Digital Communities

I’ve been lucky enough to travel to China, back in 2013.  My mum was working as a teacher over there, and because I feel the umbilical urge to be close to my mother at all times, I visited her in Shanghai for a week or so.  When I was there, I COULDN’T ACCESS FACEBOOK.  #wtf.  I was forced to converse with my mother, rather than sit near her and look at my phone like I usually would.  It got me thinking, surely all these Chinese people don’t sit on the couch and actually talk to their families?  Turns out I was right.  They don’t use Facebook, because it’s banned by their government, but they use other alternatives.  So, as Crampton (2011) puts it more eloquently, “rather than eliminate social media, restrictions on foreign websites…have resulted in a flourishing home-grown, state-approved ecosystem in which Chinese-owned properties thrive”.  Seems legit, but it also seems kind of draconian and government-controlled and 1984-ish.  But that is merely my opinion.

Where I use Facebook to try and get a laugh out of my ‘friends’ by posting stupid memes, Crampton explains that the Chinese use it for more sincere purposes, such as “rural-to-urban migration that has separated families, the loneliness of the one-child generation, and a distrust of information from government-controlled media” (2011).  The irony of the latter part of that quote is that social media in China is government controlled, but that is a point for another day. 

The other thing I noticed about China was that there was stacks of people there.  Shanghai alone has a population of over 25 million.  More than the whole of Australia.  And according to Chiu, Lin, & Silverman (2012), 91% of the population say they have “visited a social-media site in the previous six months”.  I did a quick sum, and it means more than 1 billion Chinese people are using social media sites other than Facebook.  You can see why Facebook is so keen to infiltrate the land of the red dragon, the sheer size of the market alone would be worth the amount of money that I struggle to comprehend (Minter 2016). 

But I think its kind of cool, China has been like, ‘up yours’, to the West, and done things their own way.  They do not bow to Zuckerberg and his constant pleas for access to the Chinese people.  Good on you China, keep rolling to the beat of your own drum. 

References

Chiu, C, Lin, D & Silverman, A 2012, China's social-media boom, McKinsey & Company, viewed 22 January 2017, <http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/chinas_social-media_boom>.

Crampton, T 2011, 'Social media in China: The same, but different, China Business Review, Vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 28-31, viewed 22 January 2017, <http://www.thomascrampton.com/china/social-media-china-business-review/>.

It’s 2004, and I graduated from year 12.  Well, actually, I staggered over the line, limp and damaged, a shell of a teenager whose aspirations for academic success were cut down by an equally limp, damaged work ethic and a desire to socialise.  As such, I made the decision (or my ENTER made it for me), to take some time away from educational pursuits and instead spend time doing what I loved.  And at the end of 2004, I loved computer games.  I played countless hours of Counter-Strike, a game where you shoot people until they’re all dead, and then you start again.  In my previous post I made fun of those who eat cheezles, drink Fanta and listen to Tool.  Well, I can make fun of those people because I was one.  Here is a portrait of me during this time. 

Admission alert: I was in a clan.  Most nights, we would gather together on Counter-Strike servers and hone our skills before taking on another clan in a battle of simulated ruthlessness and destruction.  The only aim in my seemingly aimless existence was to win these battles, to celebrate with my team, to commiserate in defeat (which was far more common).  I was part of a little community, chatting with my online buddies whom I had never met in person.  It was a nice time.  Then I got a job.  WORST DECISION EVER. Why did I do that?

For a moment though, let us (me) return to the summer of 2004.  When I was playing Counter-Strike, occasionally you would come across another player who had hacked the game in order to cheat, and they would run around killing everyone, laughing and taunting everyone through a headset.  These hackers (or hax0rs) were breaking the conventions of the game, the laws the governed our little online Counter-Strike community.  And they would be punished by getting kicked off and banned from the server, and our game could continue untroubled.  They were bound by Ts & Cs of the server, and when they were broken, they were disciplined.  It was black and white.  A few of my friends from that time went on to play Eve.  I’m not sure if any of you have played it, but from an outsider’s perspective, it is BORING.  But, De Zwart and Humphreys find it interesting enough, and have detailed how Eve is different from Counter-Strike, as the players submit themselves to a digital world that can be anarchic and criminal, kind of like the real world (2014).  There is some oversight, as players are bound terms of service (or the EULA), but administrators of the game choose when to intervene and when to abstain (De Zwart & Humphreys 2014).  Supreme beings who choose to get involved if they find something to be against the code of conduct, but allow for a significant degree of disorder to take place.  It makes it a bit more interesting. 

