Connection reflection

Social gaming most commonly refers to playing online games that allow or require social interaction between players, as opposed to playing games in solitude. (Wikipedia) I must admit I am not part of the 47% of females that play video games, or have partaking in an online social gaming community but I do remember a time when my husband would stay up late at night playing Gears of war against complete strangers in various parts of the world. By playing online games, one can forge new friendships with people in different countries that they might never have met otherwise and engage in ‘incredible collaborative environments’ together (Alexander, 2014).

We humans are playful creatures and gaming provides achievements to the gamer in such forms as rewards, status, competition, and online social collaboration with other people that share the same hobby or interests. They become part of a community and interact in real time, even partnerships, with people they wouldn’t have been able to connect with or feel comfortable in everyday life (Cole, Griffiths, 2007).

With the ease of access to technology and the internet in the 21st century, an online gamer can connect their console or their social profile to internet for instantaneous access to online social gaming communities. In many countries online gaming is tied to youth culture (Jin 2010) What blows my mind is the MMORPGs (Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) the virtual realism of online games is quite impressive. In MMORPGs, users compete and collaborate within a virtual universe, often forming ‘guilds’, and begin to work together to achieve shared goals within the game. One such game as the Chronicles of Elyria is named one of the top MMORPGs games of 2018. Which provides a dynamic changing environment relative to a gamers decision and selections. Where a world is run by players, just one of the many few.

source: https://youtu.be/h_ZG22ckzB0

One of the key affordances of use of online social gaming, is the creation and governance of rules within gaming communities. “Game rules are used to establish a field of interaction at once familiar and strange, a deliberately differentiated site for competitive, social, cultural and commercial exchange” (De Zwart et al. 2014, p. 77).  

While gaming can be seen by most as a harmless way to spend one’s time, it can be quite addictive as well. There have been many relationships that have fallen due to how much time one spends online. Which raises concerns on how the real world is seen and behaviours such as anti-sociality. Though they may feel they are not alone as others are online playing. I feel with the stresses of everyday life, some people become gamers to escape reality or the stresses of life and create a world they can control. Doesn’t sound so bad to me but can be an issue when a sense of realism is lost.

ref

Alexander, L., 2014. Are multiplayer really all that social? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/what-would-social-video-games-look-like-gamers

Cole, H, Griffiths, M, 2007. Social interactions in massively multiplayer online role-playing gamers. Pg. 575-583, Vol 10, Issue 4.

Social gaming has never been more popular than it is now, and it is largely attributed to the rise of online capabilities and social media integration within games. Social collaboration and communication can be found within most online games, but especially MMORPG’s (massively multiplayer online role playing games) as these allow thousands of people from across the world to join and interact with each other in the same virtual world and the same time and work together towards common goals.

Studies have also shown that players of MMORPG’s report the social aspect as being the biggest reason why they have fun playing such games and many gamers have formed life long friends and partners due to the social connections forged during these social gaming experiences (Cole and Griffiths, 2007).

Another aspect of social gaming that has taken the world by storm are Facebook games and mobile app games, which are often free to download and have a strong foundation in social media connectivity. Farmville, for example, is an online farming simulator that launched via Facebook in 2009 and invited Facebook users to make their own virtual farms and share their creations with their friends. Inviting your friends to play the game resulted in in game benefits, such as more money to purchase seeds, or more land to farm crops, and players were even allowed to virtually visit their friend’s farms (Burroughs, 2014).

Clearly gaming has come a long way since its original perception as being a largely solitary activity, as the Internet and social media have elevated the activity into social territory, allowing one to play with others easily and form new friendships that might not have occurred otherwise.

 REFERENCES

Burroughs, B., 2014. Facebook and FarmVille: A digital ritual analysis of social gaming. Games and Culture, 9(3), pp.151-166.

‘Publics’ may be referred to as a collection of people engaging in shared culture and knowledge through social exchange and acts of media reception (Ito 2008). Social network sites are publics because of how they connect a large mass of people and the space they provide for informations and interactions (Boyd 2010).

Within the past 10 years, the creation of smartphones coupled with the increased availability of the internet has contributed to the huge popularity of social media platforms especially amongst teens and young adults. Even the older generation has now slowly come to appreciate the applications and affordances of these platforms. Boyd (2010) explained that while ‘networked publics’ share the common functions with other types of publics, it was differentiated by the way technology was structured and those “distinct affordances’ shape how public engage participation.

