#engl108d

[lavendercarefreedays-blog]

I NEED TO CHECK MY PHONE!

After reading and discussing Turkle’s “Stop Googling, Let’s Talk,” I thought about how social media and technology has changed the way many individuals are having conversations and how it has changed. I thought about how it has affected me personally and I do agree that technology and social media can come off as negative, where people are not actively engaging with one another in face-to-face conversations but rather checking their phone constantly and having separate conversations on their devices (Turkle).

For me, I was constantly glued to my phone if it was ever in my vision. When I used to go out with my friends, my phone would always be with me and if my screen lit up because I got a notification, I would immediately check it and I found that many of the people around me also did that. Recently, I’ve been trying to cut down my use of social media. I feel like it does really take out the meaning in having face-to-face conversations with people as there is less to talk about since you are pretty much caught up with each other’s lives from social media. You might as well have your conversation over the phone if you’re just going to be on your phone with the presence of others, not entirely engaging in face-to-face conversation.

I think what really lead to this was my trip to China this past summer. Most of the social media I use is pretty much blocked there and I honestly didn’t know how I was going to survive a whole month in another country without social media. Even though I did purchase a data SIM, I had to track how often I used it to make sure I would last the month – it was more of a method to contact family and relatives if we went out. It was definitely a learning experience for me. It made me realize how much time I wasted just scrolling on social media or constantly checking my phone even though not much has probably changed since the last time I checked. Being less on social media, I find, has made me feel better as a person – not having to really compare myself to others. I also had more to share about my travelling experiences when I returned from my trip knowing that my friends hadn’t always been updated on what was going on during my trip.

Works Cited:

Turkle, Sherry. “Stop Googling. Let's Talk.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Sept. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/stop-googling-lets-talk.html?_r=0. Accessed 27 Sept. 2017.

[priorknowledgeishax]

Kappa Kappa Kappa: It’s Three Emojis in a Row!

After we read Sternbergh’s “Smile, You’re Speaking Emoji: The Rapid Evolution of a Wordless Tongue,” I started to think about how and when I feel comfortable using emojis. He talked about the different ways that they are used among friends and how they operate within close relationship (Sternbergh). They’re obviously informal, and I have no problem using them with close friends and family. But sometimes they are used in professional contexts, and it can either be appropriate or completely unprofessional. I feel like whether or not you can just send someone emojis is a kind of intimacy measurement. Like, a really good friend, I can just send a string of emojis in response and that’s totally fine. A friendly professional relationship might mean I can end a sentence with a : ) (never a :P though, noooooope) and I would also not let them shift into emojis, I tend to leave them as emoticons in friendly professional contexts. But it’s not like I would send them the usual string of three emojis that I do with my friends.

I have no idea why I typically send emojis in groups of three when I’m conversing with those I feel close to. It’s a habit I think I picked up on Twitch chats, where you can spam lines and lines of emojis and it’s just part of the expected atmosphere. It makes sense that emojis are common there though—like we read in “Streaming on Twitch,” Twitch acts as a kind of Third Place (Hamilton, Garretson, and Kerne) so it’s both a public place and close-knit community. There are definitely “regulars” and there are accepted methods of interaction. I used to spend a lot of time on the TwitchPlaysPokemon stream, and we would all spam emojis like crazy. Maybe that’s because the chat moved so fast that you couldn’t read the messages, and a single emoji would be hard to notice at the rate the chat window went by. So including several of the same emoji made it easier to see and notice, plus it was participating in a cool moment when it happened. It’s a weird habit, but maybe it was a practical one after all. Well, at least for a Twitch chat going a million miles an hour.

Works Cited

Sternbergh, Adam. "Smile, You're Speaking Emoji: The Rapid Evolution of a Wordless Tongue." New York Magazine. November 16, 2014. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/emojis-rapid-evolution.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

Hamilton, William A., Garretson, Oliver, and Andruid Kerne. “Streaming on Twitch: Fostering Participatory Communities of Play within Live Mixed Media.” Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 14, 2014, doi:10.1145/2556288.2557048. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

[ervcasua-blog]

Feeding the Troll

Since the beginning of online communities and networks, trolls have been around and are regularly seen “attacking” users. Heated debates can trigger people to lash out on one another. However, that’s not exactly what you would call “trolling” but rather “flaming”. I feel that it’s important that people are able to distinguish between these two, as these definitions can get a little blurry.

