315 Blog

I do know that when writing for blogs, posts are supposed to be short.

However, this one is going to be a long one.

This is actually my paper for the final assignment on this blog project.

I just felt that I could not leave this blog without including all the work I’ve put into it.

Plus, I am pretty pleased with my paper. :)

Introduction

           Generic history suggests that the usage of technology is what allowed humanity to develop complex societies. Utilization of advanced tools allowed people to incur leisure time. With this leisure time, people could turn their minds to contemplating concepts beyond how to survive from day to day. In these contemplations, human society advanced further and technology evolved in tandem. Eventually society accepted the notion that the growth of ideas equates to technological progress, or vice versa.

The progression of this dualistic existence, of man and machine, has become ever more entwined through the ages. Right into the current 21st century. Presently, with the advent of social media, people have formed a shared identity between their existence in real life and their presence online. Social interactions and pastimes are now curated through online social media platforms. YouTube is one such platform. The website was created to provide an outlet for online users to post video content onto personal “channels”.

Since YouTube commenced operations, entertainment news channels like FOMO Daily, BuzzfeedVideo, we are mitu, Facts., and WatchCut Video have developed and successfully gained large audiences. A superficial viewing of these channels suggests they are merely utilized by their followers as entertainment. However, when focusing on these channels with critical intent, one finds that they reflect Hearn’s thoughts on Labor, relate to Fuchs critique of Jenkins’ concepts of Fans & Amateurs, and show influences of Bucher’s insights into Anonymity & Transparency. Using the authors concepts, an analysis of the channels can be done by using the idea that the commodification process of Object (e.g., post, picture, video, tweet, etc.) value in relation to YouTube channels can be seen within the context of convergence culture, as an avenue for financial profit.

Explanation + Justification

Hearn’s article, Structuring feeling: Web 2.0, online ranking and rating, and the digital ‘reputation’ economy, Fuchs’s article, Social Media as Participatory Culture, and Bucher’s article, Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook, were chosen to construct a final reflection. This choice was made because these three readings intersect and overlap in a manner which offers adequate information to critically analyze YouTube entertainment news channels and their usage of social media.

Hearn’s article outlines the emergence of an economy of social capitalism through “free” digital labor, by focusing on how development of a good reputation can be used to generate value. According to Hearn’s article, the perception of generating profit just from being oneself online and posting self-related content is an optimistic truism. The interactive nature of media is structured in a manner which establishes a one-way avenue for profit. People who “like” a user’s posted Object are not compensated for their promotion of the Object they liked. But the like itself adds value to the original user’s Object. Thus, the increasing value of an Object can be converted into profit for the original user at no cost. So, without compensation for their interactions, or “labor”, online users are exploited by those who desire to garner profit from marketing their own reputation.

Here is where Hearn’s and Fuch’s ideas intersect. Fuch’s article, Social Media as Participatory Culture, critiques Jenkin’s account on online participatory culture. In the article, references are made to Jenkin’s argument that exploitation of users’ digital labor is all right if users gain some social benefit from their participation. Hearn’s idea that users with a good reputation are likelier to positively generate value does connect with Jenkins’ idea. Sometimes those who create an original Object due so at personal cost. But as others interact with the Object the owner develops a reputation which could prove socially beneficial. A typical benefit is the creation of an online social community or network which can be used to develop relational connections.

Additionally, both authors agree there does exist an exploitation of free digital labor. Yet there the significant difference between the concepts outline in Hearn’s article and with Jenkins’ position on participatory culture. Jenkins asserts that the social benefits participants gain from their labor negate the exploitive nature of user interactions. Hearn’s position that free digital labor aligns more with Fuch’s argument against Jenkins on this issue. Both Hearn and Fuch’s articles stress that monetary profit is highly influential in motivating people. Financially profiting from labor wherein no compensation is made to the laborer is exploitation. According to Fuchs, Jenkins’ article did not address the issue of generating profit from free user interactions.

Fuchs clarifies that, content may be generated from interactions amongst users, or “fans”, but circulated content does not become fiscally profitable until after it has gone through a process of commodification. Although distinct topically from Hearn’s and Fuch’s articles, Bucher’s article Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook, offers insight into some of the methodology behind generating profit from interactions online. Bucher does so by developing a personal case study to look at the EdgeRank Algorithm. The EdgeRank Algorithm is utilized by Facebook (FB) to generate and format people’s personal News Feeds. EdgeRank determines what content is, or is not, visible to a FB user. News Feeds feature FB posts based off the algorithm’s calculations. A post’s EdgeRank is calculated from the multiplication of Affinity, Weight and Time, and Decay scores against each Edge. With an Edge being the variable produced from the user’s interactions with an Object (i.e. FB post). Dependent on EdgeRank, certain posts are deemed to have greater value than others.

This algorithm could be considered a manifestation of Hearn’s ideas on measurable reputation and its subsequently ascribed value. According to Bucher’s article, once a post is calculated to have high “value”, it gains a position of greater visibility on a user’s News Feed. Having a prominent position promotes greater interaction with an Object, maintaining or generating ever greater value for it. When an Object achieves a certain level of value, it can begin to provide profit for its possessor. This makes a position of high visibility strategically important. Conjecture points out that desirability of visibility is what creates the threat of invisibility, a concept that Bucher develops. Bucher inverses Foucault’s Panopticism to illustrate the concept. When an Object loses a position of prominent visibility its value begins to diminish. Devaluation of an Object then stagnates any interactions and diminishes its profitability. Without interactions, an Object becomes progressively invisible, creating a negatively cyclical pattern. Bucher’s insights on FB’s methodology and the threat of invisibility, point to the importance of maintaining a noticeable online presence. Especially when trying to generate revenue through the marketing one’s own Objects.