Unlike many other social networking sites, Instagram is an application for mobile which focusses on photo sharing. Users can snap a photo, add a caption and share it on their accounts. Recently, the platform introduced a new video function allowing users to post a 15 second long video, which will appear on their followers’ feeds. Photos posted on users’ Instagram accounts can also convey a non-verbal message through gestures, facial expressions and body movements (Cobley and Haeffner 2009). The comment function allows for the exchange of ideas and opinions among users. They also have the opportunity to create a private account if they want to stay connected with friends and family and have their posts directed just for these people.

As for the users that want to connect publicly with anyone in the world, they can do so with the use of ‘search interests’ or ‘hashtags’. Hashtags originated from Twitter and it is becoming increasingly popular and common on Instagram platform. It categorises topics therefore, it allows users to be selective about information they want to share or learn. Hashtags also allow users to express their ideas and thoughts in a concise manner.

It is evident that Instagram is a medium of communication for visual community. It helps transform how we communicate and how we use language in a visual culture. Essentially, what differentiates from the traditional publics is the architectures of networked publics. The affordances of the networked publics can help reshape publics through the practices in a mediated environments and help us understand why people engage the way they do (Boyd 2010).

References:

Boyd D 2010, ‘Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications’, In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (ed. Zizi Papacharissi), pp. 39-58.

Cobley P & Haeffner N 2009, ‘Digital Cameras And Domestic Photography: Communication, Agency And Structure’, Visual Communication, vol 8, ed 2, 123-146.

Ito M 2008 ‘Introduction’, in K, Vamelis, ed. Networked Publics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-14.

Image source:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/285674

In December of 1998 I was able to taste, for the first time, what it felt to ‘chat’ with another person through a computer. This was only possible because of the Internet of course, but also because of the chat rooms that were created for this end so that people could connect and ‘talk’ without using their voices. It’s been almost 20 years and I can still remember my fascination for talking to someone in Philadelphia or Johannesburg whom I had never met, and whom I would probably never meet either. It felt as if the future had finally arrived.

‘Do you have a photo of yourself’?  

Millennials may be surprised, but this question was a commonplace in most conversations during the early years of chat rooms – just as frequent as its equally anachronistic answer: ‘Sorry, I don’t have a scanner’. Almost twenty years later, not only do we have the possibility to take as many photos of ourselves as we pleased, but we have turn this practice into a real cultural thing.

NETWORKED VISUALITY The growth of the selfie culture – an arms-length self-portrait taken with a smartphone or a webcam with the purpose of being share in social media (Selfiecity 2014) – has led to a new level of online interaction in social networks. Indeed, a large amount of social media users – particularly adolescents and young adults – are nowadays using images as a way of building and sharing their life narratives (Vivienne and Burgess 2013). This phenomena is known as ‘Networked Visuality’ (Hjorth 2011), and its impact is such that a number of social media platforms such as Pinterest and Instagram were created specifically to foster (and take advantage of) this trend. Of interest, according to Selfiecity women take more selfies than men.

For another perspective on the Selfie issue, watch this very engaging TED Talk called ‘Me, my selfie and I’. 

  PRIVACY: THAT THING FROM THE PAST One of the major issues associated with the sharing of images photos and videos is privacy. Or I should say, the lack of privacy. Indeed, not everyone is happy about showing themselves in social media, with the potential of being seen my countless of curious friends of friends. In this respect, one may feel tempted to say something like ‘Well, then do not share those photos’. Fair enough, but what if it was not the actual person who uploaded that photo, and it was rather a Facebook friend? Moreover, what if you do not even do social media but you attend to a party, have lots of fun, and then you are tagged in a number of photos shared on Facebook? 

In a focus group aimed at exploring the social media privacy issue, Besmer and Lipford (2010) found that incriminating evidence was one of the main concerns among participants. Specifically, people’s main fear was being caught by the camera when drunk. In a less serious fashion, people were also urged to delete photos of themselves uploaded by others where they were in an ‘unfavourable light’ (AKA ‘I look terrible!’) (Besmer and Lipford 2010). Interestingly enough, this focus group found that no participant related the lack of privacy with perceive unsafety (i.e., strangers stalking their profiles to gather information for potential crimes). Yet, it is worth noting that this last finding is not consistent with previous studies (see Athern et al. 2007). Finally, you may also want to watch the following social media experiment by Jack Vale (2013), which has a very powerful message for all social media users.

