Dapy06

Week 12: Crowd sourcing in times of crisis

We often use social media to share photos, watch videos, or chat with friends. However, during a crisis, these platforms can become much more important.

When natural disasters occur, communication systems are often disrupted at the exact moment people need information the most. In these situations, social media and crowdsourcing can help communities share updates, request assistance, and coordinate relief efforts.

According to Utimaco (n.d.), social media plays an important role during emergencies because it allows information to be shared quickly, enables real-time updates, and supports two-way communication between affected communities and emergency responders. This helps people receive warnings, report incidents, and access assistance more efficiently during a crisis.

One example is the Haiti earthquake in 2010, when a magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck near Port-au-Prince, affecting an estimated three million people and leaving more than one million homeless. The disaster severely damaged infrastructure and communication systems, making it difficult for people to access information and assistance. During this crisis, the crowdsourcing platform Ushahidi was used to collect reports from people on the ground through text messages, emails, and social media posts. Volunteers around the world helped map this information in real time, allowing emergency responders to identify affected areas and provide assistance more effectively. This demonstrates how crowdsourcing can give citizens a voice during emergencies and support disaster response efforts through collective action (Britannica, 2026; Ushahidi, 2018).

Crowdsourcing works because it allows ordinary people to contribute information during emergencies. Instead of relying on a single organisation, thousands of individuals can share updates about road closures, damaged buildings, missing persons, or areas that require urgent help.

According to Riccardi (2016), crowdsourcing has become an important tool in disaster response because it improves communication, increases situational awareness, and helps responders make faster decisions.

However, crowdsourcing also comes with challenges. Information shared online may be inaccurate, outdated, or misleading. This means users must verify information before sharing it, especially during emergencies when false information can create confusion.

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of crowdsourcing is how it shows the power of online communities. Even people who are far away from a disaster can contribute by sharing information, creating maps, translating messages, or helping coordinate support.

In times of crisis, social media becomes more than a communication platform—it becomes a tool that allows communities around the world to work together and help those in need.

References

Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2026). 2010 Haiti earthquake. https://www.britannica.com/event/2010-Haiti-earthquake

Riccardi, M. (2016). The power of crowdsourcing in disaster response operations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 20, 123–128.

Ushahidi. (2018, January 26). Ushahidi's crowdsourcing software gives people a voice in times of crisis.

Week 11: Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance

Social media is often seen as a place where people can connect, share ideas, and express themselves. However, it can also become a space for conflict, harassment, and toxic behaviour.

One issue that caught my attention is how certain online communities normalize harassment. Haslop et al. (2021) found that some university students viewed offensive jokes, insults, and harassment as normal parts of online culture. When this behaviour becomes accepted, it can make online spaces less welcoming and discourage people from speaking up.

Gender also plays an important role in online conflict. Women and girls often experience different forms of harassment, including sexist comments, threats, and unwanted attention. Over time, these experiences can contribute to a gender-related digital divide, where some people feel less safe or less comfortable participating online (Haslop et al., 2021). Cyberbullying can also have serious emotional consequences. According to Parents.com article , victims may experience anxiety, fear, depression, behavioural issues, and academic struggles, showing that online conflicts can have real-world impacts on mental health and well-being.

A recent example is Andrew Tate, whose content has generated significant debate online. According to a BBC report, teachers, parents, and students have expressed concerns about his influence on young men and boys, particularly regarding attitudes towards women and masculinity. The case highlights how social media personalities can shape online culture and contribute to conflicts surrounding gender, identity, and acceptable behaviour online.

This raises an important question: should social media platforms allow this type of content, or should they remove it?

In Malaysia, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission plays an important role in social media governance. MCMC works with digital platforms to address issues such as cyberbullying, harmful content, online scams, and misinformation. These efforts aim to create a safer digital environment while balancing freedom of expression and user rights.

This is where digital citizenship becomes important. Being a responsible digital citizen means thinking critically about the content we consume, respecting others online, and understanding the impact our actions can have on digital communities.

✔ Respect others online, even when opinions differ.

✔ Think critically before sharing content.

✔ Challenge harmful stereotypes and misinformation.

✔ Report harassment and abusive behaviour.

✔ Help create positive and inclusive online communities.

Social media governance is not just about platform rules or government regulations. It is also about how users choose to behave online. Creating safer digital spaces requires cooperation between platforms, governments, and users.

In the end, digital citizenship is not just about having the freedom to speak—it is also about using that freedom responsibly.

References

Haslop, C., O'Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). #NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide, in a UK student online culture. Convergence, 27(5), 1418–1438.

