weeklythoughtblog

[weeklythoughtblog]

Spotify Teardown

As revealed in Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music by Eriksson, Fleischer, Johansson, Snickars, and Vonderau, Spotify’s black box algorithm makes it hard to determine why I am served particular ads, but it likely has something to do with the gender, age, and other personal factors affiliated with my personal account. While ultra-targeted advertising may work on Facebook and Instagram, I do not believe it is effective on Spotify. In fact, I think Spotify’s advertising model is not only ineffective, but its intrusive nature causes people, like myself, to leave the platform altogether. For the sake of writing this blog, I logged into my free Spotify account and spent around 30 minutes listening to one of my favorite “Study/Concentration” playlists, tracking what ads I received. Side note - I genuinely believe this genre plays ads more frequently than other categories, and I’d love to see if there is a way to study this. During this listening session, I received ads for SNHU.edu, Charmin toilet paper, Barilla pasta, State Farm, and new podcasts related to my listening history. Once again, I’m left thinking, why does Spotify think I’m interested in these ads? I wish there were a “Why am I seeing (hearing) this ad?” like Facebook. Skimming through Spotify Advertising’s “The essential guide to audio creativity,” I came across a link to a podcast called Creativity You Can’t See, which seems like more of an advertorial aimed at convincing brands to advertise via Spotify. The podcast makes some pretty big claims, especially when it relates to how big data, which they call “Steaming Intelligence,” can benefit advertisers:

         “Streaming Intelligence essentially fuels more activity, better playlists, and even better advertising, served in the right moment, based on context [emphasis added]” (Creativity You Can’t See, Episode 3, Music Mirrors: Personalization).          “Every stream, skip, and follow teaches us something about the way fans like to listen, and that Streaming Intelligence is how we create a better audio experience for every listener. Because when it’s personalized, our fans stream more. And, you guessed it, when brands tailor their creative to the individual listener’s, they engage more [emphasis added]” (Creativity You Can’t See, Episode 4, Tasty Treats: Streaming Intelligence).

Reflecting on the ads I’ve been served in Spotify recently, I believe their claims are grossly overstated. My Facebook account is linked to Spotify, which gives advertisers a lot more personalized data to tailor ad content. But, I'm still receiving ads that I have zero interest in, and ads that just feel out of place.

Who in the world thought that delivering an ad for pasta, toilet paper, or insurance in the middle of a “Study Music” playlist would lead to higher brand awareness and return on ad spend? Oh yes, I’m definitely going to stop my intense study-session to get a new quote on my car insurance.

Maybe my experience is unique. I’d love to hear about the ads you receive on Spotify.

Do you feel they are hyper-targeted?

Are they delivered at just the right moment?

Basically, do the ads feel creepy, like Spotify is spying on you? ​

If you answered yes to any of the questions above, I guess Spotify’s “Streaming Intelligence” is working. But, if not, then Spotify, we (brands/advertisers) need to see a little less conversation and a little more action.

[weeklythoughtblog]

An Unbiased Internet?

My extended family recently watched Green Book, the 2018 film starring Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen. The film tells the true story of Don Shirley, an African American pianist, and his white driver/bodyguard Frank Vallelonga, as they travel through the Deep South for Shirley’s musical tour, using The Negro Motorist Green Book to safely guide their journey. In the first few pages of Distributed Blackness, André Brock references “the Green Book as an example of distributed Blackness - an informational artifact linking Black information seekers to Black cultural resources across a network” (p. 3), referring to the actual Green Book, not the film. After watching this film and reading Brock’s book, I have spent some time reflecting on how I have never had to navigate a system that was not built for and by people like me. A privilege of being white and female. This reflection has prompted me to take a more active and critical stance on how online spaces contribute to oppression and inequality.

Built-in bias.

“Race has never been fairly considered as a contributor to [internet] culture. Whiteness is rarely understood as an element of internet culture(s) even though the vast majority of creators, coders, engineers, venture capitalists, and designers are white or white-adjacents” (Brock, 2020, p. 124).

