old news

Upon reading the article by Haslop, O'Rourke and Southern titled "#NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide" (2021), I gained further insights into the normalisation of online harassment and discrimination towards young women in digitised spaces. It is a phenomenon that is so common that it is considered the "norm", meaning that victims will often tolerate it "rather than take actions to address it" (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021, pp. 1419). This directly conflicts with the term "snowflake" which is thrown around to describe younger generations (Gen-Z) that are labelled as sensitive in online discourse (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021). According to this article, women and transgender individuals are most "targeted by online harassment", thus creating a gender-based digital divide (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021, pp. 1418).

It's concerning to see how the tolerance of harassment contributes to an emergent gender-related digital divide, as explored in the #NoSnowflakes article by Haslop, O'Rourke, and Southern (2021). The authors go on to highlight the impact of online harassment on women, particularly those from diverse backgrounds, and the ways that this decreases their opportunities for education, employment, and social connection. It is difficult to ignore the fact that women are disproportionately affected by harassment, and even more now than ever with harassment able to follow you home with access to digital spaces in your pocket; where anonymity and distance can make it easier for perpetrators to act out against these marginalised and at-risk groups wherever they are. The authors demonstrate that this can lead to a situation where women are removing themselves from online discourse, pursuing careers in technology and gaming, and overall they no longer feel truly safe or valued in online communities.

The authors of this article underwent a survey with university students, and an interesting takeaway from this is that 73.4% of respondents indicated that they would opt not to report online harassment if they had experienced it to faculty (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021). Almost 20% of the same respondents stated that they would not take any threats received seriously because it is happening in an online environment (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021). This attitude could make it difficult to truly grasp what is occurring in universities' online communities, although it does appear to challenge the idea of the so-called "snowflake generation" since many students would choose to ignore and avoid reporting online incidents in the first place (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021, pp. 1422).

Online sexual harassment is a growing concern among women and other marginalised groups in their daily lives and is a continuation of the gender-related divide that leaves many victims feeling dismissed (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021). The authors demonstrate the lack of effective policies and support for individuals who experience online sexual harassment, thus adding to the divide (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021). The divide is further provoked by the societal pressure for victims of sexual harassment to stay silent, with an existing discourse that leaves them feeling to blame for these interactions. Some female survey participants from this article state that they would rather remove themselves from online communities in order to avoid being sexually harassed (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021).

The authors conclude that this is not something that can be ignored, and the best course of action to address online harassment is to educate people and acknowledge that it is a "gender-related digital divide" (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021, pp. 1432). The article calls for a change in societal attitudes towards online harassment and certain industries that are found to discriminate against women and other marginalised groups to step in and take more responsibility when it comes to addressing these issues, such as technology companies (Haslop, O'Rourke & Southern 2021).

References:

In an article titled "The Melbourne indie game scenes: Value regimes in localized game development" by Brendan Keogh, the author examines video game culture and discusses how value is constructed within the (indie) gaming community in Melbourne, Australia (Keogh 2021). The author analyses the cultural and economic factors that influence how value is defined in the indie game scene, including; social and cultural significance of games— as well as the financial gain that they can bring (Keogh 2021).

This text defines an 'indie game' as a video game created independently by small teams or individual developers, rather than traditionally being backed by large game development companies that prioritise financial gain over playable experience (Keogh 2021). These are now the broader differences between indie and commercialised games. According to Keogh (2021), this is a non-homogenous way of describing a video game maker, which encompasses a range of different identities, ambitions, aesthetics and themes that may not be as profitable in the eyes of these large corporations.

Indie games appear to value a consumer's experience and overall creativity over "economic pursuit" (Keogh 2021, p. 220), which I believe is what makes a game stand out and stay with a consumer. This idea often leads to customer loyalty (i.e. repeat customers) for upcoming releases. Large brand corporations will generally achieve success for well-marketed game releases due to a larger budget, however, it does not always receive praise, especially when it's clear that money was the motivating factor. Similarly to this idea, large corporations may not rely as heavily on good storytelling when they have huge budgets and great artwork to hide behind, and in many cases, this will be enough for the average consumer— yet when it comes to indie games they need to excel at great storytelling and unique graphics to stand out and perform (MacDonald 2021).