References

Ahern, S, Eckles, D, Good, NS, King, S, Naaman, M & Nair, R 2007, ‘Over-exposed?: Privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing’, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 357–366, San Jose, California, ACM.

Besmer, A & Lipford, HR 2010, ‘Moving beyond untagging: Photo privacy in a tagged world’, Univerisy of North Carolina at Charlotte, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1563.pdf>.

Hjorth, L 2011, ‘Mobile spectres of intimacy: the gendered role of mobile technologies in love – past, present and future’, in R, Ling & S, Campbell (eds) The Mobile Communication Research Series: Volume II, Mobile Communication: Bringing Us Together or Tearing Us Apart? Transaction Books Edison, NJ , pp. 37-60.

Jack Vale Films 2013, ‘Social Media Experiment’, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://youtu.be/5P_0s1TYpJU>.

Papadoupoulos, L 2015, ‘Me my selfie and I’, TEDx White Hall Women, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdOeP6d3pQ>.  

Selfie city, 2014, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://selfiecity.net/>.

In times of crisis, accessible, timely and accurate information is critical for minimizing the danger to individuals in the affected area.

In recent years a number of news outlets, emergency services and independent good Samaritans have developed innovative methods for communicating with the public in a wide range of situations.

Image source: (Watt 2011)

During the 2011 South East Queensland floods, social media played an important role in crisis communication (Bruns et al. 2012). Using the hashtag #qldfloods, eyewitnesses and the wider user community tweeted over 35,000 times (Bruns et al. 2012), documenting relevant situational information (Bruns et al. 2012). This collaborative effort provided Queenslanders and emergency services with ongoing, in-the-moment updates on the severity of the flood waters.

Image source: (Salvation Army 2011)

The widespread broadcast of information from independent sources throughout the flooding crisis inadvertently led to a phenomenon known as “crowdsourcing” (Crowdsourcing Entry 2014). Crowdsourcing can be broadly defined as “the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially the online community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers” (Crowdsourcing Entry 2014).

Image source: (National Geographic 2011)

Equally important throughout this crisis were emergency services and media organisations, in particular the Queensland Police Service Media Unit (@QPSMedia), ABC News (@abcnews), and the Courier-Mail (@couriermail), whom each used their pre-existing reach and reputability to validate the thousands of independent reports. These organisations worked tirelessly to verify the influx of crowdsourced information (Ford 2012), on-sharing only that which had been proven to be true, minimising instances of misinformation.

The @QPSMedia account was particularly effective in their efforts verifying independent reports. @QPSMedia began sharing “#Mythbuster” (Bruns et al. 2012) tweets, “directly tackling the rumours and misinformation about the floods which circulated on twitter and elsewhere” (Bruns et al. 2012). These tweets “were especially successful, and very widely retweeted (Bruns et al. 2012), with tens of thousands of twitter uses aligned in their efforts to assist in minimising miscommunication about the crisis.

Image source: (The Intercultural Girl 2011)

When considering the trailblazing efforts of the emergency services and media organisations who reported on the 2011 Queensland Floods, it is clear that crowdsourcing has the ability to “help and support ordinary people in times of crisis” (Ford 2012).

Reference List:

Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Crawford, K & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods, Arc Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, pp. 7-10, viewed 3 August 2016, <http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf>.

‘crowdsourcing entry’ 2014, Merriam Webster, viewed 3 August 2016,<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crowdsourcing>.

Ford, H 2012, 'Crowd Wisdom’, Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 33-39.

The Intercultural Girl 2011, ‘People helping strangers’ [image], The 2011 Queensland floods, The Intercultural Girl, viewed 20 January 2018, <https://whitegirlinasari.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/the-2011-queensland-floods/>.

National Geographic 2011, ‘Australia’s Great Flood Education Worksheet’ [image], Australia’s Great Flood, National Geographic, viewed 20 January 2018, <http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/tv/australias-great-flood/>.

