Jubel C.

According to studies, body modification refers to the deliberate physical or semi-permanent alteration of the body for the non-medical, aesthetic, or cultural reasons. (Mironica et al., 2024)

Has beauty lost its value today? The amount of pictures online showing replicas of men and women in almost the same look, almost without any difference from one another is sometimes ghastly to think, if we care to pay greater attention. The pressing concern is that body modification is being taken too far in the digitalised generation, though the concept of body modification dates back to previous decades. Therefore, we need to consider the extent of influence which social media has over how people treat and present their bodies, and whether this is within a range acceptable, and if not so, what can we do then?

When I coin the term social media, I refer to all the social media platforms and the kind of network chain effect that it creates when it comes to influencing people everywhere. In 2026, social media promotes beauty through various multiple means, delivering an impact at a velocity unprecedented in the pre-digital era. The omnipresent digital images distort the idea of genuine aesthetic and create unrealistic expectations in beauty standards. This phenomenon transcends beyond an individual’s self perception and its impacts are evident through records of attempts to bring these standards to life through the process of body modification. When the images you see online start to appear in the way people dress and appear out there in the street, the problem has extended from being just a digital projection.

(Lael Hansen, 2026)

Everybody wants to look the same. But why???

The digital world has inevitable impacts for the channels it provides - a great hub which stores the doctrines of “beauty” which spread, recur and channelled into people’s mind. Social media in particular, provides a vast environment where ideals of attractiveness are constantly created, circulated, and amplified. This phenomenon can be linked to the concept of aesthetic templates, which refers to recurring and standardised visual patterns that guide self-presentation online. Rather than encouraging complete individuality, social media often promotes recognisable aesthetic formats that users repeatedly adopt and imitate.

The most current dominant online aesthetic template displays what researchers and commentators would point as “Instagram face” or “Tiktok face”. And it usually looks like this:

1. Clear “glass” skin

2. Highly Symmetrical Face

3. Full lips

4. Defined jawlines

5. Slim facial features

Ironically, these appearances are often framed as authenticity and individuality, yet their repetitive visibility creates narrow standards of attractiveness. Social media amplifies these ideals and aesthetic templates through the widespread use of filters, editing applications, AI-enhanced imagery, and highly curated content that selectively presents idealised appearances. Platform algorithms further intensify this process by prioritising content that generates high engagement and repeatedly promoting similar faces, appearances, and visual styles. The Social Comparison Theory which argues that individuals evaluate themselves through comparisons with others (Festinger, 1954).

This is the main reason why individuals imitate algorithmically rewarded aesthetic templates rather than natural forms of beauty. Constant exposure to these digital tools conditions the human brain to these aesthetic templates, as they perceive matching features as attractiveness. As a result, individuals actualise the promoted ideals and conform to the standards in hopes to be among the “beautiful ones”.

The phenomenon becomes more concerning when individuals manifest the perceived ideals by undergoing cosmetic surgeries and body modification practices in an effort to conform to online beauty standards. It is when natural features do not align with those from the template, people start to feel pressured and begin to go through heavy, painful steps just to reach for the beauty standards which may not fully exist. Meanwhile, the psychology aligns with Jean Baudrillard’s (1994) sociological concept of hyperreality—a state where the distinction between the real and the simulated collapses, and the simulation becomes preferred.

In the end, people lose their original physical features which naturally make them who they are and shape unique self identities, and transform into images deemed as “perfect” but far from being real and authentic. This is also a stark example of how digital citizenship affects physical reality and mass society. The images online come to life under the label of beauty. These digital aesthetic templates are diffusing into society and slowly replacing the definition of beauty.

If you're reading this, you may want to picture: what do you think of a world where everyone looks almost identical to one another.

References:

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation (S. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Lael Hansen. (2026, February 11). EVERYONE LOOKS IDENTICAL NOW... (and it’s horrifying). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSlFx0IUl8

Crowdsourcing refers to the practice of obtaining ideas, services, data, or resources from a large, often online group of people during emergencies or disruptive events such as natural disasters, pandemics, wars, or economic collapses. Highlight. This includes all crises out there, not just the contemporary digital hardships. The topic of crowdsourcing validates the significance of the digital community, and why it has the power to change, to rule the world. BIG LINES. But it’s true. We’ll go about this by breaking down into different cases of digital crowdsourcing and what had already happened in the past, and the changes they have already landed in the past years. 

