Rock's Thoughts

The richness of qualitative research is what makes it different than quantitative projects, in my opinion. Utilizing qualitative methodologies allows for in-depth discussion; thus, its usage in digital research can help navigate how the waves discussed by Markham (2020) foreground “the meditation of the internet on communication practice in specific contexts” (p. 9). The reading of Markham (2020) seems necessary for all emerging scholars as we decide what field of research and skills will be marketable. The scholar distinctively acknowledges how digital research is more so the impact of the digital in interactions and relationships than using digital tools to collect data. Focusing on digital’s impact also leads to further discussions of sensemaking, well-being, identity performance, or sense of community (Markham, 2020).

Additionally, Markham (2020) seems like a necessary article for emerging scholars because of the digital wave breakdown. Using different periods and advancement of digital spheres, the scholar acknowledges five waves that ultimately “returns to the issue of identity that marked the first wave of internet studies” (p.8). While reading, I instantly thought of my gender & women studies courses that deconstructed the different waves of feminism. Ironically, Markham (2020) also stated how the wave was actually influenced by feminist technoscience, posthumanism, and new materialism. Thus, this current wave of algorithms and more human relations distinctly brings more qualitative questioning and answering to the surface. Accounting for identities and impact outside of physical matters is finally important to research and shifts how we view digital research and culture.

          Music found on different media platforms speak volume to accessibility and preferences. I often find myself in debates with #TeamSpotify while pushing for #TeamApple, expressing how these similar platforms are still entirely different. I have even had people distinctively express the difference between the two platforms from a racial lens. Supposedly, artists of color have more success using Spotify to help push their music, while Apple’s guidelines have more red tape. Interestingly, these prior experiences crafted my thought process going into this week’s reading of Spotify Teardown.

          The authors make consecutive great points about Spotify’s impact on music, advertisement, technology, and finances, something Apple doesn’t exactly do. The concept of “free” pertaining to access made room for a great discussion within Chapter 4, as free may really mean a “two sided market model” that the platform establishes the exchange between “two different types of users that value each other’s presence, without this relation being one of buyers and sellers” (p. 155). Spotify is basically the moderator or flea market for the sake of two other parties. What seems free isn’t free.

“Hence, understood as a market model, free was premised on the assumption that the exchange value of cultural productions itself could be neglected.”

          Nevertheless, this text painted the narrative of Spotify’s driving impact and foundation to stream music. This tactic and sales seem to be the point of recognizing if an artist has “made it” to success. So, the impact on culture is more significant than what the authors described.

          Interestingly, when thinking of past methods that advanced music algorithms, I found myself focusing on CD culture. The promotion of CD’s fled advertisements, and CDs like the NOW: That’s What I Call Music series were essentially the first playlist. However, the platform was less digital. NOW combined the top hits for different genres, pop especially, and profited from producing an inclusive, diverse platform. I believe it avoided systematic, algorithmic biases; however, I also think about who the people were who decided which songs were included for each of the CD’s. Some artists who may have seemed appropriate or socially acceptable may never be considered an option by this company that started in 1983.

          Also, we had Pandora, which played music stations and included advertisements but lacked some of Spotify’s qualities. I don’t know about Tidal other than Black-owned, but I wonder how the platform co-exists in this streaming music sphere. What is the success rate? Why are artists of color not utilizing Tidal as much as Spotify or Apple music?

This book spiked many questions and interest in knowing more about the evolution of music, access to music, and financial gain.

The evolution of Instagram is a needed conversation, making Leaver, Highfield, and Abidin (2020) a prevalent text. Not until a few months ago did I hear about “Finsta” and its purpose, so I appreciated this week’s reading dissecting its role in the Instagram community. My knowledge of Finsta was in relation to people who similarly had Onlyfans accounts, posting nudity, and more. However, the general understanding of Finsta is a private account “with very low numbers of (trusted)followers, featuring content that was more often disruptive, ironic, or at odds with the main Instagram aesthetic” (p.16).

The authors extend the discussion recognizing that Finstas’ appropriate a “fake Instagram” account that still idolizes realness, creating multiple accounts for people to show the “real authentic you online.” Thus, there is general support of people navigating more than one digital space with different purposes or approaches. This idea seems like code-switching. Code-switching is a tool marginalized groups are familiar with, but now it’s a technique that is, in a sense, whitewashed for any and everybody. I would also like to add that I am not stating this as a good or bad thing, but just a connection that stood out to me when deciphering the rise of social media behavior.

