digcommstud-blog

[digcommstud-blog]

Global social media: case study China

To many in the western world, the great firewall of China is barbaric, oppressive and significantly limits freedom of speech. Its motivation behind forbidding western social media platforms from operating within its country, unless they control the server (Xu 2015), is undoubtedly a response to uphold the country’s communist regime. Furthermore, this is justified to it citizens through the rhetoric that it’s protecting the exposure of state secrets that may endanger the political and economic interests of the country (Xu 2015). Whilst I am surprised that for all the technological advancements that globalisation affords, there are still country’s such as China, that have an enormous stranglehold over its citizens.  

The Chinese government use firewalls and rigorous monitoring systems of social media to police user-generated content that may in any way expose the country to negative press  - Xu 2015.

However, according to Chinese national Michael Anti, China has a flourishing and ever-expanding social networking system that operates very similarly to its western counterparts, just with Chinese names (Chin, Lin & Silverman 2012; TED 2012). For example, our Youtube is their Youku, and our Facebook is their Weibo.

The major difference is that the actual social media servers are designed, housed and stringently monitored by the Chinese (TED 2012), compared to Facebook, for instance, that allow multiple servers to operate across the western world. Hence, this suggests that Chinese citizens still have an outlet to share and consume an array of content, such as messages, photos and videos using a variety of social networking platforms.

Chin, Lin & Silverman (2012) reinforce this notion by describing China as world leaders in the social media boom. This might be true within China due to a population of 1.4 billion people, and therefore the ability to reach far greater numbers than most other countries.

However, I would argue that it’s only a matter of time before China’s citizens find creative ways, afforded by these platforms, to challenge the existing authority, and in turn empower its people to have greater control over their lives.

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>.

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>.

Xu, B 2015, Media censorship in China, CFR Backgrounders, viewed 14 December 2016,

< http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorship-china/p11515>. 

[digcommstud-blog]

(Roquel 2014) <https://youtu.be/SrvkNve1XOw>.

Social Gaming

I have never understood online gaming, but then again I was never allowed to play video games as a child, other than the occasional attempt at Nintendo Mario Brothers at a friend’s house, so my opinion of the gaming community is somewhat judgmental and uneducated. To challenge my personal judgment, I thought it best to evaluate more credible and reliable sources to better inform a more educated perspective.

Team G’s presentation certainly challenged my perspective on social gaming, by highlighting the social benefits, including a sense of belonging that it can provide to gamers. For this reason, I respect that gaming can act as a tool to facilitate a type of social bonding that perhaps is missing in a person's 'offline' world.

However, the idea that gaming communities honour a social membership that supports and encourages anti-social behaviour (Brightman 2014), suggests that these networks require greater moderation and scrutiny. For example, behaviours such as misogyny, homophobia, trolling, and high levels of aggression, are common acceptable game features that are celebrated rather than eliminated.

According to game developer Manveer Heir (cited in Brightman 2014), larger game developers create stereotypical characters that they believe the western world best responds to in terms of increasing particpation. This not only perpetuates prejudicial behaviour across society, but demonstrates a severe lack of creativity by the game designers (Brightman 2014).

"These negative stereotypes effect the identity of individuals in these groups,"."They affect the way people think and treat others in the real world, and [they] perpetuate the social injustices that occur in these different groups."  - Brightman (2014)

Whilst I am highly supportive of social gaming that strengthens social connections and a sense of belonging for those in need, I am completely opposed to the anti-social behaviours it promotes and celebrates. We need to send clearer and unambiguous messages to our children and the wider community that behaviours such as violence, racism and marginalisation are NEVER ok, real or not...

References

Brightman, J 2014, ‘We must reject stereotypes in games – Manveer Heir’, Gamesindustry.biz, 20 March, viewed on 29 January 2017, < http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-03-20-we-must-reject-stereotypes-in-games-manveer-heir>.

Roquel, A 2014, Science with Scarlett: The truth about gamer stereotypes, 4 September, viewed 29 January 2017, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrvkNve1XOw>.

