brendanmda20009-blog - Tumblr blog

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 11 – Global Social Media: Case Study China

This week we reach the end our exploration of digital communities, or are we just beginning to understand this vast and fast evolving world. It has been a massive eye opener for me. I have used the digital world for some time now, but I confess that it is a much more diverse and dynamic connector of individuals and communities than I knew.

Before I sign off let’s discuss this week’s reading on Global social media verse China’s social media.  In China the Government controls the internet through regulating of the internet service providers (ISP). There are eight ISP in total in China, all are licensed by the government with the ISP servers are located in Beijing under government control (The Great Firewall of China 2013). This enables total control to censor unwanted content from the internet and to insert pro-government propaganda.   The government controls what internet sites their citizens or netizens (internet – citizens) can access. Some blocked internet sites include, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and World of Warcraft (Greatfirewallofchina 2014). This process of blocking sites is known as the Great Firewall of China (DLDconference 2013) and can only be achieved by the government controlling the ISP and therefore internet access within China.  I find this incredible that the government could have such control over and blatantly suppress the freedom of their netizens. China’s netizens lack freedom of speech and face punishment (official visit, fines, imprisonment) if they speak their mind against the government (The Great Firewall of China 2013). Companies can be closed down and business licences can be cancelled if unsanctioned information is present on company websites. However, censorship is considered normal in China (TED 2012). It is what they know and forms part of their collectivist society and communist governance. 

Maybe my Australian / democratic upbringing makes it hard for me to understand how the people put up with being so controlled, perhaps they are happy with the status quo. There is no doubt that China is a world power, they control the worlds production of most products. Don’t believe me just check the tag of the next thing you buy, was it ‘made in China’? It appears to me that China is progressing well without the blocked internet sites. But even with the blocks in place the Chinese have not missed the social media revolution, and they have taken to it with mucho gusto. Without direct access to social media sites created outside of China, the Chinese had to be very resourceful and create their own to satisfy the populace. The Chinese are brilliant at ‘R & D’, Rip-off & Duplicate. This has made them the world leaders in product manufacturing by producing things at quarter the price and in half the time of other countries (Crampton 2011). Particularly with social media in China, platforms started as a copy of Facebook and Twitter but has evolved to be uniquely Chinese (DLDconference 2013). Chinese social media platforms reflect their collectivist culture and provides the ability to connect with other Chinese people socially, for services and to share reliable (non-government) news (Chiu, Lin & Silverman 2012). Each of these platforms have hundreds of millions account holders and growing fast.  

With over 500 million internet users and 300 million bloggers and growing every day (Ted 2012) it seems that the Chinese people are doing fine the way they are. The internet and social media is alive and well, if not a little over-controlled by the government. The digital China is growing at a phenomenal rate, particularly their mobile networks and technologies (Chiu, Lin & Silverman 2012). China is a world power and they have shown their dominance on production of goods in the real world, makes you wonder what they will do in the digital world in the future.  

References

Chiu, C, Lin, D & Silverman, A 2012, China's social-media boom, McKinsey & Company, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/chinas_social-media_boom>.

Crampton, T 2011, 'Social media in China: The same, but differen't, China Business Review, Vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 28-31, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.thomascrampton.com/china/social-media-china-business-review/>.

DLDconference 2013, DLD13 - How Social Media is changing China and Asia, 7 February, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG3z2ucaR6A>.

TED 2012, Behind the Great Firewall of China, June, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_anti_behind_the_great_firewall_of_china>.

The Great Firewall of China 2013, Open Democracy viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.opendemocracy.net/china-correspondent/great-firewall-of-china>.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 10 – Social Gaming: Playing the Crowd

This week we explored a topic close to my own heart, computer gaming. More specifically the social gaming in the digital realm. This week’s readings examined the rules, social norms, legal contracts and conflicts. Social gaming involves people connection around the world on a game platform to not only to play the game but primarily to communicate with like-minded individuals and to belong to a community peers. When individuals come together there is inevitable conflict, disagreements that must be negotiated (De Zwart & Humphries 2014). These conflicts require the establishment of rules and community norms, plus a way to mediate difference of opinions and if required punishments for infringements. This conflicts add to the dynamic environment as well as shows how the players are socially entwined with the game and the games community. Social games involve a complicated social structures with tangible interpersonal interactions (Waddell & Peng 2014). These social gaming platforms are hubs for social connections, exchanges and mutual enjoyment for players.