Given FB’s EdgeRank Algorithm and the threat of invisibility, an explanation is offered for Fuch’s earlier suggestion of value commodification. In Fuch’s article, it was suggested that the value of an Object only becomes profitable after it has gone through a commodification process. Between Fuch’s critiques on Jenkins’ views regarding amateur production in participatory culture and Hearn’s exploration into free digital labor as accessed through promotion of reputation, a context of convergence culture is developed. The suggested occurrence of Object commodification in this context, leads one to infer that generating significantly successful revenue from Objects requires considerable resource investments. From this finding, one must then consider whether a typical online user has access to the resources needed to generate revenue substantial enough to validate their investments in creating and maintaining their Objects. Collectively taking the concepts advanced in the articles of Hearn, Fuch, and Bucher develops the idea of Object value commodification within the context of convergence culture. Application of this idea to YouTube entertainment news channels then offers a more focused analysis of their social media.

Analysis + Interpretation

Since the idea of the commodification process in convergence culture has been established, YouTube itself presents a prime example of this phenomena. YouTube offers a “course” on how its users can monetize their channel content. If one goes to creatoracademy.youtube.com/page/lesson/revenue-basics, YouTube provides lessons and tips on turning creativity into commodity. The following is an excerpt from the site (direct quotations have been marked as such):

Lesson 1: Earn money with YouTube

·       first need to grow your audience before you can earn money

·       connect your channel to an AdSense account

·       get to know what kinds of videos you can monetize and the different ad formats

·       select “monetize with ads” and choose which ad formats and videos you want from Creator Studio app

·       Keep making enjoyable videos!

·       “Note: Monetization is only available in certain countries, and copyright or community guidelines violations can affect your eligibility to earn money.”

·       “YouTube connects your channel to paying advertisers so you can focus on what you do best: creating. In most cases, you get paid when viewers watch ads. We're constantly improving our ad systems so they work better for viewers and pay out to more creators.”

·       “You can also earn money from YouTube Red subscriptions. YouTube Red members pay a recurring fee for special benefits like watching YouTube videos without ads. The amount you earn from YouTube Red is calculated based on how much time members spend watching your content compared to other content.”

·       Other suggestions for making money on YouTube:

o   working with brands and ad agencies – “think of it like a collab!”

o   merchandising

o   crowdfunding

o   events

o   “Tip: Use interactive cards to funnel viewers to your merchandise page or crowdfunding sites.”

o   Note: Not all of these revenue streams are available in all countries. If you are being paid or compensated to create content, make sure you understand your disclosure requirements.

Although only the first lesson was chosen to be viewed in detail, the basic principle of generating revenue through user content is accounted for. When reading through these lessons, patterns of monetization on FOMO Daily and Facts. manifest. Viewings of their social media platforms throughout the duration of this project, saw an increase in ad presence and promotion of channel relevant merchandise. In addition, FOMO Daily began coordinating channel events and promoted these engagements across their social media. Critical reflection on this, affirmed similar patterns across all the channels.

           One aspect of YouTube’s lesson plan stood out. Throughout the course lessons, the need to consistently create and release updated content was reiterated. The threat of invisibility appears to be acknowledged as a key factor in successfully profiting from creative content. Reviewing the history of the channels, it appears that there is a direct link between content production and success. Each channel averaged the following number of videos, as posted in the span of a week,

Buzzfeed: 21

FOMO Daily: 14

we are mitu: 7

Facts.: 5

WatchCut video: 4

An assumption can be made that Buzzfeed produces so many videos due to their status in this project as the channel with the largest available resources. These channels are all affiliated with production studios and they all utilize consulting agencies to increase their audience followings. However, the scale of Buzzfeed far outstrips the other channels.

           Focusing on Buzzfeed, Business Insider featured an article May 4, 2016 by Meola titled, Buzzfeed is drawing an absurd amount of content views every month, on the company. It relates that in 2016 Buzzfeed announced that it pulls in about 7 billion content views each month. Buzzfeed’s FB has 1.09 billion daily active users, Snapchat more than 100 million, and YouTube more than 1 billion users, with Buzzfeed’s own website sees 200 million monthly unique visitors.

In an Entrepreneur article by Connolly, entitled How Buzzfeed Discovered the Secret to Success on Social Media (November 2, 2015), founder of Buzzfeed John Peretti was quoted. Peretti stated that the power to enact change in an audience, comes from creating emotional connections with consumers by considering numerous trends and creating the convergence of them. Based off Ingram’s February 16, 2016 article, The Real Secret to Buzzfeed’s Success Isn’tt Cat GIFs, It’s Data (Fortune), this convergence of trends and consumerism is made possible thanks to Buzzfeed’s use of tools like Pound. As a “huge, real-time database that can ingest and track Buzzfeed content wherever it is shared across multiple platforms,” Pound enables Buzzfeed to understand content flow and online interactive behavior.

Conclusion

For this assignment, I decided to use a personal computer and mobile phone to study the number and type of advertisements which appear on social media sites I regularly access.  During the time, I was visiting these sites I was also listening to music using a free music app.  Therefore, I decided to also include the ads which came up for this assignment.  For music, I was utilizing the music app Spotify, during the time I was visiting Facebook, scrolling through Instagram, and taking a glance at YouTube.  

At the start of the assignment I did visit a website called Sitepoint as well.  I remembered using an online program called Alexa.com on a previous school assignment and was trying to see if I could apply it during my Screenabout.  Originally, I could not recall the exact program, so I Googled something like, “online tracking programs” and Sitepoint came up.  It is a website which lists options for tracking programs which people can purchase.  Previously I had freely used Alexa to see what cookies were placed on my online meanderings and what companies were tracking my progression throughout the Internet.  However, I quickly discovered Amazon.com now owns this company.  It was interesting to me that a previously free service, which allowed people to better understand how data was collected about them, has since been bought up by a “Big Data Company”.  Now Amazon has a better grasp and control over what information people can learn about online tracking software.  Very likely, it also helps Amazon to regulate people’s perception of their information gathering practices towards their consumers.