[digcommstud-blog]

[digcommstud-blog]

Visual communities and social imaging

(Tag, you’re it!’ 2014) <http://vanillahousewife.com/tag-youre-it/>.

It recently dawned on me while playing a game of ‘tiggy’ with my 4 year-old son, that the objective for him to ‘tag’ me meant that I was then ‘it’ allowing him to then be chased. Tiggy or tig-tag, is one of the oldest children’s playground games played in most countries and cultures. It’s simple and fun, and is often played outdoors with a number of participants.

Generally speaking, kids love this game for the thrill of being chased and the confidence they gain by tagging someone else. Even so, it wouldn’t be unheard of to recall a childhood friend that didn’t volunteer their participation in a game of tag but were drawn in anyway due to the lack of boundaries that the game affords. Like all games, rules can be arbitrary based on the game’s organiser, providing the opportunity for movement of the goal posts, so to speak.

For this reason, I started to examine the relationship between tiggy as a fun game for kids, and being tagged in an image on a social media platform such as Facebook. Similar to the game of tiggy, the rules of tagging someone on Facebook are subjective to each user, where one person may thrive on being seen publicly in a public photo while another believes it’s an invasion of privacy. This highlights the importance of knowing who actually likes to be ‘it’...

(Farmer n.d) <https://davefarmer.co.uk/2011/07/16/ive-been-tagged-blogger-tag-my-7-links/>.

Unlike the image seen above, I personally view tagging a friend in a photo without their approval as inconsiderate, as the public nature of Facebook means that depending on person’s privacy settings, personal images deemed inappropriate may fall into less favourable hands, such as an employer.   

For this reason, social media users are moving away from sharing personal photos through the tagging feature on Facebook, and instead opting for the content sharing platform, Snapchat. Jurgenson (cited in Herrman 2014) suggests that society is wanting a more ephemeral form of online communication, of which Snapchat delivers through its unique feature that ensures all photos and videos sent, only last a brief amount of time before they disappear. This introduces a new way of sharing personal experiences with friends and family in a more private and controlled way, and as Jurgenson (cited in Herrman 2014) puts it, the sharing of content relates to the photo or video shared rather than the comments left around them. References

Farmer n.d, ‘I’ve been tagged! Blogger tag and my 7 links’ [image],  viewed 25 January 2017, <https://davefarmer.co.uk/2011/07/16/ive-been-tagged-blogger-tag-my-7-links/>.

Herrman, J 2014, ‘Meet the Man Who Got Inside  Snapchat’s Head’,  BuzzFeed, 28 January, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/meet-the-unlikely-academic-behind-snapchats-new-pitch#3dlvjg2>.

‘Tag, you’re it!’ [image] 2014, The Vanilla Housewife, viewed 25 January 2017, <http://vanillahousewife.com/tag-youre-it/>.

[digcommstud-blog]

Crowdsourcing in Times of Crisis

The occurrence of crises around the world has been no more prevalent in the 21st century than throughout history, however the immediacy to which we become aware of a crisis certainly has.

Prior to the constant flow of information that the internet affords, the public were informed of a crisis after it happened, whereas now we hear about a crisis as it’s happening. Hence, whilst the use of social media during a crisis undoubtedly presents a number of issues, including the potential of generating misinformation, if managed appropriately, can serve as a highly valuable communication tool for delivering accurate and timely information to the public in an emergency. This idea whereby the public or crowd come together to find and provide information and access to important resources, is known as crowdsourcing (Goodrich 2013).

                                               (Hopkins 2011)

Furthermore, crowdsourcing in times of crisis involves the public’s use of social media and other online platforms such as government sites and emergency response services, to find and disseminate vital information for the people and communities affected throughout and after a crisis (Bruns et al. 2012, p.7). For example, research conducted on the 2011 South East Queensland floods evaluated the effectiveness of social media platforms such as, Facebook and Twitter in communicating regular responses and updates to the communities affected. Key findings of the research indicated that Twitter, especially the hashtag #qldfloods, was a significant success in its ability to extensively reach individuals, as 50-60% of messages from this hashtag were found to be retweets (Bruns et. al, 2012, p.7). This suggested that the public successfully facilitated the constant flow of communication through the passing on of vital information to the community.