The Covid-19 pandemic

Lockdown. Vaccines. Sorrows. Deaths. Covid is a season of great sorrows. When the economy and general mobility are being severely handicapped, the people switch to the online platform for ideas and actions for urgent research and discoveries

In early 2020, a global shortage of mechanical ventilators threatened to overwhelm healthcare systems as COVID-19 led to severe respiratory failure. Over 3,000 engineers, medical professionals, and hobbyists from 20+ countries collaborated in real-time on a single open-source ventilator design. Design files were version-controlled on GitHub; circuit board designs were co-edited live on Altium 365.

This is done by a complete geographic decentralization – no physical meeting was ever held. The final design could be downloaded and manufactured anywhere in the world with a 3D printer and basic electronics.

In specific regions in Africa, the pandemic was accompanied by an Infodemic, a spread of disinformation, making it difficult for people to find accurate information. To tackle the issue, UNESCO in partnership with Innovation for Policy Foundation (i4Policy) launched an online campaign to crowdsource local openly licensed content to inform communities across Africa about Covid-19.

“This crisis tells us the importance of the flow of quality, reliable information at a time when misinformation and rumors are flourishing,” said UNESCO Director General Audrey Azoulay.  

Translators for Ukraine (2022-Present)

In the face of war, social media platforms such as Telegram and Whatsapp are being used as decentralised network with volunteer translators receiving important screenshots of Ukrainian documents - medical records, legal forms, evacuation orders, returned and translated within minutes. A simple Telegram bot distributed tasks to available volunteers based on language pairs (e.g., Ukrainian -> Polish).

At peak, the network claimed over 5000 active volunteers and processed over 1 million translation requests in the first six months of the war. 

2010 Haiti Earthquake: Ushahidi and the 4636 SMS Short Code

On January 12, 2010 a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck near Port-au-Prince, Haiti, causing over 100,000 deaths and overwhelming traditional communication and aid infrastructure. Within hours of the earthquake, the Ushaidi platform - originally a platform developed to map violence in Kenya - launched the Ushaihidi-Haiti Project. The innovation was a partnership with the mobile network Digicel to establish SMS short code 4636, allowing anyone in Haiti to text reports of urgent needs for free. 

Estimated 10,000 Haitians volunteered to translate messages, processing thousands of reports. 

The US Marine Corps and US Coast Guard actively used the live map. One Marine Corps report specifically credited the map with enabling a rescue mission that evacuated two elderly women and a young girl with critical injuries from outside Grand Goave, stating, "Your site saved these people's lives... There are 100s of these kinds of stories..."

Digital crowdsourcing is a great example in contributing to a healthy digital citizenship. It is also a pivotal tool for organizations and institutions that helps facilitate the decentralization of knowledge production and task execution and by doing so, leverages dispersed expertise, creativity and labour across global networks. It can be applied in various manners including crowdfunding, crowd analysis, crowd data collection and so on, in different fields and circumstances. Hansen (2012) affirms that aimed at solving wicked problems, public managers seek innovative approaches and crowdsourcing can be a likely solution for municipal issues. 

Addressing the need of volunteers in crowdsourcing

Democratic viewpoints suggest citizen engagement with technology use for improving deliberation and decision making (Macintosh, 2004). Other e-participation frameworks include alternatives for more collaborative strategies, which enable citizens to become partners and co-creators and co-producers of services (Nam, 2016). 

One of the most efficient ways to take part in crowdsourcing for an ongoing crisis is to participate in crisis mapping and open-source data collection. Global humanitarian organizations use these platforms to turn satellite imagery and local reports into actionable maps and intelligence for on-the-ground disaster relief. 

Crowdsourcing is an indispensable need in the time of crises, and digital crowdsourcing offers more channels for greater accessibility and enhanced efficiency of the crowdsourcing process, making it easier in resolving crises. 

References

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004

Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 50117b). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300

Morrow, N., Mock, N., Papendieck, A., & Kocmich, J. (2011). Independent evaluation of the Ushahidi Haiti project. Development Information Systems International.