Anyway, I get it.  Computer games are cool and you can have a lot of fun if you devote a great deal of your life to them.  They have their own rules and laws, some more flexible than others.  Unfortunately for me, life got in the way.  

References

Last semester, I made a video for a subject called Media Project A.  It was a satirical news report on the very real subject of housing affordability in the suburb in which I live, Brunswick.  You can watch it here. 

I put a lot of effort and hours into making that video, and when I uploaded it, I sat back and braced myself for feedback from the harshest critics of them all, YouTube commenters.  Among a small amount of positive feedback (mainly from my mates), there were some particularly incisive and cutting remarks that rendered my brace position ineffective.  haarp2012 commented ‘Oh, I get it.  This is supposed to be funny.  Just one problem.  It isn’t’.  Ouch.  Over on reddit, FluteByNight pointed out that ‘your audio is mixed/recorded really badly’, a single-line remark that kept me up at night wondering why I spent my hard-earned cash on hiring audio equipment when I didn’t even really know how to use it properly.  It was a lesson for me, the uncensored criticism from strangers on the internet can be wounding.  To them, I was wasting their time.  Lange writes about this, stating that some “YouTubers may express moral outrage that a poorly crafted video wasted moments of their lives” (2009, p. 70).  I usually rejoice in some of the snarky comments left by ruthless amateur critics, but when you are the subject of their criticism, things change.  Anyway, this post is not about me seeking affirmation to continue my filmmaking exploits.  I digress. 

My critics obviously did not feel any affinity with me, and that’s fine.  Maybe if I made a video about me eating cheezles and drinking fanta and listening to Tool in my dark, dirty bedroom then they would feel a connection.  Feeling affinity with a video, and more broadly the social network that the video is a part of, is an emerging facet of online communication.  Videos of affinity “typically interest delineated groups of people who wish to participate and remain connected socially in some way to the video maker” (Lange 2009, p. 73).  They are in a state of constant flux, changing all the time, with in-jokes and references to past videos.  Often, friends use YouTube as a means to communicate through video, as it is far easier to share complex media in the online realm than posting a USB stick to one another (Lange 2009).  So we see the development of a community around videos of affinity, a group that shares interests and who feels a connection with all the other users.  This is why Snapchat is so popular, it provides almost instantaneous conversation through video.  It means that while my video was a piece of self-expression, put out into the world to be criticised openly, others are using YouTube and Snapchat in a different way.  They are using it to communicate to one another, no longer as self-expression, but rather as correspondence (Herrman 2014).  BRB guys, I’m going to Safeway to get some Fanta - look out for my next Snapchat story.

References

Herrman, J 2014, ‘Meet the Man Who Got Inside Snapchat’s Head’, BuzzFeed, 28 January, viewed 22 January 2017, <http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/meet-the-unlikely-academic-behind-snapchats-new-pitch#3dlvjg2>.

In 2014, a guy named Zack Danger Brown (Danger is his middle name), launched a crowdfunding campaign because he wanted to make some potato salad.  He had never made potato salad before, and as such, he set in motion a significant, sophisticated marketing effort that consisted of one line of text that read “basically I’m just making potato salad.  I haven’t decided what kind yet”.  The irresistible attraction of Zack’s desire to create something deliciously creamy and bacon-laden was so intense that the citizens of the world donated him over $70,000.  Yes, you read that right.  Seventy-thousand dollars.  See below.