To first explain, flaming is the act of “online social actions that express affect in the form of aggression, expression, insult, and hatred toward other users” (Lindgren, 132). Trolling may seemingly be the same thing on surface level– but it is not. Rather, I believe that trolling is not all entirely bad as it is perceived to be. In the right contexts (in that it is not abusive trolling), it serves the purpose of entertainment. Nothing like sipping tea while watching people get angry over the littlest things in the comment section, am I right? After our discussions in class, it gave me a new perspective on those users… Typing away behind their computer screens… Provoking others for pure entertainment.

As Steve Spumante mentioned in his article “The Subtle Art of Trolling”: “The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll”. 

Agreeing with what Steve said, the goal of any troll is to anger or frustrate their target audience. The user being trolled may not even realize that he’s the victim, because the jokes and remarks fly over their heads. Thus, the art of trolling is more complex than people would think.

A harmless example shown in class, being Twitter user @dril who is seen making snarky remarks that are rather ridiculous...

The individual behind this account knows exactly what he is doing and is mastering his craft in trolling! Clearly, he’s making false accusations, spreading false information as well as making political standpoints that he knows will anger and frustrate people. His target audience are those who simply don’t understand this type of social form, and take his tweets way too seriously and out of context... Which is exactly what he wants. 

Meanwhile, everyone else can sit back and watch the chaos unfold!

 [Referenced Articles]

Spumante, Steve. “Trolling the Web: a Guide.” The Subtle Art of Trolling, www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html.

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media and Society. Sage Publication Inc., 2017.

 [Image]

“Joke Over Head | Whoosh / You Missed the Joke.” Know Your Meme, 10 Mar. 2016, knowyourmeme.com/photos/992401-whoosh-you-missed-the-joke. 

Wint. “Wint (@Dril).” Twitter, Twitter, 15 Sept. 2008, twitter.com/dril.

[lashaina]

let’s go back to the future!

In honour of this being the last blog for this class assignment, i think it’s only appropriate to take a look back earlier readings I have not discussed. “#tbt” is one of the most popular hashtags used on Instagram to date. As a part of the millennial generation, it seems that we live for what is old and analogue. Nostalgia is the biggest fashion statement and throwbacks are the biggest trend. Instagram is littered with enough preschool pictures every Tuesday and Thursday for this to ring true to my ears at least. We live in the age where teens proclaim to be “born in the wrong generation” and blissfully purchase record players, polaroid cameras and keyboards that look like type-writers. It comes as no surprise to me that there has been an emergence of a so called “IRL Fetish.” When it comes to communication, what is the oldest and most analogue form of it? Face to face conversations.

To some, “the offline” holds some sort of power to thrust the current generation into a new mental space where self acceptance soars and boredom ceases to exist because we have been transported to some kind of higher mental state; one our online lives somehow prohibit. However, it’s important to take notice of the fact that we are constantly connected across networks causes the “few” moments we spend offline to be more precious. The constant badgering and pressuring to disconnect and unplug often do the opposite. As human beings we often have difficultly processing the term “no.” More often than not, telling someone “Don’t look” almost encourages them to look.

The notion of cyber pessimism is not often allocated to the Millennial generation because we are often described as having been born with an iPad in our hands as we were raised in the time when there was a transition from web 1.0 to web 2.0. Although we should feel almost at home in the wake of technological innovation, majority of millennials are drawn to the off-the-grid lifestyle being sold by cyber pessimists. This is not only as a result of us bearing witness to moral break-downs and Internet crime, it is also because it’s the “in thing” to do. Bashing the online and online interactions evolved almost as distinct as the “vintage aesthetic.”

We say that everything comes back in style. By this logic, the youth in the era of my own children might look to our days as being the best days simply because it’s the popular thing to do and “face to face communication” may be an afterthought. 

