Further left.

Given the increase in technology in the 21st century, today virtual communities use social media platforms and social imaging as a tool to achieve social cohesion. Social cohesion is defined as “the degree to which participants in social systems feel committed to the system and the wellbeing of other participants” (Gooby 2011, p. 368). Digital and online platforms give rise to a new form of social cohesion; where users display and share images and videos of their lives with others, as a form of self-representation (Hand 2012).

[image] Li 2014 #Social media usage

With this comes different affordances of use regarding the concept of networked publics. Networked publics “can be reactors, [re]makers and [re]distributors, engaging in shared culture and knowledge through discourse and social exchange as well as through acts of media reception” (9.2 Ubiquitous photography 2017). Due to the increase in usage of social imaging and media platforms, the concept of networked publics is being challenged by changes in sociology. Siaperea believes that such changes represent a shift toward networked individualism. Networked individualism “represents a transition from a social organisation based on groups, to one based on ‘glocal’ networks, which connected people from place to place” (Siaperea 2002, p. 199).

[image] Wellman et al. 2012 

Today people take great pride in developing their profiles and social imagery online, on platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram, even LinkedIn. Users tend to present themselves online to reflect the type of person they want to be perceived as, not necessarily the person that they are. Green argues that the affordances of use of social media, such as posting, liking, commenting and viewing, enable users to “create a false self of self”, ultimately giving users a boost to their ego (Green 2013). This may give justification to the fact that 50% of Australia’s log onto social media at least once a day (Cowling 2018).

Delving deeper into the topic Li raises some very interesting points in an online blog; you can read it here (Li 2014).

[image] Lockett 2014

With this, comes the increased use and sharing of ‘the selfie’. A selfie is defined as a “photograph taken of oneself using a smart device and shared publicly on social media” (Marc 2016, p. 1773). One of the primarily used applications to take a selfie is Snapchat. The application enables users to take selfies using filters and face improvement settings; to simply hide their true ‘face’ and identity and to overcome any self-esteem concerns through online social imagery.

[image] Locke 2017 #Selfie

This brings me to Sherry Turkle’s video, 'Connected but alone’ (TED-Ed 2013). In the video, Turkle raises “her concerns about people becoming connected only through technology, and therefore disconnected from their inner and outer lives and personal real-world contexts” (1.3 Is technology redefining human connection? 2017). I agree with Turkle in that as a society, we are choosing to set ourselves up for trouble; and that there should be a greater focus on shifting our attention to self-reflecting on our social media usage before humans become even more disconnected from their real lives.  

You can watch the video below:

TED-Ed 2013

Words: 500 words

References:

‘1.3 Is technology redefining human connection?’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Modules: WEEK 1: Introduction to digital communities and social media platforms on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 19 Nov 2017, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/1-dot-3-is-technology-redefining-human-connection?module_item_id=6741>.

‘9.2 Ubiquitous photography’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Modules: WEEK 9: Visual communities and social imaging on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 16 January 2018, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/pages/9-dot-2-ubiquitous-photography?module_item_id=6796>.

Cowling, D 2018, ‘Social Media Statistics Australia – December 2017’, Social Media News, 1 January, viewed 20 January 2018, <https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-december-2017/>.

Gooby. T, P 2011, ‘The civil society route to social cohesion’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 32, no. 7/8, pp. 368 – 385.

Green K.R 2013, ‘The Social Media Effect: Are You Really Who You Portray Online?’, Huffington Post, 8 June, viewed 20 January 2018, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kay-green/the-social-media-effect-a_b_3721029.html>.

Hand, M 2012, Ubiquitous Photography, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Li, Z 2014, ‘How many likes did you get? Social media - a measure of self-worth’, Health Culture and Society, viewed 18 January 2018, <http://healthcultureandsociety2014.wikispaces.com/%27How+many+likes+did+you+get%3F%27+-+Social+media%2C+a+measure+of+self+worth>.

Li, Z 2014, ‘Social worth’ [image], How many likes did you get? Social media - a measure of self-worth, Health Culture and Society, viewed 18 January 2018, <http://healthcultureandsociety2014.wikispaces.com/%27How+many+likes+did+you+get%3F%27+-+Social+media%2C+a+measure+of+self+worth>.

Locke, A 2017, ‘Can We Guess Your Favorite Snapchat Filter Based on Your Zodiac Sign?’ [iamge], Can We Guess Your Favorite Snapchat Filter Based on Your Zodiac Sign?, Sweety High, viewed 20 January 2018, <https://www.sweetyhigh.com/read/favorite-snapchat-filter-horoscope-061317>.

Lockett, S 2014, ‘Facebook vs real life’ [image], Facebook vs real life, Boucher & Co, viewed 20 January 2018, <https://www.boucherco.com/facebook-fakebook/>.

Marc, LW 2016, 'Understanding the selfie phenomenon: current insights and future research directions’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 50, no. 9/10, pp. 1773 – 1788.

Siapera, E 2012, Socialities and social media in (eds), Understanding new media, SAGE, London, pp. 191 – 208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone? - Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 25 November 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

You summarised this week’s topic perfectly in this one line alone! 

It’s fascinating to consider the obsession today’s online population has with how they are perceived online, and the use of imagery - specifically ‘selfies’ - is possible the best example of this. Individuals go to incredible lengths to take that perfect shot - helping to craft their ideal profile.