Once I realized I would not be able to use Alexa unless paying for it, I decided to simply move forward with the Screenabout.  In reviewing advertisements on Spotify, I found it had only a general idea of who I might be.  The advertisements which came through the app tended to be more generic and fit a broader audience.  Initially, I had a video ad which utilized a reward method to gain an interaction; “If you watch this short video, the next 30 minutes are ad-free music”.  Collectively I had four ads from Spotify, the initial video advertisement from Command, along with three popup ads from Starbucks, Del Taco, and Staples.  These appeared to indicate an awareness of my being a student.  That information was gathered from the locations I frequent and the purchases I make.  For these advertisements, they tended to make appearances after the 30-minute promise of ad-free music, or simply popup whenever I went in and out of the app on my phone.

During this listening period, Facebook was an interesting visit.  I chose to only go through my News Feed, and only tally the advertisement posts which I saw listed as “Sponsored”.  There was one sidebar advertisement when I first entered the site, FabuLips by Kinsie.  Through my scrolling, I found that the Kinsie ad was very indicative about the advertisements I was going to see.  Overall, Facebook considers me to be a young adult female who is fixated on “personal beauty”.  Although close to the mark, I miss when I used to see advertisements of cool Tolkien or “nerdy” products that would come up on the News Feed.  However, my likes, the videos I watch, and the online purchases I make has shifted.  So, considering the amount of beauty videos I have watched over the last few months it does make complete sense why these advertisements are coming up.  Being on Facebook, in 10 minutes I had 14 advertisements.  There was only one deviation from the beauty category, which was for the Squatty Potty.  I am not entirely sure why it came up.  It might be because I do have friends who are having children and I have family with younger children, so my social network is the the link between myself and the advertised product.  After 10 minutes of scrolling, I did find that the advertisements ended.  But when I refreshed the webpage and started at the top of the News Feed, more advertisements popped up.  This leads me to assume that Facebook’s News Feed is formatted to promote companies before allowing more personal social access.  By seeing products on your News Feed which appear relevant to you, appear in high frequency, and appear each time you start viewing, the push for product and profit by companies becomes visible.  

The other social media site I used for this assignment was Instagram.  While I accessed Facebook from a personal computer, I went on Instagram through my mobile phone.  In the span of about 5 minutes I had seen 10 advertisements.  Again, the majority were beauty and fashion advertisements, because my Facebook and Instagram accounts are linked.  Some of the advertisements which were outside of this category were relevant to me, as I use Wells Fargo, I like Game of Thrones accounts so HBO made sense along with a Marvel Studios advertisement regarding Guardians of the Galaxy II. But an advertisement for Zola’s website creation was different, but it may have stemmed from my earlier search for Alexa.  Because it is people who are creating websites which like to use tools that allow them to see the traffic on their site.  On the Instagram feed, there was an advertisement for a USC Master’s program.  Since I have posted some graduation photos as well as liked and searched different graduation cap ideas, that advertisement does make sense.  Kraft and War by Parker were more off the mark.  Regarding the Kraft advertisement as I do not shop online for food, I do not really like or interact with food accounts, nor do any of my friends.  War’s eyeglass advertisement was also difficult to place.  I do wear glasses and use contacts but interactions pertaining to these items are done in person.  But as there was a Wells Fargo advertisement it makes sense that companies would also have an idea of where I make purchases offline.  This may offer the link, and offer weird evidence of the blurred line between my online and offline activities.  Out of all the advertisements the strangest was one for something called Episode.  It appeared like role-playing video games or SIMs, where you construct a storyline after making a responsive choice to a situation.  It looked too questionable and I had no desire to click on it to find out more.  For this advertisement, I cannot come up with a link.   

Topic Resources: “Love in the Time of Tamagotchi” by Pettman “Love Messaging: Mobile Phone Txting Seen Through the Lens of Tanka Poetry” by Manghani Her by Jonze

Watching the film Her left me with the impression that humans are weird, and that we make weird movies.

But the film does a great job of positing on where does the line which divides humanity from technology, the organic from the inanimate, truly lie?

Her appears to make the claim that there is no true line, but rather a grey space wherein humanity and technology mingle. Theodore’s Operating System (OS), Samantha, and his relationship with her is an example of this.

The film uses colors to help illustrate the way Theodore relates to Samantha. Originally Theodore is simply existing in a grey space, but when Samantha is introduced red, and red-based, colors enter his world. From there the audience is treated to yellow colors when Theodore faces a type of challenge to his intimate relationship with Samantha. Blue colors are used when he retreats into old memories, the progress of his relationship with his ex, Catherine, is staged this way. When they are together in the beginning, there are reds, as she gets unhappy blues get mixed into her shots, then added to his, till again the setting is grey again. 

This ambiguous setting, and the ambiguity of humane technology, is reinforced by having Theodore carry on his most introspective conversations with Samantha at night in his room, where everything but her video is predominantly a neutral grey tone. While the primary colors featured denote the characters’ feelings concerning their relationships between each other, I found that Jonze used the color white in the most interesting way. I noticed that the color white appeared when there was an end, or the approaching culmination of a relationship. For most Americans white, typically denotes new opportunities, a “blank page”, a color to begin with. However, other cultures do use white to mark the end, usually to mourn a death. I feel like Jonze could be using the color in both ways, and if that perspective is taken, it could be considered that it means this comingling of human and tech, will either lead to the end of things like “true love” or make available new revelations regarding “love”.

Pettman, would seem to agree with Her. In that, humanity and technology are not necessarily separate entities. More so, that technology is an extension of humanity and its humane processes. Considering his outlook, I think he would argue that an intimate relationship like that which existed between Theodore and Samantha, could possibly be a “true love” relationship. Pettman asserted that one of the concepts he explores is the “objectal quality of the beloved” (p.205), and I think Theodore and Samantha make an interesting case for it. But I also think that Pettman would have been a little miffed at the film for having the OSs evolve beyond the reach of the humane. His argument for the coding of love would fit with Theodore and Samantha if their algorithms for love remained the same. But if generalized his argument for love coding holds, as even in face to face relationships people do not always continue using the same “algorithms” with precisely the same person. People change and evolve just as Samantha does, and this results in breakups, DTR (define the relationship) moments, and “drama”.

