tateingham

[tateingham]

Week 9: Digital Citizenship - SM influencers and Slow fashion

Often called 'eco-fashion', 'sustainable fashion', 'thrifting' or 'circular fashion', slow fashion is a movement concerning a sustainable consumption of material things, more specifically fashion material. It is built on concepts of sustainability values, ethical working conditions and decreasing environmental contaminants (Chi et al. 2021). The overall goal of slow fashion is therefore to reduce harm to the environment by recycling clothing or reusing material to make clothes. This trend has grown over the years as there’s has been an increased involvement online with digital citizens debating and raising concerns about the problems with social media influencers and them engaging in fast fashion for others to see and do the same.

The goal of fast fashion companies is to produce the most amount of fashionable and trendy apparel in the shortest amount of time, so consumers can keep up with the fast and ever-changing trend cycles and want to consume more products (Mehrjoo & Pasek, 2015). In saying this, there are a lot of companies that use influencers to promote their products with goals of rising sales as these influencers chosen are setting their posts up for quick and convenient purchase for the users that views it. The ethical dilemma of fast fashion is growing fast than slow fashion is which is having a good impact on the economy, yet the environment is the worry.

Influencers and organisations promote the concept of slow fashion to raise awareness through platforms such as YouTube and Instagram. Instagram has allowed for awareness as it establishes a digital community surrounding #slowfashion. Furthermore, the communities for slow fashion among platforms like these are there for individuals to develop products, ideas, express opinions freely & positively, so they can then contribute to a positive impact on the future of the planet.

Overall, fast fashion is having a horrible effect on today’s world and will continue to do so if big companies keep promoting the use of fast fashion. Slow fashion is a fantastic idea which will reduce environmental contaminants and ultimately deliver positive outcomes for the future of our one and only earth.

References:

Ting Chi, Jenisha Gerard, Yuhfen Yu & Yuanting Wang 2021, 'A study of U.S. consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants’, Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 14:1, 101-112, DOI: 10.1080/17543266.2021.1872714

Mehrjoo, M., & Pasek, Z. (2015). Risk assessment for thesupply chain of fast fashion apparel industry: A systemdynamics framework.International Journal of ProductionResearch,54(1), 1–21

[tateingham]

Week 8: Gaming Communities, Social gaming & Live streaming - Fortnite

Over the years there have been many concerns regarding digital communities in online gaming. This includes the conflict that comes with gaming communities such as social gaming and live streaming. Gaming can come in many different forms and is a place where people can have fun and interact with other users around the world, or even just their own friends. Gaming console and platforms such as Steam, PlayStation and Xbox all offer a massive range of different games offline/ online. This is often accompanied by a streaming platform including Facebook, Twitch or Discord which allows users to interact online and with their viewers.

Although gaming provides a place for people to escape from their usual daily activities and have some fun with friends and other “gamers”, there seems to be a lot of conflict that occurs in the online gaming communities. Fortnite, which was a game that became very popular around the world in 2017-18, is an online shooting game available on many platforms and it is played mainly by a younger demographic. This game is an example of an online game where much conflict has occurred but also how it has evolved since its beginning.

Towards the start of Fortnite saw copying come in as they had been accused of copying another games concept. This is where the conflict sort of began for them which became an issue with Epic Games (Fortnite), and Bluehole which created the “Battle Royale” concept first (Sinha 2018). Similarly, there were concerns regarding the ethics of Fortnite, and the addiction among children. It was such a good concept which caused kids to play for hours on end and develop into an addiction which interrupted not only their lives but their families as well.

Streaming and Fortnite were another great collaboration for engaging with younger kids and others if these people wished to watch as a source of entertainment. The paid promotion of Fortnite saw many streamers earning big bucks for streaming Fortnite and reeling in younger kids through the promotional tactics by Epic Games. A very popular streamer called ‘Ninja’ was streaming Fortnite since it became popular but recently stopped streaming as there were drama’s concerning streaming the Fortnite content with women (Collett, M 2018). The game developers urged this streamer to establish some type of diversity in streaming and playing to capture the potential desires of the audience, but he opted not to for personal reasons and this is what caused conflict among the Fortnite community as well as the entire gaming community.