Social games refer to games that are integrated with social networking platforms such as Facebook. Social games facilitate online interaction and collaboration between users, are typically multi-player and are known as casual (Pei-Shan et al. 2014). Furthermore, Hou (2011) adds that social users play with their true identity (Chen et al. 2016). However, from a user’s perspective; Chen et al. (2016, p. 102) considers the following as key characteristics of social gaming: “easy and convenient, friendly and lively and involve social interaction”.

[image] Chen et al. 2016, p. 103

Some popular social games include Farmville and EVE Online.

After its Facebook launch in 2009, Farmville became increasingly popular; and by 2010, “daily active users peaked at 34.5 million” (Farmville 2018). Game play involves creating and cultivating a virtual farm. Incorporating social interaction between users, Facebook friends work together and help one another to each progress the development of their farm; and to level-up.

[image] Farmville logo 2018

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). 

Game rules are typically created by developers; however, rules can also incorporate social elements of the game, which users have created themselves. Interestingly, there are rules and legalities in place for developers in online social gaming. Should these terms be broken in online game play, legal implications in the real-world may apply.

As an example, EVE Online, a space-based multi-player social game; encourages collaboration between users through a player council, known as the Council of Stellar Management (CSM). As a collective, and on behalf of all active users of the game, the Council work directly with developers to create rules, and feed insights of social play to developers (De Zwart et al. 2014, p. 78).

[image] riverini 2015 

To help ferment your understanding of CSM, feel free to watch the below video explanation:

EVE Online 2017

Furthermore, EVE Online “has attracted a number of scams and scandals over the past few years, including fraud, ponzi schemes, corporate raiding and theft” (De Zwart et al. 2014, p. 78). For example, the ‘Eve Investment Bank’ structure was declared a scam by game users despite owing “700 billion ISK (the in-game currency)”. And if converted to Australia dollars today, is valued at approximately $126,600 (Sivan et al. 2013, p. 6)

Cerellius (2017) covers some common scams associated with the game, and for first-time game players, it can be a valuable resource to review. Take a look if you’re interested:

Cerellius 2017

Word Count: 432 words 

References:

Cerellius 2017, Eve Online Common Scams Explained, 9 March, viewed 23 January 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVsJ5r-hkvE>.

‘Characteristics of social gaming’ [image] 2016 in Chen et al., ‘Enhancing perceived enjoyment in social games through social and gaming factors’, Information Technology & People, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 103.

Chen, A, Lu, Y & Wang, B 2016, ‘Enhancing perceived enjoyment in social games through social and gaming factors’, Information Technology & People, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 99 – 119.

De Zwart, M & Humphreys, S 2014, ‘The lawless frontier of deep space: Code as law in EVE online’, Cultural Studies Review, vol. 20, no. 1, March, pp. 77 – 99.

EVE Online 2017, What is the Council of Stellar Management?, 16 March, viewed 23 January 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN2aIYHow-0>.

Farmville 2018, Wikipedia, viewed 23 January 2018, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FarmVille>.

‘Farmville logo’ [image] 2018, Grow Your Own Farm Online with FarmVille, Zynga, viewed 22 January 2018, <https://www.zynga.com/games/farmville>.

Hou, J 2011, ‘Uses and gratification of social games: blending social networking and gameplay’, First Monday, vol. 16, no. 7.

Pei-Shan, W & Hsi-Peng, L 2014, ‘Why do people play mobile social games? An examination of network externalities and of uses and gratifications’, Internet Research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 313 – 331.

riverini 2015, ‘CSM’ [image], MEET THE NEW COUNCIL OF STELLAR MANAGEMENT X., EVE News 24, viewed 23 January 2018, <http://evenews24.com/2015/03/19/meet-the-new-council-of-stellar-management-x/>.

I’m amazed by the figures you’ve listed here surrounding the scams that have taken place on EVE Online. 

It’s incredibly interested how the game has fostered the existence of an in-game economy - to the point that players can cheat, and even break that economy through their interaction with the game. 

It gets you thinking... a virtual world... with a virtual economy... 

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.

I wanted to specifically call out your mention of the French nationals tweeting ‘Open Door’ following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. When considering crowdsourcing (and more broadly, social media activism, which we touched on in previous weeks), the thought always comes into my head - is this really having an impact? 

Crowdsourcing a Crisis

The ubiquity of social media platforms has provided never before seen opportunities for people all over the globe to contribute immediate and relevant knowledge, especially in crisis situations. This is known as ‘crowdsourcing’.

First described by Jeff Howe in Wired magazine, crowdsourcing can be defined as a ‘method for recruiting and organising ad-hoc labour, using an open-call for participation’ (Schimak et al 2011). This method of generating up to date information has enormous potential in crisis management. Successful management of crowdsourcing ‘can result in nearly instantaneous situation awareness’ (Schimak et al 2011).

In the US there seems to be a lot of opportunities for crowd-sourcing - the recent shooting in Las Vegas unfolding in real time across social media, and Cyclone Harvey and Irma being prime examples from the last year. In Houston, a group of boatmen from Louisiana - the Cajun Navy - banded together, and with the help of an app called Zello (a walkie-talkie style cellphone app) along with Google Maps, set up their own search and rescue service (Flournoy 2017). The CEO of Zello (see video above) likened the app to a ‘crowdsourced 911 system’. Flood victims were asked to put their address into a centralised Google form which was then fed directly to rescuers in that area using Google maps to pinpoint their exact location. This app has been so successful that it’s been banned in several countries as it’s been an effective tool for organising protest activities (Flournoy 2017).