The example of Zack and his potato salad fortune is a great example of crowdfunding, and how ‘crowds’ can form on the internet.  If enough people share a common goal or need, then the dissemination and sourcing of information from the ‘crowd’ can prove to be far more speedy and effective than usual transmissionist channels.  ‘What on earth does that mean?’, I hear you ask.  Well, for example, during the Queensland floods in 2011, Twitter became the medium utilised by the ‘crowd’ to spread information at an unprecedented rate (Bruns, Burgess, Crawford & Shaw 2012).  Messages regarding dangerous hotspots, road closures, and volunteering efforts were all designated the hashtag #qldfloods, and users were responsible for retweeting, sharing the message, and exposing the information to a vast audience who were in a time of need (Bruns, Burgess, Crawford & Shaw 2012).  In this case, Twitter played an “important role…in crisis communication” (Bruns, Burgess, Crawford & Shaw 2012, p. 7).  It was the power of the people spreading the message that played a major role in saving the lives and property of many Queenslanders. 

Sometimes though, the crowd can get it wrong.  In the immediate aftermath of the Boston Bombings, a subreddit r/findbostonbombers was established and was flooded with information regarding the tracking down those responsible.  The ‘crowd’ was in full force, and the unpaid administrators of the site that were tasked with being the gatekeepers of the information were inundated with data, too much to control.  Unfortunately, “the crowdsourced investigation wrongly pinpointed the missing - and, it turned out, deceased - Brown University student Sunil Tripathi as one of the bombers” (Wade 2014).  This time, the crowd got it wrong.  The legitimacy of information sourced from the crowd forms part of an ethical dilemma regarding online vigilantism.  So, while the crowd is very powerful, it can be volatile and at times, incorrect.

One time, one of my friends tried to crowdsource funds for him to buy a chicken parmigiana at the pub.  He was unsuccessful.  I’m not sure if he ate dinner that night.  As an aside, I’m not close with him anymore.  He should have made some potato salad instead.

References

Bruns, A, Burgess, J, Crawford, K & Shaw, F 2012, #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods, Arc Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, pp. 7-10, viewed 15 January 2017, <http://www.cci.edu.au/floodsreport.pdf>.

Oh-em-gee guys, have you heard of a fellow that goes by the Internet alias ‘Ken M’?  He is possibly the worlds greatest troll, and I mean, he is good.  He has gained quite the digital following, and now has a subreddit dedicated to him - you can find it here.  On the surface his comments are benign, even stupid.  But in fact, they are the work of a provocative genius whose sole intent is to rile up others all in the pursuit of a laugh.  See below an example of his ‘work’.

Take a bow Ken M.  

Contrary to what many online commenters who’ve had a conversation with Ken M may believe, he’s not an idiot.  He’s a normal guy with a good job, a 35 year-old copywriter for Comedy Central (Umer 2015).  And such is life for many of the internet’s trolls, they are regular citizens of the world who moonlight as a devious netizens, sharing a principal goal to inflame, to incite, to aggravate, all in the name of humour.  But not all of these provocateurs have pure, light-hearted intentions.  Sometimes trolling becomes something more sinister, more targeted, more damaging.  

In the most extreme cases, victims of targeted trolling have committed suicide.  For these victims, this is the only plausible recourse to escape the barrage of online hate and criticism.  Danah boyd points out that often trolling targets are celebrities, who the public feel are invulnerable, when in fact, they have the same thickness of skin as anyone else (2014, p. 150).  Believe it or not, celebrities are people too, and they can be victims.  Victims like Charlotte Dawson, a successful Australian media personality who was worn down by trolls, exacerbating her already fragile mental health.  It is actually just really sad to think that people sitting behind a computer typing horrible messages under a cloud of anonymity are to a great extent responsible for the death of another human being.  What an odd, gloomy scenario.

To combat the trolling epidemic, legislation is being introduced all over the world that can prosecute trolls and penalise them based on the severity of their offences (Mali 2012).  But law and technology do not coexist peacefully.  Technology is constantly evolving, and the law straggles behind, unable to adapt at the rate required to maintain order among the brave new world (see uber, drones).  Legislation seems to be reactive, rather than proactive - and that has proved to be quite dangerous.  Its a shame that we can’t all have good intentions when we troll.  Some of us ruin it for the rest.  Why can’t we all be like Ken M?