'Game Development as Cultural Industry' by Aphra Kerr (2006) looks at the relationship between game development and broad cultural and economic factors, and discusses potential tension that can arise when cultural and artistic values clash with mentioned market-driven imperatives. This demonstrates the divide between financial success and creative freedom that developers at times will have to choose between, as it is difficult to cater to both in the current climate. However, it is interesting to note that the most popular game in the world, Minecraft, was actually independently developed and has sold 238 million copies since its release in 2011 (Parker 2023). This goes to show that prioritizing player experience and creativity can lead to commercial success. In an environment where big companies with large budgets tend to dominate the market, it is refreshing to see that an independent game with a focus on quality and innovation can still come out on top.

References:

Keogh, B., 2021, The Melbourne indie game scenes: value regimes in localized game development (Chapter 13), P Ruffino (ed.), Independent Videogames: Cultures, Networks, Techniques and Politics, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY, pp. 209-222.

Kerr, A., 2006, Game development as cultural industry, In M. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The video game theory reader (pp. 399-415), Routledge.

MacDonald, K., 2021, Games industry must put art before profit to truly flourish, The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/games/2021/jan/05/games-industry-must-put-art-before-profit-to-truly-flourish>

In an academic article by Jessica Barker titled ‘Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat’, the author examines the use of beauty filters on social media platforms and explores the potential impact it has on individuals and society as a whole (Barker 2020). Barker argues that filters agressively perpetuate unattainable beauty standards and overall contributes negatively to society, despite being seen as harmless and fun at first glance. (Barker 2020)

The author recognises that the negative effects of these filters are primarily directed towards women, who are the main targets of such filters, especially those thats primary function is to “correct” perceived flaws and enhance appearances (Barker 2020). This ultimately leads to the normalization of filters and the pressure to conform to idealized versions of oneself, based on constantly changing beauty standards. This can be harmful to mental health and self-esteem, as it increases awareness of one's appearance and perceived flaws, leading to dissatisfaction and even prompting the use of cosmetic procedures in order to achieve this 'beautified image' (Barker 2020). 

As a member of the Generation Z community, I have witnessed firsthand the damaging effects of filters on young people's self-esteem and self-image, including my own. In my experience, filters were a fun and harmless way to experiment with creative lenses on apps like Snapchat, however, when filters made their way to Instagram, I began seeing issues. Instead of quirky filters, we now had beauty filters that altered our appearance by adding makeup or slimming our features. While exploring these filters started as light-hearted fun, it eventually began to affect how my peers and I saw ourselves in photos and in the mirror. We began to place ourselves on an online pedestal and strived to be our idealized selves, free of flaws, at only 14 years old. There appeared to be a rise in makeup use in my high school, and there is evidence that suggests an increase in selfies in 2013, which I am sure featured many filtered results (Ryan-Mosley, 2021). 

Barker also acknowledges the cultural and racial prejudices that filters perpetuate by favouring lighter skintones (Barker 2020). She also notes that social media influencers may be promoting unrealistic beauty standards by using filters without disclosing it to their audiences, and she makes the case that social media companies should take on responsibility for the impact that their filters have (Becker 2020).

I strongly believe that the use of filters without disclosure can be harmful, especially when it comes to celebrities like Kylie Jenner who contribute to a heightened beauty standard without acknowledging their use of filters. However, I do appreciate that apps like TikTok and Instagram now tell users when filters have been applied (TikTok 2023; Ahmed 2021). I am against the invisible use of filters, and I believe that transparency is crucial in order to combat the perpetuation of such unrealistic beauty standards.

References:

Barker, J., 2020, 'Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat', Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 207-221. <https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1>

Digital Information World, 2021, Instagram's new upgrade tells users if a photo was edited or not, Accessible at: <https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2021/01/instagrams-new-upgrade-tells-users-if.html#:~:text=If%20a%20photo%20has%20any,saying%20%22made%20with%20effects%22>

Technology Review, 2021, Beauty filters and young girls: Augmented reality and social media, Accessible at: <https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/02/1021635/beauty-filters-young-girls-augmented-reality-social-media/>

The academic journal article titled ‘Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility’ by Duffy and Meisner’ (2022) is an insightful look into algorithmic invisibility on social media platforms. 