Despite this, additional research into crowdsourcing found that albeit its value in contributing to public health and safety, it remains crucial for social media platforms to put protective barriers in place to ensure information received can be verified for its authenticity (Ford 2012). Ford (2012) uses the example of Ushahidi, the crowdsourcing tool developed in Kenya, in response to the post-election violence in 2008, to illustrate the challenges that software developers and online platform organisers face in accessing reliable and credible information from publics. While Ushahidi was deemed a success in providing a voice for those suppressed, it also gave rise to false reports of violence which at the time were impossible to verify (Ford 2012). This demonstrates the importance of ongoing refining of crowdsourcing platforms to safeguard the health and safety of the community it aims to protect. 

Crowdsourcing in times of crisis carries significant advantages in helping and supporting communities in need, by providing accessible, timely, and often reliable information to publics. However, online communication platforms and organisations known to be accessed in times of crisis, must have relevant safeguards in place to ensure the disseminated material and information sources remain reliable and credible.

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. 

[digcommstud-blog]

Trolling and social media conflict

The cultural shift of engaging and interacting via social media forums has significantly changed the way we communicate and socialise with our friends, family and publics, however not always for the better. This blog entry will address the role of social media in augmenting and facilitating ‘trolling’ and online conflict, while contending that the underlying intimidation and marginalisation that a troll exerts, represents a human behaviour not restricted to online activity.  I believe that social media users require initial education when signing up to any of these platforms that focuses on the realities of the online space including trolling and other potential dangers rather than increased legislation.

Before our ability to interact via social media, bullying, marginalisation, and intimidation occurred in the ‘offline’ environment by means of physical violence, verbal abuse, spreading rumours or excluding certain people from particular groups. For example, Due et al. (2005) conducted studies on the frequency and severity of bullying in 28 countries across Northern America and Europe. The study revealed that no society was free from bullying, concluding that such behaviours are innate to the human species (Sherrow 2011). Similarly, research into chimpanzee’s social behaviour showed that chimps used similar bullying tactics to that of humans, with intimidation said to be the core driver (Sherrow 2011). Hence, understanding that bullying is universal and pre dates human civilisation, provides insight into the origins and motives of what creates social media conflict, trolling or cyber-bullying. After all, trolls are human.

For those who have witnessed or experienced persistent online intimidation, harassment, or victimisation may understandably believe that social media requires tougher governing laws, especially when it involves children or youths. However, it’s worth identifying the nature and profile of a troll, to better explain and accept their motivations behind their behaviour. For example, research suggests that the profile a troll includes; pervasive, bigoted, lacking in empathy, and often strengthened by retaliation, making them particularly difficult to defeat in an online environment (Academic Earth n.d). However, as awful as this profile sounds, a troll’s behaviour is no different than the bullying that occurs in the schoolyard, workplace, and other social or sporting activities that people engage in (Boyd 2014, p.152). Which further strengthens the notion that such behaviour is innate to humans and therefore will continue to find different ways to express itself whether it’s online or offline.

(Nuccitelli n.d)

Based on the analysis of the above research, I believe that further legislating the public’s right to freedom of speech on social media will undoubtedly reduce the visible signs of online harassment and intimidation. However, it will do very little to address the underlying bigoted and intolerant sentiments that drive this behaviour. For this reason, I recommend all social media users are provided with better education of the dangers of social media usage, in addition to a clear set of strategies to navigate and manage the harmful effects of potential trolling.

 References

Academic Earth, n.d, The Psychology of the internet troll, viewed 2 January 2017, <http://academicearth.org/electives/psychology-internet-troll/>.

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.