Nam, T. (2016). Government 3.0 in Korea: A country study on government innovation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(4), 743–763.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315574992

UNESCO. (2020, April 1). #DontGoViral: UNESCO and i4Policy launch a campaign to crowdsource local content to combat the Infodemic in Africa. UNESCO News. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/dontgoviral-unesco-and-i4policy-launch-campaign-crowdsource-local-content-combat-infodemic-africa

We love free speech, don’t we? Yet we should not argue that everything comes with a price, and nothing should be brought too far. It’s the same for freedom of speech, especially when it is applied in the digital space. This is one of the most overlooked topics as people take social media for granted, for how it is, and they often forget the severity of a poor digital health environment and the implications it brings.

This is not an article against freedom, but an affirmation to monitor and moderate digital behaviours to secure true freedom. For the better of everyone.

Rhodes’ pioneering work Understanding Governance (1997) identified six different meanings given to the term governance, and suggests that it ‘really has no meaning’. Rosenau and Czempiel (1992) wrote about ‘governing without government’. Scholars have developed mind-opening perspectives to the concept of governance each time. That itself speaks to the importance of the word ‘governance’.

Meanwhile the International centre for governance and policy (2024) defines governance as follows:

“the system of rules, processes, and institutions that ensures a government and public organisations function effectively, transparently, and accountably.”

Cyberbullying remains the top issue on social media. Though differently, its claws are reaching our children. In the UK, the #NoSnowflake online tolerance issue has highlighted deteriorating digital wellbeing among students as online behaviour among young adults push towards increasing violence and degrading mental health. Recent case studies and UN polls reveal that global cyberbullying is escalating, with around two-thirds of children experiencing online harassment. These studies highlight an increase in malicious incidents, such as social exclusion on WhatsApp, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and targeted digital exploitation. 

In the face of escalating problems, social media governance stands as the only cup in preventing deeper repercussions. Some countries have imposed the underage social media bans such as Australia and Malaysia, by enacting legislation—enforced through mandatory platform age verification linked to government-issued records that prohibits children under 16 from independently owning or operating accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. 

The escalating problem cannot be addressed by isolated national laws alone. As the UN data shows, the issue is a global phenomenon. Platform self-governance, primarily through community guidelines and content moderation, has proven woefully insufficient. The sheer scale of content uploads makes perfect enforcement impossible, and the reactive nature of reporting systems places the burden of triggering action on the victims. The recent Indian controversy referenced in the tweet IndiaToday, which involved a high-profile case of online harassment and the platform's delayed response, is a stark example of this systemic failure (India Today, 2012). It underscores the gap between a platform's public commitment to safety and its operational realities, where complex content decisions are often outsourced to automated systems and overburdened human moderators. 

This brings us back to the core of governance as defined by the International Centre: a system ensuring effective, transparent, and accountable function. For social media, this system must be a tripartite model involving:

Platforms adopting “safety by design” principles, auditing their algorithms for societal harm, and providing transparent data to independent researchers.

Governments enacting coherent, rights-based legislation that sets clear standards for platform duty of care, particularly towards children.

Civil society acting as essential watchdogs, conducting audits, supporting victims, and fostering digital literacy programs that builds resilience on the frontline.

The goal is not to sanitize the internet of all offensive speech, which is neither possible nor desirable, but to architect digital spaces where the most severe psychological harms—like coordinated harassment campaigns and the non-consensual spread of intimate imagery—are systematically deterred and addressed. This is the "price" of a sustainable digital commons: a shared commitment to governance structures that protect the vulnerable. Without it, the promise of digital connection devolves into a marketplace of abuse, corroding the very social fabric that these platforms claim to build. True digital freedom is not the absence of rules, but the presence of a fair and accountable system that prevents the tyranny of the mob and protects the right to participate without fear. 

References

India Today [@IndiaToday]. (2012, May 22). In the face of escalating problems, social media governance stands as the only cup in preventing deeper [Tweet]. Twitter. https://x.com/IndiaToday/status/2061773926343352793

International Centre for Governance and Policy. (2024, March 28). What is governance and what do we mean by good governance? Govcentre. https://govcentre.org/what-is-governance-and-what-do-we-mean-by-good-governance/

New Straits Times. (2026, June 5). MCMC probes coverage media content after public complaints. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2026/06/1455978/mcmc-probes-coverage-media-content-after-public-complaints

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.

Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E. O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press.

Games. Twitch. Streaming. Games build massive communities on live streaming platforms like Twitch today. The largest single communities on Twitch are built around mega streamers like Kai Cenat with over 20 million followers. Fast forward to the age of our grandparents when they were young, the word “games” stands for a completely different thing. It could mean some ball games they would invite their friends over after school, or some board games they brought to school and sat at tables and played together with. Then we shift the time pointer a little bit further to our parents’ time.

Gaming was then about some new console games their parents bought for them, or the new arcade section that just opened at the mall. Then the kids at that time would share it to their friends and arrange a game just among themselves. Since the very beginning, games are not just about the fun, but also the people and the communities that they form. And yet since the rise of twitch Twitch, the streaming platform has granted gaming experiences to be enjoyed by everyone on the internet. Globalisation and digitisation have entered the scene, causing a power shift - it's force, magnanimous.

The definition of a game:

A [classic] game is a rule-based formal system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are optional and negotiable.(Jesper Juul, 2003)

Gaming communities today are predominantly large and universal. Yet there is a noticeable change in the definition and nature of the gaming communities in its undercurrent. As live Twitch-streaming becomes the major game-sharing means to the world, we see the development of Twitch community culture, dominating the gaming sphere. Hopping onto a Twitch livestream enables live interaction between streamer and audience as Twitch chat features special emotes, memes, inside jokes and fan identities.

Parasocial relationships

Viewers become emotionally connected to streamers and Twitch streamers become online celebrities and influencers. Communities form as everyone supports and goes to their favourite streamers. The strong fanbase and interactions with the fans become crucial to the streamers' financial earnings as they rely on fans’ support for donations, subscriptions and memberships.

The gaming culture revolution

What I'm seeing is that the gaming community is obnoxiously rebelling, on its own pace and way.

1. Twitch culture drives the formation of niche groups.

Although the technologies of live streaming have allowed universal participation and endless communication between one another, we see a passive phenomenon rising - formation of highly specific miro-communities emerge around distinct streamers, generating a deeply personal sense of belonging (Johnson, M. R., & Woodcock, J., 2019). Back then games were for one another, and everyone would agree to having fun in this one board game. There’s not too much complication. A game is a game. In comparison, the introduction of streamer and Twitch culture leads to individual stance and emotional bias in the picture. People will stick to their own favourite streamer who expresses the style and taste which suit them, and they often just stay there. Back then games were for one another, and everyone would agree to having fun in this one board game. There’s not too much complication. A game is a game. In comparison, the introduction of streamer and Twitch culture leads to individual stance and emotional bias in the picture. People will stick to their own favourite streamer who expresses the style and taste which suit them, and they often just stay there. 

2. Modern gaming community experiences issues in harassment and toxic behaviour. 

Additionally, the problems and growing toxicity shouldn’t be overlooked. This includes the appearance of toxic fandoms, online harassment, influencer culture pressure (arXiv., 2026). Notoriously, Twitch is one of the platforms used for malicious intent. People have used Twitch to spread hate such as racism or sexism, or to do inappropriate behaviour such as sexting and grooming minors (Cai, J., & Bruckman, A., 2019). It is hard to argue against the fact that gaming communities are experiencing cultural and moral degradation compared to its history since the boom of its digital age. Building a healthier gaming environment requires shared responsibility from platforms, streamers, moderators, and community members to promote respect and positive interactions. 

Nevertheless, Twitch with its power in building communities can be a good place to promote positive values and developments despite ongoing challenges. Good news. Twitch is showing clear signs of inclusivity through a combination of enhanced creator tags, community guidelines, and platform-wide design changes. These updates help marginalized creators find their audience while giving viewers a direct way to navigate to diverse and welcoming communities The platform also enforces content classification and features like the Stream Closed Captioner, which adds captions for deaf or hard-of-hearing viewers (Twitch Safety Center,2023) . 