Works Cited

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media and Society. SAGE, 2017.

Jurgenson, Nathan. “The IRL Festish”. The New Inquiry. 28 June. 2012. https://thenewinquiry.com/the-irl-fetish/. Accessed 15 November 2017.

[jl4zhao-blog]

😄 is not the same as 😄

Sternbergh remarks that the “elasticity of meaning” --- that is, how the same emoji can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on the context of the conversation --- “is a large part of the appeal and, perhaps, the genius of emoji“. However, Sternbergh doesn’t consider any context from the actual implementation of the emoji.

There isn’t just one 😄 emoji. Instead, the Unicode Consortium specifies how the 😄 emoji should look like: “grinning face with smiling eyes“. It’s left to companies to draw and implement their own emoji for their devices. As a result, 😄 will appear differently if you read this Tumblr post on a Macbook and on a Samsung phone.

With these differences, you can say one thing on one platform that has a totally different meaning on another. At a glance, Apple’s 😄 has a weirdly shaped mouth, making it seemed like a pained smile. A study done by the University of Minnesota GroupLens Project in 2016 found that the quantified emotional sentiment for Apple’s 😄 is negative, whereas the 😄‘s from all other smartphone platforms are positive.

And so, an awkward conversation like this can happen:

Apple and Facebook have since modified their 😄 emojis to be more like everyone else’s, which is what happens with most cases like this one. As a company, you usually don’t want your users to be the odd one out, not to mention the fact that the Unicode Consortium usually bugs everyone to keep their emoji in order.

Usually is the key word here --- sometimes, emojis look different on purpose. Again, Apple is the culprit.

Apple caused a big stir a while ago by replacing the pistol emoji, from a real gun to a water gun, to make a political statement about gun control. Again, a short text that doesn’t provide enough context can completely change meaning depending on how the pistol emoji is drawn:

But this time, instead of a momentary misunderstanding about how one woman’s date went, we could have people bringing real guns to a water gun fight.

Of course, the chances of this happening are slim. But as emoji usage grows, we should be aware that emojis aren’t perfect pictograms. What you see on your screen may not be the same on somebody else’s. Even if emojis have elastic meaning, sometimes even the writer doesn’t have the entire context of the message.

Works Cited:

Burge, Jeremy. “Apple And The Gun Emoji.” Emojipedia, Emojipedia, 16 Aug. 2017, blog.emojipedia.org/apple-and-the-gun-emoji/.

“Full Emoji List, v5.0.” Emoji Charts, Unicode Consortium, 2 Nov. 2017, unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html.

Miller, Hannah. “Investigating the Potential for Miscommunication Using Emoji.” GroupLens, University of Minnesota, 5 Apr. 2016, grouplens.org/blog/investigating-the-potential-for-miscommunication-using-emoji/.

Sternbergh, Adam. “Smile, You’re Speaking Emoji.” New York Magazine, 16 Nov. 2014, nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/emojis-rapid-evolution.html.

[digitaldigestion-blog]

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who is Wokest of Them All?

I position myself on the optimistic side on the scale of cyberpessimist to cyberoptimist (Lindgren 52). However, looking at cinematic art we see technopoly being wielded for dramatic plots or as a tool for mass indoctrination in pieces such as Her, The Circle, and Black Mirror (Postman, qtd in Lindgren 52). All three caution ‘technological solutionism’ through the eyes of a protagonist that is painted as a naïve cyberoptimist (Morozov, qtd in Lindgren 52).

I want to focus on the episode ‘Nosedive’ from Black Mirror. In the episode, the ‘disconnect between ‘real’ and ‘virtual’ identities’ is abolished (Lindgren 72). The microcultures, or fragmentation of our identities, we experience in our current lives are secured by platform barriers and the online vs offline (Simmel, qtd. in Lindgren 36). In Nosedive there an absolute context collapse where offline and online selves are judged by one unanimous rating system, a singular identity is created and hierarchies form (boyd 30, Lindgren 89). The impact of de-individuation means the population are more affected by norms stemming from the offline world (Zimbardo, qtd. In Lindgren 78). The plot highlights how technology could create a hyper-social-cyber landscape resulting in any deviation from the norms eliciting instantaneous punishment. Additionally, we see a hyperbolized manifestation of the ‘intensification loop of behavioural conformation’ to mimic the idealized versions of ourselves we create online (Walther, qtd, in Lindgren 82).