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.

Mali, P 2012, ‘Trolls, trolling & cyber law’, CSI Communications, vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 36-37.

I have never been greatly enamoured with the notion of authority.  Me having command, maybe, but when I am the subject of someone else’s jurisdiction, definitely not.  As such, I take pleasure in watching a streaker at a major sporting event, not because they are scantily-clad, but the fact that the streaker represents an opposition to the powers that be.  I love it when the crowd revels in the streaker’s plight, egging them on, sometimes harbouring them when security is closing in.  The streaker is the underdog, the subversion, the antithesis of the rules and regulations that govern us from rise to slumber.

Our successful, capitalist society works due to the rules we follow.  Also, it works because we are subjected to the continual bombardment of advertising unleashed through myriad forms of media.  We are told to consume, to buy, and we do exactly that.  I write this on a MacBook Air, in my Bonds jocks (it’s a hot day OK guys).  I am a cog in the machine that keeps our society ticking. But what if we could disrupt the machine?  What if we could shove a stick in the seemingly perpetually spinning wheel of capitalism and consumer culture?  Well, some people have and will continue to do so.

The term ‘culture jamming’ was first used back in the 80s by a music group, but is now used in the contemporary vernacular to mean “a form of political communication that has emerged in response to the commercial isolation of public life” (CCCE 2017).  In other words, it is a reaction against the rule-encumbered, ad-laden society that I just mentioned.  Why would anyone want to do this though? I love my Bonds jocks! Well, it can expose the darker side of corporate prosperity, such as “the true environmental and human costs of consumption” (CCCE 2017).  But the best part about culture jamming, is the way that it uses existing structures to spread its dissident messaging.  For example, billboard banditry and media hoaxing use established advertising and news structures to disseminate subversive information (Dery 2010).  Culture jammers expose their messages to broad audiences because they ride on the coattails of capitalist-minded productions.  See below!

I like the culture jammers, I identify with them and their irreverent questioning of authority.  I bet they are like me, clapping and rejoicing in the stands when they see a naked person running across the MCG with security guards in pursuit. Streaker, may your run be long and unimpeded.

References

Center for Communication & Civic Engagement 2017, Culture Jamming, University of Washington, viewed 13 January 2017, <https://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm>.

The chapter News, Political Reporting and the Internet, by Sally Young, raises some interesting points about how traditional forms of news publication and distribution are under enormous threat from the rising tide of bloggers, self-made news websites, and social media platforms.  There are two major points I would like to pick up on, and the first relates to tailored content.  It is mentioned in Young’s chapter that “following audience preferences may sound democratic but it has some worrying implications” (2010, p. 221).  The implications being that users who only read content that is tailored and agreeable to their interests will find that their worldview may be a little more narrow - narrower than before, when they were exposed to all the thoughts that a broadsheet newspaper had to offer.  Since this article was written in 2010, we see this happening quite predominately on Facebook and other social media platforms now.  I must admit sheepishly that Facebook is probably where I get most of my news now, even though I am aware that its algorithms dictate that the news I receive is going to be of interest to me.  This is concerning, and more recently I have made an effort to look elsewhere for news, and to be comfortable in the fact that someone might have a different opinion to me. 

The second point in this chapter is raised in the conclusion, where Young, quoting a former editor of the Los Angeles Times, questions whether or not the rise of these online content producers actually produce anything new (2012, p. 228).  That is to say, the majority of online bloggers and commentators have a lot to say about the news, but they still aren’t producing the news - as in, getting out there and conducting a bit of good old-fashioned journalism.  So we are faced with a new dilemma now, in an age of dwindling traditional journalism and the ascent of blogs about news.  And the dilemma is this; what happens when the traditional model of journalism completely dies (most likely due to financial pressure), and there are no journalists actually reporting on actual news?  What will the Internet comment on then?  Where will the global public get the truth?  Sally Young argues that an open source, socially constructivist model of journalism will take its place, but (call me a traditionalist), I believe that the former transmissionist model may have a little more integrity (see below).

