thatmediastudentsblog

[thatmediastudentsblog]

Revenge is best served online.

The end of the twentieth century saw the true acknowledgment that the frameworks of society had shifted. New social and cultural models detailed as informational, intricate, versatile, and post-modern had formed (Hampston, 2012). Across these new forms became the birth of hacktivism.

Social media is a social, recreational, and informative global communications system which uses a powerful design to motivate and incite users by breaking down the obstructions of society (Lindgen, 2017). Online platforms have progressed from culturally pragmatic and systematically direct to being contemporarily beneficial for individuals to seek and obtain information not readily accessible to the general population (Fuchs, 2021). Issues have arisen regarding the virtual world as a driving force for infringing governments, large organisations and security forces by hacktivists and cyberterrorists (Goode, 2015).

The protection of anonymity is a fundamental agency in retaining the entitlement for privacy and the right for free speech (Akdeniz, 2002). The ability to hide behind a screen without being identified empowers individuals given the lack of retribution across digital platforms and geographical borders (Rainie et al, 2013). Social media platforms have transformed into critical sites for democracy and political journalists to broadcast their opinions by employing pseudonyms to secure their identity from totalitarian governments (Rainie et al, 2013). At the very moment Western societies were trying to beat off major hacking campaigns from Russia and China, another kind of threat from the virtual world reappeared: activist hackers striving to cause a political point (Klein, 2015).

Jordan and Taylor (2004) stated that the United States government’s reaction to hacktivists demonstrates the level of alarm they perceive the return of hacktivism to be. The U.S counter-intelligence strategy stated that “ideologically motivated entities such as hacktivists, leakivists and public disclosure organisations are seen as considerable threats, alongside three terrorist groups and transnational criminal organisations” (National Security Council, 2013).

Previous hacktivist groups including the renowned collective Anonymous considerably faded into the backdrop of political activism through law enforcement agencies (Mikhaylova, 2014).

However, the next generation of young hackers who have been provoked by the workings of cybersecurity and unsettled by the position technology companies hold in circulating propaganda (Mikhaylova, 2014).

So, is it all done for the interest of the public?

While hacktivist argue that’s their actions are conducted to allow for confidential information to be made public, in the interest of the public (Tanczer, 2017). The likes of individuals such as Edward Snowdon who addressed their actions as hacktivism and morally correct, the information which he subsequently made public included threats to national security. Yet many believed he blurred the lines of public interest and hindered law enforcers (Tanczer, 2017).

In addition to this, Anonymous stated that police forces were employing a new technique of creating fake Facebook accounts to watch over people (Alaimo, 2019). Although this could be considered a breach of privacy many detailed that this is a powerful policing technique to identify criminals who can cause significant harm to the public and specifically younger children. So if these fake police accounts can catch child sex offenders or even prevent terrorist attack, isn’t keeping this out of public knowledge valuable?

You decide. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Mikhaylova, G. (2014). The" Anonymous" Movement: Hacktivism as an Emerging Form of Political Participation.

Rainie, L., Kiesler, S., Kang, R., Madden, M., Duggan, M., Brown, S., & Dabbish, L. (2013). Anonymity, privacy, and security online. Pew Research Center, 5.

National Security Council. (2021). Transnational Organized Crime: A Growing Threat to National and International Security. Retrieved 7 May 2021, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/nsc/transnational-crime/threat

Jordan, T. and Taylor, P. (2004) Hacktivism and Cyberwars: Rebels with a Cause? (Routledge)

Hampson, N. C. (2012). Hacktivism: A new breed of protest in a networked world. BC Int'l & Comp. L. Rev., 35, 511.

Lindgren, S. (2017). Digital media and society. Sage.

Tanczer, L. M. (2017). The Terrorist–Hacker/Hacktivist Distinction: An Investigation of Self-Identified Hackers and Hacktivists. M. Conway, L. Jarvis, O. Lehane, S. Macdonald & L. Nouri (Reds.), Terrorists' Use of the Internet, 77-92.

Fuchs, C. (2021). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage.

Akdeniz, Y. (2002). Anonymity, democracy, and cyberspace. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 69(1), 223-237.

Goode, L. (2015). Anonymous and the political ethos of hacktivism. Popular Communication, 13(1), 74-86.

Klein, A. G. (2015). Vigilante media: Unveiling Anonymous and the hacktivist persona in the global press. Communication Monographs, 82(3), 379-401.

[thatmediastudentsblog]

Trump the leading man in a post-truth world.

Pope Francis shocks the world and said if he was American he would vote Donald Trump for president.

What you have just read, it was all a lie. 

We are completely planted in a post-truth world. ‘Post-truth’ Oxford Dictionary’s world of the year, was unsurprisingly the same year as Donald Trump’s election campaign triumph. Post-truth “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and person belief” (Oxford Dictionary, 2016). Although post-truth gave rise in 2016, politicians have been fabricating the truth considerably longer than this. 