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission. (n.d.). Official website. https://mcmc.gov.my/en/home

Rich, B., & Bujalkagence, E. (2023, February 13). The draw of the ‘manosphere’: Understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men. The Conversation.

Week 10: Gaming Communities, Social Gaming and Live Streaming: Twitch

Live streaming has become one of the most popular forms of online entertainment today. Whether it's gaming, concerts, sports, podcasts, or special events, millions of people tune in every day.

One reason for its popularity is accessibility. Instead of paying for expensive tickets or travelling to attend an event, people can simply watch from their phones or laptops. Live streaming allows audiences to experience events from anywhere, making entertainment more convenient and affordable.

Another factor behind the growth of livestreaming is gaming communities. During COVID-19, I started watching content related to Valorant and Among Us. While the games were entertaining, what kept me watching was the interaction between players and the sense of community. As Keogh (2021) explains, gaming cultures are built through networks of people who share common interests, showing that games are often as much about community as they are about gameplay.

A good example is Singaporean Getai singer and host Wang Lei. During the pandemic, live performances were cancelled, leaving many entertainers without work. To adapt, Wang Lei began selling seafood through Facebook Live and eventually attracted up to 62,000 viewers on a single stream. His success shows how livestreaming became more than just entertainment—it became a way for people and businesses to connect with audiences and generate income (One Search Pro, 2020).

Wang Lei sells seafood using FB live stream during the pandemic

Another example is IShowSpeed, one of the most popular livestreamers in the world. While he originally became known for gaming content, many people watch him today because of his energetic personality and unpredictable reactions. His streams often include challenges, travel content, interactions with fans, and funny moments that quickly spread across social media.

What makes Speed's streams so popular is that viewers never know what will happen next. This creates excitement and encourages people to watch live rather than wait for highlights later. His content shows that successful livestreaming is not only about the game or activity itself—it is also about entertainment, personality, and audience interaction.

IShowSpeed livestream with live chat

What makes live streaming different from traditional media is the real-time interaction. Viewers can comment, react, and communicate instantly with both the streamer and other viewers. This creates a stronger sense of community and participation compared to simply watching a pre-recorded video. As Taylor (2018) explains, livestreaming combines entertainment, social interaction, and community-building in ways that traditional media cannot.

For me, live streaming is popular because it combines convenience, entertainment, and social connection. People may start watching because of a game, event, or creator, but they often stay because of the community and shared experience.

In a world where so much of our communication happens online, live streaming shows how digital platforms can bring people together regardless of where they are.

References

Keogh, B. (2021). The Melbourne indie game scenes: Value regimes in localized game development. In P. Ruffino (Ed.), Independent videogames: Cultures, networks, techniques and politics (pp. 209–222). Routledge.

One Search Pro. (2020, December 23). Facebook live streaming surges in Malaysia during MCO. https://onesearchpro.my/facebook-live-streaming/

Week 9: Digital Citizenship and Software literacy: Instagram Filters

You use filters. I use filters. But let's be real about what's happening under the hood.

Filters aren't just fun. They're software with opinions.

When you tap "Natural," "Perfect Me," or a beauty filter, you're not just changing your face. You're agreeing to someone else's idea of beauty written in code, trained on data, and designed to make you look just different enough that your real face starts to feel wrong.

That's not an accident. That's the point.

Three Things Filters Do (That You Should Notice)

1. They Change How You See Yourself

Take a selfie without a filter. Looks fine. Add a beauty filter and suddenly your skin is smoother, your eyes are brighter, and your face looks more symmetrical. Turn the filter off and the original photo somehow seems worse than before. Your face didn't change—the software changed your perception. Barker (2020) argues that beauty filters encourage users to compare themselves to digitally enhanced versions of their own faces.

2. They Redefine What Beauty Looks Like

Most beauty filters promote a specific beauty standard: bigger eyes, smaller noses, sharper jawlines, and flawless skin. According to Rettberg (2014), digital technologies do not simply represent reality—they actively shape how we see and understand ourselves. Over time, filtered faces can start to feel normal, even though they are digitally constructed.

3. They Don't Work Equally on All Faces

Many beauty filters are trained on datasets that overrepresent young, light-skinned, and symmetrical faces. When someone's appearance falls outside those patterns, filters may distort features or perform less accurately. This is known as algorithmic bias.

Real Example: TikTok's Bold Glamour Filter

In 2023, TikTok's Bold Glamour filter went viral because its AI-powered effects could dramatically enhance facial features while appearing highly realistic. Researchers found that the filter significantly altered users' appearances, raising concerns about beauty standards and self-perception online (Raji et al., 2025).