Image: Cajun Navy Rescue Operation, Texas, 2017. Source: <https://www.facebook.com/CajunNavy2016/photos/a.1184653214890259.1073741827.1184536864901894/1556260201062890/?type=3&theater>

One of the most popular crisis mapping tools internationally is Ushahidi (meaning ‘Witness’ in Kiswahili). Developed as ‘a way of reporting eye-witness accounts of violence’ during Kenya’s disputed elections in 2007 (Poblet and Casanovas 2012), Ushahidi is an interactive mapping platform. Users send text messages to Ushahidi volunteers who chart them onto Google Maps. A crowdsourced version of the app ‘Crowdmap’ was released in 2010, allowing people to ‘check-in’ their current location and add information pertaining to that location (Poblet and Casanovas 2012).

One site that has been actively using the Ushahidi platform since 2011 is ‘Syria Tracker’, which is a project of ‘Humanitarian Tracker’. Syria Tracker is a crisis mapping system that ‘uses crowdsourced text, photo and video reports and data mining techniques’ that form a live map of the conflict (Syria Tracker 2018).

The site provides:

A continually updated list of eye witness reports from within Syria, often accompanied by media links

Aggregate reports including analysis and visualisations of deaths and atrocities in Syria

A stream of content-filtered media from news, social media (Twitter and Facebook) and official sources

(Source: Syria Tracker 2018)

Reports filed in the first two weeks of 2018 alone include a story about a suspected government chlorine gas attack in Damascus, and a report on incidences of a cVDPV2 (vaccine-derived polio) outbreak in Syria.

Image: Reports filed on Syria Tracker Source: Syria Tracker 2018

Reports shown in the image above include everything from water tampering to revenge killings and are a sobering reminder of an as-yet-unresolved situation.

References

Flournoy, D 2017, The Power of Emergency Crowdsourcing: How Social Media Helped Rescuers During Harvey, Storyful, viewed 14 January 2018, <https://storyful.com/blog/2017/09/07/power-emergency-crowdsourcing-social-media-helped-rescuers-harvey/>.

Howe, J 2006, The Rise of Crowdsourcing, Wired, viewed 15 January 2018, <https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/>.

Poblet, M & Casanovas, P 2012, Crowdsourced crisis mapping: how it works and why it matters, The Conversation, viewed 15 January 2018, <https://theconversation.com/crowdsourced-crisis-mapping-how-it-works-and-why-it-matters-7014>.

Schimak, G, Havlik, D & Pielorz, J 2011, Crowdsourcing in Crisis and Disaster Management – Challenges and Considerations, Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Vienna

While you’ve given a great description of some of the emerging tools that assist in crowdsourcing during a crisis, I really like the way you touched on the importance of community efforts of crowdsourcing in real time while an event is unfolding. 

During the Las Vegas shooting, users shared images, video and text updates to social media in real time - documenting not only the extent of the tragedy, but also the suspected location of the shooter. 

Source: Create Meme

Why are selfies so popular? What is it about photographing ourselves and posting the results on social media so addictive? Who even wants to see them?

According to Tifentale (2014), we don’t post them for our own benefit - for our own ‘consumption and contemplation’, rather it is to ‘express our belonging to a community - or a wish to belong to one.’ So, thanks to this community - or network - posting a selfie is ‘at once a private and individual and also a communal and public activity’ (Tifentale 2014).

Photo source: Belch Buzz

Modern day technology such as Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat facilitate widespread and immediate sharing of these self-portraits to our networks, coupled with the ubiquity of internet-enabled smartphones (16.7 million in Australia (2017) Source: Statista).

Of course, self-portraits are certainly not a new phenomenon. Artists have been painting themselves for centuries. What has changed, according to Hart (2014) is how others engage with these images. We’re encouraged to ‘like’ the selfies of our friends and others in our communities, as a sign we approve of them. This is where the potential narcissism creeps in, as we respond to other’s approval or otherwise of our image. ‘We’ve become a generation that is as driven by attention as any other has been by money. We hustle harder and focus more on who cares, rather than what truly matters’ (D’Ambrosio 2017).

“Glamour cannot exist without personal social envy being a common and widespread emotion.” - John Berger - Ways of Seeing (1972)

Hart (2014) mentions an alarming rise in cosmetic surgery procedures for patients under 30, and suggests that ‘Generation Y sees cosmetic surgery as ‘physical Photoshop’. However, even the aforementioned artists were known to embellish their appearance to present themselves in the most flattering light. Hudson (2014) comments that ‘from the late 15th century artists were manipulating their self-images, making themselves appear older or younger to suit their purposes, taking on fictional and biblical roles to heighten their brand profiles’. Sounds familiar… although rather than attempting to resemble biblical characters, today, the celebrity lifestyle is the aspirational goal for many social media users.

Pliskin (2014) labels Gen Y’s obsession with celebrity as it’s ‘defining characteristic’. Rather than simply observing that it’s a need for distraction however, Pliskin notes that the real reason is that ‘most of us desire fame, in one form or another’. Coming back to social media, Pliskin says that it allows us “to experience something eerily akin to fame. They give us a captive audience. They feed our egos by incessantly assuring us that someone is listening, that someone cares. This is what it is to be famous.”

