More than words

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.

Social media tools are becoming increasingly employed by journalists, citizens and politicians around the world. Before Twitter and Facebook, the best way for citizens to get in touch with majority of politicians is via email. Now politicians are utilising social media as a medium to support and supplement their political goals.

Social media platforms allow politicians the chance to have a large following, connecting directly with the public and engage in political activities in new ways. Each platform has it’s option for users to share, like or re-tweet political messages and that has made it easier for politicians to reach out to more voters and supporters. There are many examples of how social media has changed the way in which political communication takes place.  

In 2013, research report by Sauter and Bruns found that social media has increasingly seen as a viable political communication tools for politicians in Australia. The integration of social media and traditional media was widely used as tools for political news reporting. It is becoming evident that these online communication tools play a significant role in setting political agendas and shaping public opinion (Harfoush 2009, Wooley et al 2010). The use of #ausvotes hashtags were organised to cover the Australian federal election in 2010.  Hashtags are simple tools, accessible to all Twitter users, that can be used to coordinate political discussions on the platform (Bruns and Burgess 2010).

In recent proceedings, Australian politician Tony Abbott utilised social media for the ‘No’ campaign during the same sex marriage debate, in an attempt to try and persuade Australians to support the “traditional marriage” between a man and woman. Being a lead spokesman for the campaign, Abbott took to platforms life Facebook, posting numerous “It’s Okay To Vote No” messages, supporting adverts that are against same sex marriage, encouraging his followers to be involved with the campaign and to share this content.

Another politician who has exploited social media platform was Pauline Hanson. Hanson turned to Twitter, in a pursuit to spread her political views and express her goals as a politician. She is currently most known for her political party One Nation, and her beliefs in restricting immigration laws. Due to the unlimited possibilities within social media, it has also allowed Hanson’s passionate supporters and fans to band together and converse in the same political beliefs. This enhances the possibilities of a growing support system and the chances of success as a politician.

Bruns and Burgess (2011) argued that it was not the use of social media by politicians in their campaigning that was important, but it was more of the high levels of discussions and engagement by the Australian public that was noteworthy during their campaigns.

Social media has definitely become limitless and is a venue that politicians will most definitely take advantage of.

References:

Bruns A and Burgess J 2011, #ausvotes: How Twitter covered the 2010 Australian federal election. Communication, Politics & Culture, Queensland University of Technology, 44(2), pp. 37-56.

Harfoush R 2009, Yes we did: An inside look at how social media built the Obama brand, Berkeley, Calif.: New Riders.

Sauter T and Bruns A 2013,  Social Media in the Media: How Australian Media Perceive Social Media as Political Tools, Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, University of Oslo, viewed on 25 December 2017, <http://www.cci.edu.au/socialmediainthemedia.pdf>

#Hashtags, Likes, Shares are not only a means to start a discussion online, but also a very useful tool for people to disseminate information and distribute education. Critics always assume that only traditional social movement tactics such as demonstrations and rallies are effective for protesting or pressing for change. Even cultural commentator such as Malcolm Gladwell said ‘Digital Activism is an oxymoron’ and engaging online in ‘Slacktivism’ is a waste of time (Huffingtonpost 2014), the debate was always over which way is the ‘right’ way to protest?

Through informed awareness, by making knowledge public through social media, this democratises societies and is crucial to social movements. (Youmans & York 2012). Social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter and various online blogs have made it easier for people to gather and voice their opinion on a subject of common interest. It is a tool in aiding collective action and shaping social movements’ agendas (Lopes A 2014).

Even if social media is considered as a tool of empowerment and liberation by many, governments are beginning to restrict on free speech even online. Many countries like North Korea, China or Egypt are already pushing for stringent bans on media sites and social media platforms. An example was when bloggers had to take over the position of correspondents and journalists to publish the news in Egypt, against the government’s suppression on news websites, silencing voices of the oppositions and activists. The blog sites coverage of the event helped organise more protest on a broad scale international level.  