Image Caption: Comparison of faces before and after TikTok's Bold Glamour filter, showing how AI can subtly reshape facial features while maintaining a realistic appearance.

What Good Digital Citizenship Looks Like

Being a good digital citizen isn't about avoiding filters altogether—it's about using them mindfully.

✔ Ask who created the filter and what beauty standards it promotes.

✔ Remember that many images online have been edited or enhanced.

✔ Think critically before comparing yourself to filtered content.

✔ Recognise the influence of social pressure. Research shows that young people are more likely to use AR filters when their friends use them (Tian et al., 2025).

✔ Use filters for creativity and self-expression, but don't let them determine your confidence or self-worth.

The Bottom Line

Filters are not just harmless effects. They are pieces of software designed by people, trained by data, and built around specific ideas of beauty. As Barker (2020) and Rettberg (2014) suggest, digital technologies do more than modify images—they shape how we see ourselves and the world around us.

Use filters if you enjoy them. Just remember that the filtered version of you is not more real, more valuable, or more worthy than the person behind the screen.

Your face is not the problem. Sometimes, the algorithm is.

References

Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

Raji, A., Frier, W., & Wilson, G. (2025). What TikTok claims, what Bold Glamour does: A filter's transformations under the microscope. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732126

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Filtered reality. In Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves (pp. 15–38). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2

Week 8: Digital Citizenship and Health Education: Body Modification on Visual Social Media

Have you ever looked in the mirror and thought, "Wow, I look different in pictures compared to real life"? It must be the lighting; it must be the makeup. " I bet most of us have. But when does that innocent thought become an unhealthy obsession? And why does it feel like everyone around us looks so much better and has better bodies, making us want to get body modifications to look curvier, smoother, and more symmetrical? The answer lies somewhere between our phone screens and our sense of self. Maybe it is because we obsessively watch gym influencers post their "perfect" bodies, but you do not know most of those images are edited to look that way. And it is not just women. Men feel this pressure too: the six‑pack, the broad shoulders, the chiselled jawline. Insecurity does not pick a gender. And there is nothing wrong with feeling insecure sometimes. The problem starts when that feeling never goes away.

Even celebrities like Selena Gomez are held to this impossible standard. When she shares a photo without makeup, she is called "brave" for showing her real face, but if she looks too perfect, she is accused of secretly using filters. This proves that the pressure to be a filtered, "perfect" version of yourself affects everyone from influencers to A‑list stars.

For centuries, humans have altered their bodies to fit in. As the Medium article "Body Modification: Of Identity and Insecurity" (Terence, 2020) points out, India had access to plastic surgery as early as 800 BC, and Victorian women literally deformed their ribs with S‑line corsets to achieve an hourglass figure. But today's pressure is different. Victorian women did not have filtered, plastic‑filled faces staring back at them from their Instagram stories every hour of every day. We do. And the bar for "normal" keeps rising.

Even in earlier historical periods, Victorian women used corsets to manipulate body shape and create an idealised hourglass figure.

This is where social media filters come in. What starts as a fun selfie enhancer quickly becomes a measuring stick. Scholars have even coined a term for it: Snapchat dysmorphia, where people seek out plastic surgery not to look like a celebrity but to resemble their own filtered selfies (Migala, 2023). Migala (2023) explains that this trend is linked to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), where individuals become preoccupied with perceived flaws that are often unnoticeable to others. The article also highlights that patients are now bringing filtered selfies into cosmetic consultations as reference images instead of natural photographs, showing how digitally altered appearances are reshaping real-world beauty expectations (Migala, 2023). Studies show that beautifying AR filters are linked to lower body satisfaction, higher social comparison, and increased risks of anxiety, depression, and body dysmorphic disorder, especially among teens and young adults. Even a 30-second filter that tans the skin or whitens teeth can make people feel less satisfied with their real appearance. This is not vanity; it is a public health issue.

So why does this happen? One explanation comes from social comparison theory, which suggests that individuals evaluate themselves by comparing their appearance, abilities, and lifestyle with others, and Gateley (2022) explains that these comparisons often become harmful in social media environments where users are constantly exposed to idealised and curated images, leading to increased feelings of inadequacy when comparing their unfiltered self to digitally enhanced or “perfect” versions of others. In other words, it is not all filters that hurt – it is the ones that promise an "improved" you. And platforms like Instagram and Snapchat are filled with exactly those.

Even young children demonstrate social comparison behavior, such as comparing their height with that of their peers

The consequences go beyond self-esteem. The Butterfly Foundation’s National Taskforce highlights the need for algorithm transparency, limits on beauty-altering filters for younger users, and options to reset recommendation algorithms to reduce exposure to appearance-focused content (Butterfly Foundation, 2024). This reflects growing concern that platform design contributes to body dissatisfaction rather than just individual behavior.