So, how likely is it for Nosedive to occur? Well, it’s rating system is rooted in reality. Whether it be the number of likes, downvotes, or numerical Uber ratings we are already subject to ranking (Robinson 1). There’s also a level of corporate dominance in Nosedive that we see in wider society today, a system that favours the elite both in offline and online circles. Ultimately yes, it is possible a system of ratings could evolve out of computer-mediated communication but we shouldn’t underestimate the intellectual awareness of technology users. Being part of a generation that has grown up on the internet and social media I am limited in my perspective as I can’t romanticise a time pre-CMC like Turkle (Jurgenson 1). However, the cyber-pessimism I see in media often targets younger generations painting them as mindless users (is it a coincidence the pastel tones throughout Nosedive match millennial pink?). A cynical approach to technology and social media in society can undermine the immense potential they carry. Society is in constant flux, and technology is a powerful agent in generating change (Lindgren 49). Whether it is for better or worse, we will have to wait and see but I remain hopeful and will continue to unashamedly binge all of Black Mirror.

Works Cited

Boyd, danah. It’s Complicated. Yale University Press, 2015.

Jurgenson, Nathan. The IRL Fetish. The New Inquiry, 2017. [date accessed: 15/10/17] https://thenewinquiry.com/the-irl-fetish/

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media & Society. Los Angeles, Sage, 2017, Print.

Robinson, Tasha. Black Mirror’s third season opens with a vicious take on social media. The Verge, 2017. [date accessed: 15/10/17] https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13379204/black-mirror-season-3-episode-1-nosedive-recap

[theofficialpu]

Facebook selling your Information?!

Have you ever wondered how Facebook manages to keep running, even though they don’t ask for money from any member? What if I told you that they make money by selling all your information to advertisers?

Most messaging/social network sites do this actually, even Tumblr, and I feel like this is a breach of privacy in some way. It is kind of odd how you look up a bunch of sneakers on Google, and then every advertisement you see on Youtube is either from adidas or nike. If companies have this information with them, then what else do they keep with themselves about us.

Facebook is somewhat notorious for ads. It certainly is good when you find a bargain through these ads, but the only way you found this was because Facebook literally sent information to other companies that you were interested in such an item. This is all in their terms and conditions when you sign up for Facebook (but lets be honest, who actually reads that?). 

In our Engl108D lecture, we described this as a “playbour”, you scroll through Facebook, liking a bunch of posts, enjoying yourself. Then Facebook sells this information, of what you liked, your age, etc to advertisers who can then based off this information, select to place their ad on your wall. You aren’t losing anything, apart from your privacy. 

Now this might be alright, but there’s other information too that’s being sent to them, such as your marital status, your friends list, your current location etc. I feel like they should not sell this much information about you to so many people in the world. There is a reason people choose to make a private profile, and what is the use of this if any major firm can see your personal data. This data dump is very dangerous if it gets in to the wrong hands. Again to state what I said before, it is a breach of privacy. 

If this wasn’t enough, Facebook can even get information about you from real world purchases too. The company has partnered with a lot of other companies, such as banks, hypermarkets etc, and collects data from them to target ads for you.

I think it is alright to give some amount of information, such as what you liked, age, etc. But giving away some other, more personal stuff, such as your location or your relationship status is a bit too much. And knowing what you bought in real life, is almost at level with stalking.  

[joslyntsui-blog]

ENGL108D Post #4

           I don’t read the newspaper or watch the news. Nor do I check news websites all that often either. I don’t follow any ‘news’ social media ­­– unless BuzzFeed counts. Whenever anything big happens, I usually don’t find out from a news article. I find out through hashtags, or changed profile pictures.            