Salvation Army 2011, ‘2011 Queensland Floods – Update 30/1/2011’ [image], 2011 Queensland Floods – Update 30/1/2011, Salvation Army, viewed 20 January 2018, <https://salvos.org.au/about-us/latest-news/disasters-and-other-appeals/2011-queensland-floods-update-30-1-2011/>.

Coined by Jeff Howe and Mark Robinson, the term crowdsourcing can be defined as “an online distributed problem-solving and production model” (Brabham 2008, p. 76). Further to this, there are varying definitions of the term: crowdsourcing exists among diverse categories, but is typically interpreted from either a business or technique domain perspective (Zhao et al. 2016). Luz (et al. 2014) adds that despite its affordances of use, all forms of crowdsourcing are task orientated. Some of the most popular and globally recognised crowdsourcing systems are Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers and Zhihu. Take Wikipedia for example, the system relies on its users to complete tasks through the crowdsourcing process. As a result, Wikipedia “produces the most extensive and up-to-date form of encyclopaedic knowledge” available online today (‘8.2 Crowdsourcing’ 2017).

The Pseudo-ER model: The crowdsourcing process

[image] Zhao et al. 2016, p. 946.

When exploring the impact that crowdsourcing can play in times of crisis; “social media is an effective tool for monitoring and engaging public discourse during the crisis process” (Tinker et al. 2009, p. 25).

[image] Hill, S 2014

Social media proved to be a key influencer in shaping a global understanding following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. As events unfolded in real time, digital citizens were quick to capture what was happening using camera and video functionalities on their smartphones. As a result, media outlets all over the world were able to share information and broadcast attack locations across the city; to ensure that Parisians stayed safe and avoided these areas.

Meanwhile on Twitter, digital citizens self-organised support networks using #porteOuverte, which means open door. The hashtag was used as a means to offer support, help, and love to those in need following the tragic attacks. Similarly, #rechercheParis became the means by which Parisian citizens “tried to find traces of loved ones from whom they hadn’t heard” from (Walter 2015).

[image] CCTVNews 2015

Furthermore, Facebook activated its Safety Check tool, which allowed nearby users in affected areas to let their friends and family know that they were safe (Zuckerberg 2014). You can read more about Facebooks Safety Check tool here (Gleit et al. 2014).  

[image] Kille. W, L 2015

Facebook also made a profile picture filter of the French flag. Users had the ability to change their profile picture to show their support for France and Parisians.  

[image] Strange 2015, ‘Facebook profile picture of French flag following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks’

Gao (et al. 2011) argues that leveraging crowdsourcing for disaster relief and emergency management has three distinct advantages:

1. User requests and data reports are automatically generated, which “allows relief organisations to identify and respond to urgent cases in time” (Gao et al. 2011, p. 11).

2. Data collected can be categorised and structured; identifying the most important relief efforts required.

3. Geo-tagging information and maps, such as Facebook’s Safety Check tool “can help relief organisations accurately locate specific requests for help” (Gao et al. 2011, p. 11).

It is important to note that Gao (et al. 2011) also argue that there are a number of shortfalls in crowdsourcing for crisis and emergency management. That being said, it can be argued that generally, crowdsourcing applications provide organisations with relevant and timely information and data to help and support people in need in times of crisis.

Word Count: 507 words 

References:

‘8.2 Crowdsourcing’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, WEEK 8: Crowdsourcing in times of crisis on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/8-dot-2-crowdsourcing?module_item_id=6789>.

Brabham. C, D 2008, ‘Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases’, The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 75 – 90.

CCTVNews 2015, ‘Parisians launch hashtag’ #porteouverte, meaning “open door”, offering shelter to people after the #parisattacks’ [image], Scoopnest, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://www.scoopnest.com/user/cctvnews/665453402013442049-parisians-launch-hashtag-porteouverte-meaning-open-door-offering-shelter-to-people-after-the-parisattacks>.

Gao, H, Barbier, G & Goolsby, R 2011, ‘Harnessing the Crowdsourcing Power of Social Media for Disaster Relief’, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 10 – 14.

Gleit, N, Zeng, S & Cottle, P 2014, ‘Introducing Safety Check’, Facebook newsroom, 15 October, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/introducing-safety-check/>.

