shirlyntann

[shirlyntann]

Blog 10:  Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of self- tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device

Crawford, Lingel and Karppi argue that wearable self-tracking devices reflects the ‘real’ state of the body provides the users self-knowledge. How these data extracted by wearables are not always accurate or reliable. This is because wearables are unable to handle complexities (e.g unable to detect when user falls asleep, counting arm movements as walking, etc.). Furthermore, the data collected by these wearables are sold to the parent or other companies and only a small portion of the data is revealed to the users themselves. Users generally have no idea how their information are being “aggregated, analyzed, sold or repurposed, nor do they get to make active decisions about how the data are used”. Despite the inaccuracy and lack of transparency, wearables are constantly growing in popularity. This is due to the persuasive and attracting advertisements put-forth by companies. Such advertisements bring across the message that only with wearables, an individual can know themselves, have control over their lives and live better.

I personally do not own or use any wearable self-tracking devices, but I do agree with the points brought up by Crawford, Lingel and Karppi. Wearables are slowly advancing and incorporating elements of smartphones such as weather and payment functions. Companies not only appeal to consumers by showing how they can control their lives, but they now also include the element of convenience and how wearables are not merely a tracker but can improve one’s daily life. As seen from Fitbit’s charge 3 advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJhc4iv4z4), the people are seemingly leading the ‘perfect’ healthy lifestyle. With the help of Fitbit, they are able to know themselves and improve themselves.

(Screenshot of Fitbit’s advertisement video | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJhc4iv4z4)

While it may seem as though wearables like Fitbit are very useful, it is true that the data given to the users are very limited and in reality not as helpful as portrayed. I came across a news article about an individual who used to have a Fitbit addiction but eventually took it off for good (Rane, 2019). For a year, she would religiously check her heart rate, number of steps, weight ,etc., and will always hit her goals before ending her day. Such as, jogging in her bathroom to hit her step count before going to bed. The numbers are slowly taking over her life and her obsession with it finally stopped when her Fitbit spoilt. After taking it off for a period of time, she realised that besides the fact that she is not being controlled by the Fitbit anymore, nothing much changed. Her weight remained the same and she now has more control over the amount of exercise she wants to do without having to hit any goals or numbers. She also mentioned how Fitbit “gave her the illusion of empowerment… but all it did was suck my time, energy and interest in real-time”. The data given were so limited that they were pointless since they provide neither suggestions nor results.

Overall, I feel that wearables are not very sustainable. People may be initially captivated by the benefits that wearables can bring to their daily lives, but they will slowly see that these are merely giving them a false sense of agency. Along with the lack of transparency whereby users have no idea where their personal information is going and what are they being used for; consumers should definitely think twice before purchasing wearables.  

References:

Rane, Z. (2019). My Fitbit Addiction Was Driving Me Crazy. This Is What Happened I Finally Took it Off For Good. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-i-took-my-fitbit-off-for-good-2019-6

[shirlyntann]

Blog 9: Performing Chinese masculinities on dating apps

In this week’s reading, “Performing Chinese Masculinities on Dating Apps: Interpretations, Self-presentations and Interactions”, Chan explores the various ways heterosexual males in China construct and display their masculinity to females through online dating apps, Momo and Tantan. After interviewing 16 heterosexual male Momo or Tantan users, Chan discovered that the way masculinity is portrayed is very much align with the “wen” concept which refers to “cultural attainment” and “refined qualities”. “Wen” masculinity is generally considered superior to “wu” masculinity (physical power) in Chinese societies. This is why heterosexual Chinese males today tend to possess more feminine qualities by portraying their gentle and innocent images. Such as, posting photos with animals or acting cute. Asides from such heartwarming appeals, many of them also subtly display their wealth to represent their aspirations which is considered a form of masculinity today. Furthermore, all these photos are usually edited with beauty apps (e.g brightening, smoothing skin effect, etc.). Chan also points out the difference between how masculinity is perceived in China vs in Western societies. These forms of masculinity in China will never fit into Western societies and are in fact perceived as inferior.