The article discusses the impact of social media platforms on content creators, including issues like exploitation, overwork, algorithmic visibility/invisibility, insecurity, as well as uneven regulation, specifically with marginalized creators (Duffy & Meisner 2022). Duffy and Meisner interviewed 30 content creators from “historically marginalized identities and/or stigmatized content genres” to uncover their experiences and perceptions of these mentioned topics (Duffy & Meisner 2022). The article soon highlights that influencers often find platforms' mechanisms of visibility rather ambiguous, which has caused many content creators to rely on “gossip” to understand platform features and/or algorithms (Duffy & Meisner 2022). Some interviewed parties spent hours combing through subreddits to gain a better understanding of the algorithms, while others relied on Discord and Facebook groups. 

This text talks about how the unpredictability of TikTok's algorithm can work in creators' favour, with unexpected content sometimes going viral, but it also creates a sense of mystique and uncertainty that can make content creation feel like gambling, with creators feeling the need to keep posting and engaging with the app even if they are shadowbanned after going viral. In an article by The Washington Post, the author explores the world of TikTok creator Junna Faylee, who discusses the app’s negative sides, reporting that she experiences “relentless demands from angry commenters”, audiences and their expectations, and “even from the algorithm itself” (Harwell & Lorenz 2022). Harwell and Lorenz mentions how TikTok promotes this idea that anyone can be a star, which negatively reinforces the pressure to perform, despite not truly understanding the algorithm. This forces creators to consistently post content in the hopes of something going viral, which is not always achieveable, and causes said creators to have a poor work-life balance as they feel like they are “working a shift that doesn’t end” (Harwell & Lorenz 2022), which has dangerous effects on their self esteem, mental health, and social health (Duffy & Meisner 2022). While this sense of platform unpredictability plays a role in these experiences, there is also a “persistent fear of being made invisible” (Duffy & Meisner 2022). The interviewed content creators shared their experiences of various forms of “punitive” activities on social media platforms, including the removal of content and images for platform guideline violations, even when the reasons may be ambiguous or seemingly inaccurate.

I empathise with content creators who share this frustration, as the unpredictable nature of “platform punishments” can significantly impact their revenue streams (Duffy & Meisner 2022), self esteem and even self-identity in some cases; as many influencers or creators may feel the need to change themselves in order to perform better online, due to the pressure that they face.

References:

Duffy, B., Meisner, C., 2022, ‘Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility’, Media, Culture & Society, Retrieved from: <https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923>

The Academic Journal article by Domingos, Vale, and Faria (2022) titled "Slow Fashion Consumer Behavior: A Literature Review" is an insightful analysis of the slow fashion industry. "Slow Fashion is an approach to producing clothing which takes into consideration all aspects of the supply chain" (Marquis 2021), and is a movement that aims to decrease the negative impacts that fast fashion causes at detriment to the environment and exploited factory workers.

As consumers, we have a lot of power when it comes to shaping the fashion industry, and by adopting more sustainable and ethical choices, we can slowly filter out harmful fast fashion practices. One of the key takeaways from this article was that people who have pre-existing core values of either sustainability, social responsibility, awareness of fast fashion practices, or garment quality are more likely to engage in slow fashion, but we still need brands to promote slow fashion to gain traction from open-minded consumers (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022).

In a world where fast fashion dominates our shopping habits, it’s more important than ever to stop and think about the impact our choices have on the environment, on workers in the fashion industry, and on our own well-being. I want to share some insights I uncovered from the mentioned text, where the authors explore the benefits of slow fashion, the factors that influence consumer behaviour, and the power we have as individuals to make a difference (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022). However, it is not just about ethics, as people who are becoming increasingly interested in self-expression, individuality or even exclusivity are drawn to the unique and personalised designs offered by slow fashion brands (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022). These are engaging statements that slow fashion brands can use to appeal to the conscious consumer, which Domingos, Vale and Faria point out in this text. Some examples of successful slow fashion brands that have used this messaging on their websites includes Vivienne Westwood (UK) and Homie (Australia).