Today’s internet relies on algorithms for just about everything. These algorithms are created by humans (primarily white and male, see quote above), and are trained using data sets - which humans also create.

Yaël Eisenstat, ex-CIA officer and former head of election integrity for Facebook from June to November 2018, says that “No matter how trained or skilled you may be, it is 100 percent human to rely on cognitive bias to make decisions.”

Eisenstat claims that technology cannot be truly unbiased, and “the tech industry needs to actually invest in real cognitive bias training and empower true experts to address these issues.”

Brock (2020) reinforces Eisenstat’s ideology in Chapter 3. Brock argues that Black Twitter would have remained undiscovered if it were not for 1) the untimely death of Michael Jackson and 2) the 2009 Black Entertainment Television (BET) Awards. During the program, Black Twitter users cheered and communicated about performances and Black cultural topics began to trend - which caused confusion by non-Black users. Sadly, this is not a surprising fact. Brock posits the following: 

“The appearance of these Black cultural topics as informational trends was met with confusion—if not outright revulsion—by non-Black Twitter users. From these Twitter reactions, it is possible to see the hitherto unexplored role of antiblackness in Twitter practice, Western technoculture, and cyberculture.” (Brock, 2020, ch. 3)

Considering that it took a death to bring Black cultural topics to the table and that the raising of these topics garnered a negative reaction - even in 2009, makes me ponder the similarities of reactions related to social injustice issues that have been in existence for decades.

Black-owned businesses in a biased system.

Several weeks ago, after reading Hindman’s The Internet Trap, I realized that “you cannot build a business today without standing on another company’s (digital) shoulders”.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, Black-owned businesses have suffered the most, declining by twice the rate of white-owned businesses. In a recent video, “Why Black-Owned Businesses Don’t Survive”, CNBC explores the historical systems of oppression that put Black entrepreneurs at a significant disadvantage compared to whites and other minority groups. And, it appears that this oppression is carried into the online business realm as well. In July 2020, Google launched the option for businesses to add a Black-owned business attribute to their Google Business profile. This attribute badge was focused on highlighting black-owned businesses within local and map searches. Then, at the start of Black History Month 2021,  Google announced a new search feature to make it easier for users to find and support Black-owned businesses in Google’s shopping tab.   Unfortunately, I’m afraid this was a PR move by Google that really isn’t functional in the marketplace. After testing the feature, I found it is unlikely for a Black-owned business to appear in the shopping tab. I recreated the same search for “planter stands” demonstrated on the Google Small Business Blog, which brought up results for products from big-box stores like World Market, Walmart, Home Depot, IKEA, Wayfair and Target. Taking this experiment a step further, I searched for “planter stands black owned business”.

As you can see from the screenshots below, this search yielded similar, large retailer results, with no products from Black-owned businesses represented on the first page.

Note: this search was  conducted in “incognito” mode in Google Chrome and should not be influenced by my personal search history.

These results reinforce Hindman’s (2018) argument that a centralized internet stifles the ability of entrepreneurs (especially BIPOC entrepreneurs) to succeed. Perhaps Google will continue to refine this new search feature, as it is only a little over one month old. However, I can’t help but wonder if the former Blackbird “Black Search” would have produced better results for planter stands search.

[weeklythoughtblog]

FOMO, Tiger King, and the Online Watercooler.

There is something special about watching a live event on TV. Whether it’s a live sporting event like the Olympics or breaking news about a national tragedy, there is a sense of community while watching something you know thousands of people are tuning in to watch at the same time. However, with the rise of increasingly segmented and personalized media channels, these widespread community viewing experiences are becoming a rarity. Gone are the days where you chatted about last night’s episode of American Idol around the watercooler. This week’s readings suggest that maybe the office watercooler has moved from a physical space to an online space - thanks to second screening, defined as: “Use [of] a digital device (i.e., smartphone or laptop) while watching television to access the Internet and social network sites in order to obtain more information about or discuss the program [you] are watching” (Zúñiga et al., 2015).

The online watercooler.