Overall, although it’s an entertaining and fun option, gaming and streaming can come with downfalls if not executed correctly, and if it does not abide by the ethics of a digital community.

References:

Sinha, R 2018, ‘15 Biggest Fortnite Controversies That Shocked Players (Maybe)’, viewed 28 May 2021, <https://gamingbolt.com/15-biggest-fortnite-controversies-that-shocked-players-maybe>

Collett, M 2018, ‘One of Fortnite's biggest players says he won't stream with women’, viewed 28 May 2021, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-14/fortnite-player-ninja-doesnt-stream-with-women/10119664>

[tateingham]

Week 7: Digital Citizenship and Software Literacy - Instagram Filters

Many users over the years have engaged in using Filters as a way to alter their image when they take photos to post online. These filters utilise Augmented Reality (AR) based technology which allows a specific user to pick and choose how they want their image to look like. Filters today are seen on almost every social media platform for people to have fun and/ or improve the way the image they would like to post appears. Although it has its ups and downs, there are a lot of negative things that can come with using filters which will be discussed in this week’s blog post which involves digital disembodiment and digitised dysmorphia.

Instagram was one of the first sites to popularise the use of filters, and now they are everywhere (Rettberg 2014). In the beginning it was just the casual black and white aesthetic, or even just a tinted visual which covered the entire image. It has now evolved into advanced technology which is able to track the users face and apply more involved filters which are interactive and make it fun for users and others to see and play with.

Many users in this day use filters in their everyday lives and more so with Instagram as they desire to change self-perception on a larger scale. The popular visual culture has exploded over the years and it has caused cultural phenomenon that goes far beyond social media (Rettberg 2014).

Now that it’s being used all around the world with many different purposes for use, it has come to the attention by many on how these filters have been developed into a habit and for individuals that has generated a type of digitised dysmorphia. This is concerned with the digitally reconstructed ideal self-image as it represents what they want, should, could or need to be within Western society (Coy-Dibley 2016). This digitised dysmorphia has developed into a social issue which has applied pressure on many users to alter their personal image. Instagram offers filters to do so which has caused many people to sustain a negative mental as they are unhappy with the way they look due to seeing others use filters to glorify their own looks.

References:

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, viewed 28 May 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2>

Coy-Dibley, I 2016, “Digitised Dysmorphia of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image”, Palgrave Communications, viewed 28 May 2021.

[tateingham]

Week 6: Body modification on Visual social media

Over the years I have seen and heard of people online modifying their looks for personal satisfaction and social acceptance. Body Modification involves altering the physical appearance for a sexualised, emotional or aesthetic outcome which is often used by influencers that promote a brand or product/s under that brand. Brands may use an individual with a suitable following and turn them into microcelebrities/ the branded self, which can be defined as creating and maintaining an online identity that resembles a branded good (Marwick 2013; Senft 2012). It can be beneficial to brands that want to gain status through visibility online, and these branded individuals that promote the brand/ products under it promote to prosumers, which are those that produce and consumer these celebrified brands online (Ritzer, G & Jurgenson, W 2010).

It has come to my attention over the years, as well as a lot of others around me, that although these microcelebrities may benefit organisations in positioning the brand how they want it and promoting this brand in a sexualised or specific manner, reaching that goal of brand visibility through online labour can and has had a negative among many individuals that use social media. Instagram has become one of the biggest social media platforms for influencer marketing and brands are still continuously using visibility labour as a tactic to reach their desired audience. Additionally, aesthetic templates such as body work, posing, adding accessories or props, has had great downsides. Promoting altered body images on women and men creates a negative mental for the abundance on users that are exposed to these posts on social media. Manipulating an image to resonate with customers may be beneficial to the company BUT some users develop dissonance among themselves after viewing the influencer/ branded individual as they are dissatisfied with their body image. This is due to the body ideals that are established by these companies through the aesthetic labour that has taken place. A great example of this is

With the influencer category dominated mostly by women (Abidin, 2016a), the sexualisation and pornification that takes place to lure in female users/ prosumers through female influencer body modification can be unethical in terms of manipulating the user in a way in order to generate more visibility and ultimately sales. Public health such as Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) linked mostly to younger people creates this identity dissonance as it had been made out as if these people must look like the celebrified individuals they see that resemble a branded good.