Both Pettman and Her work to reason out the assertion, from general society, that to “truly love” someone, there must physically be someone to love. This may be why the avatars which Pettman speaks of in his article, are given a human, or an anthropomorphized, shape. The lack of such a trait for Samantha is part of what makes Her an interesting voice when looking at the changing dynamics between humans and technology. One aspect from the movie and Pettman, is again his reflection on objectal love. He uses a quote from Morton’s Blade Runner to help illustrate this; 

“Deckard order the femme fatale to say that she loves him and to ask him to kiss her…perhaps it respects the fact that she is a doll, that to go on and on about how much he loves her would not covcince her, but to stage the love as a perverse script would speak the truth. It would acknowledge the objectal quality of the beloved, and thus to love her for herself rather than as a copy of a human” (pp. 204-205).

However, while it is arguable that Samantha is an object, being an OS, she still does not have a physical body. While, Pettman touches on the ability of people to love in different manners throughout the ages, with “I love you” triggering programed responses reflective of different eras. Sometimes it triggers a financial reward, marriage, sacrifice, or ‘pining’ (pp.191-192).  

Manghani ties into this pining concept, by reminding readers that love can have a certain melancholy to it which may contribute to making it more profound. Genji Monogatari is used to help illustrate (p. 215). While Genji does well in showcasing Japanese courtly love, it can be tied to Her. Just as the grey tones were a key feature in setting and relational aspects for the film, it also draws upon the melancholic tendencies of humanity. 

Samantha’s existence and her relationship with Theodore existed in being a form of communication which can permeate the veil between an embodied existence and a non-the embodied one. The Japanese mono no aware, “the aware of (or in) things”, helps capture her ability to express the role of existence in Theodore’s life. While predominantly verbal in nature, she was able to express meaning not only through words but also in silence and as ‘things’ (i.e. music and drawings). It is interesting that Manghani mentions Luhmann;

“Love is able to enhance communication by largely doing without any communication. It makes use primarily of indirect communication, relies on anticipation and on having already understood. And love can thus be damaged by explicit communication, by discreet questions and answers, because such openness would indicate that something had not been understood as a matter of course” (p. 222).

For Samantha and Theodore were in a good place, until his awareness was shifted from himself and his view of their relationship to her. Although Theodore’s reactive response is expected (due to the common processes of love), he takes time to reflect on their relationship. He appears to realize that their interactivity, which formed the shared experience of their relationship, was a transient experience. Here the grey space is again entered. 

Honestly, this post does not do well in reaching any sort of solid conclusion regarding the existence of loving intimacy between tech and human. But I hope it does well with expressing the dual, transient, evolving, nature of love. While “true love” appears to be a recognizably universal feature of humans, at times it is considered questionable even in face to face relationships. This may be because its nature is not shown until it is embodied in expression, and for many people those expressions differ. Their algorithms lead to dissimilar outcomes, and the expected processes of love do not yield their desires. 

The blurred lines of love, with its scripts, programs, and yet organic nature, in Her is a great illustration. Love, as an intimate relationship, between a disembodied technological figure (Samantha) and that of embodied humanness (Theodore). Theodore and Samantha were able to create a meaningful union in a “completely different temporal and spatial world”, one of “the mono no aware of loves and longings” (p. 229). Their “minimalist love” falls in line with Barthes thoughts on love not being divided against success and failure, but simultaneously being both (p. 228). 

So, my conclusion remains that Her is weird, people are weird, and this is good. It keeps life interesting.

The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, Chapter 10 “Making History (More Than a Browser Menu)” by Morozov

When there are high hopes for technology, they should be approached with the expectation that reality will squash them. Society tends to take “promising” new technology, tie a bunch of aspirations on it, then throw it high in a tree to dangle irrelevantly.

In affixing hopeful aspirations to technology, and noticing the wind prettily fluttering the ties in the wind, people think, “aww it looks like it’s doing fine, we’ll just leave it there and it’ll be great”.  No. No, it won’t. And no, it won’t even do great. It’ll rot and fall to the ground.

Plus at a second glance, why is the technology in the tree?

Because new technology always goes into a tree.

No?     Fine.    

We’ll put it in the treehouse instead.

Morozov argues that both technological determinism and social determinism are wrong. He maintains that technology does not shape society and society does not shape technology. To believe technology exists as a “neutral” means giving it a free pass. No regulations needed, no policies to be made, as something neutral does not need to be viewed within an ethical context.

The way technology is constructed means its structure will suggest its utility.

A user will approach the technology with the intent to use it in a manner which helps them achieve a desire outcome.

Neither the technology or society are neutral factors, rather their architecture and intent relay a biased logic.

Therefore, Morozov argues that the Internet should not automatically be considered a great tool to promote and enact democracy or free speech. Instead of glossing over such a complex issue, the Internet and other technological advancements should be viewed with an ethical mindfulness which can then develop the technology into a proper and effective tool.

Jackson and Foucault Welles article #Ferguson is everywhere: initiators in emerging coupterpublic networks looks at the potential effectiveness of a tool like the Internet, in this case specifically through Twitter. Here they found that in closely looking at the information dissemination occurring within the first days of the Brown shooting, how this singular event could spread and create national debates on racial justice and public governance.

In reading about the false neutrality of technology and social media, I wanted to see how social movements work within this context. #Ferguson was able to spread information out to the general public, but there don’t seem to be any results of positive change regarding racial issues in policing.

I looked up #cleanwater on Twitter to see if anything was happening there. I’d recently seen the Stella Artois commercial with Matt Damon on the topic so I figured I’d check out Twitter and see what they’ve been promoting.

Currently Stella Artois’ (@StellaArtois) banner is promoting their partnership with water.org (@Water). They do have retweets from water.org promoting the campaign and have tweeted their own commercials for the campaign. However, I found the same problem with their Twitter feed as I did with the Matt Damon commercial. I had difficulty figuring out how much a chalice was and where I could buy one. Although common sense leads me to think that if I just Google their site, I could find a way to order it. But if they are trying to work with water.org to start or sustain a #cleanwater movement it has to be made easier for people to follow. 