References

Over the last three weeks, #MDA20009 has introduced students to some concepts, ideas, theories, and terminology surrounding digital communities and the social media landscape. This post will discuss the first few readings.

The first reading, Social Selves, (Wilken & McCosker 2014), looks at two examples of how social media can be used to both construct and express personal identity, and what some of the potential benefits and risks are as a result.  In their first example, they argue that the YouTube video of the Haka in a suburban New Zealand shopping centre was a fantastic opportunity for people of Maori/Islander/NZ descent to expose their culture to the broader, global community (Wilken & McCosker 2014).  It was a moment for social media users to define themselves and shape their own online identity by commenting and interacting with the video.  The second example regards location-based services such as Foursquare, where a user ‘checks in’ to different locations throughout the course of their day.  This also enhances a user’s online identity, but can come at a cost.  That cost is two-fold; not only do others know exactly where the user is, but this geo-data is often at risk of being supplied to companies that may have questionable intentions about what to do with it (Wilken & McCosker 2014).

The second reading, Socialities and social media, discusses various arguments regarding whether ‘new media’ is beneficial or detrimental to the traditional idea of community (Siapera 2012).  It studies differing lines of reasoning, including the position that new media is responsible for fostering the idea of community, because it breaks down geographical boundaries and lets users from all over the world interact with people with the same opinions, interests, and tastes.  On the other hand, it is argued that this segmentation of users into like-minded groups is the exact opposite of what the long-established definition of community actually is.  In this scenario, it is unlikely that a user will be exposed to differing opinions, which makes critical thought challenging (Siapera 2012).  According to Siapera, whether or not you agree with either of these arguments is unimportant, however, as a result of new media influence, we live in a state of “networked individualism”, meaning “a pattern of networks created by individuals on the basis of their preferences, skills, knowledge, background and so on” (2012, p. 200).

The third reading, Faceless Bodies, examined the subreddit ‘/r/gonewild’ where users known as ‘redditors’ upload pictures of their scantily-clad or naked bodies, often under anonymous conditions.  Rather than discussing the benefits or harm that anonymous activity on the Internet can achieve, this reading focusses on “nuanced accounts of how anonymity is practiced in specific online settings” (van der Negal 2013, p. 10).  The use of ‘throwaway’ reddit accounts is detailed, and it seems that while the anonymous (usually white, thin, female) naked body can attract a great deal of praise from its adoring (predominantly, white, 18-35, male) user base, a connection cannot be made between the anonymous body and an actual identity (van der Negal 2013).

Thanks!

Jack

References

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

van der Negal, E 2013, 'Faceless Bodies: Negotiating Technological and Cultural Codes on reddit gonewild', Scan Journal of Media Arts Culture, vol. 10, no. 2, Macquarie University.

Welcome to my blog.  My insignificant, curated corner of the Internet.  Of all the places you could be on the Internet, you are here.  Thank you.  It is here that I will post about the things I learn in the subject Digital Communities #MDA20009, that I am studying at Swinburne University (Online).  I look forward to a semester of fruitful, collaborative learning.  At the conclusion of the semester, I will be judged accordingly by my peers and teachers, and I hope I can satisfy the assignment criteria but also keep my posts engaging and insightful.  This is the plan.  As the semester goes by, as is often the case with me, my work deteriorates to the point where it becomes a non-discernible collection of random musings, incorrect referencing, and stream-of-consciousness walls of text that James Joyce would find difficult to interpret. However, I digress.

I will attempt to keep my blog as academic as possible, as I am aware that the spectre of my ELA looms over my online publishings, critiquing my every step, watching my every move, studying my every post, like a hidden ghost of judgement or a creepy uncle in the corner shrouded in darkness.  I am naught but a pawn in their game of hashtags.

I would also like to take this opportunity (while I am on my soapbox), to wish my fellow students good luck with their studies this semester.  May it be swift and painless (but you know it won’t be).