Code-switching focuses on the linguistic action of mixing of transferring language (Poplack, 2004). People of color often use the mechanism as a safety net or as a way to move freely through White majority spaces. Code-switching may look like people turning their “white voice” on when in professional settings, similar to Sorry to Bother You (2018). However, in the context of Instagram, code-switching is not limited to language; it includes the images and general context.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to see the transformation of social media personas or reputations presented. Often, we are told to be professional in these online spheres; however, Instagram provides freedom (well, to an extent because specific guidelines or the ability to report images is still available). Leaver, Highfield, and Abidin (2020) specifically state how “the platform is simultaneously more flexible and accommodating to a multiplicity of voices, perspectives and performances by induvial and groups” (p. 17). This remark following Brock’s Distrusted Blackness reading can also enhance understanding of how Finsta is acceptable now rather than ten years ago.

Brock recognized how ratchetry is a part of African American cyberculture. Throughout the book, he identified how race and respectability politics shape Black technoculture or the outcomes of Black technoculture. This leads me to wonder, do boundaries actually exist in tailored spaces like Black Twitter or Finsta? Instagram has guidelines for the showing of nipples, for example, which doesn’t just include nudes. Some users post about breastfeeding leads to users needing to challenge the respectability of the digital community. So, the flexibility of Instagram becomes a greater asset to the application for the sake of people using the media as they please. This evolution of the application is more significant than the added features of stories and filters, it’s the ability to use the platform in the best interest of your identity.

          The timing of this week’s reading of Andre Brock’s Distributed Blackness was great, as the Grammys just took place, and the Oscar nominations were released. For this post, I would like to build off the purpose of Brock’s book, still focusing on emerging media and communities but internalizing and expressing how crucial authentic Blackness, leading to Black joy.

          Brock’s text focuses on how Black identity is typically micromanaged in white American culture. I appreciated his focus on technology and race and how they go hand and hand even today. The mentioning of the BlackPlanet to the transformation of Black Twitter is timely for scholars like me, interested in how Black folks navigate their emotions and social issues in online social environments. Specifically, for the class paper, I would like to explore Black usage of Black Twitter as they express humor when discussing traumatizing topics like racism and/or covid adaptation.

          Distributed Blackness recognizes the need to address ratchetry, as the term is thrown around by non-Black folks in association with “ghetto.” Outside of feminist studies, which he addresses, academic strays away from discussing ratchetness, which is interesting as the past few years rachetry has been popularized and culturally appropriate, for example, folks on Tik Tok. However, Black people approach ratchetry with excitement, sensual desire, and an unapologetic attitude.

          The following video is able to discuss the book with visual images that may bring more light to the conversation:  (2:16-7:48)

          The discussion of Black behavior, respectability, and racism brings me to my interest in looking at horror culture (films and movies) from a Black lens. “Black Horror” in films is not the same as “Blacks in Horror Films.” Means Coleman (2011) makes this distinction in her foundational text and documentary called Horror Noire. “Blacks in Horror Films” are typically major production films that are produced by non-Black filmmakers, presenting “Black and Blackness in the context of horror, even if the horror film is not wholly or substantially focused on either one” (Means Coleman, 2011, p.6). Historically, these films mistreat minorities by depicting them as stereotypical tropes, mythical monstrous creatures, or generally killing the Black person first in horror films (Means Coleman, 2011).

Favorite Quotes in Brock’s book:

In the technological realm, creativity by African Americans is regularly

dismissed as cleverness, instead of being interpreted as smart, ingenious,

or innovative.

— Rayvon Fouché (2006, p. 647)

In societies where scientific rationality and objectivity claimed to be

highly valued by dominant groups, marginalized people and those who

listen attentively to them will point out that from the perspective of marginal

lives, the dominant accounts are less maximally objective.

Emerging media seems to aim for users to practice multitasking by engaging with music while checking emails and reading articles. Thus, new media is about speed in work ethic and a transformative experience. In last week’s post, I explored the positive impacts of hashtags and culture’s influence. In this week’s post, I want to unpack further hashtag culture and the ability to multitask between the exchange of social and technical.