Chan’s findings are definitely valid and apparent in Asian societies today where an increasing number of heterosexual males are displaying their masculinity through more gentle and innocent ways, rather than just showing off their physical fitness / bodies. I feel that with the Hallyu culture today, many Asian trends and cultures are being set by Korea. As mentioned by Light (2013), “digitally networked media have reconfigured the production and reproduction of masculinities”. With the aid of internet, the rising trend of “flower boys” representing soft masculinity in Korea (BBC, 2018), is being widely spread across numerous Asian countries. Besides appearing soft and gentle, it is also an increasing trend for males to subtly flaunt their wealth and accomplishments, by including their prestigious schools or jobs in their bio or by using photos with backgrounds that can imply their wealth (e.g travelling photos with breathtaking scenery). The photos used are also edited, especially since the “Meituxiuxiu” app is so popular and is considered a norm in China. It provides filters that automatically edits your face to look more innocent by enlarging the eyes, making your face smaller, etc.

Screenshot of an example of an Asian/Chinese male Tinder profile

Source: sgtindermata on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/p/BzOZr54g3qY/?igshid=1n8u8owkabu57)

While masculinity in Asian societies is more refined and softer, they are considered effeminate in Western countries. This ultimately boils down to the difference in beauty standards and culture (Lu, 2016). In western societies, physical traits such as muscular physique, tanned skin and strong features are preferred. Character traits such as strength and machismo are also considered to be masculine. However, in Asian societies, softer features and fairer skin are preferred and as mentioned above, the “wen” masculinity is also superior. Unsurprisingly, dating apps in Western societies will be very much different than that of Asian societies. Western males will be showing off their fit bodies and disheveled look, which is considered attractive, rather than acting cute and appearing gentle.

Example of a western male dating profile

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3176604/Woman-writes-witty-series-honest-Tinder-profiles-men-met-dating-app.html

Overall, definitions of masculinity vary across the world. Chan’s findings of the way masculinity are constructed and portrayed amongst Chinese heterosexual males is accurate and very evident in our society today.

References:

Chan, L.S. (2018). Performing Chinese Masculinities on Dating Apps: Interpretations, Self-presentations, and Interactions. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Prague, Czech Republic.

Lu, Y. (2016). When It Comes to Physical Appeal, Chinese and Western Standards Vary Wildly. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/976675.shtml

Online Source with No Author. (2018). Flowerboys and The Appeal of ‘Soft Masculinity’ in South Korea.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42499809

[shirlyntann]

Blog 8: Unproductive Enjoyment ‘A Culture of Distraction’

In this week’s reading, Unproductive Enjoyment: ‘A Cultural Distraction’, Bown posits that the whole concept of enjoying entertainment (e.g mobile phone games) today is merely distracting and unproductive. Such forms of enjoyable distractions serve as an alternative from the dissatisfaction people face at work and also “re-enforces our sense of being very important people with much more important things to do”. Without these distractions, our work satisfaction will then greatly decrease. To further establish his point, Bown brings up the idea of the “big Other”. The big Other symbolizes the surveillance system created by society. People are constantly seeking affirmation from the big Other that provides the assurance of whether our actions are approved and legitimized. Bown uses 2 different case studies (Candy Crush Saga and Football Manager) to show the existence of this big Other. The former presents a case of how people hide from the big Other such as closing their gaming browser window immediately upon realization that they need to return back to work even though there is no one actually watching them. Whereas the latter suggests how people wants to be seen and approved by the big Other. Games like Football Manager are structured in such a way that players can create their alternative reality and aim to achieve this imaginary approval of their skills and success in the game to ensure that the time they spent on gaming is worthwhile.

After finishing the reading, I definitely resonate with the concept of the big Other. As a student, I often find myself scrolling through social media or watching dramas instead of studying. However, it always feels as though someone is watching me and instils a sense of guilt in me that I have to hide these distractions from the big Other and start doing my work. By forcefully starting on my assignments, it gives me this false comfort that what I am doing is right and approved of, or like Bown mentioned, I “want the big Other to see me at these moments, seeking its affirmation”. Even though I do not actually want to do my assignments, I still feel satisfied starting on them.