One Instagram user who tries to subvert this obsession is Celeste Barber. An Australian actor and comedian, Barber entertains her 2.8 million followers with her regular ‘real-life re-enactments’ of celebrity fashion images (Spring 2017).

Source: Instagram - Celeste Barber

While not intending to set herself up as a media commentator, she does like the fact that her work resonates at a deeper level. Of celebrities, Barber says “I get a little miffed with fashionista people thinking that they are much better than other people because they are very slim and have architect husbands and get to wear free stuff. It’s a bit [like they are] rubbing your nose in, ‘This is how we live, sorry guys” (Spring 2017). In her parodies, Barber is trying to bring a little reality back to social media, and that seems to really resonate with her audience as can be seen by the size of her network.

“I never started out for it to be a body positive thing… It was always like, this is how celebrities get out of the pools [and] I’m like no, this is how you get out of the pool.”

Source: Instagram - Celeste Barber

References:

D’Ambrosio, A 2016, Celebrity Status: 3 Reasons Our Generation’s Obsession with Attention is Ruining Everything, Huff Post, viewed 19 January 2018, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthonydambrosio/celebrity-status-3-reason_b_9850190.html>.

Hart, A 2014, Generation selfie: Has posing, pouting and posting turned us all into narcissists?, The Telegraph, viewed 19 January 2018, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11265022/Selfie-obsession-are-we-the-most-narcissistic-generation-ever.html>.

Hudson, M 2014, The Self-Portrait: a Cultural History by James Hall, review, The Telegraph, viewed 19 January 2018, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10726910/The-Self-Portrait-a-Cultural-History-by-James-Hall-review.html>.

Pliskin, A 2014, Why This Generation Is So Completely Obsessed With The Idea Of Celebrity, Elite Daily, viewed 19 January 2014, <https://www.elitedaily.com/life/generation-y-obsessed-celebrity/644403>.

Spring, A 2017, Celeste Barber: ‘I get miffed with fashionistas thinking they are better than others’, The Guardian, viewed 19 January 2018, <https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jun/30/celeste-barber-i-get-miffed-with-fashionistas-thinking-they-are-better-than-others>.

Statista 2018, Number of smartphone users in Australia from 2015 to 2022, Statista, viewed 19 January 2018, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/467753/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-australia/>.

Your summary of how the motivations behind ‘self-portraits’ have changed between the times of painting a masterpiece on a canvas and posting a selfie on Facebook was really interesting. 

Painting a self-portrait on a canvas was never intended to seek attention and popularity. Motivations such as showcasing talent, capturing a moment and earning a living were at play in this case. 

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>.

Something you’ve covered really well here is the way in which cyberbullying can take place in a variety of forms. Your comment that making jokes that are intended to cause harm or distress also provides a really important clarification.

Original packaging for Dungeons and Dragons. Image source: <http://bit.ly/2DurvKx>.

Gaming communities have come a long way since the days of Dungeons and Dragons. First published in 1974 by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, the game involved a group of players sitting around a table working together on creating an adventure (Wilson et al 2012). Rather than a game for ‘reclusive outsiders’, D&D is actually very social and unlike board games, allows players to express the full extent of their imagination in game play that never ends. This breakthrough was the start of ‘a whole new genre: the role playing game’ (Wilson et al 2012).

Fast-forward to 2018 and all the affordances that the internet offers, and we now have a game industry that has evolved into a $US91 billion (Takahashi 2016) juggernaut. The number of online gamers using consoles alone is projected to grow to over 57 million by 2020 (Statista 2018). The online gaming sector is now said to include ‘social gaming, mobile gaming’ and ‘free-to-play and pay-to-play’ MMORPG - or ‘massively multiplayer online role playing games’ (Statista 2018).

World of Warcraft is the world’s most subscribed MMORPG of all time (Peden 2017). Video source: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSJr3dXZfcg>.

In it’s 2016 annual report on gaming habits in America, the Entertainment Software Association found that 63% of US households included ‘at least one frequent gamer’ (Frank 2016). In another study, MMORPG games were found to be more likely ‘to result in video game addiction’ than other computer game genres (Van Rooij 2009), while a 2009 study by Iowa State University suggested that 8.5% of American’s aged 8-18 who play video games ‘show multiple signs of behavioral addiction’ (St George 2009).

Not that the gamers themselves really care… Nick Yee (2003) found that while nearly 65% of gamers believed that you can become addicted to a MMORPG, they were ‘in complete disagreement’ as to whether this was a problem even worth worrying about.

Graphs source: <http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000465.php>.

So, why are so many people spending so many hours playing online social games? A study by Lee and Choi (2012) attempted to answer that question. Summarising the study, Landers (2012) notes the study revealed that the main motivation to play online games was that it passed time when the user was bored. As Siapera (2012) noted, ‘virtual communities allow individuals to meet like-minded people, to express their identities without any fear of exclusion or ostracism, and they can therefore escape the boundaries of their local communities’. Surprisingly, social interaction provided the least motivation to get involved, showing that users generally don’t play in order to ‘hang out’ with friends.

