space. As I purposefully plan my day such that I set time aside to relax at the nearby park to watch the new episode of attack on titans, I am exhibiting the concept of "encampment". Thus, I believe that my phone plays an active role in facilitating "camping" in my day to day life.

Finally, my phone is perhaps the best example I can give with regards to "footprinting", aside from my identity and transport cards! Online banking is incredibly convenient, and an increasing number of retail shops and restaurants are accepting payment via PayNow, PayLah or Google Pay. Google Pay even offers "Cashback" if you use their service to transact money. As such, I tend to favor shops that allow me to pay through these means, inadvertently altering my behavior for my convenience. This in turn allows for mobile media to "trace" my movements and track my behavior. Furthermore, quite a few of my membership information can be found on my phone, for example the McDonald's application. The value deals that I am given through the application encourages me to frequent McDonald's, especially when I cannot decide where to eat in the moment. My phone thus serves as a medium for me to actively form interpersonal relationships with commercial establishments, which in turn allows for these establishments to track my everyday behavior.

The extent to which my smartphone assists me in my day to day life is quite extreme. I could easily say that I am overly dependent on my phone for basic needs like getting from one place to the next (MyTransport App, Maps) or even getting access to restricted places in school (going to Central Library and needing a green pass from uNivUS app). As Okabe et al. articulates the 3 main ways that we use our mobile media to interact with urban public spaces, I can fully agree with their insights on Cocooning, Camping and Footprinting.

References:

Ito, M., Okabe, D., & Anderson, K. (2017). Portable objects in three global cities: The personalization of urban places. In The Reconstruction of Space and Time (pp. 67-87). Routledge.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 2: Media effects of the domestic space, past and present (Sarah Khoo)

In Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media, Spigel (2015) takes a closer look at the role that the television, as a media outlet, plays within the common household. She discusses the effects of the television in many aspects, particularly making the distinction between how these big screens serve both a communal purpose in a public space (eg. keeping the family at home and together by watching shows together), as well as a personal, individualistic purpose in the private space (eg. allowing individuals to explore their sexuality, imagining different realities etc.). Spigel further posits that the television has very strong influences on the domestic space, particularly on the time and space of households. She highlights that in the 1950s, "TV was often depicted as a spatial apparatus that brought families closer together" (p 40), and that people "manage TV spaces… in ways that fit with household routines" (P 41). Spigel elaborates on how the purposes that the television serves, particularly for the household as a whole. She mentions how the television was being used to unify the family and ensure that all are "safe" by staying in the home as much as possible.

I remember back when I was in primary school, when my grandmother lived with my parents and I, under the same roof. We had one communal television in the living room, and it was one of the very few sources of media entertainment that my family partook in (among other media sources such as books, newspapers, and one incredibly slow PC). I have very strong memories of eagerly awaiting for class to end so that I could reach home in time to watch my favourite shows, like Clean My Room and Power Rangers. We would always gather as a family in the evening to have dinner while watching the "9pm show", that being new episodes of Mediacorp's Singaporean chinese dramas being aired on channel 8. Gradually, we begin having dinner at the makeshift coffee table instead of the dining table to have our dinner while the show was on. Even as a child, my space and time was demarcated by the schedule of the television programmes. I would live my day to day life counting down the time till my favourite shows would air, looking forward to every passing day so new episodes would be released. Shows were often great talking points among my friends and I too, which further instilled in me this sense of joy and need to keep up with television programmes. At the time, I had thought nothing about how our television made such a lasting impact on my everyday life. Now, by looking at my experiences through the lens that Spigel offers, I start to see how great an impact the television had on my own family. The television and its media effects had largely governed our daily routines, while also enhancing my relationships with both my family and my friends. It even played a role in establishing socialism — the classmates that did not have the luxury of having "cable tv" had no access to exclusive channels such as Cartoon Network, Disney Channel and so on, and thus were unable to enter conversations that discussed about the shows on these channels. Upon reflecting on my childhood experiences, Spigel brings very apt points on the media effects of television.