Let us hope that our gaming culture advances onto brighter footsteps with the ongoing platform operation adjustments and updates. Meanwhile we all should understand the future of the gaming digital community lies in the hands of everybody. No one can escape the responsibility in maintaining basic human decency, even when it comes to the gaming sphere.

References

arXiv. (2026). Toxicity in Twitch Chats: An LLM-Based Analysis Across Gaming Communities. https://arxiv.org/html/2605.24000v1#:~:text=Prior%20work%20has%20identified%20Twitch,the%20social%20dynamics%20of%20chat.

Cai, J., & Bruckman, A. (2019). What are Effective Strategies of Handling Harassment on Twitch? Users' Perspectives. Companion of the 2019 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW '19). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3311957.3359478

Johnson, M. R., & Woodcock, J. (2019). Live Streamers on Twitch.tv as Social Media Influencers: Chances and Challenges for Strategic Communication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335616330_Live_Streamers_on_Twitchtv_as_Social_Media_Influencers_Chances_and_Challenges_for_Strategic_Communication

In our last post, we talked about the concept of body modification and how it has been extrapolated by postmodernised social media. This week, we will shift towards the topic of social media face filters, as selfies and image-sharing habits became a culture rooted into the society, traced back to the earliest history of social media.

Plus, the convergence of Augmented Reality (AR) introduces greater complexities to user experiences, on both its process and effects to an individual's mental and physical wellbeing. Just like any other technological features, augmented reality features in selfies are widely celebrated on its available platforms such as Snapchat. Social media companies exploit great revenue potential from AR especially when paired with selfies option. In this episode, we will study the history and impact of face filters as a whole.

But first, let’s uncover what the social media conglomerates don’t want you to know behind those “cute doggos” AR filters. 

Number one. They don’t want you to know that the AR filters act as sophisticated biometric data-harvesting tools (Bell, 2025). The AR filters don’t just paste a cute cartoon onto your face, they require real-time tracking to work. That’s the reason why sometimes it goes off from your face, but when you move to a certain position, the filter is then reapplied. While doing so, your face biometrics are being taken down. This includes all your micro-expressions, eye movements and the general facial features. 

Number two. The filters cause the psychology of “filter dysmorphia”. Filter dysmorphia is a modern phenomenon where individuals become fixated on altering their appearances to match the idealized, filtered versions of themselves (Leno, 2026). The companies are well aware of the psychological outcomes and urges of using face filters. They just don’t care as much. Many face filter users start by already feeling a low self esteem about their appearances. The outcome of using these face filters, with hopes to feel better, only worsens the dysmorphia, leading to increased dissatisfaction about how they look in real life. 

Number three. AR filters are often used for marketing and strategic business purposes. In some cases, you may have become some free promotional tools for the companies without you even realising. For example, you use some branded AR effects, or even general face filters, in some way or the other, it helps to construct better algorithms and engagement for targeted advertising. 

And now, let’s spin back to the general good and bad of face filters. Instagram face filters will be a good enough example to look at. 

To speak fairly, face filters exist because of the normal human desire to achieve beauty, aesthetics and perfection. Face filters result in better quality images and offer self expression to a certain extent. However, by abusing face filters, it distorts the nature of this beauty or entertainment function, thus leading to a series of side-effects and psychological harm. Isakowitsch (2023) affirms that augmented reality attacks one’s self perception because it generates facades of the users’ real self-image, and creates a more depressing situation when people find out that reality is far away from the perceived ideal projected by those face filters.

And yes, people hate themselves more behind those pretty faces shared online. An improved image representation of oneself versus fake distorted beauty projection offers a very thin line to cross. A major problem lies in the company’s algorithmic recommendation of filter use for selfie purposes, which appeals to the human emotion but is risky towards long term wellbeing.

The digital world won’t get rid of its smart-trick in offering beauty perfection. And theories explain the vulnerability of human brains in differentiating between physical reality and image representation (UCL, 2025). So what can we do? In some ways, we are bound to co-exist with some digital tools with potential to impose harm in a sociocultural aspect, though not completely, just like the selfie filters. The best way forward is perhaps sticking onto awareness, and by watching out for the “boobytraps” of “perfect beauty” exist on our social media. 