Brand transparency is an emerging aspect in today’s world that is essential in order for consumers to fully trust brands, as we still live in a world where fast fashion exists, and to our detriment (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022). Brand Transparency is the act of openly sharing information about a company’s values, practices, products, environmental impact, and labour practices with its customers and stakeholders in a clear and honest way. This helps to attain trust and loyalty in all directions and appeals to the conscious buyer.

According to a Finland study in 2009, consumers tend to think about the ethics and environmental impacts of the products or brand throughout the purchase journey, yet at payment, these thoughts tend to decrease. This could be interpreted in a way that shows the buyer has sustainable thinking in the back of their mind, yet they may value different things over this one element. This could include price, fit, convenience or aesthetic. However, according to Domingos, Vale and Faria (2022) & Marquis (2021), consumers are now becoming more willing to pay higher prices to achieve a better quality and more ethically made garment, even if they have to wait longer for the product.

Fashion is considered "one of the most polluting industries at all stages of its life cycle” (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022). One of the biggest impacts of fast fashion is the implementation of micro-trends, which contributes to a large portion of textile waste, as we are only wearing 20% of our clothes 80% of the time. Until two decades ago, the fashion industry was operating on a two-collection per-year cycle, Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter. Thanks to internet trends and fast fashion, we are seeing 100 micro trends per year, and brands like Shein uploading 2,000 to 10,000 new styles every day in 2021, according to an article by Rajvanshi, Caldwell and Johnson (2023). And physical shopping centre brands like Zara are changing their in-store collections every two weeks. 

While it is great that slow fashion brands are doing their part to limit environmental damage and improve the quality of life of workers along the supply chain, it is still important to be vocal as a brand about their slow fashion strategies (Domingos, Vale & Faria 2022). This is an attractive selling point that encourages consumers and the fashion industry to be part of a sustainable change that we desperately need (Chi, Gerard, Yu & Wang 2021), as we currently produce 1.9 million tonnes of textile waste per year according to earth.org. (Corporate Social Responsibility).

Some interesting facts about the fast fashion industry includes:

It takes approximately 2,700L of water to produce just 1 cotton t-shirt (Igini 2022).

The fast fashion industry produces more carbon emissions per minute than what would be produced if you drove a car around the world six times (Oxfam 2019).

Fast fashion produces more global pollution than the aviation and freight shipping industries do combined (Igini 2022).

67% of clothes are made from fossil fuels, with UK fast fashion brand BooHoo having an average of almost 80% of petrol-based fibres across their entire range in 2020 (Nguyen 2021).

What can the fashion-conscious consumer do to help the environment? There are a number of sustainable practices that we can slowly implement on an individual level (Artz 2021) , such as;

Recycle textiles and garments. Consider using services such as H&M textile drop-off bins, Upparel textile collection, etc.

Buy less, put simply. To avoid impulse purchases, try giving yourself some time to think on an item before making a purchase decision. Take a few weeks, months, etc. to reflect on whether you truly want it. If you’re still thinking about it after some time has passed, then it might be worth considering.

Rent clothes for events. There are many online clothing rental pages, sites and accounts (e.g. designerex) that cater to this market need. It is an inexpensive way to wear designer clothing that you only intend to wear once, for special occasions, which eliminates wastage and gives garments a longer life.

Sell clothes online and at markets. That’s that! Try Depop, Facebook Marketplace, or even a physical stall at local markets.

Repurpose clothes! You can do this by giving worn-out garments a new life as a rag, by considering upcycling livelier garments, by reusing and repurpose clothing to transforming them into quilts or other crafts, and more. Just browse #upcycling on Tiktok and you’ll get a range of ideas.

Donate! Please note that many of the clothes in thrift stores do end up in landfills, so consider donating to friends, women’s shelters, homeless shelters, and even animal shelters first, which sometimes use warm clothes as bedding.

References:

Artz, J. (2021) 7 sustainable ways you can fight fast fashion at home, Global Citizen. Available at: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/fast-fashion-how-to-be-sustainable/

Chi, T., Gerard, J., Yu, Y., Wang, Y., 2021, A study of U.S. consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 14, 1, p. 101-112.