Williams and Gonlin (2017) showed how second screening, while co-viewing the television show How to Get Away with Murder lead to powerful online dialogues, the development of online communities, and even had the potential to strengthen existing offline relationships. In many ways, this is the perfect example of the online watercooler analogy. Let me take this watercooler analogy a little further… In 2019, I had just started a new job, and all my coworkers were talking about Schitt’s Creek. I have extreme FOMO (fear of missing out), so naturally, I spent the weekend binge watching Schitt's Creek. ​I believe second screening conversations about media influences outgroup members and may increase their desire to become ingroup members, especially when it comes to entertainment media. Case in point: Tiger King. Why did I watch Tiger King? The memes. ​Throughout March 2020, I could not scroll through my Facebook or Instagram feed without feeling like I was the only person not in on the joke. Much like the meme-ification of Bernie Sanders (Penney, 2017), second screening conversations and memes about Tiger King made Joe Exotic, Carole Baskin, Doc Antle, and the rest of the cast a cultural sensation.

Would Tiger King have been so successful if it had not been released in the early lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic? Probably not. Actually, I believe the COVID-19 lockdown significantly contributed to the popularity of Tiger King. As many faced isolation and separation from offline networks, Tiger King provided an opportunity for people to connect through a shared viewing experience and develop an online community.

Are media giants cashing in on co-viewing?

Looking back at Tiger King, my awareness of this show came solely from social media memes. I never saw an advertisement or mention of the show on legacy or entertainment news. In fact, my Netflix account was suspended due to an expired credit card when the Tiger King craze started. It’s important to consider that media entities are aware of the power of “grassroots” online discussions to influence media consumption. There has been a lot of buzz around Netflix creating its own memes in order to gain audience attention for specific programs. Most notably, Netflix’s meme strategy for the subpar horror film, Bird Box. While co-viewing and second screening can be a great way to connect with a community and foster meaningful discussions, as with all things online, we must dig a bit deeper and ask ourselves, is this an authentic conversation, or is there a commercial motivation behind this?

Williams and Gonlin (2017) recognized how culture can impact an individual’s communication through a second screen and how hashtags can detect technoculture.  My understanding of he second screen is two-fold: deliberative discourse, exposing users to multiple viewpoints. It is also interesting to consider that unlike it’s meager beginnings, watching TV is no longer unidirectional. 

This concept itself needs more emphasis in research that focuses on engagement and behavior mechanisms. Experiencing media has never been a one-dimensional experience, in reference to people watching television and reading newspapers. However, the difference is the connection and group experience of understanding happening at overlap moments. Black Twitter becomes an example a lot, but it truly is a distinctive experience that needs further observation.

Black Twitter has inspired social movements, political participation, and cohesive discussion of Black experiences. This online participation’s exclusive usage brings me to think about #IfIWereGunnedDown, a 2014 movement where the Black community chose photos of them looking “professional” vs. an image with gang signs or drinking alcohol. During this time, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were painted as criminals through the news media images instead of young boys’ innocent young boys. The purpose of this movement was to demonstrate how news media continues to use violent, damaging images of people of color, typically African Americans, while numerous sexual assault cases and terrorist, generally White men, were shown in a more approachable manner. Through the hashtag, the Black community shared the Black experience that mirrored other Black experiences. Black Twitter became a second screen.

The conversation expands to wondering the motivation of using a second screen discussed in Zúñiga et al. (2015). Why do people choose to use a separate sphere for discussion after or while exposed to a different media platform? Much recently, #MeghanandHarryonOprah / #MeghanandHarry was trending on Twitter as the interview with Oprah Winfrey debuted. Black Twitter used the hashtag to reiterate the racism experienced by the royal couple and how the Black community can be their haven. Tweeting individual thoughts that include gifs, memes, and the hashtag motivates people to feel included at the moment happening and even trace other like-minded opinions. 

[weeklythoughtblog]

Political Implications of Life Online, and the Dangers of a Disconnected Democracy.