Hill, S 2014, ‘Crowdsourcing’ [image], 5 reasons crowdsourcing is ideal for usability testing, Crowdsourcedtesting.com, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://crowdsourcedtesting.com/resources/crowdsourcing-usability-testing/>.

Kille. W, L 2015, ‘How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks’ [image], How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks, The Conversation, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-shaped-our-understanding-of-the-paris-attacks-50814>.

Luz, N, Silva, N & Novais, P 2014, ‘A survey of task-oriented crowdsourcing’, Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 44 no. 2, pp. 1 – 27.

Strange, A 2015, ‘Facebook profile picture of French flag following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks’ [image], Facebook lets you support Paris in your profile photo with one click, Mashable Australia, viewed 14 January 2018, <http://mashable.com/2015/11/14/facebook-paris-filter/#n5lDtEz298qQ>.

Tinker, L.T, Dumlao, M & McLaughlin, G 2009, ‘Effective Social Media Strategies During Times of Crisis: Learning from the CDC, HHS, FEMA, the American Red Cross and NPR in Crisis Management, The Strategist, Summer, pp. 25 – 39.  

Walter, L 2015, How social media shaped our understanding of the Paris attacks, The Conversation, 17 November, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-shaped-our-understanding-of-the-paris-attacks-50814>.

Zhao, Z & Zhu, Q 2016, ‘Conceptualizing task affordance in online crowdsourcing context’ [image], Online Information Review, viewed 9 January 2018, p. 946.

Zhao, Z & Zhu, Q 2016, ‘Conceptualizing task affordance in online crowdsourcing context’, Online Information Review, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 938 – 958.

Image: Artur Debat, Getty Images

Being a fairly private person and not one to give away too much online, I can’t say that I’ve ever been trolled. The closest has been a few commenters on Instagram pointing out that my picture was stupid and theirs was way better. At first my curiosity got the better of me and I clicked over to see. Of course, their pictures, if they had any, looked like they’d been taken by a visually impaired terrier who accidentally stepped on an iPhone. The intent, I discovered, was not to engage in constructive photographic critique, but to annoy, frustrate and provoke a reaction.

An extensive recent study by Cornell University found that there are two main triggers that motivate individuals to troll: ‘the individual’s mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion’ (Cheng et al 2017) - meaning, if one person leaves a trolling comment, others will follow.

An informative video further discussing the psychology of trolls can be seen here:

Video source: YouTube / SciShow (2016)

Of course not all negative commenters or ‘angry posters’ are trolls. Many are just ordinary people expressing an opinion. As writer Tim Dowling describes:

(Dowling 2012)

A troll’s intent, by comparison, is to ‘deliberately provoke others online, typically through inflammatory, offensive or provocative comments’ (Walters 2015). In fact, ‘trolls may not believe a word of what they write’ (Walters 2015), their only intent is to ‘derail rational discourse through mindless abuse, needling, hectoring or even threats of violence’ (Dowling 2012).

The truth is, anywhere there’s a comments section, on any website, trolls can be found. The next question is, what can you do about it?

Walters (2015) has a list of suggestions.

Listen and correct mistakes

Ignore them

Respond with facts

Diffuse the situation with humour

Block or ban, when appropriate, or

Come up with your own response.

In regard to the final suggestion, Walters uses the example of Susan Carland who is an Australian Muslim academic and the target of a large amount of trolling. Carland decided to turn the negative energy into something positive.

Another well-known personality who dealt with social media conflict creatively is American comedian Sarah Silverman. With her high-profile career and 12.4 million followers on Twitter, Silverman is an easy target.

In late December 2017, a twitter user named Jeremy left an offensive one-word tweet on a reply she had made to someone else. Rather than deleting or ignoring, Silverman took the time to click on his name and get an insight into his life. She explains that she did this because:

“…I saw it and clicked on u and saw you were just trying to get kicked off Twitter. I saw the rage and pain. And looked at your avatar and just… saw so much in you. In your eyes I guess. Dunno”

She discovered that Jeremy was battling a lot of physical and emotional problems and ‘replied with a series of sympathetic and compassionate tweets’ (Klein 2018). She also ‘rallied her Twitter followers to help the man get medical assistance for his hurt back’. This was successful, as was Jeremy’s ‘GoFundMe’ campaign to help with medical bills. Here’s a partial thread of the conversation:

This story illustrates the finding from the Cornell study mentioned above - most trolls are not psychopaths, but ordinary people in some kind of pain, trying to make themselves feel better by getting a reaction from a stranger. Learning how to deal with them thoughtfully and responsibly, while not feeding them, will help us to ensure that our digital communities are enriching and supportive places to be.