However, looking at today's context, I find that the claims Spigel are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The world and its technologies have advanced at such incredible speeds that most of the shows that we could once watch on television are now readily available on our mobile devices. Furthermore, these smart devices are not limited to airing shows on a scheduled basis. Users are free to actively choose what they want to watch, when, and for how long (watching whole-season shows). People are becoming less dependent on the television for its media affordances, whether is it for entertainment or catching up with the news. As households are becoming less reliant on the television, the media effects that the television have on the domestic space has definitely become less. One could argue that the same media effects that the television once had on households are now being shifted to that of smart, mobile devices. However, I would think that these devices are taking away the very nature of the television, that is that it takes up a fixed, relatively public space and thus is able to have such an effect on the domestic space. With mobile phones and laptops, the nature of them being so private and personal , They do to some extent still allow for similar effects that the television had, as Spigel posited, for example when many people are watching one person's phone as they share a funny video. Yet, I do think that the effects of the devices that are now mobile and small-screened on domestic spaces are not quite the same as those Spigel puts forwards with regards to televisions.

Spigel, L. (2015). TV and the Spaces of Everyday Life. Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media (pp. 39-48). Springer, Dordrecht.

[sarahkhoojijean]

Blogpost 1: Mediatization; mediatized communication and its construction of social worlds

In chapter 2 of The Mediated Construction of Reality, Couldry and Hepp (2017) expand on the concept of mediatisation, whereby it is the phenomenon where social worlds are being facilitated and even enhanced by communication. They posit that the very "dynamics and structure" of these worlds are being shaped, influenced and transformed by the media and its content. They further highlight that communication through mediated means allow for much more than what real life conversations could. They particularly point out that mediated communication "enabl[es] two parties to share simultaneous focused attention on the same external communicative stream", while also allowing communicators to refer to their previous conversations, "allowing for continuous streams of information" to further enhance the conversation. They also point out that media can also serve as a "current resource" used to substantiate the conversation by showing something through their media. Using this lens provided by Couldry and Hepp to view my personal interactions with the people around me, I find greater insights as to how the mediatising of everyday communication is a very prevalent phenomenon. It feels very natural for my peers and I to pull out pictures and texts saved and backed up from years ago to our current conversation, a feat that would be difficult and perhaps even impossible without today's technologies and those abilities it affords us as users.

Another point that I found jarring despite it being a mundane truth, is how technologies now have easily incorporated the natural needs of communication, allowing us to communicate almost too comfortably through online means and despite not being in the same place. The mediatised communication that takes place through platforms such as Zoom or Discord feel oddly natural and comfortable at times, and I believe it is attributed to the many affordances that these communication platforms have embedded, replicating the social cues of everyday communication. For example, beyond just being able to see each other through video conferencing, Zoom affords us the ability to "Raise Hand" and have our video pop up to top, gaining the attention of the rest of the class and the tutor facilitating the class. Zoom also allows for articulate but introverted participants to dive deeper into their insights via the chat, which is personally brings out big sigh of relief for me when tutors allow for the participants to share their thoughts through text. Zoom further allows us to express affirmation or disagreement through emoticons, which I would think is very helpful for tutors when gauging the class' reaction and opinion regarding a topic. As with another video conferencing and streaming platform, Discord, many functions are available that simulate meeting up in a real life setting. There are "rooms" such as the "general" room and the "lounge room", where different people within the same community/group can enter different "rooms" to converse with those in that particular "room", simulating the entering and leaving of a physical space and only being connected with those in the same space, all the while still being part of the same overall space/community.

Therefore, I agree with Couldry and Hepp's view that mediatised communication has enhanced our abilities to converse, both affecting and improving the way we communicate with others by both allowing communication to feel natural and easy (making it feel almost as if it were taking place in real life), while also allowing for the impossible to happen (eg. communicating across spaces, without spoken words, ridding the awkward tension or nervousness one may feel).