The social gaming environment partly remove the player from real life through recreating themselves in a digital representations known as avatars. These avatars create an alter ego which the player can express and explore themselves in ways that that feel they cannot in real life. The avatar and how they play the game are extension of the person usually not seen in real life (Eklund 2015). In the game the rules of nature and social norms are warped or considerable different to real life. For example, the game may be set on a space ship or in a medieval village. Where a player can die but come back to life again and again; or have the special ability such as flight, super strength, magical powers or special weapons. The social gaming world allows partial separation from the real world to create sense of freedom from the daily grind and an artistic outlet, but the two worlds are inexorably connected. They are both based on how human interact socially, how people compete and cooperate with others to achieve their goals (Waddell & Peng 2014).

Social gaming has its roots in role playing games designed by university students in England and the USA in the early 1970’S. Based on the board game Dungeons and Dragons, the first social games were known as Multi-use dungeons (MUDs) (Indvik 2012). These MUDs appeared in the late 1970’s and were text based with very simple graphic. The first commercial online game was Island of Kesmai released in 1988, followed by Ultima Online in 1997, Everquest in 1999 and World of Warcraft in 2004 (Hachman 2011). These games have evolved with the players needs to explore themselves and new ways of connecting with other like-minded people. Today there are thousands of online games that provide a social platform for billions of people to connect and interact in a game environment with people around the world, anytime of the day from the comfort of their own homes. Thanks for reading, see you next week.  

Island of Kesmai (2008) <https://youtu.be/gZgEtoOBr0k>

References

Ckmogo 2008, Island of Kesmai, viewed 17 January 2017, <https://youtu.be/gZgEtoOBr0k>

De Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014,' The Lawless Frontier of Deep Space: Code as Law in EVE Online', Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 77-99.

Eklund, L, 2015, ‘Bridging the online / offline divide: The example of digital gaming’. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 53, pp. 527-536. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.018

Hachman, M 2011, Infographic: A Massive History of Multiplayer Online Gaming, PC Mag, viewed 16 January 2017, <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390917,00.asp>.

Indvik, L 2012, The Fascinating History of Online Role-Playing Games, Mashable Australia, viewed 16 January 2017, <http://mashable.com/2012/11/14/mmorpgs-history/#YrBIIWTDhsqQ>.

Waddell, J & Peng, W 2014, ‘Does it matter with whom you slay? The effects of competition, cooperation and relationship type among video game players’. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 38, pp. 331–338. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.017

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 9 – Visual Communities and Social Imaging

This week we sail into the waters of visual communities and social imaging. Which is essentially about how we capture and use the photos and videos of our lives. Vivienne & Burgess (2013) states that media technology has enabled and influences how our personal images are captured, remembered and shared. Before the release of the digital cameras in 1990 (Trenholm 2007) and camera phones in 2002 (CBC 2013) photograph where captured on film, printed on photo paper in commercial photo labs and stored in photo albums or frames in the home. Before the release of digital video 1995 (Trenholm 2007) video footage was captured and stored on video cassette. Whereas today photos and videos are taken to be shared on social media or stored in digital albums on electronic devices for future use (to share or reflect on). A social shift has occurred where the purpose and meaning of photographs and videos, or personal images, has changed. Before 1990 personal images were created to remember a special event; to today they are used by people to communicate with others in their social network (Lange 2009). This shift has transformed personal images as no longer just a way to preserve the past, but to promote the now or more specifically to promote the self in the now. 