Fast fashion produces more carbon emissions per minute than driving a car around the world six times – Oxfam (2019) Oxfam GB. Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/fast-fashion-produces-more-carbon-emissions-per-minute-than-driving-a-car-around-the-world-six-times-oxfam/

How we are made (2023) homie. Available at: https://homie.com.au/pages/how-we-are-made

Igini, M., 2022, 10 Concerning Fast Fashion Waste Statistics, Earth.Org

Nguyen, A. (2021) Time to go cold turkey – new report explores fashion's harmful addiction to fossil-fuel based fabrics and greenwashing, Forbes. Forbes Magazine. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amynguyen/2021/07/11/time-to-go-cold-turkey--new-report-explores-fashions-harmful-addiction-to-fossil-fuel-based-fabrics-and-greenwashing/?sh=6e9faa7146e4%2F

Upon reading the article by Choi and Cristol titled “Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education” from the journal titled Theory Into Practice, I gained insight into digital citizenship as a concept, and how it "has been emphasized in academia and utilized as a significant part of many school systems' mission statements" (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Digital Citizenship is defined as the "responsible use of technology" by individuals using any digital device that allows them to engage in a public sphere or online discourse, particularly via the Internet (Zook 2022). One of the major key concepts that users must consider when approaching digital citizenship is empathy, as it makes them more responsible when communicating online (Zook 2022).

The BLM [Black Lives Matter] movement and the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrates the need to recognize just how people can so differently experience social inequities, based on their "intersectional social identity attributes [such as] race, ethnicity, gender, class, age, and sexuality" (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Intersectionality is key to understanding current political and social issues and online activities on a critical level, and is "the primary goal of digital citizenship education" (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Three major recommendations are discussed in this journal regarding digital citizenship education, including; a unidimensional approach, a multidimensional approach, and a critical and radical approach.

Unidimensional approach (Choi & Cristol 2021)

Refers to approaching digital citizenship with a focus on the disciplines, such as journalism, political sciences, education or communication channels.

"Focusing on one aspect of digital citizenship" (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Educational scholars focus on how media influences people's perceptions and behaviours, and imagines what an "appropriate [or] democratic use of the internet and social media" could be, in the context and interest of protecting young people online (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Multidimensional approach (Choi & Cristol 2021)

This refers to the idea of classifying digital citizenship into four different categories, including; 'digital ethics, media and information', 'literacy', 'participation/engagement', and 'critical resistance'.

This idea compares what was previously understood about digital citizenship by "connecting face-to-face interactions and online environments" (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Critical and radical approach (Choi & Cristol 2021)

This approach highlights the need to emphasise more radical and critical elements of digital citizenship, which appears to be popular with today's youth regarding political activism.

It is considered a justice-oriented type of citizenship, meaning typically passionate individuals engaging in discourse that stands up for people's rights (e.g. @AOC or @genzforchange on Instagram)

My understanding is that it typically embraces marginalised communities, and is mostly what we see emerging online. It includes marginalised groups such as "race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religion who are often denies full rights of citizenship and... discourse" (Choi & Cristol 2021).

Digital citizenship is an ever-evolving discourse and is more prevalent than ever, with a critical and radical approach appearing to be quite popular within younger and marginalised communities online.

References:

Choi, M., Cristol, D., 2021, Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education, Theory Into Practice, https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Upon reading and analysing the article by Deller, titled “Chapter Six: Reality Television in an Age of Social Media” from the journal titled Reality Television: The TV Phenomenon That Changed the World, I gained insight into the ways in which social media has changed the nature of fame and self-presentation online, in regards to reality micro-celebrities.

It argues that social media has allowed for the rise of microcelebrities - which could include individuals that use social networking sites to build their own personal brand (Dellar 2019), and can be defined as internet celebrities on a small scale in a specific niche (Funn & Falkof 2021). Microcelebrities are seen as a type of digital performance that combines visual techniques of corporate branding with internet distribution technologies (Dellar 2019).

The article also distinguishes between microcelebrity and online or internet celebrity, which are those who have achieved a certain level of fame beyond their immediate niche. Like reality TV stars, these online celebrities are perceived to have remained in touch with their amateur roots, and they are expected to maintain a sense of authenticity in order to appear genuine to their audience (Dellar 2019), although many microcelebrities from Australian Reality TV appear to have a hard time saying no to brand deals, and only the successfully transparent few are able to filter through sponsorships that align with their core values, at least in my experience on platforms like Instagram.