In total, six dimensions were identified in the study describing the attraction to online games. In order of most common to least common (Landers 2012):

Passing time / escapism “I do it when I’m bored”

Entertainment “Playing is fun and exciting”

Challenge / competition “I do it to complete a level or win the game”

Fantasy / role-playing “I like to pretend I’m someone else”

Self presentation “I want to be socially competent and likable”

Social interaction “I like to feel like I belong to a group”

‘This is EVE’ promo. EVE Online is another extremely popular MMORPG. Video source: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2X1MIR1KMs>.

References

Frank, A 2016, Take a look at the average American gamer in new survey findings, Polygon, viewed 24 January 2018, <https://www.polygon.com/2016/4/29/11539102/gaming-stats-2016-esa-essential-facts>.

Landers, R 2012, Why Do People Play Online Social Games?, Neo Academic, viewed 24 January 2018, <http://neoacademic.com/2012/10/10/why-do-people-play-online-social-games/#footnote_0_1774>.

Lee, J, Lee, M, & Choi, I 2012, Social network games uncovered: Motivations and their attitudinal and behavioral outcomes Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 (12), 1-6 DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0093

Peden, T 2017, Top 10 Most Played MMORPGs in 2017, Gamers Decide, viewed 24 January 2018, <http://www.gamersdecide.com/pc-game-news/top-10-most-played-mmorpgs-2017>.

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, pp. 191-208.

Statista 2018, US Online Gaming Industry - Statistics and facts, Statista, viewed 24 January 2018, <https://www.statista.com/topics/1551/online-gaming/>.

St George, D 2009, 8.5 Percent of U.S. Youths Addicted to Video Games, Study Finds, Washington Post, viewed 24 January, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041902350.html>

Takahashi, D 2016, Worldwide game industry hits $91 billion in revenues in 2016, with mobile the clear leader, Venture Beat, viewed 24 January 2018, <https://venturebeat.com/2016/12/21/worldwide-game-industry-hits-91-billion-in-revenues-in-2016-with-mobile-the-clear-leader/>.

Van Rooij, A 2010, Video game addiction and social responsibility. Addiction Research & Theory 18:5, pages 489-493.

Wilson, T, Clark, J, & Kershner, K 2012, Beginner’s Guide to Dungeons & Dragons, HowStuffWorks.com, viewed 24 January 2018, <https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/leisure/brain-games/beginners-guide-dungeons-and-dragons.htm>

Defining trolling

The participatory experience of online environments make for dynamic places in which people can explore and be affected by exciting new forms of media (McCosker 2014, p. 201). However, people also have the power to affect others in these spaces (McCosker 2014, p. 201) and, in some instances, the effects can be destructive. Just as it occurs in real life, in their exchanges with each other online, people have the capacity to tease, harass and bully. Some have questioned whether social media increases this harassment and bullying, or whether it is merely more visible (Boyd 2014, p. 130).

Today, digital citizens have become vigilant about online bullying and its effects upon those who are targeted. But what is bullying precisely? Psychologist Dan Olweus defined bullying as aggressive, repetitive harassment by someone in a position of greater power than the individual to whom this behaviour is directed towards (Olweus 1994, p. 97). In the online environment, this bullying is referred to as ‘trolling’.

When reports about trolling make the headlines, they are typically the most extreme cases in which the troll has significantly affected the victim (in some instances the victim has sadly taken their own life) and has done so with ruthless intent. However, in the majority of cases, trolling is conducted in the name of humour and amusement rather than in malice. In other instances, trolling aims to challenge global media norms (McCosker 2014, p. 205).

There’s a troll lurking in all of us

A recent study has suggested that, given the right set of circumstances, ordinary people can be driven to engage in trolling behaviour (Cheng et al. 2017). This challenges our perception of trolls as being sociopathic individuals who were born to engage in this behaviour (Cheng et al. 2017). And what are those circumstances, I hear you ask? Well, according to Cheng et al. (2017) mood, day of the week (Mondays are troll days – moods are lower at the beginning of the work week) and time of day (late nights) are all factors that increase trolling behaviour. Furthermore, the more trolling comments (particularly if they are the first comments) in a thread, the more likely others who contribute will troll too (Cheng et al. 2017).

Considering the above study, it is easy to see how ordinary individuals who intend only to stir the pot online, may be accused of serious trolling. Take, for example, online teen prankster Tristan Barker. In 2012, he uploaded a video to YouTube to talk about a recent teenage suicide victim and his distaste for the outpouring of grief generated by it online (Tristan Barker 2012). Whilst his comments may have been meant as a critique of the “tragedy-obsessed global media” (McCosker 2014, p. 205), they were met with disgust by the media, who labelled him a troll (Marshall 2013). Interestingly, whilst he is lambasted by the media, Barker has a significant online following among young people who view his videos as simply telling hard truths (Baker 2013).

The discrepancy between what the media and what teens think of Barker, aligns with Danah Boyd’s opinion. Boyd argues that we need to better understand the online habits of teens and the reasons why they engage in certain acts of cruelty and meanness in order to provide interventions for those who truly need them (Boyd 2014, p. 152).

References:

Baker, R 2013, ‘We’re punks of our generation, say teen ‘trolls’ behind Facebeef’, The Sydney Morning Herald’, 11 March, viewed 17 December 2017, <http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/were-punks-of-our-generation-say-teen-trolls-behind-facebeef-20130311-2fv9h.html>

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.