They list the price but only for a moment and don’t indicate where to purshase. Although if you look it up on Youtube there might be a little ad in the bottom left corner offering an option to purchase it off Amazon. 

With the Internet and social media structed in a way that allows people to simply follow links to where you want them to go, it seems strange that these companies are not taking advantage of that.

I could put this picture and a short caption where I let consumers know where to get more information about the “Buy a Lady a Drink” project where the link is posted to “Buy a Chalice” or maybe embed the link at the end of the video. At least I would have purchasing link posted with the Tweets or different platforms where someone can just click then purchase. There has to be a consistency, where the project is not merely promoted but also used as an access portal, where people can actually make the move to purchase. Any store clerk knows to ASK FOR THE SALE. If you don’t ask, nothing gets accomplished, there will be no $6.25 for people to have clean water for 5 years.

One of the hardest things to do is using words to shape actions. While the information needs to be put forth, and people need to be aware of social issues, social media appears to be great for cultivating awareness, but it lacks effectiveness when trying to actually enact change. 

Reference Articles:

Nakamura – The Unwanted Labour of Social Media: Women of Colour Call Out Culture as Venture Community Management”

Brown – Great Read Edgy Blogger Sensation SciBabe Takes the Lab Coat off Science (2015)

Duffy – The romance of work: Gender and aspirational labour in the digital culture industries (2015)

Tokumitsu – In the Name of Love: Elites embrace the “do what you love” mantra. But it devalues work and hurts workers. (2014)

Key Concepts:

Nakamura – digital labour and free labour

Brown – going viral

Duffy – Aspirational labour: “a forward-looking, carefully orchestrated, and entrepreneurial form of creative cultural production” (p. 7)

Tokumitsu - Do What You Love (DWYL)

Lecture - Immaterial labor: “activities involved in defining and fixing cultural and artistic standards, fashions, tastes, consumer norms, and public opinion…” (Cote & Pybus, p.2)

Social Media Platform Focus: BuzzFeed Youtube Channel

Two major ideas generated from reading this week’s articles, are first, that aspirational and immaterial labor in the digital environment is gendered, and secondly, that the ability to create viable income from this labor is more readily available to individuals who have greater resources and means than the general populace.

One of the people I saw appear regularly on BuzzFeed was Safiya Nygaard. Formerly a Junior Producer at BuzzFeed, in 217 she quit and began her own YouTube channel. While there she created and produced the “Ladylike” series for BuzzFeed. According to Nygaard, she quit because she wanted to continue creating new content, but on her own, as anything she created while working for BuzzFeed then belongs to BuzzFeed. Therefore, “Ladylike” continues to put out new videos on the BuzzFeed channel without her. While I continue to watch and enjoy “Ladylike” I also decided to follow Nygaard’s channel. Although now technically no longer a part of the accounts I am following for this project, I felt that she still brings an interesting perspective on gendered, immaterial labor.

           Nygaard’s most well-known work is “Ladylike”. Although some videos are shot to be empowering for women or to advocate for the struggles of women of color, or other social movements, majority of the videos pertain to gendered topics. Majority of their videos are focused on beauty products and fashion, or the entertaining differences between genders within those two categories. Even after leaving Buzzfeed, Nygaard has continued focusing her videos on trying difference beauty products or making videos on her “everyday life”, often as she interacts with beauty and fashion.

While the content Nygaard generates is focused within the feminine, I was curious as to what kind of income she might be getting. While it is difficult to find any concrete numbers for what exactly BuzzFeed pays or what a YouTuber makes, Glassdoor estimates that a Junior Producer at BuzzFeed (the position Nygaard held at the time) would make about $50,000 a year. Edwards wrote an article for Business Insider in 2015 about YouTuber incomes. For someone of Nygaard’s status (popular but not a massive star) after the costs of having a channel are removed, Nygaard might have a net income of about $14,000. I do not know if she has a job outside of the digital world, but if she does not, she is generating a lot of value without really seeing any compensation for her labor.

During my readings, a video I had watched from BuzzFeed came to mind. Entitled “Can you Pass One Of The Hardest South Korean Tests?” the video has three co-workers answer some questions from the 2011 South Korean SAT-equivalent foreign language section. The video was shot to showcase the self-image and self-worth issues students encounter in academia. However, after reading the articles, specifically during readings of Nakamura and Tokumitsu, I noticed that the three workers chosen were Yale, Stanford, and UC Berkeley graduates. Again I recognize they were used to highlight the difficult of the exam, but I also saw that they were great examples of individuals who had success in digital production. Therefore I decided to investigate the BuzzFeed staff a little more.

I looked into the education backgrounds of some of the BuzzFeed workers who appear (or formerly appeared) regularly on the channel. Additionally I have listed how much the cost of “Tuition and Fees” for a year at each of school would be (as of 2016).

           Ned Fulmer (who was in “South Korean Test” video): Yale x $49,480

           Eugene Lee Yang: USC x $52,283

           Gaby Dunn: Emerson College x $42,908

           Allison Raskin: USC

           Keith Habersberger: Illinois State University x $14,061-$25,168 (In-State or Out-State)

           Chris Reinacher: UCLA x $13,409-$40,091

           Ella Mielniczenko: Emerson College

           Quinta Brunson: Temple University x $15,688-$25,994

           Justin Tan: UCLA

           Zach Kornfeld: Emerson College

While I was looking at the people I saw on the channel regularly, I became curious about the people listed on the “About BuzzFeed” under the “Our Team” heading. These are the company executives.

           Jonah Peretti, Founder and CEO: MIT x $48,452

           Greg Coleman, President: New York University x $49,062

           Dao Nguyen, Publisher: Harvard x $47, 074

           Allison Lucas, General Counsel: Northwestern University & Fordham University of Law x                     $49,073

           Lenke Taylor, Chief People Officer: Northwestern University & Carnegie Mellon University x                $52,310

           Carole Robison, Chief Communications Officer: Colgate University x $51,955

These listed individuals are the ones who included their educational background in their pop-up information bubble, directly on the page.