In the first week of class, we discussed the question, "Is online life real life?". My feeling, at that time, was that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more of our lives are playing out online.

Before the pandemic, many of us used the internet and social networking sites to connect with others and learn about the world around us. However, throughout the pandemic, the internet has become a metaphorical umbilical cord, tethering us to our social, professional, and academic lives.

There was a point in each of the articles this week that made me stop and say, "This is why we cannot live our lives solely online!". We NEED some element of face-to-face, in-the-flesh, human interaction for society to function.

Here's a breakdown of my "aha" moments from each article:

Dvir-Gvirsman: A preference for partisan media sources does not make someone eventually turn into a political extremist.

Flores-Saviaga and Savage: What we see online is not always true, and trolls know how to hijack data voids to push their own agenda filled with disinformation.  

Kleemans et al.: Generally speaking, we suck at distinguishing what online is real and credible from what is not real and not credible. More often than not, we believe what we see online.

McGregor, Lawrence and Cardona: Politicians know we suck at discerning authenticity online (see above) and may use this to their advantage by sharing strategically "personalized" campaign content through social media.

Groshek & Koc-Michalska: The 2016 presidential election could have had a very different outcome if we had focused on talking to our offline networks rather than our online networks.

The findings from Groshek and Koc-Michalska's (2017) study regarding the 2016 presidential election really stood out to me. This study examines how varying levels of active and passive political engagement with online and offline networks contributed to the support of populist candidates in the 2016 election cycle.  

The findings show that those who relied primarily on television for political coverage were more likely to support Trump or Clinton, and passive social media users were more likely to support Trump. This was not surprising, as I remember Trump and Clinton dominating the media channels I used.

Looking back on that time, my perception of the media's narrative for these two candidates was: "Clinton is the favorite. First female President, let's make history! Oh, don't pay any attention to Bernie over there, this is just a phase."

"Look at these ridiculous tweets from Donald Trump, this is a great topic-filler on Good Morning America because he's so outrageous, and will never be elected. Clinton is obviously going to win, so no point in covering any other candidates over at the GOP."

Again, these are just my personal memories. If you remember it differently, I'd love to hear your experiences with the 2016 presidential election because talking about politics with people who have diverse backgrounds and perspectives, online and especially offline, is so important. ​

Speaking of why offline political conversations are important… Groshek and Koc-Michalska (2017) also looked at the impact of offline network heterogeneity on populist candidate support, and this is the part that really got me:

“In fact, having a diversified network of offline communication did result in increasing the likelihood of supporting populist political actors from the left and the right, namely Sanders and Carson, by 1.39 and 1.91 times, respectively." ​(Groshek & Koc-Michalska, 2017, p. 1400) [emphasis added]

Like Groshek and Koc-Michalska found, I had a lot of conversations with people offline about the candidacy of both President Biden and Former President Trump. This article made me think:​

If we talked about politics offline as much as we do online, would the results of the 2020 election be different?

Also... Who came up with the ridiculous etiquette rule that it's rude to discuss politics?

​Why are politics a topic we steer away from? Honestly, I know more about my friend's sex lives than I do about their politics.

I found this great blog by R. Shawn McBride that provides a compelling argument for why we should be leaning in and engaging in political conversations.

​For example, Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, and the public and media's shock that he actually won, is a prime example of how our political system is disconnected from the truth. ​​

“Somehow enough people that supported Donald Trump's cause existed, but most people didn't know that. And that's scary for democracy. Our lawmakers go to work with a distorted view of what we, the people, want. Laws might be passed based on that distorted view." - R. Shawn McBride

McBride goes on to discuss how big decisions on things like Artificial Intelligence and cryptocurrency are on the horizon. And, with the majority of U.S. citizens abiding by the old adage of "never talk about politics in polite company," our lawmakers run the risk of making the wrong decision for the future of our nation.

​"If we don't have the hard conversations and reach agreement on important decisions, someone else will make those decisions for us. And we'll all be the passengers as our world is shaped by others." - R. Shawn McBride ​

To close, I'll leave you with Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's The Danger of a Single Story. I believe this is especially relevant to these readings but also to our current sociopolitical climate.