Screenshot from https://www.ign.com/wikis/the-sims-4/City_Living_Careers

Bown’s other point of creating alternative reality is also evident with the rising popularity of role-playing games such as The Sims, where you can create your own personality traits, professions, and work your way to success career and/or relationship wise. This is connected to work as in the game you can take up any job you want (ie. Dream job), it serves as an escapism from your real job that you may be dissatisfied with. This alternative universe allows the platers to experience “simulated success”, as you feel the sense of achievement when you manage to keep your sims alive and attain the success you envisioned (ie. imaginary approval).

However, while Bown’s points are valid, I do think that they are slightly too critical and biased. I feel that it is an over-generalization to say that everyone is not satisfied with their work and are using mobile phone games / media entertainment to distract themselves from their reality. I also think that it is far-fetched to claim that people commuting home from work immediately turn to mobile games in order to “avoid reflection on the working day”. This brings me back to Week 4’s reading on The Personalization of Urban Space, mainly the idea of cocooning whereby it has become a norm for people to create their personal bubble on public transports. It could be possible that people are merely adhering to the norms, avoiding any social interactions or simply catching up on their games or social media feeds.

[shirlyntann]

Blog 7: Curation and Taste on Pinterest

In this week’s reading, Curation and Taste on Pinterest, Liu posits that Pinterest is a modernized version of traditional public curation and personal collection ways such as the museum and scrapbooking. Similarly, Pinterest users are able to customize their own boards by pinning content that suits their tastes and having the freedom to name their own boards. These boards and pins are then made known to other users, businesses and Pinterest itself, which also promotes social curation. However, this is also the reason why the boundaries between curation and collection are getting blurred. While Pinterest emphasizes on personal collection and individualization, the structure of the platform concurrently promotes curation through which users’ personal boards are easily accessible and visible to the public. Liu also brings up how the “discovery-based” navigation also contributes to public curation as the technology and business relationships formed by Pinterest determines the type of pins users will see on their discovery/home page. This then limits the limits the type of content users can be exposed to, thus contradicting Pinterest’s motto of “being yourself and being authentic”. Additionally, Pinterest also enforced several restrictions against inappropriate content that are violent, hateful, offensive, etc. Lastly, Liu also talks about the loss of individualism. Despite Pinterest being a platform that aims to promote individualism, many of the users are “subject to the tyranny of majority taste”.

As a frequent user of Pinterest, myself, I definitely agree with Liu that Pinterest curates the type of pins we would want to see and limit us from the many different categories out there. Our home page will be filled with pins that are recommended by Pinterest and even if we use the search function by typing in words such as “aesthetics”, “flowers”, and the ones that appear on our feed are those that are deemed to suit our preferences. Liu feels that such features of Pinterest, are going against their main goal of fostering individualism and customization and merely feeding public curation. However, I disagree with her as I think that these pins are only recommended to us because we have established our taste and preferences based on our previous activities. These recommended pins are actually contributing to our personal preferences. I also think that such algorithms are very beneficial and convenient. I no longer have to spend a lot of time searching and scrolling for pins that suit my preferences and instead get exposed to even more pins that are of my interest.

Furthermore, I think that Liu has an overly pessimistic view of Pinterest members. The way she portrays them reminds me of our week 5 reading about the culture industry where people are seen as passive consumers. I do not agree with Liu that Pinterest users are just passively taking in the content suggested to them and just following the trend. For example, I use Pinterest to look at room decors and inspiration. Previously, my aesthetic was pastel and bright rooms, hence my discovery page was filled with pastel room decors. However, over time my preference changed to more minimalistic rooms, and rather than to continue consuming the pastel room décor content, I can easily change my feed and algorithm by searching “minimalistic room décor” or “white bedroom inspo”. This will then change and customize my entire discovery feed to a new one that suits my current taste. Especially in today’s culture and generation, people are all about finding themselves and not conforming to trends and norms. Hence, Pinterest users are not passive consumers but have the ability to customize their own Pinterest account to suit their taste and preferences.

[shirlyntann]

Blog 6: The Sharing Economy

In this week’s reading, Ravenelle defines the sharing economy as an aspect of the gig economy that consists of “peer to peer firms that connect people for the purposes of distributing, sharing and reusing goods and services”. Profit-driven firms generally utilize these unused assets and/or services to generate short-term income. In order to delve deeper about the sharing economy, Ravanelle introduces three main themes:

1.     Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft trust divide: the sharing economy is portrayed as a means to build trust and a community connection with each other, bringing back the Gemeinschaft culture. However, in reality, corporations in the sharing economy are moving towards the Gesellschaft culture where relationships between people are characterized by an impersonal contracted association, mainly due to the lack of trust.  

