New Media 2016

So now that I’ve gotten your attention! (Excuse the really awful attention-seeking method there)

We follow trends such as the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, raising awareness for ALS and trying to promote it. That’s a side of the internet that I find beneficial as it raised awareness, but on the other hand we post those videos to get likes of us embarrassing ourselves. I hate to say it but the online craze to raise awareness for ALS was to write ALS on a piece of paper and post it online, do you really think as many people would’ve gotten involved? It’s a shame because it raised so much awareness and I’ll admit that I even posted a video too, but it makes me question if other methods would’ve been as successful.

1. I started to re evaluate the “inspo” accounts I follow on IG… Surely people’s lives aren’t that adventure filled and perfect. It’s easy to use the tools we are provided with online to manipulate people’s perceptions of us.

2. I learnt that most people on Facebook are kind of old, not what I had previously assumed! 3. Learnt loads of fancy vocab for example the types of ratified hearers (addressed and unaddressed recipients) and unratified hearers (bystanders, overhearers and eavesdroppers - the latter is like Facebook stalkers).

4. I’ve really started to notice my own online habits such as my obsession with universal positive response options - the like button on Facebook, getting a thumbs up emoji or a love heart on IG.

5. Never realised before how powerful social media is for spreading stuff, and equally permanent 😬

6. I realised how Google is really a spy taking every tiny bit of data he can from us, even tracking us via GPS. This is how it gives personalised results when we search using it.

7. Gamification: everything is now a game and I didn’t realise it before this module. Tinder - getting matches = game, Snapchat - snapstreaks = game, fitness apps that let you compete with friends = game!

8. I noticed how memes give a new depth to real relationships, tagging someone in something so public yet it meaning an inside joke is like adding another layer to your friendship - you even get along digitally.

9. Opened my eyes to just how far media has advanced in terms of its richness and impact on our real life worlds for example people using tinder to flirt instead of actually chatting someone up at a bar!

10. And finally, I learnt the power of click-bait. You all have too, now 😉

I agree with your points 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in particular! Especially the idea of Gamification, this really amazed me as I would never have noticed that all the apps that I use have another incentive - gaming! 

Should we be entitled to privacy online?

For me, the answer is no.  

The first thought I have as a social media junkie is selfish. Websites like Facebook may not be free if it was not for this tracking system and I like the fact they are free. These sorts of websites work fundamentally by being an advertising site. If you have recently been searching online for shoes, you will find on Facebook advertisements for shoes. They know your searches. Scary or not, it is just the way it works and if it keeps it free I will not complain.  

The logical reason I believe we should not be entitled to privacy is purely because it keeps us safe and ensures the internet is regulated and in order. The Government is able to solve cases and close down potential threats fast through being able to trace people on their devices. Without some sort of tracking system I feel the internet could rapidly get out of hand. Whether this is ethical is another question, but realistically when owning a device the tracking feature comes with the territory.

I agree with you in the sense that websites like Facebook are free websites for us and that’s due to the fact that Facebook uses advertising on it.

We often talk about memes and virality and how it’s so easy for posts to rapidly spread all over the internet and gain attention, but to what extent is this a good thing?

Do you agree with this?

I agree that our generation is constantly being told we’re on our phones or social media too much, but it’s ironic because the most users on Facebook are people over the age of 40? So, although we’re supposedly always on Facebook, in terms of age demographic, those who are between 40-60 actually use it more than people of our age!

Myspace was overtaken by Facebook: FBOOK introduced using users real names rather than strange handles such as “chattygurlxo2” etc, this added legitimacy and authentication something which Myspace didn’t have.

Myspace was slow to become mobile friendly - cross platforming is key for user retention.

Myspace wasn’t very visually pleasing because it tried to give too much creatively to it’s users in terms of audio: members could chose a song to automatically start playing when others visited their page and graphics: banners, backgrounds and text. Facebook entered the market with a more simplistic look making it more user friendly therefore easier to navigate around. Interestingly, twitter and Instagram now seem to be more simplistic than Facebook…

Advertising got out of control and also inappropriate for the average users age range. Facebook has a LOT of paid adverts appearing now…

This advert came up on my Facebook and really made me think. I never even considered that emojis are sexist, because although there are now options for different races, why are there not different gender options? Why isn’t there the option to have a girl doing the sport or profession? 

Now, I don’t know if the options for iPhone users are different, but whilst I can select the skin tone of an icon by holding and selecting, the options given here seemed a bit random to me at first glance. However, if we consider that the nature and purpose of the emoji is to serve as a graphic contextualisation cue (although this label is subject to criticism, an issue that I may explore further in another post), it becomes apparent that emojis are actually significant social and cultural markers. 

If we take the example above, for instance, we can see that  the options available for female representation are limited. If we read the emojis as reflective of our society, it tells us that women have the following options: to be a princess, bride, dancer, haircut receiver or a massagee(?) - which is all well and good if you feel a bizarre leotard-wearing PlayBoy-esque bunny dancer is a decent representation of how you see yourself, but what if I want to use an emoji to represent myself as a professional? 

Okay, at this point I should address the issue of gender presentation: I am not suggesting that long hair = woman and short hair = man, but there have been several attempts by the designers (Willem Van Lancker) to feminise the long-haired emojis. 

Firstly, the princess emoji has defined lips. It’s subtle, and I didn’t notice until I opened the screenshot to examine closely, but this only makes it more ridiculous as it’s a feature that someone somewhere made the actual active decision to include. It didn’t happen by accident. There will have been meetings about those lips. Those lips will have been discussed over SmartWater© and croissants. Again, I am not saying that lip definition = woman, but it is a cultural marker of femininity, the same way kids cartoons that depict romantic relationships between two animals often add bizarre eyelashes and anatomically chest-swelling to “girl” animals, just so that the audience knows that the animals are definitely straight and definitely not gay. That’s just how fragile heteronormativity is.

Secondly, most of the long-haired emojis are wearing pink. On the 5th row, we can see that the kissing couples are “colour coded” according to the archaic notion that pink = girl and blue = boy. Whilst pink+pink and blue+blue options are available, presumably to represent gay and lesbian relationships, the emojis attempt at inclusivity continues to reinforce binary gender presentation. It’s a step in the right direction with regards to inclusivity, but it’s none the less problematic, so excuse me if I’m a little hesitant to award Van Lancker a gold star for effort.

Social media is often described being anything but social, we are said to be prisoners of social networking and being obsessed with 24/7 entertainment…

But, are we really? Is there a major difference between those two pictures or do they just represent the course of time? Of course, the older picture will generally  be associated with education, with gaining knowledge through newspapers/books etc but I believe that the lower half of the picture also shows the development of the times and gaining knowledge. New Media connects people all over the world_it is about how we take advantage and use modern technology…