Meanwhile, in recent proceedings, which I also took part in, was a successful social movement that first initiated on Twitter after a fan-favourite LGBT character was killed off in a TV show “The 100”. This triggered a harmful trope called ‘Bury Your Gay’ that writers carelessly written in every storyline for almost every single LGBT character created on TV and films . This event set off people to protest against the writers of the show, taking to social media to raise awareness, and holding TV executives accountable whilst fighting for a better LGBTQ+ representation in the industry. In results to this, the fans trended over 150K tweets worldwide with the single hashtag #LGBTFansDeservedBetter and raised over $160K for the Trevor Project Charity.  Fans also placed 4 billboard signs around Warner Bros. studios in Los Angeles, and it wasn’t long before all major media outlets such as CNN, BBC, Variety, Forbes, UN Women and many more.. paid attention.

Social media alone are not accountable for the protest or action, they are simply a tool to organise them. Online support should not be seen as a resentment because of its unconventional method, rather it should be seen as an asset, the ability to mobilise a vast numbers of people.

References:

Huffingtonpost 2014, Malcolm Gladwell: People Are Empowered By Their Lack Of Power, Interviewed by The European, viewed on 4 January 2017, <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/gladwell-people-are-empowered_n_4993831.html>

Lopes A  2014, The Impact of Social Media on Social Movements: The New Opportunity and Mobilizing Structure, Creighton University, viewed on 2 February 2018, <https://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/CCAS/departments/PoliticalScience/Journal_of_Political_Research__JPR_/2014_JSP_papers/Lopes_JPR.pdf>

About a week ago, a friend of mine mentioned that one of her work colleagues was spending just under 2 hours of her week scrolling through her Instagram feed. Surprised and quite perplexed, she explained how she couldn’t understand how someone could spend so much time on social media over a week. “But how did she get that final number?” I thought. Oblivious and obviously not overly tech-savvy, my friend began to explain to me that in the iPhone settings, you can see which Apps your battery is using the most in the last 24 hours and also over the past 7 days. After saying our good-byes I couldn’t help but wonder and question how many hours out of my week was being taken up by mindlessly double-tapping, liking and tagging my friends in funny memes. I jumped on straight away, and I’m glad I didn’t in front of my judgemental friend. 2.9 hours! How could this be? Sure a scroll here and there, a scroll before I hit the pillow, another scroll sitting on the tram passing time. I started to question whether or not this in fact was too much time and if I was starting to have an unhealthy addiction.

Boyd (2012) outlines that to an outsider, wanting to be ‘always-on’ is all too often labelled as an addiction and may seem even pathological. It is assumed, that it is the technology we are addicted to, but on the contrary humans want to interact, connect with others, and are always curious. They take advantage of the affordances that these social media platforms (such as Instagram) provide to their sense of being part of a community, belonging and feeling connected (Boyd 2102).

Throughout history, public discourse was attributed to those who had power or education. A professional journalist could have significant influence over the public and a ‘one to many’ communication avenue was common (Grunig & Grunig, 2000). The introduction of digital communities has been a major change in society, resulting in social media becoming a type of custodian of public discourse (Gillespie, 2010). Professional journalism is now decreasing (Cross, 2011) challenged by an online community providing a voice for amateurs and a ‘many to many’ approach with no formal leader (Siapera, 2012).

Diverse platforms offer different affordances to their users and many overlap. For example, although Facebook and Twitter seem somewhat similar because one could create a profile, upload a picture, link, comment or read the news, a comparison of their affordances reveals that Facebook has a broader range of functions, in a semi-public sphere where friends are mutually accepted. Most posts on Facebook are seen by small communities of friends and acquaintances. On the contrary, Twitter allows people to follow those of interest to them in a public manner (Murthy, 2013). This is an interesting concept in that, for the first time, the public could directly contact untouchable people like celebrities and politicians. To some degree, Twitter provides an even playing field across socio-economic communications, where once a ‘one to many’ approach dominated the market and public opinion was only spoken to small group of people at local events. Gossip, opinion and informal conversation, whether credible or not, seem desirable to be a part of, blurring the line between fact and fiction. Whilst some argue that digital communities have allowed true democracy to flourish, others believe that online commentary has shown the true vulgarity of human kind; ‘when ignorance, meets egoism, meets bad taste, meets mob rule’ (Cross, 2011).  