Camera Evolution Explained in Just 11 Portraits (2015) <https://youtu.be/BpccSk_Syf8>

Personal images today whether photograph or video are captured in as a means to and end not as the end to a means as done before 1990 (Farman 2014). To put it another way, the purpose of personal images shifted socially during the 1990’s from a photo or video being the goal to being a way to achieve a goal. Personal images before 1990 the goal was to remember and event in time, whereas during the 1990’s this shifted to images being a vehicle to connect and relate with others and to promote the self and their great lives. Technology played a big part in this social shift with the evolution of digital devices that capture / store personal images and the development of the internet as a means to share these images.  With the rise of social media in the early 2000’s the need to promote the self became a competition. Where members of social networks tried to outdo each other with better images to portraying a life to be envied by others to improve their social status. Social media combined with digital cameras, particularly smart phones, to give rise to the ‘the selfie’ as a way to capture and promote the life of an individual. Selfies are used to increase social capital through microcelebrity (Abidin 2016), the use of online technologies like video, blogs and social networks to elevate their popularity. The use of personal images links the individual in the real world and the digital world (Herrman 2014). The need to promote the self online stems from a need in the real world to belong to a group and to be liked by that group.  

 References

Lange, P 2009, ‘Videos of Affinity on YouTube’, in P, Snickars & P, Vonderau (eds), The YouTube Reader, National Library of Sweden, Stockholm, pp. 70-88.

Abidin, C 2016 “Aren’t These Just Young, Rich Women Doing Vain Things Online?”: Influencer Selfies as Subversive Frivolity. Social Media + Society, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-17.

CBC 2013, 5 major moments in cell phone history, CBC, viewed 18 January 2017, <http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/5-major-moments-in-cellphone-history-1.1407352>.

Jason Farman 2014, Photography, Self Documentation, & Social Media: An Interview with Nathan Jurgenson, 16 June, viewed 18 January 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnPtZ5lKDHo>.

Herrman, J 2014, ‘Meet the Man Who Got Inside Snapchat’s Head’, BuzzFeed, 28 January, viewed 18 January 2017, <http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/meet-the-unlikely-academic-behind-snapchats-new-pitch#3dlvjg2>.

Trenholm, R 2007, Photos: The history of the digital camera, Cnet, viewed 18 January 2017, <https://www.cnet.com/au/news/photos-the-history-of-the-digital-camera/>.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 8 – Crowdsourcing in times of crisis

This week we journey to the world of crowdsourcing, a bringing together a group of people to share information and provide help for and event or crisis. I have had no experience with crowdsourcing so I found this week’s reading very interesting and a good example how digital communities and networked individuals communicate in times of crisis or emergencies. Crowdsourcing is a useful way to disseminate information between emergency services and the public during a natural disaster in a timeliness and efficient way (Posetti & Lo 2012).

What is Crowdsourcing <https://youtu.be/Buyub6vIG3Q>

As was evidenced during the Queensland floods in 2011 where social media was used to relay information between people in the flooded areas, the emergency services and people outside the flooded are offering help or enquiring about loved ones in the flooded areas. Many messages from people in or close to the crisis affected area included photos or videos providing valuable condition reports for service personnel. Other messages from people away from the crisis area provided supportive comments and internet links with further information to help (Bruns et al. 2012). The Queensland flood generated more than 35,000 tweets between 10-16 January (11,600 on 12 January) from 15,000 twitter users, staggering numbers showing volume of information passing between people involved in the crisis.  

Crowdsourcing can also be used to raise awareness about human rights abuse such as in Kenya 2008, which lead to the creation of Ushahidi platform of social mapping, an internet map showing locations of crisis (Ford 2012).  The article from Ford describes the usefulness of this platform generate awareness but also highlights the problem of verification vs timeliness. Taking the time to verify information to confirm its accuracy whilst dissemination the information as quickly as possible so it can be used effectively in the crisis situation.  This raises the question of who is verifying the information or who is controlling the information. I believe that the information needs to be verified by some authority to avoid misinformation. A balance between timeliness and accuracy needs to be struck, no point getting incorrect information quickly. 

Thank you for reading another post, see you next week.

References

Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Crawford, K & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods, Arc Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, pp. 7-10, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf>.

Ford, H 2012, 'Crowd Wisdom', Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 33-39.

Posetti, J & Lo, P 2012, The Twitterisation of ABCs Emergency & Disaster Communication, Australian Journal of Emergency Management, Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 34-39.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Get ready for it! Here comes crowdsourcing.