           Whenever something big happens, I usually log on to see a bunch of the same posts, photos, and hashtags. I don’t even have to actively follow any news media because someone I know will have posted the link to an article, or a long rant about said event. Just doing a quick scroll down my newsfeed will give me enough general information. People love to post everything on social media, from little things like what they had for dinner, to big things such as disasters (that’s what Gladwell was so wrong about, people will tweet about literally anything and everything).            Sometimes I’ll be surprised at who posted about an event, especially if they’re supporting it. For example, when the Pulse shooting happened, someone that I knew who isn’t too supportive of the LGBTQ community posted their support and changed their profile picture to a rainbow. It was obvious that they only posted about Pulse because it was in the news and they didn’t want to seem like a terrible person. They actually got called out in the comments for not actually caring, but only wanting to seem like they did.            And honestly, it doesn’t even make any sense. It’s not like your post brings any of the victims back. What difference does it really make? The victims and their families don’t want tweets of your prayers, they want you to go out and do something about it. Not just sit on your ass and post about it. Let’s be real, the real reason you’re posting is mostly to just seem like you give a damn.            

Don’t get me wrong, some movements only exist and work because of people posting on social media such as #metoo. But those are rare. Often, all the tweets and posts don’t actually make a difference, hence the hashtag #wedontneedyourprayers. I think that if people really cared, they would do more than just sit behind a screen and post about it. And maybe some people do both, but not enough people are. We need to start doing more than just tweet about things.

 Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media and Society. Sage Publications, 2017. Accessed November 30, 2017.

Jenkins, Henry. “Twitter Revolutions.” Spreadable Media. November 21, 2012. http://spreadablemedia.org/essays/jenkins/#.WiDTsUqnFPb. Accessed November 30, 2017.

Gladwell, Malcom. “Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” The New Yorker. October 4, 2010. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell. Accessed November 30, 2017.

[lavendercarefreedays-blog]

Tweet, tweet

Gladwell’s article was an interesting read to me. Gladwell said, “events in the early sixties became a civil-rights war that engulfed the South for the rest of the decade – and it happened without e-mail, texting, Facebook, or Twitter,” (Gladwell). I can understand that a difference can be made without social media, however, I think that in a society like ours today where technology is increasingly advancing, technology and social media does impact us. Gladwell ignores the fact that social media can spread news and issues from different standpoints in a shorter amount of time, to a larger audience. In this sense, Gladwell has another good point that social media platforms are built around “weak ties” (Gladwell). Although many people see these issues and are unable to physically do anything about it, social media allows others to educate themselves and be aware of the issue that they probably wouldn’t have known about if they weren’t connected to social media.

I find that I learn a lot about social issues through social media especially since I read my Twitter feed like it’s the morning newspaper, so it is beneficial to me. We discussed several social movements, some of which I had not known of until it was mentioned in class. One that stood out to me was #metoo. When I first saw the hashtag on Twitter with nothing else being said, I was confused about it until I constantly saw posts with the hashtag, some of which had descriptions but my curiosity pushed me to Google this hashtag and read more about it. Another issue was the #fortmcmurray fire in Calgary summer of 2016. I saw this hashtag all over Twitter on news accounts on my feed. That same week I went to Wal-Mart and as I was checking out, I was asked if I wanted to donate for the Fort McMurray fire and I did. So, as I agree with Malcolm in the sense that social media tends toward low-risk activism, I think that social media is extremely important in raising awareness. Had I not known how bad the fire was prior to being asked for a donation, I may not have given one.

This can be related to internet competence. As social media is beneficial to awareness of social issues, it also depends on the technical means – if you have proper technology and connection, the autonomy of use – whether you access the internet at home, work, or public places (Lindgren 148). It also depends on the skills one has with platforms, if you know how to access the information, and who you follow (Lindgren 149).

Works Cited:

Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” The New Yorker. October 4, 2010. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017

Lindgren, Simon. “Digital Media & Society.” SAGE Publications Ltd. 2017. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

[lashaina]

i like your accent!