Initial digital platforms offered users a neutral playing field where anyone could view information and make comments, whilst choosing to be anonymous if desired (Gillespie, 2010). With time, some platforms began to use algorithms to determine a number of subjective factors about users and the information they view. This is known as technical management of a platform and it could be performed for many positive reasons such as fitting in with societal moral expectations or streamlining a way to view the most popular/relevant comments on a post. For example, the ABC removes comments online if they deem them to breach their Online Conditions of Use (ABC, 2017). This could however contribute to social discourse in negative ways too. If a platform appears neutral, but removes and edits comments, the entire contents become subjective (Gillespie, 2010), potentially distorting reality and promoting bias. Amazon’s best-selling book was managed with algorithms rather than actually being the best seller (Gillespie, 2010) and Reddit uses algorithms to sort popular content to the top, exposing the user to a filtered experience of each topic. If a teenager watches amateur fights online, YouTube will continue to suggest similar videos, which may result in that user having a distorted view of violence in the world. These are factors for the public to consider as the digital world expands rapidly and their social experiences are bound within the affordances of each platform.

References

ABC, 2017, ‘Comments’, viewed 28 November 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/about/comments.

Cross, M 2011, Got Blog, in Bloggerati, Twitterati: How blogs and Twitter are transforming popular culture, Praeger, Santa Barbara.

Gillespie, T 2010, 'The politics of platforms’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Gillespie, T 2010, Tarleton Gillespie on The Politics of Platforms, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, viewed 22 Spetember 2014, <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheon/2010/01/gillespie>.

Grunig, J.E & Grunig, L.A 2000, ‘Public relations in strategic management and strategic management of public relations: Theory and evidence from the IABC Excellence project’, Journalism Studies, 1 (2) (2000), pp. 303-321, viewed 20 November 2017.

Interaction-Design.org 2011, Affordances (Don Norman, 1994), 15 February, viewed 19 November 2017, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Zb_5VxuM>.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, Polity, Cambridge.

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

Social media is widely defined as “the many relatively inexpensive and widely accessible electronic tools that enable anyone to publish and access information, collaborate on a common effort, or build relationships” (‘1.2 Statistics’ 2017). Modern definitions of communities are commonly influenced by Tönnies; who distinguishes a community to be “formed around an organic, natural will” (‘2.2 Communities’ 2017). Commonly referred to as virtual communities, digital communities are defined as “social aggregations that emerge from the Internet and come together on the basis of sharing information, ideas, feelings and desires” (Siapera 2012, p. 194).

In the 20th century, Weiser (1991, p. 104) proposed that due to the rise of globalisation, technology in the 21st century would help to redefine human connection, drawing us closer to one another and with hopes that new technologies may reverse users’ unhealthy technology habits, in our personal lives and in the workplace. Fast forward to 2013, Sherry Turkle (TED-Ed 2013) counteracts this viewpoint and instead 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). You can watch Turkle’s discussion here.

Although generalised, it is remarkable to hear of the high expectations that society had for technology in Wesier’s 1991 article. Interestingly, this brings us back to Turkle’s comment in 2013 – “we expect more from technology and less from each other” (TED-Ed 2013). It is interesting to learn that society appears to have always trusted technology, even in its earliest developments.

Due to the introduction of emerging technologies such as email, instant messaging applications, virtual meeting programs, social media platforms, online forums and more, evidently, we are always connected with one another. Over time, a lifestyle that thrives on constant digital connection, communication and collaboration with others may contribute to feelings of digital overload. This can lead us to feel disconnected and isolated from each other in ‘the real-world’, encourage a sense of loneliness and also, diminish our sense of belonging. As a result, technology has helped us to “become accustomed to a new way of being alone together” (TED-Ed 2013).

