nadiya24

[nadiya24]

Week 10: Gaming Communities

There’s a wide range of different communities and platforms for users to interact with one another, sharing common interests and hobbies. One of the popular topics of shared interests is video gaming, and there are many different platforms wherein individuals can connect and engage within communities, whether it is competitively, or online multiplayer and co-op gaming.

An example of a popular platform where users of the gaming community can interact with one another is Discord. Although the platform itself does not have games, it is accessible for gamers to speak amongst each other, whether this is through messaging or voice/video calling. Another popular form of gaming is to stream to audiences, and Twitch is a platform particularly known for gamers to live-stream and share gaming content to viewers in real-time.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, gaming and it’s communities surge in popularity, as it is an effective way of socialising online. Whilst gaming is stereotyped within communities to be targeted to audiences who fit a certain demographic (teen or young adult, usually male), this is countered to be false, as gaming is friendly to all individuals, regardless of identity and demographics.

A game initially niche until 2020 is “Animal Crossing”, where users are to manage and decorate their own islands. This becomes a platform for users to engage and interact as they are allowed to visit each others islands and view progress (especially popular throughout the quarantine period).

Free games had become increasingly common over the pandemic, as well, generally for the younger demographic (children and students). Some examples of popular (free) game titles include (but are not limited to): Roblox, Fortnite, Genshin Impact, and Warframe. Games are not limited to console (XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch), but also accessible on various platforms, such as apps on the phone or tablet, and PC (which includes software programs such as Steam to play games on).

References:

Taylor, TL 2018, ‘Broadcasting ourselves’ (chapter 1), in Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton University Press, pp.1-23 | link

Aleena Chia, Brendan Keogh, Dale Leorke, and Benjamin Nicoll, 2020, "Platformisation in game development", Internet Policy Review 9 (4). DOI: 10.14763/2020.4.1515, https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/platformisation-game-development

[nadiya24]

Week 9: Face Filters

Filters (both physical and digital) are generally understood to remove unwanted things. For face filters specifically, this can include (but is not limited to); pores, acne/pimples, blemishes, wrinkles, and other features deemed as ‘flaws’ or ‘imperfections’. However, face filters can also be used to add features, such as make-up, piercings and tattoos. Beauty apps, such as Facetune and Perfect 365, are most commonly used for face editing in order to meet the ever-changing ‘beauty standard’ (similar to body modification). These beauty apps are marketed to eliminate ‘imperfections’, and ‘retouch’ selfies, through smoothing the skin, reshaping features (nose, lips, eyes, brows), contouring, and application of make-up.

The most popular social media platform used for face filters is Snapchat. Initially, this platform (having launched in 2011) started off without filters at all. Users described their experience on Snapchat prior to face filters as “authentic”, and “a unique haven for unedited images and unguarded moments” (Jessica Barker, 2020). By 2015, ‘lenses’ were introduced, wherein users could digitally alter their faces using filters. This allowed the exploration of new cosmetic looks, as users could sample make-up, different hair colours and styles, etc.

However, this was also followed by backlash, as it entirely contrasted Snapchat’s original user-culture. Some users described certain face filters as ‘white washing’, as it whitened the skin of people of colour, and even creating psychological repercussions amongst younger users. Naturally, these ‘beauty ideals’ are unattainable in the outside world, and Elisabeth Staal describes this as “society [...] teaching us to edit ourselves to be desirable” according to algorithmic beauty standards.

These ‘idealistic’ standards of beauty can enhance cases of insecurity and dysmorphia, creating the concept of ‘digital plastic surgery’. Users are inspired by their own snapchat filters, essentially a ‘software-enhanced version’, which is entirely unrealistic and unachievable to create in real life, resulting in dissatisfaction. Whilst this is followed by sponsors and moderators describing face filters as though they “emphasise creativity, playfulness and harmless fun”, this can also have a negative impact on the minds of (generally) younger users of the platform.

References:

Coy-Dibley, I., July, 2016, “Digitised Dysmorphia” of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image, Palgrave Communications. 2:16040 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.40

Rettberg J.W., 2014, 'Filtered Reality', Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves, Palgrave Macmillan, London, https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2

Barker, Jessica, 2020, 'Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat', Style & Popular Culture, 7. 207-221. 10.1386/fspc_00015_1.