Celebrities and micro-celebrities can use social media to bypass traditional media platforms and communicate directly with their fans, which in the case of reality TV stars have it well, as they are particularly a more accessible branch of celebrity, so fans may feel more likely to try to reach out to them in a more meaningful way, in the hopes that their favourite reality star might notice them. However, this also opens up a door to a more negative side, where “trolls” or haters can inflict negativity and even cast death threats to these microcelebrities, as they may feel that they are more likely to get a reaction from them, especially since they are more accessible than traditional celebrities (McLaren 2021).

The article also notes that some celebrities use social media primarily to promote their own brand or to drive audiences to other sites of stardom, such as magazine interviews or TV shows (Dellar 2019). Many have even tried to start their own networks, podcasts, small businesses and health brands as a result of their rise to reality TV fame, usually something related to the niche-ness of the character tropes that they exampled on their relevant TV shows and thus capitalising off of that.

So while social media can allow for self-expression, self-presentation, self-promotion and marketing, it in turn opens these stars up to a larger discourse regarding the authenticity of their character/brand, essentially “holding up a mirror to human behaviour and interaction”, which is a confronting thought for anyone that has stopped to think about it (Dellar 2019).

References:

Deller, Ruth A, (2019) Extract: 'Chapter Six: Reality Television in an Age of Social Media', in Reality Television: The TV Phenomenon That Changed the World (Emerald Publishing). 

Dunn, C, Falkof, N, (2021), You've Got to Be Real: Authenticity, ‘Performativity and Micro-Celebrity in South Africa’, Front Sociol Journal, National Library of Medicine online, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8138309/

Upon reading and analysing the article by Reif, Miller & Taddicken, titled “Love the Skin You‘re In”: An Analysis of Women’s Self-Presentation and User Reactions to Selfies Using the Tumblr Hashtag #bodypositive, I gained insight into their study about the body positivity movement on social media, with a specific focus on Tumblr. The article highlights the differences between social media platforms that use the #bodypositive hashtag and shows how Tumblr stands out as a unique platform (Reif, Miller, & Taddicken, 2022). As a consumer I can see that Tumblr has a broader content approach compared to Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, which is evidenced in this article, where they mention that Tumblr’s hashtag system allows for a wider perspective of voices to be seen and heard, and appears to be the more positive public network/sphere to communicate these topics online (Reif, Miller, & Taddicken, 2022). Reif, Miller and Taddicken go on to praise Tumblr as a platform for this sense of general acceptance, going on to reference Cohen et al (2019), who state that “exposure to such content can be considered beneficial for a positive body image as it challenges and diversifies the concept of beauty.”

Study on Body Positivity (Reif, Miller, & Taddicken, 2022):

This study examines the impact of the #bodypositive movement on women's self-image and self-presentation on social media.

The research analyses selfies posted by women on Instagram in 2017, along with the accompanying textual context and user reactions.

The findings suggest that while the #bodypositive movement can promote body acceptance, it can also reinforce narrow beauty standards and promote consumerism.

The study highlights the need for a more inclusive approach to body positivity that challenges the dominant beauty standards and empowers all body types.

Body Positivity on Tumblr (Reif, Miller, & Taddicken, 2022):

This study focuses on Tumblr as a platform for promoting body positivity due to its open policy toward NSFW content and the emphasis on emotional authenticity and “counterpublic spaces” (Cavalcante, 2018; Mccracken, 2017).

The study analyses selfies posted on Tumblr in 2017, along with accompanying textual context and user reactions.

The ability to add written context and manage shared blogs collectively, make it advantageous for communication research via Tumblr.

The study finds that Tumblr's hashtag system allows for a wider range of voices to be heard while discouraging negative reactions/trolling.

References:

Cavalcante, A, (2018), Tumbling into Queer Utopias and vortexes: Experiences of LGBTQ social media users on Tumblr, Journal of Homosexuality, 66(12), 1715–1735. 

Cohen, R., Irwin, L., Newton-John, T., & Slater, A., (2019), #bodypositivity: A content analysis of body positive accounts on Instagram, Body Image, 29, 47–57.

Mccracken, A., (2017), Tumblr youth subcultures and media engagement, Cinema Journal, 57(1), 151–161.