2.     Increasing casualization of labor with a relayed shift in risk: many of these gig workers are facing job instability as these platforms prevents them from having control over their work. Corporations are also shifting personal and financial risks to the workers, compelling them to bear all these burdens themselves.

3.     Increase in social inequalities: the sharing economy is said to only be beneficial for those who are already well off, as they have the resources and ability to invest and profit. While those who are of the lower- or middle-income level are struggling to generate income. Instability for them is merely flexibility for the wealthier workers.  

I agree with Ravenelle that the main focus of the sharing economy is to make profits by monetizing on goods and services. A classic example would be Grab, which is one of the bigger corporations in Singapore’s sharing economy. Over the years, in order to maximize profits, Grab has increased pricings and giving out lesser promo codes for riders. This is done knowing that they are the biggest ride sharing platform in Singapore and people will still engage with their services despite the price hike. Besides consumers, drivers are also facing the consequences of these profit-driven companies. Several times when I take grab rides, the grab uncle will be complaining about how it is so much harder to earn from being a driver as compared to the past as grab has significantly reduced drivers’ incentives.

However, in this article, Ravenelle mainly discusses the negative aspects of the sharing economy. While the proposed points are true, they are too unbalanced as there are definitely pros about the sharing economy. The barriers to entry for such platforms are very low, providing job opportunities for many people regardless of age, education level, etc. jobs in the sharing economy are also very flexible, allowing people to have the freedom to schedule their time. Additionally, for consumers, the sharing economy also helped them save costs and make everyday living more affordable. For example, Mooch App. This platform allows local people to lend and borrow items such as tools, household items and many more, to avoid wasting money on items that you may only use once. These show how the sharing economy is not all that bad. In fact, the benefits brought about by the sharing economy outweighs the cons as the future of the sharing economy is predicted to continue growing, reach new heights and become a major part of the global economy (Promatics Technologies, 2017).

References:

Promatics Technologies. (2017). How the Sharing Economy is Going to Shift in the Next 5 Years. Retrieved from https://promatics.medium.com/how-the-sharing-economy-is-going-to-shift-in-next-5-years-d34a25b09e2e

Ravenelle, A. J. (2019). What is the Sharing Economy? Chapter 2 in Hustle and Gig: Struggling and Surviving in the Sharing Economy (1st ed.). Oakland, California: University of California Press.  

[shirlyntann]

Blog 5: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism and Young Digital Labor

In this week’s reading, #familygoals: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism and Justifying Young Digital Labor, Abidin, compares family influencers to reality tv families and talks about how such family influencers attract audiences. Reality tv families are seen as extraordinary families known for their astounding achievements in certain aspects. On the other hand, family influencers are just ordinary people who generate content online to attract audiences and become microcelebrity influencers. They generally adopt this practice of calibrated amateurism whereby they purposefully portray themselves as amateurs while strategically incorporating scripted or polished content, in order to present themselves as an everyday family just like their audiences. Abidin also mentions the 4 justifications brought up by family influencers with regards to digital child labor. To summarize, their justifications were that their children are enjoying and willingly participating in the digital estate, they have a certain amount of control in the content and they are still “normal kids”.

While these justifications may be true, I feel that children are still far too young to comprehend the meaning of consent. By uploading their videos and images online it is still a violation to their privacy. A local example would be social media influencer, Bong Qiu Qiu, who created Instagram accounts for three of her children. She regularly uploads images and videos of them, and some are even embarrassing ones of them that may seem cute or funny. Her kids are way too young to have the concept of privacy and consent, hence they do not object to her posting content of them online. They are merely at the age of having fun and not understanding what exactly digital labor is and how it may affect them currently or in the future. Parents are somewhat exploiting their children for personal benefits. By uploading content onto Instagram, YouTube or other social media platforms, they can garner attention and attract sponsorships or earn money. With the rapidly growing use of internet, there are definitely more and more family influencers surfacing and children getting monetized is also becoming a common issue.