Many of the “friend groups” I have established during adolescence are almost entirely network based. The connections I share with most of these individuals stem from a connection I have with someone they know, leading to an establishment of various networks of people I share very little interests in common with but still yet, we are considered friends.

The only community I can think of belonging to is the Caribbean community. Being a part of a diaspora that is not connected by land and spans over the Caribbean Sea, one would think that it would be difficult to form a sense of community given the distance, the difference in language and dialects and cultural differences that are just as diverse as the people who live in theses countries. However, almost every Caribbean person I know is bonded to the other in some shape or form because of a shared heritage and history. Simply conversing about various topics in different accents can foster a sense of community. Much like how the Caribbean community spans distance, colour and creed, online communities join people of different genders (sometimes), vocations, religions and race by a common thread of interest.

The distance factor is an excellent parallel for online relations. Individuals do not need to be in the same place, or same room, country or timezone even. Strong bonds are formed regardless of a person’s location. Communities organised this way have a much easier chance of encouraging new members to join the community and take part in community activities.

“Accents” in online communities usually take form in a shared language or sentence structure among community members. Every community has its particular typing style and community-specific behaviour. Although communities are welcoming to new members, entering a new online community is almost like moving to a new country. There is also learning curve where members of a “country” (community) teach them the norms and customs of the country.

The Twitch community is an excellent example of the establishment of a history and a common language used among users. To further expand, the “Twitch Plays Pokemon” Project launched on Twitch even caused a “religion” and special symbols and meanings to evolve almost like the cross and evolution of Christianity. New users bare witness to already existing norms and customs and assimilate this culture much like someone new to a country.

Works Cited

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media and Society. SAGE, 2017.

Hamilton, William A., Garretson, Oliver, and Andruid Kerne. “Streaming on Twitch: Fostering Participatory Communities of Play within Live Mixed Media.”Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 14, 2014, doi:10.1145/2556288.2557048. Accessed 6  Nov. 2017.

[lavendercarefreedays-blog]

Am I who you think I am?

It can be so entertaining yet so stressful maintaining a social media profile, especially on many different platforms. Each platform is so unique that your identity is presented differently for each one. As mentioned in the Digital Media and Society textbook, “on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” (Lindgren, 72). Your online identity could be totally separate from your offline self or it could be very similar to your offline self depending on the platform you are using. Lindgren talks about how certain platforms allow you to be more anonymous than others and leads to the online disinhibition effect – “the effect that people tend to be less restrained and express themselves more openly online” (Lindgren, 76).

As discussed in class for example, Tumblr, Pinterest, and Reddit are social media where nobody really knows who you are truly. With platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, you tend to interact with people you are familiar with and have profiles that are similar to your offline identities. Sometimes, I feel restricted with posting things on Facebook and Instagram because I know that the people who are viewing it know me and would judge me. But, with social media like Tumblr, Pinterest, and Reddit, I feel more free about the things I say or post because others don’t know who I am and I don’t know who the readers or viewers are either so I generally care less. Also, since it is more public, I wouldn’t post anything too personal either so I guess in that sense, there is also a restriction.

On another note, people can also fake their identity on social media such as Tinder. Rather than being anonymous completely, they can hide their offline identity but create a fake identity for their profile when trying to meet someone through the app which can be dangerous. I think this is why many people are against online dating sites or are always told to be more cautious and not believe everything we see.

Works Cited:

Lindgren, Simon. “Digital Media & Society.” SAGE Publications Ltd. 2017. Accessed 16 Oct. 2017.

[lashaina]

type louder, i can’t hear you!

Turkle’s persistent view that online interaction is somehow inferior to offline conversation and causes difficulty expressing empathy and reading emotions, is one that I cannot agree with. The belief that offline conversations are more authentic than those that take place over the Internet is an incorrect one (to me at least).

Online conversations and offline conversations are not the same. They each have they own affordances and constraints much like online platforms. Although traditionally via text messages we cannot see someone’s facial emotions, read their body language and hear their tone, users of online messaging platforms have adapted to this “lack” and have learned to read emotions from typed text without these affordances.