As the 45th president of the United States held office for four years, social media turned into a virtual space for the generation and consumption of political news (Chadwick, 2017). This accelerated adoption of internet politics is not stable: regulations and standards for online campaigns have failed to be standardised. Social media is unlike any other traditional media, where users are consumed by information targeted to them through the work of algorithms (Thorson, 2020). Not simply are social media users susceptible to a scope of information, but they’re also faced by the phenomenon of the fast-paced environment of social media consumerism. This implies that users make very rapid acts off face-value judgements on the information provided for them.

The rise of Donald Trump and the descent of Hilary Clinton was activated by the fundamental elements of the hybrid media system (Chadwick, 2017) and face-value judgments (Boydstun & Lawrence, 2019). Trumps 2016 election campaign is one that has demonstrated the potential of what can be accomplished using the online world for partisan growth through which the truth has been modified, known as fake news (Spohr, 2017). Although Trump faced backlash from fake news stories his victory saw fake news as his comrade.

Fake news is detailed as instilling scepticism and aggravating existing socio-cultural dynamics by abusing political, geographical, and religious undertows (Wardle and Derakhsham, 2017). One study investigating the circulation of leading fake news stories calculated that the average American citizen consumed one to three fake news stories from renowned publishers during the 2016 election (Duyn & Collier, 2019). In addition, misinformation on Twitter was shared by more individuals significantly faster than genuine information, specifically if the subject matter was political (Grinberg et al, 2019). 

Through liking, sharing, and pursuing information online, internet bots can heighten the distribution of misinformation to extensive rates (Grinberg et al, 2019). These social bots can be accounted for 9 to 15% of Twitter accounts and estimated 60 million across Facebooks platform (Shao et al 2017). The Cambridge Analytics scandal which unlawfully obtained 87 million internet user’s data to form a personality test, was ultimately used to Trump’s advantage (Chen, 2018). Trump’s campaign capitalised on these tests by directing online messages catered towards voter’s personality types (Chadwick, 2017). All significantly scary figures when knowing their political impact.

How can social media platforms serve to minimise the spread and influence of fake news? Google, Facebook, and Twitter depend on monetising interacting across advertising. These companies utilise intricate numerical models to exhaust the possibilities of users consuming produced content. Therefore, there must be a solution to modify the models to help eradicate the spread of misinformation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Van Duyn, E., & Collier, J. (2019). Priming and fake news: The effects of elite discourse on evaluations of news media. Mass Communication and Society, 22(1), 29-48.

O’Connor, C., & Weatherall, J. (2019). The Social Network. In The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread (pp. 147-186). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv8jp0hk.8

Boydstun, A. E., & Lawrence, R. G. (2019). When Celebrity and Political Journalism Collide: Reporting Standards, Entertainment, and the Conundrum of Covering Donald Trump’s 2016 Campaign. Perspectives on Politics, 1-16.

Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.

Chen, A. (2018). Cambridge Analytica and our lives inside the surveillance machine. The New Yorker, 21, 8-10.

Thorson, K. (2020). Attracting the news: Algorithms, platforms, and reframing incidental exposure. Journalism, 21, 1067–1082.

Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446

Oxford Dictionary. (2021). Oxford Word of the Year 2016 | Oxford Languages. Retrieved 14 April 2021, from https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report, 27, 1-107.

[thatmediastudentsblog]

Twitter vs Politicians the ultimate showdown

Recent research concerning the internet and political conversation have highlighted the crucial role that digital media has in formulating political beliefs and participation globally (Gorrell et al 2018). Social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook allow for cognitive, emotive, and behavioural relationships that allows users to network collectively (Delisle et al, 2019). As an example, the virtual world offers users with live reporting, discuss important matters, and encourage individuals to engage in political action (Rheault et al, 2019). Despite the positive impact social media has on political action, offensive and even violent messages targeting politicians are evident for all to witness.

Online harassment involves “threats of violence, privacy invasions, reputation-harming lies, calls for strangers to physically harm victims and technological attacks” (Citron 2014, pg. 3). A considerable amount of recent academia has criticised many social media platforms for inadequately tackling online abuse (Delisle et al, 2019). Twitter has come under extreme pressures to help reduce the amount of violent and sexual abuse female users receive (Matias et al, 2015). Consequently, significant amounts of research has been conducted on the online gender discrimination that female politicians receive, with feminists and politicians advocating for social platforms to implement social equity (Bliss, 2017). 

Twitter users can withhold their identity, consequently giving rise to sexist and violent behaviours as their virtual identity is separated from their real-world behaviours (Matias et al, 2015).

So how does this new digital world continue to impact female politicians?