HEY BY THE WAY, DON'T FORGET THAT

I had the opportunity to take part in a photography session at my uni recently and won a first runner-up prize :)))))

Here's a song inserted that fits the photography inspo. <33333 ☀️☁️

These are some of the pictures taken and overall, it was a great experience!!!! 🤠 😜

Anddddd, last but not leastttttt, hope you enjoy the photographss !!! 😁🌷🌄🌞⛅

I saw a big red flannel with a CTA link the first minute I opened my Instagram. It caught my attention for a short while, then hmmm.. never mind, I just continued to scroll through.  Not in the mood of buying a shirt. Then I saw a sparkling gown bedazzled with crystals, shown through an ad that says it’s sold at 20 bucks. The quality isn’t that nice, but it did catch my attention. 

That made me reflect on something deeper. Some of these clothes almost feel like soft-scams in disguise. They are marketed to look affordable and stylish, but in reality, they often lack durability and long-term value. We buy them thinking we are getting a good deal, but many of these items end up worn once or twice before being forgotten in the closet. They slowly lose meaning, turning into waste rather than wardrobe staples. 

This is where fast fashion connects directly to the digital community. The constant cycle of online advertising, viral hauls, and trend culture encourages overconsumption without us even realising it. According to Vogue (2020), social media has made fast fashion consumption emotionally rewarding because trends move rapidly and users constantly feel pressured to keep up with online aesthetics. 

However, this is definitely not the end of the world. The problem leads to an alternative: slow fashion. According to Fletcher (2010), slow fashion is defined as a movement that prioritizes quality, sustainability, ethical production, and long-term use of clothing rather than mass production and rapid trend cycles.  

Joy et al. (2012) argues that consumers are becoming more aware of how their fashion choices affect workers, the environment, and long-term sustainability. This shows that fashion is no longer only about appearance, but also about responsibility and conscious consumption. The purpose of slow fashion is to promote fashion trend that focuses on quality, durability, ethical production, and sustainability rather than mass production and fast-changing trends. Also, don’t be thrown off too quick, because slow fashion may sound difficult or extra through the words, but in reality, slow fashion is ingrained in our daily choices and habits. Here are some examples of slow fashion habits that you’re probably already familiar with. 

1. Thrifting

Thrifting is cooler than you think. Aesthetics and fashion don’t always win just because they are new. Real gems can be found through pre-loved clothes. Buying clothes from thrift shops not only extends the life of clothing and reduces waste, it can be a whole new fashion experience for some people. 

2. Upcycle Fashion

Upcycling means turning old clothes into new designs. This reduces textile waste and gives old items a new life. 

3. Ethical Slow Fashion Brands

Brands matter a lot in slow fashion. Some brands focus on fair wages, sustainable materials and long-lasting designs instead of quick mass production. 

Examples include brands that use organic cotton, recycled fabrics, and transparent production methods.

4. Capsule wardrobe

A capsule wardrobe means owning fewer clothing pieces that can be mixed and matched easily. It focuses on versatility and long-term use.

In the end, the question is not just about what we buy, but why we buy it. Maybe the next time we see another tempting fashion ad while scrolling online, we should pause for a second and ask ourselves: “Do I actually need this?” 

Week 7 Reflection: Digital Citizenship Case Study: Social Media Influencers and the Slow Fashion Movement

References

Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change. Fashion Practice, 2(2), 259–266. ResearchGate – Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change 

Vogue. (2020). Is Fast Fashion an Addiction? Vogue – Is Fast Fashion an Addiction? 

Digital citizenship is similar and equivalent to a national citizenship, just translated to technology use, and it’s being granted way less attention than it deserves. People spend hours on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Tumblr and etc. and this pretty much proves the undeniable significance of digital space and community to every individual in this modern day generation. 

Ribble (2011) states digital citizenship as the responsible and appropriate use of technology by the public. 

How do we measure and assess digital citizenship in ourselves and within digital communities? 

One useful framework for understanding digital citizenship is Mike Ribble’s 9 Elements of Digital (Ribble & Shaaban, 2011) .

The nine elements highlight the responsibilities individuals carry when participating in digital spaces. They also turn digital citizenship into a complete framework which covers the social, ethical, legal, and personal dimensions of online life (Yehya Rafaat, 2014) . 