Due, P, Holstein, B, Lynch, J, Diderichsen, F, Gabhain, S, Scheidt, P, Currie, C, and The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Bullying Working Group 2005, ‘Bullying and symtpoms among school-aged children: international comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries’, European Journal of Public Health, 8 March, viewed 1 January 2017, < http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/eurpub/15/2/128.full.pdf>.

Nuccitelli, M n.d, ‘Internet trolls evolved’ [image], in iPredator Inc., viewed 13 January 2017, <https://www.ipredator.co/internet-trolls-evolved-michael-nuccitelli/>.

Sherrow, H 2011, ‘The Origins of Bullying’, Scientific American, 15 December, viewed 1 January 2017, < https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-origins-of-bullying/>.

[digcommstud-blog]

Activism and Protest

This post explores the role of social media in supporting and facilitating activism, protest, and revolution in a global context. A number of global protest and activism examples have been examined and thus demonstrate the ways in which users engage and contribute to protest by the affordances that social media platforms provide. However, like all forms of communication, using social media platforms for activism and protest of social and political issues has both its opportunities and constraints. 

According to Youmans & York (2012), a combination of design issues and the authority of the corporate elite are the main factors that limit unrestricted public dialogue on social media. For example, private enterprises such as, Facebook or Twitter, are heavily dictated by corporate ownership and therefore remain strictly controlled by their ability to generate large profits for owners and shareholders. This results in content becoming, at times, skewed to fulfill the needs of these corporations, which can negatively affect its position as an impartial platform for activism and protest.

Similarly, the Chinese government strictly control local activism and protest in China using firewalls and rigorous monitoring systems of social media to police user-generated content that may in any way expose the country to negative press (Xu 2015). Hence, social media in China does very little to afford public debate and opinion, which significantly limits public freedom.

Despite this, there are several examples around the world where social media has proven successful in contributing to the overthrow of oppressive political leaders. For example, the Egyptian uprising in 2011 that saw the removal of President Hosni Mubarak after an 18-day revolution of mass protest, was orchestrated and driven by its citizens using social media (Gerbaudo 2012). Reportedly inspired by the recent revolt in nearby Tunisia, activists’ set-up and ‘shared’ a Facebook page titled “Day of Rage”, coinciding with Egypt’s National Police Day, which gained 90,000 ‘likes’ (Knell 2012). The page gained significant momentum resulting in thousands of demonstrators flocking to Tahrir Square in support of the protest for change.

Whilst this is an example of digital activism, the oppression felt by people was widespread enough for action to take place outside the realm of social media. This suggests that social media featured in creating the space to facilitate these conversations and discussions, mobilise and coordinate direct action, which in turn cultivated the movement to challenge the existing authority. Overall, social media in this situation played a significant role in removing President Honsi Mubarak from power.

Based on our widespread use of digitally-mediated technology to interact and communicate, future activists will undoubtedly continue to use the social media space to start the necessary conversations required to generate greater awareness of their cause. 

  References

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

 Knell, Y 2012, ‘Egypt’s revolution: 18 days in Tahrir Square’, BBC News, 25 January, viewed 14 December 2016, < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16716089>. 

 Xu, B 2015, Media censorship in China, CFR Backgrounders, viewed 14 December 2016,

< http://www.cfr.org/china/media-censorship-china/p11515>.

 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

[digcommstud-blog]

Politics and civic cultures

How do political parties and politicians connect with their communities (local, state and national) through social media networks?

Politicians and their advisers campaign and frequently communicate with their supporters via a range of social media platforms, including, but not limited to: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google+ and Tumblr. Whilst social media is extensive in its reach and a highly effective medium for disseminating information, targeting voters, and thus influencing the publics’ ideas and opinions, comments must also be meticulously managed to avoid mass public scrutiny. As reinforced by journalist John Kerrison (cited in Jericho 2012), “you need to imagine every one of your tweets written on the side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge”, suggesting that if a tweet could be deemed offensive or inappropriate to any member of the public, it’s best to strongly reconsider the post. In 2009 Barak Obama strongly urged school-aged children to take care with what they posted on YouTube and Facebook, as rightly or wrongly, content posted can always be retrieved and to demonise one’s character (Jericho 2012).  