References

Cheng, J et al 2017, Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behaviour in Online Discussions, Cornell University Library, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01119v1>.

Dowling, T 2012, Dealing with trolls: a guide, The Guardian, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jun/12/how-to-deal-with-trolls>.

Klein, A 2018, A sexist troll attacked Sarah Silverman. She responded by helping him with his problems, Washington Post, viewed 9 January 2018, <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2018/01/08/a-man-trolled-sarah-silverman-on-twitter-she-ended-up-helping-him-with-his-medical-problems/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories-2_sarah-silverman-2pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.60369fa3c490>.

Everyone perceives offense in different ways, and humour may serve as a good example. For instance, John crack ups when being told a joke about disabled people but Helen finds the same joke extremely offensive. However, when Helen tells John a joke about Jews that she found hilarious it is now John who feels infuriated. So, is it that we should not joke with certain topics? I do not think so, as you will always find someone who will get offended by virtually anything. Nevertheless, when there is a deliberate intention to hurt someone we are no longer talking about jokes; we are talking about harassment. In the digital world, harassment (and other similar practices equally disturbing) can take many forms. In this post I will focus on ‘Cyberbullying’ – a behaviour that has been studied by a great deal of researchers.

Cyberbullying has been described as the persistent and deliberate act of using an electronic device to intimidate, humiliate, or harm another person (Stopbullying.gov n.d.). This may take place in a direct form (i.e., by sending an SMS) or, as it happens most often, within a social media platform (i.e., Facebook) (Dredge, Gleeson, Garcia 2014). Cyberbullying can also be performed anonymously, which far from lowering the impact it can result in more damage to the victim. Of particular interest but perhaps not surprisingly, cyberbullying has been found to be more prevalent in adolescents than in any other population (Bullying Statistics n.d.). Watch this short movie about cyberbullying called ‘I am truly sorry’. Although fiction, it illustrates the extent to which adolescents can be harmed by cyberbullying.

It is undeniable that cyberbullying has the potential to cause a lot of harm. Yet, there seems to be less consensus as to whether this relatively new way of harassment is nowadays more common than the traditional bullying. In her book It’s Complicated, social media scholar Boyd (2014) argues that unlike popular belief, bullying behaviour has not drastically increased since the arrival of the Internet. She does not ignore that cyberbullying is a common practice that may lead to serious consequences, but rather than blaming technology for encouraging this practice she argues that we should use this means to help those children who are in need for attention (Boyd 2014). Click here to see a related, although provocative article called: ‘The Exaggeration Of The Cyberbullying Problem Is Harming Anti-Bullying Effort’.

On the opposite side, many claim that teen bullying has significantly increased since the appearance of social media and that this, in turn, have led to higher rates of depression and suicide among adolescents (Pappas 2015; Luxton, June, & Fairall 2012). Although plausible, data supporting this statement is most of the time inconsistent. Still, it could be argued that because cyberbullying can be anonymous this may contribute to more despair in the victim, as they may find it more difficult to track the source of the bullying (as opposed to traditional bullying, in which the bully somewhat takes pride in harassing the victim). Likewise, the fact that cyberbullying can be performed in a matter of seconds (for example by sharing a compromising photo that will embarrass another person), this may also be an extra ingredient that makes cyberbullying more frequent than its predecessor.

Regardless of whether cyberbullying has surpassed traditional bullying, one thing is certain: Both parents and children should be aware of the consequences of this awful behaviour that can cause a lot of farm.

References

Boyd, D 2014, ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp. 128-52.

Bullying Statistics n.d., ‘Cyber Bullying Statistics’, Anti-Bullying Help, Facts, and More, viewed 7 January 7 2018, <http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-bullying-statistics.html>.