[weeklythoughtblog]

Memes. The Secret Sauce for Spreading Online Messages.

This week's readings were challenging for me, as so many of them focused on Twitter - arguably my least favorite social media platform. While fighting to understand how Twitter works from a theoretical standpoint, with its various clusters and nodes, I developed one powerful takeaway from these readings:

Although big accounts (such as celebrities, news entities, and thought leaders) have more influence and reach on social media networks, it seems the tides are turning. Mobilizing a group of "regular folks" on social networks, united behind a common cause or idea, can flip the model - beating algorithms and overpowering legacy news organizations. ​

So what's uniting and mobilizing people on the internet now? Memes.

In late 2020, we have watched Meme Stocks are cause controversy on Wall Street, and merchandise featuring the viral Bernie Sanders mittens meme raise $1.8 million for charities. Speaking of Bernie Sanders, I did not realize that he has been the star of many pre-mitten memes. I was fascinated by Joel Penney's (2017) article about the effect of meme culture on Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign.

Penney's (2017) article examines how the Sanders campaign initially employed a formal "controlled interactivity" strategy, with the Connect with Bernie (CWB) website to mobilize his supporters and amplify his message on social media. CWB allowed Sanders supporters to sign up to receive important alerts when their help was needed to engage with and share campaign messages through social network sites. This top-down approach worked, but what was even more effective was the campaign's unofficial grass-roots movement, Bernie Sanders Dank Meme Stash (BSDMS).

At the surface level, Bernie Sanders is the opposite of cool, an elderly white man, whose speeches are accompanied by dramatic arm gestures, as if he is conducting a symphony orchestra. However, the BDSMS Facebook group made Bernie a cool, cultural sensation among younger voters.

​What is it about memes, especially political ones, that makes them so popular?

How can an image with text overlay take the internet by storm? Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post sums it up pretty well:

“For one thing, memes are usually pretty funny. They're also inherently participatory and shareable in a way that news articles or official campaign missives are not: They're faster, better attuned to current culture and events, and less likely to tick off disagreeing friends or relatives" (Dewey, 2016).

Exploring the political memes phenomenon further, I found a more recent study from Joel Penney (2019) that examines the relationship between memes, humor, and political expression among youth in the U.S. Penney (2019) found that many young people engage with and share humorous political memes as a way to "express feelings such as outrage and disbelief toward the political news of the day, and by receiving validation from peers through mutual laughter" (p. 803). Participants in the study indicated that sharing these memes is a way to find validation from like-minded peers and feel like they are not alone in the stressful political climate. ​ However, some participants in the study (Penney, 2019) worried that political memes trivialize the issues and contribute to negative political conversations online. "The perception that political meme humor contributes to a hostile and hyper-polarized environment on social media (see Marwick and Lewis 2017; Milner 2013b) also led some youth to avoid participating in its circulation and opting for other forms of online political expression and interaction that were seen as less contentious." (Penney, 2019, p. 802).

The history of Memes . It's longer than you think.

Through this journey to understand memes and how they impact our society, I learned that the concept of memes has actually been around longer than the internet, originally coined by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene" (1976). Dawkins defined memes as a way that humans develop and spread understanding through society for evolutionary purposes.

Going back to ancient times and applying this definition, we could say how the knowledge of fire-building or agricultural practices spread from human-to-human, community-to-community, is a meme.

And, in 2020, the spread of the Savage Love and other TikTok dances was also a meme. How useful a TikTok dance is for evolutionary purposes is yet to be determined. 

The usage and spread of memes are measurable because, as Shontavia Johnson explains in her 2019 TedxAtlanta appearance, "memes are scientific units of cultural information."

However, while memes are measurable in terms of their use and spread, we must acknowledge these are units of expression whose meaning can change and evolve depending on the context. If you've ever played What Do You Meme? then you've seen this effect in real-time. 