Internet troll by Woody Hearn, n.d., image, viewed 26 January 2018, <http://www.bitrebels.com/lifestyle/what-internet-troll-looks-like/>

Marshall, J 2013, Unmasked: Tristan Barker, Australia’s worst internet troll, being investigated by police, viewed 17 December 2017, <http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1307_news1.pdf>

McCosker, A 2014, YouTrolling as provocation: Tube’s agonistics publics, Convergence, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201-217.

Olweus, D 1994, ‘Bullying at school: long term outcomes for the victims and an effective school-based intervention program’, in Huesmann, L (eds), Aggressive Behaviour: Current Perspectives, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 97-98.

YouTube. (2012). Tristan Barker’s Thoughts on Sad Stories, Bandwagon Grief-Leeching, and Bullying. [Online Video]. 14 October 2012. Available from: https://youtu.be/1YSsJ2DakQg. [Accessed: 26 January 2018].

A few years back I used to follow Tristan quite closely. While much of what he posted fell pretty squarely in the ‘trolling’ basket, I agree that he was often pigeonholed by the media. 

During 2017, social networking was recorded as being one of the most popular online activities and with 2.46 billion social media users worldwide (Statista 2018), it is no surprise that political parties and politicians have taken to social media to broadcast and connect with the public. But this shift has also been met by citizens who are not only seeking more unfiltered and accurate information but are also looking to be more actively involved in civic culture by voicing their opinions online.

Source: Facebook politics, 2017

While Australians still regard TV, print and radio as their main source of news (Watkins 2016), when it comes to politics, Australians are now turning to social media to receive information directly from the politicians they follow. With these Australians citing that news media fails to report fairly and prefer to bypass media gatekeepers for direct politician feeds to provide more detailed and precise information (Watkins 2017). Although this would suggest politicians are merely preaching to the converted, social media, unlike any other traditional medium, affords micro-targeted advertising through setting up strict demographic parameters based on user profiles to reach specific audiences. This capability also allows politicians and political parties to tailor their message according to their audience, which is particularly useful when campaigning for new votes and to continue boosting their political profile.

Source: Daniel Andrew, 2017

Such an advertising strategy that proved to be successful for Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews. During 2017, Andrews was considered the most ‘liked’ Australian Politician on Facebook (Dowling 2017), with his targeted posts to increase followers was unquestionably an effective way to also communicate his messages and build popularity. Through building popularity and large followings, stronger virality of a post can be achieved when followers share the posted content. However, this online popularity can quickly lose credibility and dramatically decrease its beneficial reach, when social media networks users can purchase artificial followers for a small cost (Maheshwari 2017).

Source: Cash under the table, 2017 But using social media to just broadcast messages or canvass votes is not enough. Social networking platforms also offer the capabilities to operate as a mass-scale public forum where politicians and political parties can also participate in open discussions. Since then, civic engagement has been reinvigorated and democratic accountability can be strengthened (Uldam & Vestergaard 2015). What’s more, with social media’s low barrier to entry it has never been easier for ordinary citizens to easily ‘share information about wrongdoings’ (Enikolopv, Petrova & Sonin 2016), which can quickly become viral and impact public opinion. A recent example of this was a video posted by a Melbourne mother voicing her concerns about the hyper-sexual content in the Government’s ‘Safe School’ program. 

Although, it’s worth noting that the credibility and motives behind a citizen’s information on social media can still be questionable. Whilst the anti-safe school mother achieved 4.8m Facebook views (You’re teaching our children what? 2017), it was then later revealed that the mother is not only a Christian but a lobbyist for the Liberal party (Cook & Tomazin 2017) who now works as an electorate officer for a Victorian Liberal MP (Hore 2017).

While social media is being praised for quickly becoming a tool that can trigger political change, it indeed possesses shortcomings that can also hinder this change.   

References:  ‘Cash under the table’ [image], 2017, Watchdog warns populism can boost corruption, viewed 22 January 2018, <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/premier-daniel-andrews-blows-280k-of-taxpayers-money-promoting-himself-on-facebook/news-story/56cd70c7bbf9fc7e09edc7eeae93c90e>. Cook, H & Tomazin, F 2017, Who’s behind the Safe School videos? The concerned mums’ political connections, The Age, viewed 21 January 2018, <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/whos-behind-the-safe-school-videos-the-concerned-mums-political-connections-20170811-gxukuu.html>. ‘Daniel Andrews’ [image], 2017, Premier Daniel Andrews blows $280k of taxpayers’ money promoting himself on Facebook, viewed 21 January 2018, <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/premier-daniel-andrews-blows-280k-of-taxpayers-money-promoting-himself-on-facebook/news-story/56cd70c7bbf9fc7e09edc7eeae93c90e>. Enikolopv, R, Petrova, M & Sonin, K 2016, Social media and corruption: Evidence from a Russian blog, VOX CEPR’s Policy Portal, viewed 21 January 2018, <https://voxeu.org/article/social-media-and-corruption>. ‘Facebook politics’ [image], LinkedIN, Know your meme! Exploring and evaluating media theories, viewed 22 January 2018, <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/know-your-meme-exploring-evaluating-media-theories-taylor-martin-1>. Hore, M 2017, Politicalpostingmumma’s Marijke Rancie takes up electoral officer job with Liberal MP Michael Gidley, The Herald Sun, viewed 21 January 2018, <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/politicalpostingmummas-marijke-rancie-takes-up-electoral-officer-job-with-liberal-mp-michael-gidley/news-story/32d0daf322c7a0503fcec0b9a1777b4d>. Maheshwari, S 2017, How Bots Are Inflating Instagram Egos, The New York Times, viewed 21 January 2018, <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/business/media/instagram-bots.html>.