So what can we do as ethical digital citizens? Banning filters is not realistic, nor is it desirable – they can be creative and fun. But we can practice digital citizenship in three ways. First, check your own habits. Do you only post when you are filtered? Are you hiding or curating? Try going filter‑free for a week. Second, call out problematic trends. Creators like Laura Ghiacy and Ben Carpenter have shown how even subtle filters distort self‑perception. Share their work. Third, demand platform accountability. Support calls for algorithm transparency, mandatory labeling of modified content, and built‑in educational prompts about body image. The Butterfly Foundation's BodyKind program is already teaching social media literacy in Australian schools – that is a model worth scaling.

Being an ethical digital citizen means understanding that your real face is not a problem to be solved. It means recognising that the filter is lying, and that you are enough exactly as you are – whether you are a man, a woman, or anywhere in between. Because a world where everyone looks like a filtered version of the same person would be boring, dishonest, and deeply unhealthy. Our faces, in all their uniqueness, deserve to be seen – no filter required.

Reference

Butterfly Foundation. (2024). National Taskforce for Social Media, Body Image and Eating Disorders presents government with urgent recommendations to make social media safer for all users. https://butterfly.org.au/news/national-taskforce-for-social-media-body-image-and-eating-disorders-presents-government-with-urgent-recommendations-to-make-social-media-safer-for-all-users/

Gateley, J. (2022, December 20). The stress of social comparison. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stress-of-social-comparison-4154076

Terence, A. (2020, November 9). Body modification: Of identity and insecurity. Medium. https://medium.com/pragyan-blog/body-modification-of-identity-and-insecurity-e922ed34bd8a

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

We're told to consume less. Then Instagram shows us an ad for a "sustainable" $200 linen shirt. Then TikTok tells us linen is out and bamboo is in. Make it make sense.

Fashion has always been trend-driven, but social media turned the cycle into a monster. Microtrends now cycle every few weeks, not seasons. One week it's coastal grandmother. Next week it's tomato girl. By the time your package arrives? The trend is dead.

Into this chaos steps slow fashion. Buy less. Choose better. Wear longer.

But here's the question nobody wants to answer: is slow fashion just another trend wearing a beige trench coat?

The Digital Citizens Actually Doing Something:

Let me give you real examples, not influencers selling $200 "ethical" t-shirts.

@baddie.brad (TikTok) — With over 1.6 million followers, he posts under "underconsumption core" and "de-influencing." His content is about being wasteful and why you don't need to constantly buy new things. His most shared video: "You don't need a new water bottle. You don't need a new phone case. Use what you have." Simple. Uncomfortable. Effective. He's not selling you anything; he's telling you to stop buying.

As Crepax and Liu (2024) argue, digitalization has fundamentally changed how fashion trends move faster, more emotional, and more visual. Slow fashion uses the same digital tools (hashtags, GIFs, Reels) to push against speed.

But there's a catch. Augustsson and Granberg (2022) found that even climate-conscious consumers don't always change their buying habits. Why? Lack of accessible alternatives.

That's where digital citizenship comes in. When you share a slow fashion post, tag a brand, or signal boost a local ethical maker, you're not just shopping. You're building a public hashtag (#SlowFashion, #EthicalFashion, #SecondHandFirst) that pressures the industry to change.

My Honest Take: Is slow fashion another trend? Maybe. But here's the difference: most trends ask you to buy something. Slow fashion asks you to stop buying. That's uncomfortable. That's not aesthetic. That's not easy to monetize. And that's exactly why it matters.

So yes, be skeptical. Question the "$300 organic cotton" grift. But don't dismiss the movement just because it's imperfect. Digital citizenship isn't about being perfect. It's about being intentional.

Reference

Augustsson, A., & Granberg, J. (2022). Sustainability and consumers green purchasing priorities in fashion: What the industry’s impact on the environment means for the consumers’ priorities when purchasing new apparel.https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1627241

Week 6: What Is Digital Citizenship? Hashtag Publics, Political Engagement, and the Attention Economy

Say what you want about Donald Trump — his online presence fundamentally broke how political communication works.

Instead of polished speeches and scripted PR, he ran his social media like a chaotic group chat. Direct. Unfiltered. Reactive. Some call this "authenticity." Critics call it impulsive and unprofessional. The question no one wants to answer: should a world leader tweet like a drunk uncle at 3 AM?

What makes this especially interesting is how the same post can produce completely different interpretations. Some read it as confidence and directness, others as provocation. That split reaction isn’t accidental; it reflects how digital platforms reward content that generates engagement, whether positive or negative.