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why memes are so popular in our online communities. Because they can be applied to so many different situations and used to express ourselves when we can't find the right words to share our thoughts and feelings.

This video (linked in the text) blew my mind with the explanation of the science behind memes, going back to Dawkins' 1976 definition of the concept. I definitely think this is a topic I would like to explore further this semester.

So, where am I going with all of this?

​I am sure you’re reading this and thinking, “Rexanna, literally one article mentioned memes this week. What’s your point?” 

My point is that I believe meme culture is inextricably linked with how we communicate online, which may have major implications for online network structures and the flow of information.

[weeklythoughtblog]

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

Are Filter Bubbles Real? by Axel Bruns explores the concepts of filter bubbles and echo chambers, their persistence (or lack thereof) in online communities, and the societal implications of these concepts. ​ ​ 

*Spoiler Alert*: throughout the book, Bruns shows that filter bubbles and echo chambers are not real.  

So, why have these buzzwords continued to circulate? I believe, like any good lie, it is because the concept of filter bubbles and echo chambers are based partially on truth. The truth is, it’s human nature to select who we surround ourselves with, and where, how, and what type of information we consume. Those who support the existence of filter bubbles and echo chambers argue that social media sites and their algorithms intensify our selectivity to the point where users are ultimately trapped in a bubble or chamber that only contains content and connections aligning with the user’s beliefs and preferences. The data in Are Filter Bubbles Real? show that this is not the case. First, we live in a media-rich world and are not limited to Facebook and Twitter as the only sources of information. The bubble/chamber concept assumes you exclusively rely on one of these platforms for all of your information. Second, people have preferences for communication and connections, but these preferences do not cause users to block any and all content they disagree with. In reality, platforms like Facebook and Twitter expose users to more diverse content due to context collapse. Is context collapse the key to a functioning democracy?

Context collapse is an important concept to keep in mind as we think about one of the main issues addressed in the book - how political conversations are carried out online. In the introductory chapter of the book, the functionality of democracy is said to depend on the “unsought, unanticipated, and even unwanted exposure to diverse topics, people and ideas” (Bruns, 2019, p.19). I would argue that this quote is an excellent illustration of context collapse, which you could say is the antithesis of a filter bubble or echo chamber. Taking this a step further, if context collapse is important to a well-functioning democracy, and social networking sites create high levels of context collapse, then maybe all we need to do to hash out our political issues is head to Facebook?                 ^ Just kidding. So, whose fault is it? If you spent any time online during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, then you probably rolled your eyes at the previous paragraph. The majority of Americans say talking about politics online is exhausting and frustrating. Our inability to engage in issue-based dialogues, whether face-to-face or online, is a serious threat to society. But, why are we unable to hold civil discussions about politics on social networks? What is the root cause of this? Bruns points the finger back at humanity, saying technology and the internet are not to blame. 

“Today, the problem in online and offline communication is not that citizens are sealed into hyperpartisan and extremist echo chambers or filter bubbles, but that too many citizens hold hyperpartisan and extremist views. The problem, in short, is polarisation, not fragmentation” (Bruns, 2019, p. 105). 

Bruns argues that as an individual’s level of political polarization increases, they become less willing to listen to the opposition. They still hear and see opposing content but are unwavering in their stance. ​ What is causing this polarization? Bruns cites issues like inequalities and political propaganda. I would say both of these issues are to blame for our present situation - systemic inequalities, amplified and inflamed by political propaganda on both sides of the aisle. I still blame Facebook (partially).

In the attention economy of the internet, algorithms favor the controversial. When is the last time you’ve seen a politically moderate post go viral? The current Facebook algorithm promotes posts that garner comments, and posts with “meaningful interactions” (i.e., replying and carrying on conversations in the comments) have even more priority in the newsfeed. Therefore, the most polarized among us are the ones we often see when we log-on to our social networks. I truly hope we have reached the peak of polarization in the U.S. and that the next few years bring more moderate, understanding, and bipartisan conversations to our online communities.  