The pre-pounce wiggle…

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 7 – Trolling and Social Media Conflict

Troll image <https://d152j5tfobgaot.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/troll_internet.jpg>

This week we explored trolling and social media conflict. There has always been conflict between people as we struggle for power and status within our own social environment and even outside our environment to the world at large as with celebrity. It is part of our basic needs to seek power and status to better ourselves and improve our survival as defined by Abraham Maslow hierarchy of needs (Burton, 2012). Particularly important to power and status is Maslow’s need for Esteem (confidence, respect of others and respect by others) and Loving / Belonging (friendship, family and sexual intimacy). These needs underpin why people strive for power and status over others to boost their esteem and sense of belonging or being loved by others.  This striving over others creates competition and conflict, where there is often a winner and a loser. Trolling and cyber bullying are example of online conflict present in today’s social media society.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs>

 Trolling is when a person anonymously abuses or intimidates other online for fun (eSafety, 2015). Trolling is a form of cyber bullying where the aim of trolls is to provoke a response from others, usually in a controversial or offensive way. They seek to disrupt online communication or activity in a strive to increase their power and status with flaming and vitriolic interjections (McCosker, 2014). These striving are misguided and denote an individual that has mental, social or behavioural issues. Online trolls are the new cowards in the bullying arena, they attack others from the shadows instead of confronting face to face. They hide behind the anonymity that the internet provides, with their true identity hidden they feel free to wreak havoc on others. Trolls are ignorant, indifferent or excited by the offence and distress they cause. People become confident, aggressive and opinionated when they are anonymous, acting in ways that often contrast their real nature. The psychology of trolling is a complicated area with little empirical study done but please watch the following YouTube video for some incite.  

The Psychology of Trolling, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqHTlBp6iY>

 Examples of trolling and online conflict are ever present in social media, particularly with teenagers and young adults. Social media has not increasing the occurrence or cruelty of conflict and bullying, it has just making it more visible (Boyd, 2014). Conflict is a part of life and with social media previous private conflicts are now plastered across the public domain for all to see. Todays connected society and smartphones technology people are never far from social media and its impact on people’s social environment. Particularly when social media is used by people to keep up to date on current events in their social world, where being ‘in the loop’ is the new social currency (Boyd, 2014). A currency used to boost a person’s knowledge, and in turn power and status.

References

eSafety 2015, ‘Trolling’, viewed 4 January 2017, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/esafety-information/esafety-issues/trolling>

 Boyd, D 2014, 'Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?', in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp. 128-52.

 Burton, N. 2012, ‘Our Hierarchy of Needs’, Psychology Today, viewed, 4 January 2017, <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/our-hierarchy-needs>

 INSEADofficial 2016, The Psychology of Trolling, 7 July, viewed 5 January 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gqHTlBp6iY>

 McCosker, A 2014, YouTrolling as provocation: Tube's agonistics publics, Convergence, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201-217.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 6 - Digital Activism and Protest

This week we explored activism and protest in the digital world. How human rights awareness and acts are shared through digital communities, such as social-media (Twitter, YouTube) or social-networks (Facebook).  Most people do not care until something affected them personally. Most people are consumed in their own lives, seeing only what they want to see and rarely look past their ‘own world’. Even in their immediate environment people only perceive what is important to themselves, their goals and filter out all else. A person’s mind can only process massive amounts of information their senses collected from the environment, but this is limited to what a person is attending to. Modern activism via digital communities tries to raise awareness for causes by attracting people’s attention en masse. As the digital world is now infused with our real world via social media streaming to our mobile phones, we are in a state of always being connected (Boyd, 2012). A hybrid existence where the boundaries of our real and digital worlds are blurring as is the way we intake information about our society and environment (Dahlberg-Grundberg, 2016). Our existence although blurred still has defining characteristics between the two worlds, the digital world provides mass connections, anonymity and avoidance; whereas the real world provides physical contact, ownership and involvement in interpersonal interactions.  Therefore, modern activism works to raise awareness in a large number of people by attracting the attention of our digital selves who want to connect with others and be seen as involved. However, usually this activism does not personally affect our lives, our environments or our goals so engagement is low, leading to low or no involvement. This low involvement leads to soft activism involvement such as clicktivism and slacktivism. Clicktivism or click-activism is involvement via clicking ‘like’ or ‘support’ for a cause in the digital world (Youmans & York, 2012). Slacktivism or slack-activism is low involvement in both worlds that requires very little effort (Gerbaudo, 2012). These two forms of activism show involvement in the digital world but cost very little time in the real world and do not interfere with our lives or goals. Therefore, digital activism gets the attention of the masses but predominantly on a shallow or low involvement level. Most people have a conscious and do not want to see other suffering, or to be seen as so, and will help to a level that suits their lifestyle whilst maximising their humanitarian image. Universal justice is a common belief where everyone is entitled to live their lives in freedom, void of persecution and with basic living standards (Bakardjieva, 2009). However, most will only give or do for others when it cost them no or little inconvenience to their own lives. Thanks for reading, see you next week.