Please keep in mind that I did not look into each individuals financial situations specifically, nor do I wish to diminish their educational accomplishments. Also I am not asserting that these statistics are inclusive of all BuzzFeed employees, these are simply the ones I was interested in looking into due to their level of publicity.

But for the majority of people, attaining a college degree is lucrative, let alone managing to get one from a university which costs, at minimum, $15,000 a year. As most people lack both the educational and financial resources to accomplish this, it is indicative that a majority of people are also unlikely to have access to the materials even needed to accomplish their goals in digital media. Access to a computer, photography and videography capabilities, as well as the skills necessary, like being able to write competently (blogging), or use technology and software programs, are often unattainable for the general populace. In light of this, I find the additional “+18 offices and 1,300 employees around the world! Join the team” tag at the bottom of the executive page a little awkward.

This week’s article references:

Jenkins – Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Industry

Fuchs – Social Media as Participatory Culture

Lessig – Introduction to Free Culture

Who is a fan, an amateur, or a professional? After reading these articles, and reflecting on class discussions, it seems to me in general, that a fan is someone who commits time into engaging with some phenomena which gives them a sense of happiness. An amateur might be someone who has not been involved in a business or activity for a significant amount of time, while a professional has been engaging in some phenomena and has achieved a level of activity wherein they are being financially compensated for their time and efforts.

Out of YouTube there is predominantly fan and amateur work, although for certain channels with access to better resources and a large enough following, they can be deemed professionals. Jenkins would argue that this context allows for grassroots creativity, where creative culture comes out of the common populace (folk culture) rather than being directed by specific commercial entities (Jenkins 134-135). This grassroots creativity comes from the development of convergence culture, where media is blurring the distinction between producers and consumers, allowing everyone to be a participant, albeit participants may have varying degrees of status and influence (Jenkins 132). Participation is thus “shaped by the cultural and social protocols”, ones which emphasize things like, equality, freedom, and autonomy (Jenkins 133).

Fuchs challenges Jenkins’ perspective and argues that Jenkins’ concept of grassroots creativity within participatory culture, “[ignores] the broad notion of participatory democracy” (Fuchs 65). While Jenkins believes social media is an expression of participatory culture, because consumers “actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content” (Fuchs 54), Fuchs thinks this misses an important aspect of participation, in that participation is strongly connected with political science (Fuchs 54-55). This is interesting because I feel that Youtube does include commentaries on politics and social movements. Admittedly, there are cases of censorship or legal battles arising from videos pertaining to political science issues.

Here is where Lessig comes in. Lessig explains some of the legal backdrop where copyright is a central issue for many videos. Often corporate programs comb through Youtube videos, and when questionable material is found a DMCA takedown occurs, where the disputed material must immediately be taken down. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act deals with digital rights management and arguably stifles creativity and policies free speech on sites like Youtube, as legal battles and defined rights often favor corporate companies over a channel owner, especially for fan or amateur channels.

The Youtube channels, Buzzfeed and we are mitu, appear to have become professional companies which could stand their ground against any corporate challengers, and may themselves continue to become more commercialized. However, the other channels still maintain more of an amateur status, even though the quality of their videos is coming up to professional quality, they the necessary resources to do legal battle with a large corporate company.

While all these channels utilize consumers to develop content; rather than having their consumers actively participate in production, they take an interactive approach. As opposed to participation, interaction is how technologies, in this case Youtbube channels, are designed to be responsive to consumer feedback (Jenkins 133). They respond to this feedback with content which appears to be responsive to their consumer’s participation, when really they’re just interacting with their audience. This is usually done by asking the audience to “comment” on what they’d “like to see next” at the end of a video, either directly in the video’s comment section or by tagging the channel on a Tweet or other social media platform.

This week’s articles were Sarah Florini’s “Tweets, Tweeps, and Signifyin’: Communication and Cultural Performance on “Black Twitter” (2014), along with J. David Cisneros and Thomas K. Nakayama “New Media, Old Racisms: Twitter, Miss America, and Cultural Logics of Race” (2015).

After reading them, I decided to focus on the Twitter accounts of the channels I am following, to see what examples of taste, “Signifyin”, and old/new racism tensions I could find, if any. Once I decided to focus on the Twitter platform, I narrowed my lens further to look at we are mitu and Facts. I felt that they may provide the most interesting examples.

we are mitu is created for an audience of Spanish-speakers, specifically Latinx. I assumed this would allow me to cultivate examples of all three concepts. With Facts. I was interested to see what kind of difference, if any, may exist between a US and an Irish perspective on the three concepts.

Starting with we are mitu, there are numerous examples of taste and signifyin’; taste being a marker of cultural difference and signifyin’ as the wordplay used to define the markers of taste. This is seen in the case of we are mitu, as they are a subculture, or group, existing in relation to mainstream US culture. As a channel created by individuals who identify with their ethnic Latin-American heritage, the Tweets they send are rooted in Latinx culture. An explicit example of this is seen in one of their retweets:

we are mitu often features Tweets about pop culture individuals with ties to the Latinx culture; like Salma Hayek, Jennifer Lopez, Selena Gomez, Jose Fernandez, and Lin Manuel. Taking into consideration, Florini’s statements on Black Twitter users showcasing their identities through displays of “cultural competence”, when looking at we are mitu’s feed, I saw that in order to understand many of the references in their Tweets I would have to be competently familiar with Latinx culture (224). Not only familiar with the culture, also to be linguistically familiar with the culture as well. On their Twitter feed, I say how they demonstrate signifyin’ predominantly through their mixing of the English and Spanish languages, a combination of languages sometimes referred to as “Spanglish”. Spanglish is being used as a signifier to their audience of who we are mitu is and who they believe their audience is. Many Tweets show evidence of a dual cultural identity, when we are mitu uses Spanglish in humor posts like:

and 

 to connect with their audience. This signifyin’ reinforces the shared sense of identity between them and their audience as it is assumed the audience will comprehend their message. Interestingly, although we are mitu’s Twitter feed caters to US Latin-Americans, they also have a secondary mitu Twitter account:

This account actually appears to cater to an audience of a different taste. Nearly all the Tweets are memes or GIFs with only a line or two of text, all in Spanish. Although my mother is Mexican, she doesn’t speak Spanish, and her parents typically spoke Spanglish, especially as they grew older. For me, I took High School Spanish classes but didn’t keep up with it, so I really have no sense of what @somosmitu Tweets are. I can manage an understanding of @wearemitu’s Tweets because they utilize English and I am at least partially familiar with the cultural references. Looking further at we are mitu’s Twitter feed, I didn’t find an example of “old” and “new” racism. But I think their feed did well in exemplifying Florini’s view of signifyin’ on Twitter being “a tool for the performance of personal identity…and generates a sense of collective identity and group solidarity” (234).

Once I had finished looking at we are mitu, I moved on to Facts. Channel but I ended up being disappointed as their Twitter feed was solely promotional Tweets:

 I did notice that although there wasn’t much on their feed, I did notice only one screenshot included a person of color out of the first thirty tweets I looked through. If I hadn’t read Cisneros and Nakayama’s article I probably wouldn’t have thought anything of it, since I am used to the silent “white” social norms of the US. So to me, it appears Ireland may have similar social norms to the US. However, since there is not much on Facts.’s Twitter feed, and since Twitter addresses “an invisible and acontextual audience” within a collapsed context, it is difficult to reach a concrete conclusion (117).  

This week’s articles were Rosalind Gill’s “Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility”, Sarah Banet-Weiser’s chapter “Branding the Post-Feminist Self: Girls’ Video Production and YouTube” from Mediated Girlhoods: New Explorations of Girls’ Media Culture, and Patricia Lange’s “The Vulnerable Video Blogger: Promoting Social Change through Intimacy”. Gill’s article reasons that rather than being viewed as a defined, static, perspective, postfeminism should be viewed as being a dynamic sensibility. She suggests certain features that make up this sensibility, and reflects the discourse surrounding it. These features are, “the notion that femininity is a bodily property; the shift from objectification to subjectification; the emphasis upon self-surveillance, monitoring and discipline; a focus upon individualism, choice and empowerment; the dominance of a makeover paradigm; a resurgence in ideas of natural sexual difference; a marked sexualization of culture; and an emphasis upon consumerism and the commodification of difference.” (p. 149).

Weiser’s article appears to pull from some of the postfeminist sensibility features, specifically, that femininity is a bodily property, the shift from objectification to subjectification, focus on individualism, choice and empowerment, the reinforcement of natural sexual difference, and the sexualization of culture. These features reflect the postfeminist self-branding and identity-forming practices of many girls on social media. For Weiser, she focused on girls who engage in this on YouTube, and overall concluded that the practice of self-branding through YouTube, establishes multiple contradictions within the postfeminist sensibility. 

Lange’s article was about the conclusions she’s attained in her study so far, regarding vloggers’ choosing to publicize intimate moments to promote discourse regarding social change. She was interested in looking at whether this was an accurate conclusion, due to previous conclusions of vlogging being a selfish practice. However, her conclusion held true as the video image was found to the vehicle through which a key connection could be made between vlogger and audience, leading to social transformation. 

When viewing my resource material for gender, I found Buzzfeed and Cut best exemplify the features of the postfeminist sensibility. Buzzfeed has videos throughout its channel which look at the differences between genders with series like, Ladylike, The Try Guys, Bro Trailers, Sports & Athletes, Opposite-Sex Roommates, In the Closet, and Single AF. While these are created to be humorous videos, WatchCut approaches gender with a greater focus on simply raising awareness, and comes across as more methodical in its presentation. WatchCut’s One Word and 100 Years of Beauty series are the best examples. All these series utilize personal disclosure to promote social change, typically using a voice which encourages the empowerment of women. However, I noticed that although the overall approach is positive, there are contradictory messages as the 100 Years series both reflects the transition of objectification of women to self subjectification, but reinforces traditional femininity and potentially the sexualization of women in culture. I also noticed in the Buzzfeed videos, which do raise awareness of the need for social change and promotes the empowerment of women and minorities, it utilizes the concept of “versus” when creating the narrative for some of their videos. This set up of a female versus male comparison seems to fall in with the reinforcement of natural gender differences. 

During my viewings of Buzzfeed’s videos, I found instances of identity formation and self-branding. In the Closet is a very interesting series, as it deals with some of the struggles that people of the LGBQT community faces. While this is an overt instance of viewing identity formation through the series’ interview format, I also saw identity formation in Ladylike. This series has videos on the effects of makeovers and its subsequent influences on the girls’ personal identities. In the videos, I saw how these girls’ stylistic choices were still influenced by popular culture, and how these makeovers became identity challenges rather than an empowering change. 

This week I read three articles that look at the concept of friendship and its connection with social media. The first article was Deresiewicz’s, “Faux Friendship”, second was Bloor’s “What are Friends for?”, and the third was Boyd’s article, “Friendship”. “Faux Friendship” provided a history of friendship through the ages (mostly from a western perspective), and explained how friendships of the past differ from today’s. The article “What are friends for?” focused on the difference between social and instrumental friendships, and on how social media might play a role in furthering instrumental friendships over social ones. “Friendship” takes a look at the role social media plays in the Millennial generation’s navigation and understanding of modern sociality. From these articles I was able to better understand the “friendly tension” of social media. Therefore, this week I am looking at the way social media is being used for instrumental reasons, and its augmentation of the social side of friendship. I am also looking at whether social and instrumental friendships may be in a superimposed existence within the context of social media.