Williams and Gonlin (2017) recognized how culture can impact an individual’s communication through a second screen and how hashtags can detect technoculture. The second screen is a “tool that is capable of hosting deliberative discourse, exposing users to multiple viewpoints in a wide social sphere” (Trilling, 2015, p. 260). Trilling (2015) also made it a point that “television viewing is no longer a unidirectional process”. This concept itself needs more emphasis in research that focuses on engagement and behavior mechanisms. Experiencing media has never been a one-dimensional experience, in reference to people watching television and reading newspapers. However, the difference is the connection and group experience of understanding happening at overlap moments. Black Twitter becomes an example a lot, but it truly is a distinctive experience that needs further observation.

Black Twitter has inspired social movements, political participation, and cohesive discussion of Black experiences. This online participation’s exclusive usage brings me to think about #IfIWereGunnedDown, a 2014 movement that Black folks chose photos of them looking “professional” vs. an image with gang signs or drinking alcohol. During this time, Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin were painted as criminals through the news media images instead of young boys’ innocent young boys. The purpose of this movement was to demonstrate how news media continues to use violent, damaging images of people of color, typically African Americans, while numerous sexual assault cases and terrorist, generally White men, were shown in a more approachable manner. Through the hashtag, the Black community shared the Black experience that mirrored other Black experiences. Black Twitter became a second screen.

The conversation expands to wondering the motivation of using a second screen discussed in Zúñiga et al. (2015). Why do people choose to use a separate sphere for discussion after or while exposed to a different media platform? Much recently, #MeghanandHarryonOprah / #MeghanandHarry was trending on Twitter as the interview with Oprah Winfrey debuted. Black Twitter used the hashtag to reiterate the racism experienced by the royal couple and how the Black community can be their haven. Tweeting individual thoughts that include gifs, memes, and the hashtag motivates people to feel included at the moment happening and even trace other like-minded opinions. Below are some of the tweets I noticed and didn’t even watch (busy reading something).

In last week’s post, I focused on social media’s problematic ideas and how dangerous the platform is towards users’ mental stability and understanding. This week, the readings brought more joy into comprehending how new media has critically impacted everyday life. Through new media, online environments have focused on transformative experiences for users through a set idea of culture.

Tiidenberg’s Tumblr post highlighted a great breakdown of Raymond William’s deconstruction of culture, defining it in three ways:

the “ideal” definition, referring to the systems of valuation by means of which groups establish hierarchies, and subsequently judge the worth, of people, places, objects, institutions, and ideas;

the “documentary” definition, referring to the whole range of artifacts, both material and immaterial, produced by a group of people;

the “social” definition, referring to “a particular” or “whole way of life” i.e., the patterns of thought, conduct, and expression, prevalent among members of a collective.

Understanding these two ways to define culture extends to discussing two new mediums or new media approaches that have positively impacted current society.

📷First, we should bring attention to accepting the impact of #hashtag culture within mass media. Jackson, Bailey, Welles (2018) produced literature that allows scholars to consider identity and digital labor based upon those identities. Specifically, the scholars prioritize the voices of marginalized people in counter publics that have been forced into using collective action for support, typically in the form of digital spaces or protests. Counterpublics evolve from response to oppression or dominance in public space and provide cultural resources (squires, 2002).

Last summer and semester, I watched a movement transpire using the counterpublic of Academic Twitter. Dr. Shardé Davis, a Communication Professor at UConn, created the hashtag #BlackInTheIvory, which amplified the voices of “Blackademics”, as folks spoke their truth about racism in academia. This movement led to students and faculty members sharing how meaningful the space was for their voice and experiences, leading to a network community of Blackness and visibility. The emphasis on visibility is something society would not experience without the advancement of media. Here is the link to the website:

https://blackintheivory.net

Second, I think I want to acknowledge how viral culture has impacted music and general influence behavior. Like hashtags, the habit or approach to media allows visibility as an individual and the collective group. Haynes & Marshall (2018) examined independent musicians and how they navigated social media for the sake of their careers. I found it interesting the study was not a discovery, but more so a foundation of also looking at how platforms like Tik Tok have positively impacted musicians. Artists like Megan Thee Stallion and Erica Banks were able to use tik Tok for dance challenges to their new music, spiking an increase in their streams and downloads. The following is a link to an interesting posting that discusses how revolutionary Tik Tok is for musicians: https://theboar.org/2020/04/tik-tok-influence-on-music/.