[nadiya24]

Week 8: Body Modification

‘Body modification’ can constitute of many features. This may include (but is not limited to); tattoos and piercings, silicone implants (eg. buttocks and breasts), and ‘lip filler’ injections. According to the Aesthetic Surgery Journal (2018), plastic surgery-related hashtags on Instagram showed that #facelift was one of the most popular hashtags used (from a total of 224,235 posts). The top-used was #plasticsurgery, with a total of 523,361 posts using the hashtag.

Body modification can also be applied to altering the body’s appearance digitally. Appearances can be modified with editing programs such as Photoshop, as opposed to surgical operations. This becomes the most popular method of body modification (as it usually doesn’t cost funds to edit images), and sites such as Instagram have become platforms which encompass certain aesthetic templates. Users on Instagram (particularly ‘Instagram celebrities’) are subject to the ‘pornification’ aesthetic, popular examples such as Kylie Jenner or Kim Kardashian who portray their bodies in a sexualised manner, beside the product being advertised, thus implying that “you too can look like this with the purchase of this product”.

This method of marketing can have a negative impact on the minds of younger audiences (regardless of sex and gender identity), as more often than not, these standards of ‘beauty’ are unrealistic and unachievable (without cosmetic surgeries and digital editing). This contributes to body dysmorphia, as many individuals find themselves dissatisfied with their body and appearances when it does not match up to the ‘standard’ representation. 

To counter this issue, there are public health campaigns and online influencers. One of the examples is Sara Puhto, a 23-year-old Finnish health blogger who preaches body positivity and “explains why we shouldn’t believe everything we see on social media” (MBlow, 2019). She compares ‘Instagram’ and ‘reality’ alongside one another, showing her audience that it is easy to manipulate images, but we shouldn’t be ashamed of our natural appearances.

References:

Robert G Dorfman, Elbert E Vaca, Eitezaz Mahmood, Neil A Fine and Clark F Schierle, ‘Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, Volume 38, Issue 3, March 2018, pp 332–338 | link

MBlow, 7 Dec. 2019, “31 Photos By Health Blogger Sara Puhto Comparing Instagram To Reality”, TWBLOWMYMIND, https://www.thiswillblowmymind.com/31-photos-by-health-blogger-sara-puhto-comparing-instagram-to-reality/

[nadiya24]

Week 7: Social Media Conflict

Conflict on social media can mean many different things, but some of the most common cases of conflicts online happen to be harassment (or ‘cyberbullying’). However, the term online harassment is an umbrella of many definitions and circumstances. Examples include: getting called offensive/insulting names, being threatened online (both physically and emotionally or verbally), sexual harassment, impersonation, and damaging your reputation (defamation).

More often than not, those considered to be minorities will be targets of online harassment. Some forms of harassment go even further, as to dox others, which is sharing and posting personal information online (such as your location or face, etc). According to the findings of a survey conducted by Pew Research Center, 73% of adult internet users have seen someone be harassed in some way online, and 40% have personally experienced it. Young women happen to experience particularly severe forms of online harassment, many of which are stalked and sexually harassed (Pew Research Center).

Gaslighting is another form of online harassment seen in social media conflicts. By definition, gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse, wherein the abuser makes someone question their sanity, reality, or experiences (O.school). This is relatively common for women, especially women of color and queer women, who are “more susceptible to online harassment and more likely to consider negative behavior to be harassment, to the point where young women may see it as a normal part of online experience” (Lenhart et al. 2016; Jessica Vitak, Kalyani Chadha, Linda Steiner, and Zahra Ashktorab 2017).

To ensure the safety of online communities and it’s users, the moderators of platforms are contactable, as there are guidelines/policies in place to protect everyone, should users break those rules, they are generally warned and removed from the platform to avoid causing furthermore trouble. Or in more serious circumstances, legal remedies can be made.

References:

Jessamy Gleeson, Research Officer, School of Global, Urban & Social Studies, RMIT University, 'What does Gaslighting Mean?' The Conversation, 2018, https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-gaslighting-mean-107888

Alice E. Marwick & Robyn Caplan, 'Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment'  Feminist Media Studies Volume 18, 2018 - Issue 4: Pages 543-559 | link

Maeve Duggan, 22 Oct. 2014, “Online Harassment”, Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Elizabeth Kirkhorn, 6 Aug. 2021, “What Is Gaslighting? 7 Signs It’s Happening And What To Do”, O.school, https://www.o.school/article/what-is-gaslighting

[nadiya24]

Week 6: Slow Fashion

As digital citizenship ties into multiple aspects, it also connects to the ‘slow fashion movement’. Whilst digital citizenship focuses on ethics and respect, this can apply to the responsibility and sustainability of fashion and it’s produce (including consumption of their products). But first, we should delve into what ‘slow fashion’ means.