White Ribbon (2016) <https://www.facebook.com/whiteribbonaustralia/app/212104595551052/>

References

Bakardjieva, M 2009, 'Subactivism: Lifeworld and Politics in the Age of the Internet', Information Society, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 91-104.

 Boyd, D 2012, Participating in the Always On Lifestyle, in Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

 Dahlberg-Grundberg, M 2016, ‘Technology as movement: on hybrid organizational types and the mutual constitution of movement identity and technological infrastructure in digital activism’. Convergence. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol.22. no 5, pp. 524-54

 Gerbaudo, P 2012, Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Pluto, London.

White Ribbon 2016 [video], White Ribbon Australia, Facebook, viewed 18 December 2016, <https://www.facebook.com/whiteribbonaustralia/app/212104595551052/

Youmans, W, & York, J 2012, 'Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements', Journal of Communication, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 315-329.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Part of my humanitarian works in my local community. A great cause for anyone who has been touched by cancer. Please share and give what you can, no amount is too small. https://www.gofundme.com/gosford-west-rotary-christmas-appeal 

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 5 -Politics and Civic Cultures

This week we journeyed to the political arena of the digital world. Exploring the use of digital media (social media / networks) for politicians to promote themselves and to connect with their publics. There is no doubt that digital media is here to stay and as a society we are relying on it more and more. Digital media has infused our lives in almost every conceivable way, particularly in the way we stay informed of current issues and trends. In our modern connected world, it is no surprise that our political leaders are using technology to promote themselves and to connect (or appear connected) to others. Digital media houses the modern communities, the place where real people connect to discuss what is of interest to them, what is relevant to their current life situation and what brings them gratification (Whiting & Williams 2013). Political messages tend not to connect with most people because they miss these marks.  As raised by Jericho (2012) digital media creates a medium for direct connection between people not just a platform to broadcast from. Politicians tend to broadcast their press releases, their interest and their politically approved personality. They often miss the opportunity to directly connect with people on issues that are interesting, relevant and gratifying to the general public and other individuals. Politicians cannot please everyone and not everyone is interested in politics but everyone is interested in themselves, they just need to be brought into the conversation. Digital media is the future forum for political discourse which will directly connect politician and members of the public, anytime and anywhere.  

With digital media growing and older media formats (newspapers, radio and television) disappearing of morphing to digital media versions, such as newspapers online, radio streaming and television ‘on demand’. The online presence of digital media with instant access, 24/7, anywhere via a mobile phone has made the old formats almost obsolete. Today’s society want instant information, when they want it and in small ‘bite size pieces’ to fit their busy lives. People today tend to graze on news and information from multiple sources, focusing on headlines and snippets compared to people sixty year ago who would read the whole contents of just one newspaper (Young 2010). Modern information and news is decentralised today compared to thirty years ago, with more sources and fewer gatekeepers (Jericho 2012). The rise of the internet provided a platform to directly connect people to each other, taking the control away from the mass media giants, such as newspapers, radio and television owners. Giving power to all to provide news on current events, to advertise products, to entertain and to be heard. Today everyone can be a producer and consumer of content on digital media and there is concern to the quality of this content is in decline. Particularly the reduction of quality journalism as the rise of sensation seeking and celebrity gossip replace matters that really effect society (Young 2012). It is a changing world and who knows what the future will bring for information exchange between people and how it will affect our social structure.

 References

Jericho, G 2012, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe, Victoria, Australia.