One particular instance I always remember is an online incident with my boyfriend where he said something silly that made me upset. Trying to remain non-confrontational, I continued to type using the prerequisite number of “emoji-kisses” and maintaining a sentence structure that I believed to be identical to my normal typing. Despite this, he somehow managed to pick up the slightest change in my sentence structure and asked me about this. This leads me to the conclusion that it is entirely possible to curate and build an “online voice.”

Emotions and tone are not completely lost when communication takes place online instead of offline. It almost seems like picking up changes in tone increases intensity when speech is concrete and visible; this allows time for analysis. Emojis, italics, bold and even punctation afford us the opportunity to make up for the loss of physical and vocal cues of emotion and intent of speech. The way someone uses these tools allows for the manifestation of an individual and unique digital online voice  just as distinct and separate as someone’s “real life” voice.

Further in disapproval of Turkle's argument, is the fact that online relationships are often more intimate than their offline counterparts. Lindgren notes this in Chapter Four where he suggests that people tend to share deeper and “hyper-personal” conversations online rather than in person. It is also suggested that because the real life visual element is lost, it allows for less inhibitions in the nature of the conversation. This means that more opportunities for empathetic acts exist.

Online and offline interactions will always differ in how they take place because they are two different contexts. This does not mean that either one is superior to the other. Frequent users of online messaging will eventually develop “voices” that allow for empathy and emotional interpretation.

Works Cited

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media and Society. SAGE, 2017.

Morrison, Aimée. “Facebook and Coaxed Affordances”. Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online. Eds. Anna Poletti and Julie Rak. University of Wisconsin Press, 2014, pp. 112-131.

Turkle, Sherry. “Stop Googling. Let’s Talk”. The New York Times. 26 Sept. 2015.  https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/opinion/sunday/stop-googling-lets-talk.html?_r=0 . Accessed 13 October 2017.

[digitaldigestion-blog]

Selling Ourselves Short with 140 Characters

In class, we have been discussing whether digital life writing can give an authentic representation of its author. The way I present myself varies platform to platform. For example, being friends with colleagues means I have curated a Facebook personality that is relatively formal. However, the more I examine what I post and how I interact with others I realise that my self-representation and the ‘fragments’ I share online go beyond my friends (Simmel 379-380, qtd. in Lindgren 36) , or, the ‘normative practices’ that the users of each platform develop (Morrison 112). I am most influenced by the affordances and constraints of each platform.

I want to focus on Twitter as its key selling point is a huge constraint in usability. Is 140 characters enough to give an accurate representation of ourselves or does it diminish our selfhood? Alternatively, does the character limit act as an affordance that streamlines our thoughts? If an affordance is supposed to ‘reduce cognitive friction’ then giving us only 140 characters is surely an affordance as we have less text to curate (Norman 74, qtd. in Morrison 117). However, less space to curate may mean the ‘back-region’ activity in creating the tweet is greater (Goffman, qtd. in Lindgren 38). I think the character limit sits in a grey area where depending on the user it can be a constraint or an affordance. Personally, condensing thoughts into 140 characters has enabled me to think more concisely (and given me an irrational love of bullet pointing…). The character limit of Twitter gives a broader perspective into someone’s life but to a shallower depth. The range of engagement afforded by Twitter encourages frequent and varied sharing of ourselves by keeping interactions with the site and others short but sweet. Even negative interactions can be over in the 3 clicks it takes to block an account. Regardless of the length of information shared I believe Twitter is an accurate representation of at least a fragment of ourselves, it can just make it harder for the reader to discern authorial intent. It’s difficult to talk in generalities, as despite our collective usage shaping Twitter, it too shapes us and the way we as individuals contribute to this communal space is personal (Lindgren 6-8).

BREAKING NEWS: As I was editing this Twitter introduced a 280-character limit… The undermining of my title aside, I’m excited to see the influence this has on the set of norms users have created –particularly thread creation and interaction. How do I feel about using 280 characters?

Twitter: *introduces 280 character limit* Me: pic.twitter.com/tWiaorV5DA

— Katie Tomsett ⚡ (@ktmeep) September 28, 2017

Works Cited

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media & Society. Los Angeles, Sage, 2017, Print.