Statista 2018, Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions), viewed 20 January 2018, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/>.

Uldam, J & Vestergaard, A 2015, Introduction: Social Media and Civic Engagement. In: Uldam J, Vestergaard A. (eds) Civic Engagement and Social Media, Palgrave Macmillan, London

Watkins, J 2016, Digital News Report: Australia 2016, Press Council, viewed 20 January 2018, <http://www.presscouncil.org.au/uploads/52321/ufiles/Fact_Sheets/digital-news-report-australia-2016.pdf>.

Watkins, J 2017, Digital News Report: Australia 2017, Analysis & policy observatory, viewed 20 January 2018, <http://apo.org.au/system/files/95161/apo-nid95161-346236.pdf>.

I also went straight to Daniel Andrews when I saw the topic for week 5 - his political influence on social media is unlike anything we’ve ever seen in Australia before. The Andrews team understand that the steady flow of good news stories, positive progress updates and policy announcements they have been sharing has a significant viral reach. 

Some time ago, I came across an interesting article which suggested that many people use Facebook because they want ‘to belong’ and because they feel the need to self-present themselves (Nadkarni & Hofmann 2012). While this made sense to me, I remember wondering if these people were aware that this social media platform, much like many others, enables you to do much more than just sharing photos or posting ‘happy birthdays’. As a matter of fact, over the last few years Facebook has been releasing a number innovative tools such as Facebook Video, Facebook Live, and several others that are really useful for businesses.  

The many ways in which users interact with social media interfaces is known as ‘Affordances’. The term, which was invented decades before the arrival of the Internet, was coined by psychologist Gibson (Greeno 1994) and referred to the countless ways in which one can interact with their environment. Later, cognitive scientist Norman (1999) utilised the term to describe the potential uses that an object can have. Since social media somewhat involves these two definitions, it is not surprising that their platforms are now being analysed in terms of their affordances.

Social Behaviour Many scholars hold that social media influence our social behaviour (Butcher & Helmond 2016; Hughes, Rowe, Batey & Lee 2012). Specifically, that a user’s behaviour in any given digital community is the result of the affordances that the corresponding social media platform present. The following are two examples illustrating this scenario. Twitter Soon after its launch in 2006, this revolutionary platform quickly skyrocketed and positioned itself as one of the most popular social media sites. It was revolutionary because, while all sites encouraged users to post as much information as they wished, Twitter decided to limit each post to 140-characters. As a result of users being forced to write posts (or tweets) rather briefly, alternative ways of social interaction emerged. For example, facing the impossibility of elaborating on an idea, users often sought to convey a vehement message. Unfortunately, sometimes vehemency comes with a dose of antipathy, and when this occurs the original message can be misinterpreted.

YouTube There are enough examples to suggest that this social media platform also produced an unprecedented shift in terms of social behaviour. Among them, the possibility for users to access material that they had never seen before, such as interviews, documentaries, or even back stages of their favourite band. Likewise, it allowed users willing to share this material to express themselves through the videos they shared (as opposed to written communication). As such, by affording this salient aspect of YouTube people of this community developed an alternative way of interaction.

As it can be appreciated, each social media platform encourages a unique way of interaction, and this in turn generates certain social behaviours that are inherent to such community. If you want to learn more about this topic, I encourage you to watch the following Standford Seminar.

References

Bucher, T, & Helmond, A 2016. The Affordances of Social Media Platforms. In J. Burgess, T. Poell, & A.

Hancock, J 2016, ‘Affect, affordances and the psychology of social media’, Standford Seminar, viewed November 28 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VklQ6NKlyPU>. 

Hughes, DJ, Rowe, M., Batey, M, & Lee, A 2011, ‘A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol 28, no 2, pp. 561-569.

Greeno, J 1994, ‘Gibson’s affordances’, Psychological Review, vol 101, no 2, pp. 336-342.

This is a really great summary of some of the most popular social media platforms and the unique features of each. 

I particularly loved your definition and examples of the term ‘affordances’ - I thought that was spot on. 

The difference between Facebook and Twitter, for example - is fascinating. Users will most often use Facebook to share the more personal details of their lives, and ‘network’ with their friends and family, while Twitter affords users the chance to connect with those they do not know on topics they care about.

If a user was to switch the content they shared on each platform, it would feel out of place. Friends and family are unlikely to appreciate the kind of content a user would usually share with their twitter followers, while twitter followers would not usually engage with the kind of content a user tends to share with their friends and family on facebook - even if both sets of users are on both platforms! 

While this is a great overview of the platforms themselves and the features of each, I would have also loved to read more about your thoughts on the benefits each platform provides. 

For example, do you think the 140-character limit on Twitter creates a better quality of content on that platform that we see on Facebook? What are the benefits of the longer-form video content that Youtube enables users to create and share? Does this content enable users to better articulate their point, or is it simply a nicer way of viewing the content?