Whiting, A & Williams, D 2013, ‘Why people use social media: a uses and gratifications approach’, Qualitative Market Research, vol. 16, no 4, pp. 362-369. DOI: 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041

Young, S 2010, 'News, political reporting and the internet', in How Australia Decides, Cambridge University Press, Victoria, Australia.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

Week 1-3

Welcome all to my blog, please bear with me as this is my first blogging attempt. Over an eight-week period I will summarise my learnings in a weekly blog. My posts will cover many exciting and interesting topics as I dissect and explore the world of Digital Communities. So please join me on my journey to define this new world and to understand its usefulness and potential harms. Our journey begins by covering the first three weeks of exploration.

Week one highlights the way digital communities are changing the way we see ourselves and more importantly the way we want others to see us. As stated by Wilken and McCosker (2014) through social media we can create our ideal selves by the way we project who and what we are. This creates a platform to present our best sides, to be the person we want to be and what we often are not in real life. Digital communities provide a second world or second life for people, not just to reinvent themselves into their ideal selves but to share this ideal self to as many people as possible. Digital media has provided the platform for people to project their ideal selves on to a vast number of others instantaneously. Creating a forum to connect, share, discuss in a synchronous and asynchronous way. Technology has created a way for us to never be alone with digital communities accessible via mobile devices, we can connect to everyone, at anytime, anywhere. For example, you could be emailing, tweeting, Facebooking, surfing the net or smsing whilst a standing in a que. Digital communities provide connectivity at our fingertips which has created a society or culture that is permanently connected or as danah boyd (2012) puts it ‘always on’. The line between being online in digital communities and being offline in real life has become so blurred and intertwined that most don’t know where the boundaries are.

Week two further explored the way society has become connected through the new digital communities. Expanding on the concept of communities and how they have changed over time, particularly since the industrial revolution in the early 19th century. The biggest influence on the concept of community came from Ferdinand Tonnes who divided society into two distinct groups, Gemeinshaft and Gesellshaft (Siapera, 2012). Gemeinshaft or community is based on natural will, where people seek our affection based connections (family, friends and humanitarian groups). Whereas Gesellshaft is based on rational will which is goal based and fulfils the needs of modern capitalist society such as trade, commerce and production. Each group bound members in unique ways through shared interests and often shared location. The digital environment removed the need for shared location but shared interest are still the ties that bind modern digital society. Modern digital communities are defined by interconnection networks of individuals, where an individual is connected to others by three facets, nodes, ties and flow (Rheingold, 2013). Nodes are the individuals or groups in the digital network, ties are the way these individuals or groups are connected and flow if the content of the individuals or groups connection with others. Although people in modern communities still connect through shared interest the strength of the ties have weakened through the digital medium (C-Span, 2012). In modern society we seem to have more connections but the ties we have to these connections seem to be weaker and more superficial.

Week three defined two main platforms that service digital communities, social networks and social media (Murthy, 2013). Social network is a bonded system where members maintain a public or semi-public profile with close ties, access requires approval or acceptance between networked individuals, such as family and friends. Social media is a platform to connect with others publicly to publish and access information, collaborate and build loose relationships or weak ties, access is open to all. Facebook is an example of a social network and Twitter is an example of a social media. There are problems with privacy for both social media and networks and concerns of who is controlling and who is viewing the content in these digital communities (Van der Negal, 2013). Being that the digital world is public, content is permanent and people can be anonymous or invisible.  

 Thank you for reading this post. Apologies this post is a bit long but a lot of material was explored over the first three weeks. I will be posting a new blog every week and I hope to catch you next time.

 References

Boyd, D 2012, Participating in the Always On Lifestyle, in Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

C-SPAN 2012, Robert Putnam - Bowling Alone, 19 December, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4236758/robert-putnam-bowling-alone>.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, Polity, Cambridge.

Rheingold, H 2013, Network Literacy Mini-Course, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://rheingold.com/2013/network-literacy-mini-course/>.

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014, 'Social Selves', in Cunningham & Turnbull (eds), The Media & Communications in Australia, Allen and Unwin pp. 291-295.

Van der Negal 2013, 'Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild', Scan Journal of Media Arts Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, Macquarie University.

[brendanmda20009-blog]

A great post from a fellow Dig Com student.

Bye Bye Spring!! Hello Summer.

#summer dreams

[brendanmda20009-blog]

MDA20009 Tag

Taging the ‘Digital Community’ community