This questions not just touches the considerably hostile behaviours female politicians have endured but how digital media allows for this hostility to be remarkably worse. Threatening and harassing tweets directed towards female politicians are frequently ingrained in traditional gender stereotypes (Bliss, 2017). The continual abuse that MPs receive can cause significant damaging impacts to psychological wellbeing. In response to online abuse, the UK government stated that they would review the degree of abuse and harassment that affects female MPS during the election (Gorrell et al, 2018). MP Dianne Abbott has shown to be a significant figure in highlighting the phenomenon and broadcasting the crucial impact that it has on herself and her colleagues (Gorrell et al, 2018).

Although a great deal of scholarly research has investigated and reported on the abuse female politicians receive globally, such abuse is not exclusively bound to female MPs. Vargo and Hopp (2017) reported that Twitter users who share abusive messages surrounding political discussion are detailed as having poor socioeconomic possibilities, low levels of schooling and “low partisan polarity”.

As a result of the gap in social classes growing and the dividing viewpoints of Brexit, in addition to social media platforms continuing to turn a blind eye to online harassment, could politicians encounter a continuing increase of online abuse (Binns & Batemna, 2018).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Gorrell, G., Greenwood, M., Roberts, I., Maynard, D., & Bontcheva, K. (2018, June). Twits, twats and twaddle: trends in online abuse towards UK politicians. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 12, No. 1).

Delisle, L., Kalaitzis, A., Majewski, K., de Berker, A., Marin, M., & Cornebise, J. (2019). A large-scale crowdsourced analysis of abuse against women journalists and politicians on Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03093.

Binns, A., & Bateman, M. (2018). What makes a target: politicians and abuse on social media [Note: The chapter “What makes a target: politicians and abuse on social media” from the edited collection “Anti Social Media?” was reprinted in the British Journalism Review under the title “And they thought papers were rude.”].

Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Harvard University Press.

Vargo, C. J., & Hopp, T. (2017). Socioeconomic status, social capital, and partisan polarity as predictors of political incivility on Twitter: A congressional district-level analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 35(1), 10-32.

Rheault, L., Rayment, E., & Musulan, A. (2019). Politicians in the line of fire: Incivility and the treatment of women on social media. Research & Politics, 6(1), 2053168018816228.

Matias, J., Johnson, A., Boesel, W. E., Keegan, B., Friedman, J., & DeTar, C. (2015). Reporting, reviewing, and responding to harassment on Twitter. Available at SSRN 2602018.

Bliss, L. (2017). Can we protect our female politicians from social media abuse?. Political Studies Association.

[thatmediastudentsblog]

Have you considered becoming an influencer?

Word-of mouth has forever been considered as a crucial mechanism whereby information can be attained by significant parts of the population, consequently impacting prevailing beliefs, new products, and brand notoriety (Freberg et al, 2011). Over recent years, academics have progressively devoted their time and money on the transforming brand management landscape, working on how the distribution of information can be optimised by allowing specific individuals named influencers; to simply influence consumerism (Abidin, 2016).

Influencers are a form of microcelebrity who document and broadcast their lives though pictures and videos on social media sites such as Instagram and Twitter (Sudha & Sheena, 2017). These individuals are key creators of public opinion tempting their audience through their personal characteristics. For influencers to impact consumerism, they need to exhibit a fusion of credibility, expertise and intimacy (Abidin, 2016). These attributes allow for the influencer to influence many targeted individuals (Abidin, 2015).

It’s reported that many influencers have hundreds of thousands and in many cases millions of followers, which become key consumers for brands (Chae, 2018). These figures can be comparable or even top the likes of traditional media formats. Meanwhile these influencers are becoming considerably more professional and more conscious of their position with brands and marketers supplying a diverse range of assistance (Sudha & Sheena, 2017). These influencers are not solely a significant element of the developing online consumer market but play a key role in what products society determine as valuable and beneficial (Dolbec & Fischer 2015).

Studies report that 92% of consumers would rather purchase a product through the recommendation of an influencer compared to traditional advertisements on TV and the radio (Bailis, 2020). Such studies provide clear evidence on the significant shift of the marketing landscape subsequently caused by these accredited personals.

The question many ask is how are these influencers so efficient?

This question can be answered through psychological research. Social identity theory stated that a sense of belonging felt by consumers is based on a great deal of their personal identity and their association to influential individuals (Langner et al, 2013). This is a result of human nature surrounding a sense of group belonging and likeability (Langner et al, 2013). This shows that influencing is not just done through a selfie but through the psychological processing of the human mind. Where previous attention was focused on celebrities and powerful individuals, the role these individuals hold is undoubtedly frightening.

So would you become an influencer? 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92.

Abidin, C., & Ots, M. (2016). Influencers tell all. Unravelling Authenticity and Credibility in a Brand Scandal, 153-161.