All in all, body positivity clearly lacks due to social media and the glorified body ideals that are emanated through these branded individuals. Things must change and regulations should be in place to regulate the amount of body modification. At least some notice that one’s image has been altered to look better than they originally were. I believe it will push for more body positivity and will at least reduce some of the dissatisfaction some people get when they view these celebrified individuals promoting a brand or good online.

References

Senft, TM 2012, Microcelebrity and the Branded Self. In Hartley, J, Burgess, J & Bruns, A (Ed.), A Companion to New Media Dynamics, Blackwell, UK

Marwick, AE 2013, Status update: celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. 2010, Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10, pp.13– 36.

Abidin, C. (2016a).‘Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?’: Influencer selfies as subversive frivolity.Social Media + Society,2(2).

Images

'How to use niche social media influencers to boost your brand', Digital Agency Network n.d., viewed 22 May 2021, <https://digitalagencynetwork.com/how-to-use-niche-social-media-influencers-to-boost-your-brand/>

'UK Advertising watchdog to crack down on sexist stereotypers', The Guardian 2018, viewed 22 May 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/dec/14/uk-advertising-watchdog-to-crack-down-on-sexist-stereotypers

[tateingham]

Week 5: What is digital citizenship?

Image source: (What is digital citizenship? 2018)

When I hear the word digital citizenship, the first thing that comes to my mind is being a suited individual for an online space and respecting the culture, values and regulations with it. Is see it as a membership for the internet, and it involves a variety of subjects such as activism, hashtags, and political engagement/ talk. Whether it be expressing your ideas, opinions or anything else, Digital Citizenship can be described as someone that holds the skills and knowledge of effectively using digital technology by engaging positively and choosing consciously to participate in society (Officer of the eSafety Commissioner, Australian Government).

Better known as Platformisation, social media corporations incorporate the language and politics among all to represent themselves as a platform rather than just a “site”, with a “basis for change and innovation” (Keating and Cambrosio 2003, p. 28). In doing so, they are able to establish good connections and social positivity between individuals which brings to light that digital community, a safe space for individuals to express themselves without much worry. These so-called platforms have the ability to facilitate and mediate exchanges between end users and complementors or content creators (Poell, Nieborg, & van Dijck, 2019, p. 3).

Overall, platformisation creates a solid environment and utility that benefits digital citizens when operating or engaging in political talk, activism, and more.

Hashtag publics are an element embedded within many social media platforms and through hashtags, users are able to facilitate connectivity through keywords, themes, events and more. Hashtags are a good way of finding what you like and engaging in talk. A good example is twitter and clicking on a specific hashtag such as #MAFS (Married at first site) and expressing opinions. They have the ability to shape online experiences in a positive manner. Nevertheless, in my own experience and what I have seen online, hashtags can also bring negativity online on social media platforms. Disputes and disagreement can arise when using social media and hashtags more specifically, which develops this negative environment for everyone to be in, completely overriding the digital community going against community standards.

Activism is another element that comes to light when in think about social media. Activism has a direct correlation with hashtags as hashtags provides a channel for users to access talk around political agenda and potential political issues that may cause issues for the present and for the future. Overtime I have witnessed much activism online regarding the environment, with environmental activists chiming in to protect their planet through expression of ideas, opinions and more. This can spark disagreement and trouble, yet most of the time I believe it builds this empire or community to stop treating our planet like a trash can, and more like our one and only home.

References

Officer of the eSafety Cmmissioner n.d., ‘Digital Citizens guide’, Australian Government, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/media/2563>

Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2003). Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. MIT Press.

Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425

'What is digital citizenship?', Online Learning Consortium 2018, viewed 19 May 2021, <https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/what-is-digital-citizenship/>

[tateingham]

Week 4: Digital Community and Internet Fandom - Reality TV case study

Reality TV, according to the Collins Dictionary, is defined as “is a type of television programming which aims to show how ordinary people behave in everyday life, or in situations, often created by the programme makers, which are intended to represent everyday life (Collins Dictionary 2021).