[weeklythoughtblog]

The Internet Trap - Thought Blog #3

Honestly, I don’t know how to feel after reading Hindman’s The Internet Trap. For a brief time after completing my Master’s degree, I worked at a logistics (trucking) and produce marketing agency where I specialized in brand development and using the internet to help the business grow. Here, I was responsible for building a logo, website, Facebook, and Instagram for each of the trucking companies who wanted to work with the produce business. Most of the clients owned their own trucking businesses in the logistics industry, so I went in with realistic expectations regarding website traffic and rankings. But, I still preached to clients about how “content is king” and the option to retain my services to execute a frequency-focused blogging strategy even if they decided to forego the produce sector. I remember agonizing over SEO and sitting in a three-day-long summit learning how to outsmart the dreaded Google Penguin algorithm update. But, after reading The Internet Trap, I realize that while these businesses chose to work with my firm, they were also forced to create an online presence for their business. The fact is, you cannot grow and sustain a brick-and-mortar-only business you must have some online presence to succeed. And this online presence comes at a price.

The Internet Trap made me look at my previous job at a macro level. Yes, clients were paying me to build a website for them. But, we then paid for the domain, hosting, paid search ads (Google), Facebook ads, SSL certificates - the list goes on and on. While the business and the client were profiting, we failed to acknowledge the Google-Facebook duopoly was profiting as well. In today’s market, having an online presence for your business is just as crucial as having electricity - maybe even more so. While the internet has lowered barriers to entry and allowed millions of small businesses and artisans to reach a larger market than ever before, internet giants are also taking a portion of their profits with them. Quite a frustrating process if you as me.

Hindman’s book did not really offer a solution to the present situation, however, it does drive home the point that while many idealists view the internet as a democratized system, it is quite the opposite - a centralized system controlled by the most powerful firms at the top. Over the past few weeks, we have seen the consequences of this centralized system play out in the media. For example, Parler, which is currently in limbo as they struggle to find a hosting service after being banned by Apple and Amazon. Twitter censoring and permanently banning former president Donald Trump, and then (ironically) condemning the Ugandan government for blocking Twitter and other social media apps ahead of the country’s presidential election.

So, what is next - how can we overcome this oppressive internet structure? I don’t feel like I have a solid answer, but I am inspired by some of the information I have discovered about Blockchain, Bitcoin, and Web 3.0. The potential to create a decentralized internet through Blockchain, a system where users own their data, is exciting. The idea that selling user data would not be possible in a Blockchain system is, frankly, hard to wrap my mind around. Ironically enough, I had to search the Internet to come to this conclusion. But alas...

This video gives a great overview of how this system could work, and while most of this sounds far-fetched, this is an area I would like to explore further.

[weeklythoughtblog]

Thought Nugget #2 - Digital Inequalities Galore

This week's readings examined the topic of digital inequalities - how various demographic and socioeconomic factors impact digital access, skills, usage, and outcomes. ​ Many of these studies point to a class-based divide in how digital spaces are navigated. As the demand for digital literacy increases, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, I am interested in exploring the effects of the digital divide on Generation Z. I can justifiably assume that the consequences of the digital divide will become even more pronounced as Generation Z comes of age.

My Assumptions about Gen Z (or Gen Sheeeeeeesh)

I'm a Millennial (born in 1994), and several of my cousins in my family are Gen Z - classified as anyone born after 1996.  My family has raised their Gen Z babies with the help of smartphones and tablets, and when videos like this go viral, it's easy to assume that this generation are true "digital natives".  But, as Hargittai (2010) pointed out, being a "digital native" is less about the generation you were born into and more about your parent's education level, income, and other demographic factors. What about Gen Z's who grew up in a low-income household without access to the internet and the latest digital devices?

Digital Natives & Online Education

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Gen Z was predicted to be the best-educated generation yet. As this week's readings suggest, higher education levels may help close the digital divide.  Drumroll please..... 