           In my opinion, the tension between social and instrumental connections does not seem like it should be a big deal. In my lessons on human communication I have been taught the existence of dialectic tensions, like equality-inequality, openness-closedness, autonomy-connectedness. Along with these concepts I have also been taught to see most communication behaviors as existing on a spectrum rather than as an either/or concept. Due to this background, it seems to me that, looking at friendship as being either social or instrumental, would decrease understanding of friendship interactions rather than increasing understanding. While there can be discomfort in tension, people can modify their behaviors to appropriately deal with those tensions. Just as the teens in Boyd’s “Friendship” article continuously altered their behavior and negotiated new social practices online to keep up with technological advancements, so too can people alter their behavioral interactions on social media to maintain a comfortable tension within their social-instrumental friendships.

           As laid out in my initial Introduction post, I am looking at the social media accounts for Buzzfeed, Fomo Daily, and Facts. When considering “friendly tension” on social media I became interested in the interactions of the writers in Buzzfeed. This organization has many shows and multiple Youtube channels, along with corresponding social media accounts. Luckily, the Buzzfeed app does a good job of streamlining these into a less overwhelming format.  Due to the multifaceted format, you can see crossovers between the shows and also gain some insight into the private lives of the Buzzfeed writers. I noticed they would often show behind the scenes footage of them socializing with each other outside of work at parties and events, indicating social friendship connections. However, I also saw them participating on each other’s shows as “guests”  and promoting their own shows in each other’s videos. This use of social connections transforms their friendships into ones of instrumental connections, as they try to gain followers their friends’ channels. Seeing the writers combining the social and instrumental aspects into their friendships, exemplifies friendly tension of social media. Interestingly, I found a lot of friendly tension but it was strange for it seemed to be a detached kind of connection. I surmise that this is the “feeling” of connection Bloor wrote about, where no true relationship exists, only the generic feeling of a relationship.

           Looking at the other social media accounts I follow, I found separate examples of instrumental and social connections of social media. On Fomo Daily’s Instagram account, they used their posts promote interest in their videos on Youtube and direct people to watching them on their channel. Facts. employs a similar tactic on their Twitter feed. They tweet screenshots of their videos with a link to them included, and tell people to “Go watch [title of video]”. Both accounts utilize their connections with their followers to promote other interests and projects. By doing so they may gain more followers, views, and money.

           However, in their group of followers can be found social connections of social media. Through interactions with each other, people in their audience begin forming social friendships. Followers communicate both directly and indirectly with each other; directly by “replying” on, tagging, liking, etc., each other’s’ posts, and they communicate indirectly by simply leaving general comments addressing a topic or pertaining to previous comments. Instagram and Twitter are the best examples of direct communication as you can see people like or retweet someone’s post, while Facebook posts and YouTube comment sections best showed indirect social connections. Some people take these social interactions further by becoming so consistent in their online presence that friendships form between them, and then people will sometimes move their online friendships offline.

For this blogging project, I will be using the social media accounts of several YouTube channels, to better understand the relationship between social media and communication. I will be mainly focusing on material provided by the Buzzfeed, Fomo Daily, and Facts. channels.

Buzzfeed has multiple channels within its organization; Buzzfeed Video, Buzzfeed Violet, Buzzfeed Yellow, Buzzfeed Blue, Buzzfeed News, and Buzzfeed Celeb. As I am already 1 of the 11,968,908 subscribers of Buzzfeed Video, I will mainly focus on that channel. Buzzfeed Video describes itself as, “Buzzfeed Motion Picture’s flagship channel. Sometimes funny, sometimes serious, always shareable. New videos posted daily!” (Youtube.com, 2017). It joined YouTube August 10, 2011 and now includes the following social media accounts; Twitter, Facebook, and the Buzzfeed App. All these accounts are updated daily, generating continuous resource material for my project.

           “Fomo Daily curates culture from around the world. Our mission is to expose people to trends, news, and ideas from subcultures, fanbases, and countries across the globe. Whether you're a Kpop fan, Bollywood devotee, or a hardcore Filipino LoveTeam follower, we've got you covered. So sit back, subscribe, and let us show you some cool stuff every day!” (YouTube.com, 2017). This is how Fomo Daily presents itself, and as indicated by their title they do post a video a day, allowing for readily available resource material. Their social media accounts include; Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The channel joined YouTube on November 24, 2014, but it’s logo indicates it established itself in NYC 2016 as a “A Vital Recap of Trivial Pursuits”. It currently has 388,613 subscribers.

           While Buzzfeed Video lists no country of origin, but based off watched videos appears to be, at the least, in the United States, along with Fomo Daily who explicitly lists the United States, and regularly references their location in New York, New York. Facts., however is based out of Ireland, and from regular references in the videos, is specifically out of the city of Dublin. With 849,712 subscribers, they “[We] create 5 new videos every week featuring Irish people trying out new foods or watching tv shows / Youtubers that they have never tried or watched before.” (Youtube.com, 2017). Originally created July 4, 2014, Facts. now also has a Twitter account, and Facebook page.

           While these three accounts are going to be the main resources for the material I am using to filter communication and social media, some other channels I may reference are, WatchCut Video, and we are mitu. Both are updated close to daily as well, and are like the other three channels in their desire to raise awareness in their audience. Cut and Mitu are two channels I have not previously subscribed to but they were listed as “recommendations” after I subscribed to the other three.

Cut (created October 29, 2014) describes itself as “for everyone” and has Cut puts out videos each week, has 1,551,206 subscribers, and has a Facebook page, Twitter, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Instagram. They list their location as being Seattle, Washington, United States.

“Mitu is a digital media company that brings a Latino POV to mainstream entertainment across multiple platforms. Our audience is the 200% - youth who are 100% American and 100% Latino - who inspire us to create authentic, culturally relevant stories. We reach a massive, cross-cultural audience who will soon be the majority of youth in the U.S. Our audience is nearly 100 million people in the US each month, driving over 400 million content views and over 120 million video views monthly.” (Youtube.com, 2017). I thought Mitu’s claim was interesting as they have 85,990 subscribers and 9,215,464 views listed in their “About” section. But I am not good with numbers so I could be incorrect in assuming a disparity. It is listed as being based out of the U.S., and it joined YouTube January 8, 2015. The social media accounts for Mitu are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.