Morrison, Aimee. "Facebook And Coaxed Affordances." Identity Technologies: Constructing The Self Online, 112-31, Aimee Morrison, U Of Wisconsin P, 2014, p. 112, 117.

[lavendercarefreedays-blog]

4th year

Here’s to the beginning of the end. Can’t believe this is my last year of undergrad already. Can’t wait to be done already but also scared for what’s to come next.

4th year has been off to a good start so far! Super happy I got the RA position in the Moffatt Lab. Never gave up on that one. I had my first shift in the lab yesterday and it was pretty good so far.

The term just started but it’s already been pretty stressful with graduate and professional school applications T_T It was nice that my supervisor got me in contact with a past student. She’s been wonderful to talk to and seems to really enjoy her grad program right now.

[lashaina]

break a leg!

This week’s reading (Lindgren, 27-44) prompted me to reflect the analogy presented about the front region and back region of various platforms (Goffman 1959). Instagram and Snapchat, for example, are literally platforms. Following the metaphor, Instagram is an a theatre and my profile, with all of my carefully chosen pictures is my stage. The process of “preparing a performance” i.e. taking pictures, choosing the most “Instagram appropriate one”, editing and captioning it, is aided by the affordances on Instagram. Although it’s not used as often, certainly not by me, Instagram has built in its interface, an editing page that comes up once you choose a picture you would like to post. Instagram, here, acts as an “acting coach” coaxing you to crop and filter and tag to your hearts content.

However, with the rise in the usage of social media as a career and the increase in online activity, the expectations of an Instagram post have also risen. No longer do I post random pictures of stuff in my room for sheer fear of not “receiving applause” (likes) from my chosen audience (as a private account, the people I allow to follow me).

The pressure to post something “Instagram Worthy” is high because almost everyone online is conscious of the fact that their social media presence can be seen as a small reflection of themselves and often spills into real life (the spike in youtubers and instagram models).

For instance, when you meet someone for the first time, they often ask to follow you on a social media platform (for example Instagram) as this is seen as an online representation of a person and judgements are therefore made about the person as a result. For example, when I see someone with a coherent and well thought out instagram theme I often see them as being more put together and generally more organised (Instagram themes take a lot of time and dedication).

The pressure builds when you take “likes” into consideration. The number of likes underneath a post is often seen as a reflection of how well the post was received. In fact, one of Instagram’s recent updates (another affordance) got rid of a rather embarrassing feature: until a post reached a certain number of likes (about 10 or 11) a list of names were displayed rather than a number. This lessened some of the anxiety behind posting a picture and worrying about accruing a lot of likes in a short space of time and increased posting frequency.

However, because of the popularity of the platform, there is still some social anxiety attached to a well performing Instagram profile. This could be a result of fear of online judgement and it’s often very scary to put very personal “fragments of yourself” (Simmel 1910) online where anyone can approve or disapprove openly. 

Works Cited

Lindgren, Simon. Digital Media and Society. SAGE, 2017.

Morrison, Aimée. “Facebook and Coaxed Affordances”. Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online. Eds. Anna Poletti and Julie Rak. University of Wisconsin Press, 2014, pp. 112-131.

[priorknowledgeishax]

adventures in room scheduling, part 2

im not sure how many of you know this--or would even need to know this--but it’s hard to find a good classroom on campus. the perfect classroom is a mythic figure i am willing to chase, but dang, is it hard. i dream of a classroom with actual windows, plenty of outlets, and a whiteboard without staining. a projector and screen that do not make ghost noises when used. clean tables, comfortable chairs. wouldn’t that be nice?

spoiler alert--we did not get that room. 

long story short, i fought the good fight to no avail. while i did get us a room with computer access and outlets, it is also in a dungeon. like, 30 minutes away from the office that i actually use. and about 5 min away from the tiny closet office that i’ve been in once. it’s not a terrible walk, but i am pretty sure it’s through non-euclidean space. so, that’s an adventure.