It has been around for years and I can remember sitting at home watching Big Brother with my family. I was engaged, and it was so engaging that when I went back to school I would go and talk to my friends about what had happened in that episode. This Big Brother like community in which I and everyone else were so connected and interested in talking about was like a fandom, and unlike back in my primary school days where social media hasn’t taken off yet, fandoms now exist all over social media sites for people to talk about. This is evident via hashtags and more which are involved in online community building.

The issue I would like to address today was whether Reality TV really enhances the public sphere, or whether it can be very exploitative upon certain individuals watching. As a very simple yet gripping way of gathering an audience and providing entertainment, this form of Television has the potential to create digital publics for political talk in everyday life. It allows people to take time away from the usual and talk about the drama associated with that Reality TV show. The public sphere expansion that Reality TV offers can become a valuable social function in which it triggers participation and engagement among a specific segment, via social media. Married at first sight, also known as #MAFS, is a great example of a successful reality TV show that reels in an audience and offers a rollercoaster ride that sends people into a dome of communication. It turns “viewers and readers into users, producers and participants” (Graham 2011) which aids in expanding the public sphere. Furthermore, users within the sphere can engage through deliberation or just casual talk for talks sake (Graham 2011), and in this case with MAFS, users involved within this domain just talk to express their feelings and opinions on the current situation within the Reality TV show.

Although it may seem like a harmless option for TV, some see it as a manipulative and exploitative way of gathering viewers and making easy money. According to The Logical Radial, Reality TV has the ability to play on humans by inducing feelings related to the participants overnight fame, as well as implementing dishonest editing and the complete opposite of a candid camera (The Logical Radial 2019).

Overall, it is a great way to inaugurate a solid audience through its enhancement of the public sphere and greater user engagement in TV related politics. Yet, it seems fishy that reality TV uses social media to platform these glorified individuals, and have people communicate on the drama related to them.

References

Collins Dictionary 2021, ‘Reality TV’, viewed 15 April 2021, <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/reality-tv>

Graham, T 2011, ‘Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere’, European Journal of Communication, viewed 16 April 2021, <https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/33896/pages/week-4-readings?module_item_id=2080454>

The Logical Radial 2009, ‘Reality Sucks: on audience manipulation and exploitation of the working class in reality TV’, viewed 16 April 2021, <https://moilajournaliste.wordpress.com/2019/05/22/reality-sucks-on-audience-manipulation-and-exploitation-of-the-working-class-in-reality-tv/>

[tateingham]

Week 3: Digital Communities and Blogging - Tumblr Case Study

A digital community is like an arena for society’s communication in which a range of different individuals come together and foster political change via their opinions expressed, problems discussed or collective solutions are developed (Wessler 2018). These communities for public engagement are able to function as an advancement of society and technology through the varying disciplines that arise. These subjects may include trending events such as the Australian Politics which uses #Auspol and is there for politically involved people to engage with the current issues or any other political agendas. This is a great example of a digital community, and is directly related to Tumblr which is a social media site that allows individuals to communicate freely, effectively and namelessly under specific hashtags that appeal to the user. Though, public spheres aren’t just one big mass group, but they involve a fragmented audience and you can’t just mention one arena as there are more than just Australian politics out there.

Social media in ways functions as a digital community as people are able to exchange ideas and alternative perspectives on certain topics, yet some social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram involve issues such as social exclusion and monitoring which reduces that public sphere feel and can result in bias as well. Tumblr on the other hand does not monitor its users and all users are anonymous in what they say. It is a mature, effective and collective platform which allows people with different concerns and in diverse communities to express themselves knowing there’s unlimited access to information and equal and protected participation (Kruse, Norris & Flinchum 2018).

It is clear that an online/ digital community/ public sphere is one that allows for people with shared interests, ideas etc. to come together and make change or address certain problems in specific areas. Tumblr clearly combines all the elements needed for it to be considered a digital community. This is because it is safe, possesses anonymity, addresses many different issues through use of hashtags, and much more that all allows it to function as a digitised community for change.

References

Wessler, H 2018, ‘Public Sphere’, viewed 26 March 2021,

<oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0030.xml>

Kruse, L.M, Norris, D.R & Flinchum, J.R 2018, ‘Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, The Sociological Quarterly, 59:1, 62-84, viewed 26 March 2021,

<https://doi.org/10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143>