As Zhang, Lukito, Suk, and McGrady (2025) note, Trump strategically used both mainstream and alternative platforms such as X and Truth Social to drive media attention and bypass traditional gatekeepers. This highlights a key shift: platforms are no longer just spaces where politics is discussed; they actively shape how political visibility is produced.

In this sense, political communication becomes tied to the attention economy, where visibility, speed, and emotional reaction often matter more than depth or accuracy.

And then there's

#MAGA

What started as a campaign slogan became a digital identity marker, a hashtag for supporters to find each other and build community. In that sense? Brilliant branding.

But here's the controversial part: #MAGA did what #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo did; it built a public hashtag. It connected people. The difference? The political content.

But here’s the uncomfortable part: the same mechanics that build community can also intensify division.

As Törnberg and Törnberg (2024) argue, digital spaces can amplify polarization by creating echo chambers, where users are primarily exposed to similar viewpoints. These environments don’t just reflect existing beliefs; they can strengthen and radicalize them over time.

This is where digital citizenship becomes complicated.

It's not just about participating online, but about understanding how platforms shape what we see, how we react, and how communities form. Hashtag activism can raise awareness and connect people, but it can also reinforce boundaries between groups and limit meaningful dialogue.

So maybe the real issue isn’t whether hashtags are “good” or "bad."

It's that they are powerful tools operating in a system driven by attention.

and in that system, visibility often wins over nuance. 🌐

Reference

Törnberg, P., & Törnberg, A. (2024). Inside a White Power echo chamber: Why fringe digital spaces are polarizing politics. New Media & Society, *26*(8), 4511-4533. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14614448221122915

Week 5: Digital Communities, Fandoms & the Rise of Reality TV Culture

Ok, but the real question? why does watching reality tv shows feel like a full-time emotional commitment? 😭

I admit it. I have spent more time than I care to admit arguing about reality TV online. Not just watching, but arguing. And I am not alone. Whether it is Love Island, The Bachelor, or Shark Tank, millions of viewers do not just consume these shows passively. They take to Reddit, X (Twitter), and Discord to debate, dissect, and defend. This is not mindless scrolling. This is a digital community acting as a digital public sphere.

Take Shark Tank, for example. The business reality show has a dedicated Reddit community of around 56,000 members who fact-check entrepreneurs' claims, debate whether a shark's valuation was fair, and critique investor behavior (Foster, 2025). When Mark Cuban announced his departure after 15 seasons, fans did not just express sadness. They debated his legacy, argued over whether he had become too harsh, and speculated about the show's future. That is collective deliberation. As Papanastasiou (2024) notes, reality TV fandom exemplifies participatory culture. Audiences actively shape content through live tweeting, memes, and detailed episode breakdowns.

But this digital public has a shadow side. Sophia Aepfelbacher (2023) argues that reality television cultivates parasocial relationships, extracting emotional labor from viewers while reinforcing neoliberal values. She calls this "affective exploitation," the systematic extraction of viewers' emotional energy as a commercial commodity. When we stay up until 2am arguing about a Shark Tank pitch or defending a Love Island contestant, we are not just having fun. We are generating free content and emotional energy that fuels the show's relevance.

When that passion curdles into toxicity, the consequences are serious. Love Island USA producers have issued on-air anti-cyberbullying statements after fans doxxed contestants. Meanwhile, Shark Tank India judge Namita Thapar faced intense online trolling after questioning a pitch's business model. Critics called her completely out of touch and labeled the show the Friendship Tank of India. While critique of a business decision is legitimate, the line was repeatedly crossed into personal attacks. When fans treat reality TV participants as characters rather than real people, the digital public sphere breaks down entirely.

So what is the difference between a healthy digital public and a toxic one? Accountability. That is where digital citizenship comes in. Being an ethical digital citizen means engaging in debate with the goal of understanding, not just winning. It means remembering that contestants and sharks are real people with real mental health consequences. Aepfelbacher (2023) herself acknowledges that active, critical viewing practices have the potential to foster democratic cultures and creative modes of affective resistance. The digital public sphere is ours to shape. Let us not waste it.

References Aepfelbacher, S. (2023) The New Profits of Pleasure: Reality Television and Affective Exploitation in Post-Pandemic Neoliberalism. Master’s thesis, Portland State University. https://search.proquest.com/openview/62e2d83dac77ee12238d10c814078909/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Foster, N. (2025, July 8). The best websites to see what really happened after Shark Tank. Medium. https://medium.com/@noahfosterbiz/the-best-websites-to-see-what-really-happened-after-shark-tank-3073096610fb