YouTube had taken a good initiative by introducing “YouTube Kids” to comply with the Federal Children’s Privacy Law. Targeted advertisements will be restricted on videos under this category and such videos will also lose access to certain community features (Alexander, 2020). This prevents adults from exploiting children and ensure that to a certain extent, contents are produced purely because they enjoy it. That being said, other platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, which are very popular today, should also come up with rules and regulations similar to that of YouTube’s to better protect children in this digital age.

References:

Abidin, C. (2017). #Familygoals: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism, and Justifying Digital Young Labor.

Alexander, J. (2020). YouTube Officially Rolls Out Changes to Children’s Content Following FTC Settlement. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/6/21051465/youtube-coppa-children-content-gaming-toys-monetization-ads

[shirlyntann]

Blog 4: Culture Industry

In this week’s reading, The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Adorno and Horkheimer posit that culture industry today is a phenomenon of late capitalism. Art is no longer autonomous but has become a commodified product to satisfy consumers’ entertainment needs. The culture industry produces variations of the same thing in order to ensure conformity. They also argue that people are being manipulated to adapt to capitalism, becoming passive and subjugated to the culture industry.

Adorno and Horkeimer’s claims are true to a certain extent. Art is definitely more commodified than in the past. Due to the capitalistic society, profits and power are more prioritized by many people. It is also quite evident that the culture industry is always producing different variations of the same thing. For example, well-loved Chinese tv series are always romantic dramas involving a plain looking girl with a very good-looking boy who eventually falls in love with each other (Fig 1). The plot of all these dramas are generally similar, just with minor tweaks here and there. It seems as though media is producing content to suit consumers when in fact, the mass production of such dramas serves as easy entertainment to distract people from the wrongs of the culture industry and somewhat brainwashes them into consuming these products.

             Fig 1: screenshot of similar Chinese dramas from my Netflix

While some of their arguments hold true, I do feel that Adorno and Horkheimer’s tone and language in this reading is too negative and overly critical. There is also no balance in their arguments which results in it being too biased. One of their claims that I mainly disagree with would be the one about how people are passively consuming products of the culture industry and are incapable of having their own opinions. It is an over-generalization to say that the culture industry eradicates autonomous thinking and criticism for everyone, especially in this “woke” and digitalized culture. Many people are no longer mindlessly taking in content. They have their own views and preferences and are constantly sharing their opinions online. An example would be the TV show Friends. As it is recently made available on Netflix, many people who watched it have pointed out several problems of the TV show such as sexism, stereotypical views, and consumers have taken it to the internet to express their thoughts about it (Kaplan, 2018). Hence, it is fair to say that this is a two-way relationship and people are influencing the way culture is shaped today.  

References:

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2012). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Chapter 4 in M.G. Durham $ D. Kellner (Eds). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks (2nd ed). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, 53-74.

Kaplan, I. (2018). Millennials Watching ‘Friends’ on Netflix Shocked by Storyline. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/friends-netflix-sexist-racist-transphobic-problematic-millenials-watch-a8154626.html

[shirlyntann]

Blog 3: Mobile Media

In this week’s reading, Ito, Okabe and Anderson discussed about how people interact with their urban environment and how mobile media allowed people to create their own private sphere in public areas. 3 main categories brought up were cocooning, camping and footprinting, which are all very relevant in Singapore.  

It was mentioned how cocooning happens when people are trying to claim their own private space to kill time by using their phones, reading a book, etc. This is very evident in our society today. Whenever I’m on the public transport, everyone is their own bubble, burying their heads in their mobile devices, with their earphones on. While it is posited that people voluntarily cocoon themselves for privacy, could it also be that some are “forced” into cocooning. Especially in today’s world where cocooning is seen as a norm, if you don’t use your mobile device in public areas when you’re alone, just staring into space or even people-watch, you are either “weird” or maybe a “boomer” who doesn’t use technology. I too experience this when I take the public transport. Sometimes, I do not feel like using my phone, but I force myself to just pointlessly scroll through Instagram in order to avoid being seen as “weird” or “creepy”.  