The 9 elements of digital citizenship demonstrate responsible online behaviour includes equal access to technology, critical use of information, respectful communication, and awareness of laws, rights, and etiquette. They also emphasise the importance of protecting privacy and security, maintaining digital wellbeing, and engaging responsibly in online economic activities.

Now that we have understood the definition of digital citizenship, it’s time to look at profound examples of digital citizenship being carried into great practice.

Remember Greta Thunberg.

The young climate change activist established a “digital legacy” - one that stirred the digital wave and brought it to life - when she was just 15 years old. The overall impact exerted on the news agenda, online attention, and people’s attitudes and behaviours has been coined as “the Greta effect”. Studies affirm that successful public advocacies like the Greta effect can shape collective efficacy beliefs and motivate collective action, particularly among those with shared political ideology.

Thunberg’s first school strike led to a massive increase of public attention towards the global warming issue after 2016 (Lozano-Díaz & Fernández-Prados, 2021) . This is a result of growing newspaper coverage and online search volume. More importantly, her approach is a classic example of digital communication. Following COVID-19 restrictions, Thunberg shifted the Fridays for Future movement to a #DigitalStrike format, using social media to maintain momentum. This demonstrated a form of "distributed citizen participation," where online platforms acted as essential tools for civic awareness.

'Greta effect' spurring UK children's online activism, Ofcom says. (The Guardian, 2020)

Her most successful yet controversial movement has to be the #FridaysforFuture movement (Lozano-Díaz & Fernández-Prados, 2021) . It encourages students to protest every Friday, demanding immediate action on climate change in line with the Paris agreement. Her success has indefinite ties to her postings on Twitter Page. She has amassed a large following due to her passion already to begin with. To combat the media’s visible biases, Thunberg has wielded her Twitter following and notoriety to in many cases de-centralise her self-image for the sake of elevating a plethora of her other voices, at the same time asking others to do the same (Weadock, 2020) .

Nakate’s Twitter post. The photo, of Nakate and others protesting, stated: 

I am Vanessa from Africa. I have striked for climate [sic] for over a year now with fellow #Africanactivists. I have realised that our cries have not been listened to. It is important to know that #Africanlivesmatter. The #RiseUpMovement is changing that story this year! (Nakate, 2020). 

Thunberg’s retweet stated: 

Africa is so hugely underreported when it comes to the climate crisis (as well as everything else…). If you have a platform - help amplify the voices and stories from Africa. Africa has a key role in the fight for climate justice. Please acknowledge and share their perspective (Thunberg, 2020). 

Thunberg’s Twitter presence creates group identification by inviting collective identity surrounding “shared interactions” within “social institutions, organizational structures, patterns of social interaction and a constellation of experiences,” which are built on live experiences but that don’t privilege any individual’s voice or discount difference (Weadock, 2020), 

Her actions portrayed a “new type” of activist movement which is based upon the groundwork of digital citizenship, as she exercised controlling her digital image while turning online citizens into real followers. A conversion of public digital interaction to a physical active participation of people in the climate change movement further proved the importance of digital citizenship in influencing reality (Mede & Schroeder, 2024) . 

To conclude, the Greta’s effect consolidates the standing significance of digital citizenship, its influence inevitably parallel to traditional citizenship. As digitization has rooted in human civilization to a point that is inseparable, society is in need of a digital monitorship to ensure digital citizenship is being taken care of. Thunberg's efforts, nevertheless, showcased a lively, spontaneous effect as a result of digital citizenship if being exploited to the fullest, if being used correctly. 