‘Slow fashion’ (also known as ‘sustainable fashion’) is an awareness movement and way of approach to fashion, considering the processes and resources required to produce clothing, and particularly focuses on sustainability. It comprises of purchasing and supporting better-quality garments, which will last longer. It also values the fair treatment of people, animals, and the planet (Madeleine Hill, 2021).

Historically, the movement started as early as the 1960s anti-fur campaigns, fighting for sustainability values and environmental ethics. These protests ensued throughout the 1990s and early 2000s against unethical conditions (regarding the fashion industry).

In order for fashion to be labelled ‘sustainable’, there are guiding principles which must be met. Firstly, the production of items must be free of child labour, and secondly, the materials used in the process of production should not harm the natural environment, and is able to be recycled, or more durable for longer use. Thirdly, the production process must be ethical and socially responsible, workers must be paid accordingly, and jobs to be available locally. Lastly, the fashion is deemed ‘sustainable’ if it is able to create long-term relationships across the supply chain, allowing the negotiation of affordable prices, fair wages, and the development of a strengthened network.

Activists on social media platforms such as Instagram help bring this movement to light and spread awareness. One of the pages run by Kate Caric is called Sustainable Outfits, who focuses on making sustainable fashion “the norm”. She “shares her thoughts on the climate crisis, transformative justice, and the downfalls of the fashion industry” (Sustainably Kind Living, 2022).

References:

Zhen Lai, Claudia E. Henninger and Panayiota J. Alevizou ‘An Exploration of Consumers’ Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion – A Qualitative Study in the UK’, in Sustainability in Fashion A Cradle to Upcycle Approach, edited by Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P., Goworek, H., Ryding, D. (Palgrave: 2017), pdf link.

Madeleine Hill, 17 May 2021, “What Is Slow Fashion?”, Good On You, https://goodonyou.eco/what-is-slow-fashion/#:~:text=Slow%20Fashion%20is%20an%20awareness%20and%20approach%20to,fair%20treatment%20of%20people%2C%20animals%20and%20the%20planet.

Kaitlin Martin, 13 Apr. 2022, “17 of the Best Sustainable Fashion Activists on Social Media in 2022″, Sustainably Kind Living, https://sustainablykindliving.com/sustainable-fashion-activists/

[nadiya24]

Week 5: Digital Citizenship

By definition, digital citizenship is “the responsible use of technology and etiquette pertaining to an online presence” (TechTarget, 2019). This includes behaviors and/or responses to other individuals within the digital community, effectively participating in society, communicating, and creating/consuming digital content. Digital citizenship usually refers to people who use the internet frequently, and is a part of one (or more) online communities.

Of course, there is more than one form of digital citizenship, one of which is the participation in the political process. A digital citizen is also one who “engages in democratic affairs in conventional ways by using an unconventional medium” (UAB, 2019), for instance, using their phones or laptops. Ever since the 1960s, the media’s role in elections and politics has grown remarkably, thus having a strong connection with digital citizenship.

This also links in with the concept of ‘platformisation’ (or ‘platforms’), wherein social media companies elicit language to portray themselves as social benefits by functioning neutrally. The term ‘platform’ alone, simply means an umbrella term for a website’s infrastructure (which may refer to the server software for example). Whereas essentially, platformisation means “increasing domination of the internet” (Wikipedia, 2021), by various companies whose products work as markets between users and other sellers.

Platformed operations (such as voting and elections) offers opportunities and contribution for voter activation, which can include effective discussions/debates, and sharing information, details and opinions (regarding politics). This can also provide fundraisers via social media platforms, expanding effectiveness which can be reflected in results of political election.

Lastly, hashtags play a big role in activism, as well, an example being used on a platform such as Twitter, the #metoo movement, influencing change for the greater good. Many citizens digitally contributed by sharing their own stories and experiences using the same hashtag to gather attention on the same platform, sparking participation through active communication.

References:

TechTarget, 30 Dec. 2019, “What Is Digital Citizenship?” WhatIs.Com, https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/digital-citizenship#:~:text=Digital%20citizenship%20is%20the%20responsible%20use%20of%20technology,is%20part%20of%20one%20or%20more%20online%20communities.