Cushing, T 2013, ‘The exaggeration of the cyberbullying problem is harming anti-bullying efforts’, Techdirt, viewed 7 January 2018, <https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131010/09444124826/exaggeration-cyberbullying-problem-is-harming-anti-bullying-efforts.shtml>.

Dredge, R, Gleeson, J, Garcia XP 2014, ‘Presentation on Facebook and risk of cyberbullying victimisation’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 40, pp. 16-22.

Emotional 2016, I’m Truly Sorry (Short Bullying Movie), 11 February, viewed 7 January 2018, <https://youtu.be/qcvTsFqptS8>.

Luxton, DD, June, DJ, & Fairall JM 2012, ‘Social Media and Suicide: A Public Health Perspective’, Journal of Public Health, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 195-200.

Pappas, S 2015, ‘Cyberbullying on Social Media Linked to Teen Depression’, Live Science, viewed 7 January 2018, <https://www.livescience.com/51294-cyberbullying-social-media-teen-depression.html>.

The introduction of social media has been a significant enabler for individuals to participate in protest and activism online.

Social media, unlike traditional forms such as screen and print media, affords a voice and an audience to the everyday citizen. For the online individual, social media is an easily accessible, inexpensive and powerful tool for challenging the norms of mainstream and popular culture (Lievrouw 2011, p. 2).

A key benefit of social media is the way in which it bridges geographical and cultural borders. In the online space geography is no longer a barrier, with people able to connect with one another from anywhere in the world providing they have an internet connection (Newsmaker Group n.d).

Source: Facebook 2018

This new level of connection has unlocked countless possibilities for using social media platforms for protest and activism, including a heightened awareness of the disasters, injustices and corruption taking place throughout the world. Online individuals have found the confidence through social media to speak out against these events, participating in and forming online movements to share information with others, resist authority, and question dominant and long held views.

In 2013 the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was born, following the shooting death of black teen Treyvon Martin in Florida. The movement, using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter on social media, grew rapidly following the 2014 deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York City (Bonilla & Rose 2015). In the years since, powered by social media, the focus of the BLM movement has expanded from police to violence to situating itself as “an ideological and political intervention” (Bonilla & Rose 2015) striving to end the racial vilification of blacks worldwide.

Source: Klein 2013

There has been significant criticism of what has come to be known as ‘clicktivism’, amidst claims that much of online activism is merely a passive awareness rather than an active, online movement. For some, digital modes of activism represent “fleeting moments of awareness, quickly replaced by the customary innocuousness of social media pleasantries” (Bonilla & Rose 2015).

Opponents to this viewpoint believe that clicktivism, while present, can and does lead to passive, online individuals transforming themselves into active, real world activists. 25-year-old student Johnetta Elzie believes her role as a protester today has occurred as a direct result of her awareness of #BlackLivesMatter.  “We saw it with Trayvon Martin. We saw it with Jordan Davis – but I always felt away from everything. Then I saw Brown’s body laying out there, and I said, ‘Damn, they did it again!’ But now that it happened in my home, I’m not just going to tweet about it from the comfort of my bed. So I went down there. You could still see the bloodstains deeply and darkly in the streets after they moved his body.”

Source: Libertarian Republic 2015

Reference List:

Bonilla, Y & Rose, J 2015, ‘#Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States’, American Ethnologist, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 4-17.

Hsieh, S & Rakia, R 2014, ‘After #Ferguson’, The Nation, 27 October, viewed 2 January 2018, <www.thenation.com/article/after-ferguson/>.

Facebook 2018, ‘Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life’ [image], Create and account, Facebook, viewed 2 January 2018, <www.facebook.com>.

Klein, A 2013, ‘Grassroots group actually front for shady figures’ [image], Trayvon Martin Protest Leaders Revealed, WND, viewed 2 January 2018, <http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/trayvon-martin-protest-leaders-revealed>/.

Libertarian Republic 2015, ‘Clinton Shouted Down By Black Lives Matter Protesters’ [image], Clinton Shouted Down By Black Lives Matter Protesters, Libertarian Republic, viewed 2 January 2018, <https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/clinton-shouted-down-by-black-lives-matter-protesters/>.

Lievrouw, L 2011, Alternative & Activist New Media, Polity, Cambridge, U.K, P. 2.