Growing up, adult figures consistently reminded me never to engage with strangers in real life or online environments and never upload explicit information for safety measures. However, in today’s society, we see how popular it is to have a social media presence, encouraging individuals to be transparent about what restaurant they attended or where they are located. It’s not recognizable when exactly the narrative shifted, but it’s worth considering. Building upon a foundation of “stranger danger,” how has this advancement in social media continue to exemplify danger in other ways?

One of the first ways includes the polarization and radical behavior from existing filter bubbles and echo chambers. We’ve discussed how these digital spaces create an environment that could circulate misinformation or bias for the last couple of weeks. These partisan spheres end up “catering to a homogeneous, likeminded consumer ship” for the sake of consistency and could polarize an individual’s political identity through a “spiral of reinforcement” (Dvir-Gvirsman, 2017, p.1072). Thus, the danger of extremism within ideological cocoons (Bruns, 2011) is a real worry society has with social media, or at the least should have.

Social media expansion has led to a lack of distinction within an individuals’ or social groups’ ability to and purpose when entering and exiting multiple digital spheres. This becomes a second danger to social media as its purpose is a spectrum, allowing users to identify their usage, access, visibility, and identity. Some users turn to social media for the sake of resiliency or promotion, while others seek news curated by gatekeepers delegating the transmitted messages. In the context of politics, the purpose of social media serves as a tool to showcase one’s identity and policies, building a more extensive reputation. McGregor, Lawrence, & Cardona (2017) explored how political figures turned to social media to either reject or accept stereotypes within self-personalization. The scholars mentioned the “blurring of the border between the political and the private, the public and the personal” (Enli & Skogerbø, 2013, p. 758). Essentially, I believe this statement furthers the ideal of public and private spaces not actually existing in the digital realm because there are no borders to these spaces. Without structure, sometimes chaos and confusion can arise. (Maybe Bruns did have a point about filter bubbles and echo chambers not being real since the space is “too open to be sustained”)

The third danger of social media I noticed in this week’s reading is visual representations (Kleemans et al., 2018) and the psychological thoughts behind social media navigation. Kleemans et al. (2018) tested the manipulation of body images on adolescent girls, finding that the distorted images seem real and justified societal concerns. This study has commonalities to many research studies on Black adolescent children who are exposed to various media about their race (Adams & Stevenson, 2012) or general beauty (Bissell & Hays, 2010) that impacts socialization and self-esteem. Thus, the issue of social media images affecting individuals is a transferable experience. I think it’s also important to note how double-consciousness puts BIPOC at risk of a mental overload. Double consciousness is an internal conflict that looks at one’s self through the eyes of others, diving their identity into several aspects (DuBois, 1903). This multifaceted factor can even lead to identity negotiation or code-switching.

Overall, we must continue to acknowledge the good, bad, and ugly of social media. The way an individual uses the digital space can determine their brand or reputation. Considering the idea of “professionalism,” society tells us we should not post specific images or statements because of appropriateness. Thus, how do individuals decide what is appropriate based on their field and audience? The three dangers of social media are unavoidable.

QTNA:

After reading this week's article, my critical analysis of emerging media seems scattered again. The advancement of research exploring social networks continues to show and discuss the potential damages towards public opinion rather than its improvement. Social networks are said to make connections amongst individuals and organizations for interaction & sharing information; however, complaints arise when opinion is formed. Thus, what is a general expectation of navigating social networks? I believe there are two specific factors to keep in mind.

          First, intermediaries in online environments can be more dominating than others, so we should expect gatekeeping. In agreeance with Groshek and Tandoc (2017), gatekeeping is still visible, but it's also less structured. The scholars noticed that legacy news enjoyed their relationship with the audience/followers but "lost the grip" of the Ferguson decision transmission. I think this happens a lot with cultural and social dynamics issues. Also, media spreads stories reshaped by different social factors and even "technological affordance," becoming no stranger to understanding how gatekeeping influences possible echo chambers and filter bubbles. (Sorry, Bruns). With social networks widening for diversified opinions, I assume scholars root for gatekeeping to make a stronger impact now more than ever before. This leads to the second factor.