Ariadne Vromen, 2017, Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement The Challenge from Online Campaigning and Advocacy Organisations, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

ctg12, 18 Jan. 2019, Digital Citizenship: The Good, The Bad, & The Role of the Internet, UAB, https://sites.uab.edu/humanrights/2019/01/18/digital-citizenship-the-good-the-bad-the-role-of-the-internet/

Wikipedia, 16 Dec. 2021, “Platformization”, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformization#:~:text=Platformization%20is%20a%20term%20which%20describes%20the%20increasing,work%20as%20markets%20between%20users%20and%20other%20sellers.

PCMAG, “Definition of Web platform“, https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/web-platform

[nadiya24]

Week 4: Reality TV

By definition, reality television is unscripted programming that does not employ actors and focuses on footage of real events or situations, many popular examples of reality TV in Australia include Married At First Sight (shortened to ‘MAFS’ by fans), Farmer Wants A Wife, The Bachelor (or The Bachelorette), and Love Island. 

Despite their popularity as a genre for television, it is also tied in with the paradox that it is the most hated genre for TV. Why do so many people claim to dislike reality TV, yet still watch it?

The answer may be because reality TV tends to follow people who are just like us, as they navigate some sort of competition or who are placed into unique social situations (examples: Big Brother and Wife Swap). It gives us a way to look into the lives of people we can relate to, as they are tasked with abnormal tasks that challenge them. Viewers who witness the dramas of reality TV can also engage in discussion via social media, conversing with fellow viewers and exchanging opinions of their own. Ratings, views and popularity soar even higher when controversial topics are displayed and televised, and audiences are quick to share a piece of their mind (whether this be through Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc).

This becomes talk within the public sphere, as reality TV triggers political discourse, a common ingredient within these spaces suggesting that it has no boundaries. “The issues, behaviours, statements, discussions, lifestyles and images of these series triggered political discussions among forum participants” (Abbey Dudas, 2018). It is not necessarily ‘political’ as a subject of discussion, but also driven by participants’ lifestyles and the personal narratives that express them. Talk of morals and ethics come into play, whilst audiences critique the participants’ character which is portrayed within the ‘reality’ televised series.

References:

Abbey Dudas, 2018, “The psychology behind watching reality TV”, The Queen’s University Journal, https://www.queensjournal.ca/story/2018-03-08/lifestyle/the-psychology-behind-watching-reality-tv/

Todd Graham and Auli Hajru, 2011, Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere, European Journal of Communication.

[nadiya24]

Week 3: The Public Sphere

The Public Sphere: what is it and where did it come from?

The public sphere has been defined by Holub (1991) as “a realm in which individuals gather to participate in open discussions”. However, the concept of the public sphere was originally introduced by Jurgen Habermas, a German philosopher and sociologist, in his book ‘The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere’ (1962). According to Habermas, the public sphere is a main element of modern societies, a domain of social life where public opinion can be formed. 

The public sphere continues to evolve in order to accommodate the various views of individuals, and in simpler words, is defined as the place in which we can come together to talk about societal problems to inflict political action.

The existence of micro-publics

It is argued that the traditional public sphere comprises of ‘micro-publics’, which is to mean digital communities such as blogging or Facebook groups. The existence of a singular public sphere is questioned, with the world of social media incorporating various platforms separate from one another, therefore not entirely equal in participation. 

Different digital communities: which is suited to you?

Even with such an extensive list of various digital communities and ‘micro-publics’, many of these platforms are not suited for individuals wishing to speak up about certain topics. Thanks to the anonymity of sites such as Tumblr, it allows users to feel more comfortable and safe in sharing experiences and thoughts which may not be taken the same on platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, where users cannot rely on anonymity. Despite being dominant platforms which follow “uniform design aesthetic with little chance for individual variation” (Byron P. 2019). Whereas Tumblr is flexible, regardless of demographics (sexuality, age, gender, ethnicity, race, etc), and overall becoming a space wherein a diversity of users could engage in topics they felt as though they could not in other platforms.

References:

Byron, P., Brady Robards, B. Hanckel, S. Vivienne and B. Churchill. 2019, “"Hey, i'm having these experiences": Tumblr use and young people's queer (dis)connections.”, International Journal of Communication.

Haley Messenger, 2016, “Our Public Sphere Today”, Odyssey, https://www.theodysseyonline.com/public-sphere-today

Rwanda, 2021, “Digital Cultures, Social Media and Public Spheres”, Africa Press, https://www.africa-press.net/rwanda/all-news/digital-cultures-social-media-and-public-spheres#:~:text=The%20extent%20to%20which%20digital%20cultures%20constitute%20a,which%20individuals%20gather%20to%20participate%20in%20open%20discussions.%E2%80%9D