Internet people. Image source: Flickr / Anonymous 9000

“…The internet is increasingly the first place citizens turn when they want to hold power to account.” - Change UK director Brie Rogers Lowery (Sommers 2015)

Also known as internet activism, online activism, cyberactivism, online organising, electronic advocacy, e-campaigning and e-activism, Digital Activism happens when ‘internet-based socialising and communication techniques’ are used to ‘create, operate and manage activism of any type’ (Technopedia 2017). Specifically created to bring about ‘social and/or political change’ (Rees 2015), Digital Activism develops in digital communities that draw together people from all over the world who have a common belief or purpose. These can be ‘pressure groups… spontaneous aggregation… or individuals’ (Illia 2002).

In Australia, Change.org has become the leading voice for the ‘disenfranchised and powerless’ in their attempt to ‘pop the political-elite bubble’ (Gilbert 2016).

Senator Xenophon receives a petition. Image source: Change.org

According to the head of Change.org Australia, Nathan Elvery, one in six people have either signed or started a petition in Australia (Gilbert 2016). I personally receive emails from Change regularly, asking for my signature to be added to a petition. While I have never started one myself, I can certainly count myself among the statistic of those who have signed one… or more. Some of the recent topics sent to me include ‘Dutton picks on migrants… again’, ‘Ban Elephants Ivory tusks from being imported’, ‘Bakers Delight need to back-pay workers’, ‘Stop video games advocating child abuse’ and ‘Endometriosis is REAL!’

Image: Change.org

But how successful are the petitions I put my name to - do I even expect change to happen, or am I simply making myself feel like a good citizen? Do politicians see these petitions, and do they even care? QUT lecturer Stephen Harrington seems to think they do. He told Mashable Australia ‘They [politicians] simply can’t ignore it any more, because constituents are increasingly expectant of a response’ (Bogle 2016). In the 2016 election, Mashable reports that ‘every major political party responded to at least one Change.org petition’ (Bogle 2016). Because organisations like Change can mobilise such a large community (4 million users in Australia), ‘the risk [to politicians of ignoring online petitions] is much higher, and you need to engage’ (Bogle 2016).

Elvery points out that the ‘scale and impact of Change petitions’ has changed a lot since it began in 2011. At first, most petitions focused on changing council laws, ‘but now they’re influencing federal law’ (Gilbert 2016). The success is such that ‘on average, one campaign reached their goal’ on the website ‘every 48 hours’ (Gilbert 2016). That ‘goal’ being, of course, to raise signatures, not necessarily to achieve a successful outcome. However, successful outcomes are happening with more frequency.

Some high-profile successes from 2016 include: Help for struggling dairy farmers Murderer’s sentence reinstated Life-saving surgery granted for mum of six Man who supports “legal rape” shunned by Sydneysiders ALDI goes cage-free Game encouraging the killing of Indigenous Australians shut down

Change.org’s most successful petitions from around the world (from 2015) describes the year’s biggest highlights.

Not everyone is enamored with Change.org however. YouTube user ‘I Hate Everything’ makes some very valid points in this 2015 video, complaining about everything from the rash of time-wasting and frivolous petitions circulating, to the appalling spelling of users leaving comments on petitions, and is worth watching for a contrasting perspective.

Video source: https://youtu.be/18d26qpJNUU

References

Bogle, A 2016, How Change.org became a legitimate force in Australian politics, Mashable Australia, viewed 8 January 2018, <http://mashable.com/2016/06/30/change-org-australia-politics/#spxXCBSwAkq4>.

Gilbert, P 2016, Petitions and change.org show what Australians cared most about in 2016, Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 8 January 2018, <http://www.smh.com.au/national/petitions-and-changeorg-what-australians-cared-about-most-in-2016-20161215-gtbyvi.html>.

Illia, L 2002, Passage to cyberactivism: How dynamics of activism change, Journal of Public Affairs, 3 (4), pp326-337

Rees, A 2015, Digital and Online Activism, RESET Digital for Good, viewed 8 January 2018, <https://en.reset.org/knowledge/digital-and-online-activism>.

Sommers, J 2015, Change.org’s 10 biggest victories as petition website celebrates 100 million users, Huffpost UK, viewed 8 January 2018, <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/22/changeorg-successful-petitions_n_7635750.html>.