                Misinformation or rumors happen often, so fact-checking should become second nature to individuals, especially within political discourse. Shin et al. (2017) suggested that the circulation of rumors occurs within "echo chambers" defined by political homophily. The scholars further mention Twitter's ability to challenge the flow of misinformation by correcting the system. However, it "mainly serves as a conduit for rumors to spread through partisan communities rather than as a self-correcting system involving a larger political discussion community" (p. 1128). A few weeks ago, a question arose in class asking if we expect true and honest media, and honestly isn't realistic. Fabrications become more exciting than the truth. Thus our "civic duty" becomes researching the narrative. I believe this significance also contributes to not relying on news headlines to digest a story, even though journalists' development is supposed to communicate the facts. With fact-checking, one can also see how social networks sometimes desensitize social movements.

          Penney (2017) interestingly explored the challenge of collective action in digital social movements, understanding the official and unofficial spheres uplifting grassroots voices. Considering all articles and my suggested factors to consider when navigating social networks, I propose a study exploring the Black Lives Matter movement's (BLM) transformation across digital spheres. This week's research inspired the following thoughts and questions:

Every protest that happens, shouting "Black Lives Matter," is not a protest hosted by the Black Lives Matter organization. Thus, not all information communicated on Twitter (for example) is gatekeeped by BLM organizers, leading to radical opinions. Comparing social media presence and the organizations' physical mobilization could identify a distinct connection or disconnection to polarized political views. This study would also need to identify who the gatekeepers are. Outside of the co-founders, who have permission to gatekeep for this movement? Tamika Mallory, known social justice activist? Local organizations within cities impacted by Black names that have become national hashtags?

Analyzing people's reasons for retweeting versus likes or hashtags is something this week's readings did not decipher. I believe understanding users' motivation in the context of the Black Lives Matter hashtag could expand on social media tactics and general evaluation of information before sharing. This study would also play into Bruns' argument of echo chambers and filter bubbles not truly existing, as a quick personal search of the hashtag led to for and against opinions from individuals who do and don't follow some a lot of the elite activist.

I wonder how images play a role in social networks sharing information and navigating spheres like Twitter. A study exploring meme culture could develop an additional factor of how humor is used to deal with misinformation and social justice.

Future research on this research could expand to a discussion of canceled culture based upon individuals sharing political opinions through social media tactics or misinformation. Some people may not retweet or like content because they are worried about their followers viewing their "subliminal" thoughts. I hypothesize an existing linkage to Black political canceled culture, social justice, and digital collective activism.

Online power is evident from this week's readings, but the control is sometimes not apparent. Future studies could manipulate headlines and images to explore users' fact-checking skills. Using newspaper articles at the peak of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor's murder could identify substantial findings. This study could also lead to a deeper discussion of media usage to share political views or an identifiable imposter syndrome amongst certain users, thus becoming less or more likely to fact-check.

Disclaimer: This post is more scattered than usual. The book played with my thought process.

          Filter bubbles and echo chambers are reoccurring words/concepts thrown into discussions for the sake of blame by extremists. Bruns' stance in his book Are Filter Bubbles Real? definitely bursts the readers' bubble, stating they are not real. Human agency is the actual blame, as individuals make selective choices to who they engage with, what type of information they consume, and even who they choose to connect with within online environments. Thus, blaming a platform's algorithm should not be a go to defense. People are the filters, the mental filter to content.

          Bruns' redefines echo chambers and filter bubbles in a way that takes accountability for self within participation in social media. Bruns also does a great job at acknowledging that people do not live in these isolated internet bubbles and that single platforms are not realistic. People are not trapped. People have the opportunity to engage with outside sources, but it may not be visible. Honestly, the bigger issue at hand may be that everything in online environments has made issues more visible. Being able to see if you're blocked and who follows who is the issue, but again points back to human agency. See, mind blowing.

          Last week, a peer asked the class a question about filtering impacting social movements that stuck with me, and Bruns' text reignited my thoughts. Brun's said that the idea of cluster groups for faster communication and shared interest is not new, but at what point do these in groups of support transform into actively shunning outsiders? I thought of these two questions in the same context because I believe my peer’s point was to acknowledge how damaging filter bubbles could be. However, since Bruns' says filter bubbles aren't real, her point was to acknowledge how destructive people can be to other people and themselves.

           My thoughts wonder off in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement and how some supporters choose to engage with media from opposing sides. At the same time, I have also known extremists who choose to follow certain accounts to have a specific discussion tailored to their values and interest. This is dangerous, but this is also a safety measure. Having an ideological cocoon is real and sometimes needed, however too narrow of an opinion becomes counterproductive.