Footprinting as mentioned by the authors were seen as an invasion to privacy and people generally don’t engage in reward systems to avoid revealing their tracks. The concept of footprinting is closely tied to privacy. In this digital age, our concept of privacy is drastically changing as people are not as uptight about privacy as they were before. What seemed like a privacy invasion to the older generation is considered normal to us. For example, when I go to Innisfree, they always ask customers to sign up for this free membership program and they can receive free product samples. Most people will just sign up and fill in their particulars since it is free, and you even get free items.

While the authors only mentioned footprinting in the form of reward systems, there are many other aspects of footprinting. A very prevalent form during this pandemic will be contact tracing in the form of SafeEntry and TraceTogether. Our whereabouts are constantly being tracked by the government for the betterment of the society. Despite the major invasion to our privacy, most of us are complying with it due to the collectivistic nature of our society.

[shirlyntann]

Blog 2: TV and its role throughout the decades

In the chapter TV and the Spaces of Everyday Life, Spigel talks about the TV’s role in domestic space and how it contributed to the “time-space compression” through different decades. She talks about how in the past, the TV serves to bring families together as they bond over watching the TV. I remember when I was a kid, I would always be watching Hong Kong dramas with my grandmother, football with my dad and 9pm Mediacorp dramas with my mom. Though there were times when every family member wanted to watch their preferred show and could not come to an agreement. As mentioned in the chapter, rather than bonding the family, the TV could also cause some rifts and tension. However, as time passes and the world is getting increasingly digitalized, in this new era, the argument of TV unifying the family does not really apply anymore. I often hear my friends and myself saying, “who even watches TV anymore?”. Which is true, as we now have our own mobile devices, we can easily watch shows and videos that may not be available on TV and we don’t have to fight with others on what to watch.

Another point brought up by Spigel that I completely relate with is the contradiction of how most people do not consider the TV as a necessity and yet sales of TV are always on the rise. Despite the fact that people today do not really watch TV anymore as our phones, laptops, etc are able to serve the same function as a TV, people are consistently purchasing TVs and a TV can still be found in almost every household. For example, my own home where there is a TV displayed in the living room. No one actually watches it as we would rather be in the comfort of our own rooms and beds watching Netflix on our laptops. While the TV is practically redundant at this point, my mom still places family photos and awards around the TV, which ironically signifies how important the TV is. Without a TV, it would actually seem weird, as though our home is not completed. Though the TV does not serve its intended purpose anymore, it is still seen as an indispensable furniture for many.  

It is definitely interesting how in merely a few deacdes, the role of the TV could change so drastically. From a symbol of prestige, to a domestic medium that can be found in almost every household and to currently, a “mobile technology and everywhere culture form”.  

[shirlyntann]

Blog 1: Mediatization

This reading by Couldry and Hepp is centered about the concept of “Mediatization” , which in other words mean that our social world is constructed through communication, where media plays a fundamental role. Our day to day communications are interwoven with media and technology, through the use of phones, apps, etc, which then shapes our habits and social realities. Man has become so reliant, viewing media and technology as a necessity, that we have actually become one with technology. We are entangled with media not just in the socio-cultural aspect but also biologically. So much so that mediation and mediatization are part of what defines us as human.

Couldry and Hepp also posits that our social world is intersubjective as within our social world, there are many various domains that are differentiated based on their shared practices / beliefs. However, these various domains are at the same time interconnected which then forms our materialized social world. The bound between these domains allow people to recognize and accept common rules that may arise from different areas and hence our social world will become more institutionalized. An institutionalized fact would be how Facebook is viewed as a platform for the older generation whereas Instagram and Tiktok are for the younger generation.

In this digitalized era, I could definitely relate to the points brought up by Couldry and Hepp. Especially during this pandemic era, where we are not allowed to travel and highly encouraged to stay home. I find myself on my phone, scrolling through social media much more, watching past vlogs of people in other countries to reminisce the times when I was travelling. It wouldn’t even be an exaggeration to say that 90% of the time I spent awake, I’ll be engaging with some sort of media and technology.

Whilst I do agree with the points brought up by Couldry and Hepp, I would say my ability to relate with them is primarily because I have access to these technologies. Though technology and media are constantly advancing, the digital divide in our world does not seem to be improving. There is a significant amount of people who do not have the privilege of accessing the media and technology the rest of the world has. Hence, I do think that the concept of mediation and mediatization though very valid, is however not as applicable for all as implied by Couldry and Hepp.