<Enter stage left> the novel coronavirus and the demand for schools and businesses to transition to a virtual environment to combat the disease's spread. While the concept of working remote has been around for several years, the idea of attending school 100% online is less common, and its effectiveness unproven. The majority of Gen Z is still in school, with the oldest members turning 25 this year. Transitioning to in-home learning is a tremendous threat to Gen Z students from disadvantaged households, and the COVID-19 pandemic may be the perfect storm that irreversibly widens the digital divide.   Even if we could provide every student with a new laptop and unlimited access to high-speed internet, we need to account for the environmental factors impacting at-home learning. Having access to a quiet place to attend class, enough food to eat, and a supportive in-home network to assist and hold students accountable are just a few examples of variables students face with online instruction.

Gen Z & COVID-19 Content Creation

Generation Z was raised with digital technology and parents who actively use these technologies. It is not surprising that most of Gen Z's report they are suspicious of tech companies and believes that social media negatively impacts political discourse. How responsible of them.

Despite their distrust of big tech, Gen Z is passionate about advocating for social change and the betterment of society. They view their use of digital technologies as a way to solve the world's problems and use social media as an advocacy platform. This comes as no surprise since Hoffman et al. (2015) found that self-efficacy positively affects online content creation while also reducing privacy concerns. In the past year, we have seen Gen Z mobilize on TikTok. TikTok is a video-based social platform, which boasts more than 1 billion users, 60% of which are Gen Z. TikTok users say that the platform promotes creativity and celebrates authenticity. In a generation where every kid wants to be an influencer, TikTok provides evidence that Gen Z prefers to create content rather than consume it. Many TikTok creators note that the platform provides a sense of connectedness and community that would not have been had otherwise - especially during a global pandemic. Further, creators on TikTok iterate that the platform has instilled a sense of shared success and ongoing collaboration that other platforms do not offer.

This is an interesting development for researchers such as Schradie (2011) to revisit, as it challenges previous findings that the elites primarily dominate digital content production. 

Gen Z, or as I affectionately refer to them as Gen Sheeeeeeesh, lack little to be envied as far as I am concerned. However, their experiences throughout 2020 and beyond may have interesting implications for the way we use digital technologies.

To close, I leave you with what I imagine a conversation with a Millennial might look like in 2070.

[weeklythoughtblog]

Thought Nugget #1

The growth of social and digital media is something that my brain has a hard time wrapping around. When I think about the humble beginnings of communications in general, I automatically think of face-to-face (FTF) communication being a necessity but also how FTF evolved into meager print media. The pace at which mediums have changed and evolved over the years is incredible. Even society has changed and I think that is due in part to the instantaneity that social media provides. The development of the internet changed the game. People now had access to information and resources that they never had before. For the public, the Internet meant new types of information access and communication, but few who got online in the late 1990s and early 2000s moved past the user-friendly world of the web browser and easily configured email. Those who dipped into public online communities found them organized by interest, while email and instant messaging (IM) were primarily about one-to-one communication with friends. When social network sites emerged, people were given a new structure for connecting to those around them. Boyd (2015) points out that as social media—and its adjacent technologies—has matured, it has given rise to new business models, technologies, and social critiques (p. 2). Social media is defined by its interactivity, connectedness, and user-generated content. In today’s society, the use of social media has become a necessary daily activity. Social media is typically used for social interaction and access to news and information, and decision making.  It is a valuable communication tool with others locally and worldwide, as well as to share, create, and spread information. Social media can influence consumer’s purchase decisions through reviews, marketing tactics and advertising. Essentially, social media vastly impacts our ability to communicate, form relationships, access and spread information, and to arrive at the best decision.

While there are an exponential amount of benefits and conveniences to social media, I think we have become reliant. The ease of access to information has also greatly contributed to misinformation about important topics. We can look up anything at any time and depending on the algorithm, get a variety of different answers – most of which will be opinion based. There is no fact-checking gatekeeper to make sure that people have access to accurate information and I think that greatly contributes to the continuation of social divides. This weeks thought nugget is definitely big picture but I think as the semester continues we will gain more meaningful insight as to why we rely on social media and further, how we can use the tools we have in a more effective manner.