For more information, please see this article on conquering digital distractions in the 21st century – it is very interesting.

Because technology can be “so psychologically powerful that it [they don’t] doesn’t only change what we do, it changes [they change] who we are” (TED-Ed 2013), I believe that society should be better informed of the role and its impact that digital communities and social media can have on our lives. By practising frequent self-reflection regarding our personal online and digital usage, we can control if and/or how technology changes us and/or our behaviour in the real-world. By doing so, we may also fight against the status quo and challenge Turkle’s assumption that "we expect more from technology and less from each other” (TED-Ed 2013).

 479 words

References

- ‘1.2 Statistics’ 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-2-statistics?module_item_id=6740>.

- ‘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>.

- ‘2.2 Communities’ 2017, MDA20009 Digital Communities, Modules: WEEK 2: Social theory and social media on Canvas, Swinburne Online, Teaching Period 3, viewed 19 Nov 2017, <https://swinburneonline.instructure.com/courses/77/modules>

- Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and social media’, in 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>.

Prior to social media, people primarily congregated together via proximity within their home town and managed their image via their dress, language, choice of career, social circles, family stature and hobbies (Wilken & McCosker, 2014). There was no manner in which to erase something that occurred in real time and socialising generally occurred face to face.

People crave empathy from others yet friendships are often disappointing (Turkle, 2013). Following the invention of the internet in the 1990’s, digital technology allowed a new form of socialising to unravel that connected people far beyond proximity. Social media is an electronic tool that allows the public to distribute and access information, chat online and develop relationships. Social networking platforms allow the public to maintain a public or partially public profile whilst connecting with other users (Murthy, 2013).

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other platforms allow people to participate in a type of online democracy, connected by their beliefs, values, interests and sub-cultures with no formalised leader (Siapera, 2012). They provide companionship without the negative aspects of friendship and allow people to manage their own perceived image online (Turkle, 2013).

Personalisation, customisation and portability of membership creates networked individualism for users (Siapera, 2012). One can log on 24/7 to the same place from any location, reveal as much or as little as they wish to and operate within any groups of interest they want to (Siapera, 2012). Unexpected benefits were seen when a man with HIV was able to blog about the details of his illness which allowed his friends and others to properly understand HIV, in turn decreasing social awkwardness and stigmas about his medical condition (Boyd, 2012).

With these benefits comes a number of disadvantages. For example, digital communities can facilitate conversation that leads people to polarised groups of like-minded people who then miss out on hearing diverse and contradictory ideas (Gillespie, 2010). Platforms often don’t allow people to represent themselves across different parts of their lives, such as professionally and socially (Siapera, 2012). Up to 34% of employers said they did not hire a candidate after scanning them on social media (Forbes, 2017) and numerous people have been fired after comments they made on social networking sites (Price, 2016). There is also privacy to consider when personal details are volunteered by users, or expected as part of membership terms (Gillespie, 2010). It is difficult to estimate the negative impact social media has on society. For example, knowing people in one’s local community can lower the crime rate (Putnam, 2012) and yet this form of neighbourly friendship has dropped dramatically since social media’s inception. Digital communities have ultimately added a layer to the presence and accessibility people offer the world resulting in positive and negative impacts that are still unfolding (Wilken & McCosker, 2014).

References

Boyd, D 2012, ‘Participating in the always-on lifestyle’, in M Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

Forbes, 2013, ‘How social media can help or hurt your job search’, viewed 13 November 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/04/16/how-social-media-can-help-or-hurt-your-job-search/#1c5ce6ce7ae2.

Gillespie, T 2010, 'The politics of platforms’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

Price, L 2016, ’20 tales of employees who were fired because of social media posts’, viewed 16 November 2017, http://people.com/celebrity/employees-who-were-fired-because-of-social-media-posts.

Putnam, R 2012, Robert Putnam - Bowling Alone, 19 December, viewed 13 November 2017, <http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4236758/robert-putnam-bowling-alone>.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media’, in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 9 November 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.