 Which begs the question…

Given the risks, why do politicians and political parties choose to connect with the community through social media networks?

Jericho (2012) argues that there’s still limited evidence as to whether a politician’s social media following correlates with gaining more votes, however, as stated by Prime Minister Malcom Turnball (2012, p.265), Twitter is a very valuable communication tool that instantaneously delivers a message directly to the people. This can be viewed as a positive for civic culture in that the public has a sense of feeling well-informed with the shape of the nation, however a cynic might also suggest that social media is simply just a different stage than the press conference we were historically accustomed to prior to the emergence of social media. Moreover, politician Tony Burke is said to of gained the largest Twitter following in Australian politics, attributed to his witty and inoffensive tweets that were believed to of connected with people on a personal, less political level (Jericho 2012).

Despite the unknown effect on votes, social media continues to prove highly effective in generating discussion on key local and foreign political issues, understanding the concerns of the public, and most importantly for politicians, augments publicity for their party and reputation.

Perhaps some of the most effective uses of social media networking in politics is that of Barak Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, and most recently, Donald Trump’s sensational presidential campaign in November 2016, both successful in being elected President of the United States of America. Whilst both undoubtedly used different campaign strategies, they similarly demanded a constant social media presence to drive and communicate their message to where they knew the majority of the public would be, on their devices…  

 References

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

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

[digcommstud-blog]

Overview of theory, approaches, and ideas of ‘social media’ and ‘digital communities‘

To grasp our social and cultural shift and reliance on digitally-mediated technology to engage and interact with one another, it’s essential to recognise the theory, ideas and approaches that underpin sociality.

Early sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, developed the theory of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to distinguish the term sociality by identifying the domains salient to a community versus a society. In the context of the early 19th century, this theory explained the social and cultural changes that took place during the industrial revolution, including the shift of people living in villages, or communities, to living in cities, or societies (Siapera 2012). Tonnies defined community as organic and self-fulfilling associations, and people that actively worked together, including, family, friends, church groups, neighbourhood associations and so on (Siapera 2012). Whereas, he regarded a society as a formation of goal-orientated associations that were informal and impersonal, such as, members of governments, businesses, corporations, and cities, for the purpose of profit or serving the needs of modern society (Siapera 2012).

Whilst this theory suitably applied to the social and cultural shifts during industrialisation, it’s less applicable in modern times in explaining the shifts and changes in sociality associated with new media and social media. For example, Tonnies defines community as close, active interactions, and physical in nature (Siapera 2012), however in the context of the social media platform Facebook, interactions with ‘friends’ are not physical in nature and therefore are, at times, unnatural and contrived. Then again, it could be argued that our shift to interact digitally was inevitable based on the advances in technology, which has insidiously redefined our expectations of family and friendships to accept digital relationships as close and active.  

Moreover, current research into new media suggests that online or digital communities certainly affords frequent and ongoing connection with others but does little to strengthen ties that we associate with belonging to a family or close friendship network (University of Arkansas 2009). Sociologist Barry Wellman’s interview on University of Arkansas (2009), believes the internet is transforming ourselves socially and culturally. For example, he uses the phrase,“Twitter is my new neighbourhood” (University of Arkansas 2009) to explain our behaviour shift from physical interactions with the people around us, to the multiple digital interactions we engage in on a daily basis.

References

‘Get to know your audience – Social media marketing’ [image] 2015, How to market your business on Pintrest, SiteWeb, 31 August, viewed 27 November 2016, <http://www.siteweb.co.za/how-to-market-your-business-on-pinterest/>.

Interaction-Design.org 2011, Affordances (Don Norman, 1994), 15 February, viewed 3 August 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Zb_5VxuM>.

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

 University of Arkansas 2009, Connected Lives: The New Social Network Operating System, 13 April, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://clintonschoolspeakers.com/lecture/view/connected-lives-new-social-network-operating-syste/>