Week 6 Reflection: What is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement and Activism

References:

“Greta effect” spurring UK children’s online activism, Ofcom says. (2020, February 4). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/04/greta-effect-spurring-uk-childrens-online-activism-ofcom-says

Lozano-Díaz, A., & Fernández-Prados, J. S. (2021). Young digital citizenship in #FridaysForFuture. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 44(5), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2021.1929012

Mede, N. G., & Schroeder, R. (2024). The “Greta Effect” on Social Media: A Systematic Review of Research on Thunberg’s Impact on Digital Climate Change Communication. Environmental Communication, 18(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2314028

Ribble, M., & Shaaban, A. (2011). Digital Citizenship in Schools Second Edition. ResearchGate; unknown. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340468314_Digital_Citizenship_in_Schools_Second_Edition

Weadock, C. R. (2020). @GretaThunberg: Navigating Critique and Identity Within Youth Climate Activism on Twitter. Digital Commons @ DU. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1861/?utm_source=digitalcommons.du.edu%2Fetd%2F1861&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

I’m curious. What comes first in your mind when you hear of the term “Reality TV”? Is it the jaw-dropping ways of how the Kardashian sisters spend their money, the full wardrobe of branded shoes and handbags they own? Or, the half-comedic, half-sympathetic scenes of contestants who stand pen-straight on stage with their fingers crossed, tongue-tied, hoping not to get too humiliated by the judges? Even if you’re not a fan of reality TV shows, I’m sure you have watched a clip of them somewhere before. We’re living in a mobilized, digital age where mostly every form of media is being carried around, with social media ingrained in our daily lives. Same goes for the current development of reality TV. We carry reality TV everywhere today and we can watch them anytime we want through our phones. Marked by a sudden invasion of AI into the media industry, we even see an unbreakable potential of reality TV stand firming in its position, or perhaps to grow even bigger.

And here’s why. 

Back when the first reality TV show was screened, producer of Candid Camera Allen Funt began by placing “hidden cameras”, as he wanted to capture the utmost genuine human behaviours during unguarded moments(AV Communication Review, 2022). With his actions being condemned as an invasion of privacy, the programme hired William Saroyan, who established the primordial concept of today’s reality TV: placing real people into social situations designed by the show’s writers and producers (Murray, 2009). 

"Smile, you’re on camera."-- Allen Funt

This leads us to our first finding: one may argue about the extent of authenticity of reality TV, but it is undeniable that it won’t ever be completely fake. The portrayal of real human emotions secures the future of reality TV and promises growing potential of its value among a bunch of soulless, robotic figures inside the AI-generated videos. 

I remember coming across this clip from the show “90-day fiance” for the first time on my phone. It was a fine Sunday afternoon. The character, Ed no-neck, real name Edward Allen Brown appeared on my phone….

My first reaction was: “Dang….. hahaha…. Is this person real…why is the show so dumb…?” 

Yes, I might think it was dumb at first, but it did intrigue me to want to know more about the show and then... it was episode after episode. I was hooked. The mind-blowing, chaotic stories between international couples who have to deal with visa problems and emotional conflicts have become a great time killer for me for a good while. I remember what added to the fun were those hilarious YouTube comments underneath where people just say the most unhinged stuff they could. These other people who equally enjoy the show made differing comments with regards to individuals of the TV show. And you'll see different sides forming, creating different clicks who support different viewpoints towards the couples and their unusual romance.

This formulates another point: the power of the digital community converged with the nature of reality TV. According to Henry Jenkins’ theory of participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006), audiences no longer passively consume media. Instead, they actively participate in discussions, content creation, and online fandom spaces that continuously expand the lifespan of reality TV shows. What fuels the influence of reality TV isn't just the quality or nature of the TV content, but also the audience - the people who love these shows. Their engagement facilitates communication which eventually leads to the development of a strong base or community that eventually draws more people in. It's like a spar

The last question we have to ask is what is so entertaining about reality TV? These shows Love Island, The Survivor, Masterchef, etc. are able to sustain production that lasts for seasons and years, supported by a huge base of audiences and fans, both public and “hidden”. Such TV consumption encourages parasocial interactions, where viewers develop one-sided emotional attachments toward contestants.

 Maybe the answer is as simple as because we want to learn about others, and we like them. This is why reality TV will prevail, in the coming days of artificial intelligence and increasing digitalization.

So... do you have a favourite TV show? Let us know in the comments down below. :))

Week 5 Reflection: Digital Community and Fandom: Reality TV Case Study

References:

AV Communication Review. (2022). Jstor.org. https://www.jstor.org/journal/avcommrev

Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001

Murray, J. (2009). Darwin and his publisher John Murray. Science Progress, 92(3-4), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/003685040909200302