Our survival as humans is based upon on our collective abilities (TEDx Talks 2013), therefore instinctively, we are hardwired to connect and belong. As social beings who not only crave the company of others, we depend upon it to form our identity and navigate the world (Gawande 2009). Whilst traditional face-to-face communities are being overshadowed by the ease and accessibility of the digital alternative, the fundamental human need of connectedness still appears to be the innate motive.

Source: Are we too obsessed with our technology?, 2017? Where communities were once based upon physical proximity, often operating in a conventional and traditionalist manner, digital communities are characterised by shared interests, beliefs and experiences (Siapera 2012). A shift marked by the emergence of technology, social media provides users with the ability to publish content online such as videos, photos, information or personal updates whilst also allowing users to interact with others through their content (Titangos 2013). Unlike local communities, these web-based platforms such as Wordpress, Youtube or Facebook offer a much wider audience, uniting the like-minded, where they can express their true selves and felt accepted (Siapera 2012). 

Source: Reaching Out to the Online, 2012

This notion of self-expression and acceptance within a digital community can be observed through mummy blogger, Constance Hall. While Hall’s raw and polarising form of self-expression could otherwise be shunned by many within traditional communities for her controversy, she instead sought a digital community, building a network of over 1.1 million ‘queens’/followers on Facebook (Facebook 2017). This global hub has since become a community of support and empowerment for women who share the same beliefs and values in self-love, feminism and motherhood.

Source: Constance Hall, 2016

It is the personalisation and customisation of social media that has afforded users with the ability to self-select their networks and form these ‘personal communities’ (Chambers 2013 p. 147). Conversely, these very affordances have also been criticized for disconnecting communities and the splintering of identities (Chambers 2013). While it is considered that human identity assumes the ‘homogeneous characteristics which [we] share with other members of the group to which [we] belong’ (Masolo 2002, p.3), social media can fragment our lives and ultimately fragment the communities we connect with (Sze, 2017). Through the many diverse online communities we belong to, ‘each with its own worldview and system of knowledge’ (Sze, 2017), our personal identity can become complicated and confusing. Additionally, with social media offering greater control over our presentation, our ‘online identity’ can differ considerably from our offline identity (Marwick 2013) which can further exacerbate an identity crisis. This matter also raises the question of, how authentic and meaningful can a digital community be when member identities can be fabricated or highly modified?

Source: Feedback Loop, 2016

Digital communities undoubtedly fulfil our human desire to be social by offering new ways to achieve a sense of belonging and connectedness. However, it is difficult to deny the feelings that these communities are superficial and come at the cost of at a strong sense of self; a quality that I believe is an integral element to living a purposeful life.  

References:

‘Are we too obsessed with technology’ [image], in Smart Fem Digital ND., Are we too obsessed with technology, viewed 8 December 2017, <http://www.smartfem.com/tech/are-we-too-obsessed-with-our-technology/>

Chambers, D 2013, Social Media and Personal Relationships: Online Intimacies and Networked Friendship, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2013. Ebook Central (ProQuest).

‘Constance Hall’ [image], in Facebook 2016, Constance Hall Facebook update, viewed 7 December 2017, <https://www.facebook.com/mrsconstancehall/posts/1069319443112880:0>

‘Feedback loop’ [image], in Stanford Graduate School of Business 2016, Riding the Feedback Loop to Authentic Self-Expression, viewed 8 December 2017, <https://www.gsb.stan- ford.edu/insights/riding-feedback-loop-authentic-self-expression>.

Gawande, A 2009, HELLHOLE: Annals of Human Rights, Condé Nast Publications, Ebook Central (ProQuest).

Hall, C 2016, Facebook update, 19 January, viewed 7 December 2017, <https://www.facebook.com/mrsconstancehall/posts/1069319443112880:0>

Marwick, A 2013, ‘Online identity’, in J Hartley, J Burgess & A Bruns (eds), A Companion to New Media Dynamics, Wiley‐Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 355-364.

Masolo, D 2002, ‘Community, identity and the cultural space’, Rue Descartes, vol. 32, pp. 2, viewed 7 December 2017, <https://www.cairn.info/revue-rue-descartes-2002-2-page-19.htm#pa57>.

‘Reaching out to the online’ [image], in Faith on Campus 2012, Reaching Out to the Online College Student, viewed 8 December 2017, <http://faithoncampus.com/blog/reaching-out-to-the-online-college-student/>.

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Understanding New Media, Sage, London.

Sze, D 2017, The Modern Fragmentation of Lives & Identities, Huffington Post, viewed 7 December 2017, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sze/the-modern-fragmentation-_b_13576854.html>.

TEDx Talks 2013, The lethality of loneliness: John Cacioppo at TEDxDesMoines, 9 Sep, viewed 7 December 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0hxl03JoA0&t=2s>.

Social media has evolved into more than just a place to share information about our lives. For many, it has become a platform to shape our very selves.

As you have discussed in your most, we use our social platforms to mould the version of ourselves that we want our peers to view. 

Your discussion of how our online identities can differ from our offline identities is especially interesting. I would have loved to have read more about this topic, as it is an issue that is sure to come to the forefront over the next ten or so years as the younger generation - who have grown up with social media interwoven into their identities, develop into young adults. 

What changes will we see to everyday life as this generation takes over? How will the next generation deal with issues like a power outage or a lack of mobile reception differently to the way we do today?