Sudha, M., & Sheena, K. (2017). Impact of influencers in consumer decision process: the fashion industry. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 14(3), 14-30.

Bakshy, E., Hofman, J. M., Mason, W. A., & Watts, D. J. (2011, February). Identifying influencers on twitter. In Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Seach and Data Mining (WSDM) (Vol. 2).

Dolbec, P. Y., & Fischer, E. (2015). Refashioning a field? Connected consumers and institutional dynamics in markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1447-1468.

Abidin, C. (2015). Communicative❤ intimacies: Influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media & Technology.

Chae, J. (2018). Explaining females’ envy toward social media influencers. Media Psychology, 21(2), 246-262.

Bailis, R (2020) The State of Influencer Marketing: 10 influencers marketing statistics inform where you invest. Biocommerce. https://www.bigcoemmerce.co.uk/blog/influcner-marketing-statistics/#what-is-influencer-marketingRetrieved date: 4th April 2021

[thatmediastudentsblog]

Is the new age of protesting really that successful?

The use of social media platforms such as Twitter, allows actors to be involved in significant fluid communities which overcomes the challenge of time and space (Trottier & Fuchs, 2014). Large-scale communities encompass social media platforms where their users can reach out and intercommunicate based on unity and awareness of shared values (Segerberg & Bennett, 2011). Such groups can comprise of millions of users where they all have their own beliefs and motives, utilising hashtags and engaging in emerging online movements (Segerberg & Bennett, 2011).

Twitter has played a crucial role in cultivating these communities, the significant role the platform has played can create “twitter revolutions” (Agarwell et al, 2014). This refers to the capitalisation of Twitter as a central platform for exciting and provoking social activism. Captivatingly, online activism is often formed though individual stories, communication of ideas and social interaction which are rich of communal knowledge, consequently leading to a generation of significance (Christensen, 2011).

The definition of a ‘protest’ is “a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something” (Oxford Dictionary, 2021). Despite this definition many academics report on the changing state of protests though the mobilising structure of social media, as the online world has empowered a tangible practice to one that crosses geographical space and time (Gladwell, 2011).

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Black Lives Matter movement. Although you may not have expected it to be formed back in 2013, it gained significant global attention in 2020. The movement was developed in the wake of previous anti-authoritarian protests which has received significant following and media exposure (Tillery, 2019).

With the exposure of the Black Lives Matter movement coming from George Floyd and #BlackoutTuesday which saw millions of social media users globally stepping away from their screen and posting a black tile. This blackout caused significant impact to the revenue of large organisations which in turn caused blue chip companies to stand up and acknowledge the movement.

Although significant exposure has come from protests like BLM, reaching desired solutions to combat social issues is considerably harder than you might think.

Reaching desired solution can be significantly difficult due to an increasing amount of online slacktivists (Glenn, 2015). Behind the keyboard can be a place for users to be easily involved in protests and movements. But when the time comes for these individuals to get out from their computers and protest in person, the presence and stance these users had established are considerably smaller (Glenn, 2015). So, do online protests really make any significant change if they don’t go out and protest in person?

Furthermore, even large-scale online protests are vulnerable to overlooking practical and legal forms when the movements evolve into real world action. This can cause significant reputable damage to the movement and consequently negatively impact their desired goal and public perception.

The crucial political and social change which has arose because of online protests has helped to improve the lives of millions worldwide. With the ever-increasing mobilisation of the internet and with more individuals joining social media sites each day, the digital world is a great place to spread the word and hear silenced voices.

But the question still remains whether there is anything more powerful than the physical presence and witnessing the faces of those striving for change.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Trottier, D., & Fuchs, C. (Eds.). (2014). Social media, politics and the state: protests, revolutions, riots, crime and policing in the age of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Routledge

Agarwal, S. D., Bennett, W. L., Johnson, C. N., & Walker, S. (2014). A model of crowd enabled organization: Theory and methods for understanding the role of twitter in the occupy protests. International Journal of Communication, 8, 27.

Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social media and the organization of collective action: Using Twitter to explore the ecologies of two climate change protests. The Communication Review, 14(3), 197-215.

Christensen, C. (2011). Twitter revolutions? Addressing social media and dissent. The Communication Review, 14(3), 155-157.

Gladwell, M. (2011). From innovation to revolution-do social media made protests possible: An absence of evidence. Foreign Aff., 90, 153.

Ince, J., Rojas, F., & Davis, C. A. (2017). The social media response to Black Lives Matter: How Twitter users interact with Black Lives Matter through hashtag use. Ethnic and racial studies, 40(11), 1814-1830.

Tillery, A. B. (2019). What Kind of Movement is Black Lives Matter? The View from Twitter. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 4(2), 297–323.

Glenn, C. L. (2015). Activism or “Slacktivism?”: digital media and organizing for social change. Communication Teacher, 29(2), 81-85.