           I think in the context of Black Twitter, saying filter bubbles don't exist does not work as easily. Black Twitter is a space for Black bodies to communicate with other Black bodies. Yes, it's human choices but sometimes the actual engagement is unconscious. I may be overthinking because I was convinced filter bubbles and echo chambers were real last week and now Bruns burst my bubble. However, I would love to know what Bruns would say about this unofficial-official sphere as it sometimes relies on one source, being the inheritance of Blackness & Black experiences. In addition, Black Twitter can black out users to an extent.

Happy Black History Month! It’s where the greatness resides.

This week’s reading of Hindman’s Internet Trap provided insight into understanding online advantages and disadvantages. I think his usage of the word stickiness and concept attention economy sets the book’s tone. Hindman describes “stickiness” as the “firms’ ability to attract users, to get them to stay longer, and to make them return again and again” (p. 2). This concept shows the repetition of technology’s usuage of advertising and consumers’ willingness to engage. Attention economy emphasizes how money and attention get the audience stuck. Hindman states that understanding this concept is critical to understanding digital media’s impact, which may seem like a “duhh moment” but took time to identify the relationship’s depth.

Understanding the significance of content or the ability to inspire political polls allows one to determine the internet’s competitive dynamic. Thus, smaller platforms can’t truly win. This notion made me wonder how intentional the internet and social media have to be, for example, the page loading lag time. These small differences have a big outcome that develops a digital survival tactic in a lopsided economy.

I found it interesting the focus on the internet and local news because when I think about local news, my mind goes straight to television and local newspapers. I agree that with the expansion of internet local news, a sense of online media diversity arises, making chapter 6 crucial for research. Hindman explains that television and newspaper sites “have established brands and habits of readership, more usable websites, and larger and more attractive bundles of content” (p. 104). However, this expansion makes me wonder: when does it become too much? I wonder how the expansion could cause an increase for one source/information and a decrease from another.

Reading about The Netflix Prize was interesting. I don’t believe I was exposed to Netflix until 2015, and it was the first streaming service to my knowledge. I look at its expansion to charging per TV’s watching or its consistent and quick increase in content and further understanding the importance of filter bubbles, algorithms, and data. It is apparent, for me, that Hulu tries to do the same.

The following are quotes that stood out to me from Hindman’s text:

“Building an online audience is like pumping air into a balloon with a slow leak. One has to keep pumping, to keep up a constant level of investment, or previous efforts will quickly be lost” (p. 13). Thus, maintaining a certain level of stickiness is a challenge.

“Sites live or die based upon their stickiness— their ability to attract readers, to make those readers stay longer when they visit, and to convince them to return again once they leave” p. 48).

The Elephant in the Room

Bundling is a common method streaming services use. I think many small businesses, especially those started during the pandemic, have equally taken advantage of the idea of bundling for products and advertisement, but those who didn’t fell short.

This idea of bundling, I wonder if it could apply to the ability to bundle on social media. For example, the ability to quote tweets or favorite & like tweets.

QTNA

Thought Blog #2

After reading this week’s articles, it is safe to say the digital divide amongst different social groups is a persistent problem in America. The readings highlighted the various social groups, from race to class, impacting an individual’s usage (Hargittai, 2010) or motivation (Reisdorf and Groselj, 2017). While scholars reiterated how technology’s advancement has helped and hurt different sociodemographics, the research lacks real-world or significant implications for emerging scholars. The purpose of this thought post is to navigate material that could help better assist in digital inequality.  

Pedagogy

This week’s readings seemed like perfect fits into an educator’s training packet. Ideally, these readings initiate a discussion based upon identity, emerging media, and interpersonal communication. Bridging the digital divide is not realistic; however, adding bricks to the foundation is attainable.

Educators were too comfortable, and COVID-19 woke them up. Having to readjust the teaching mechanism does not sound easy but is doable. Teachers/Professors have struggled with understanding accessibility is a spectrum. (no wifi, no computer, no environment to learn, not tech-savvy)

I salute y’all!

Ahmet Atay and Deanna L. Fassett “Mediated Critical Communication Pedagoogy” is a text addressing divide, media, and pedagogical tools in the classroom.

Real-World

Schradie (2011) explored who creates digital content for the public sphere. This research essentially builds on the understanding that media comes with gatekeepers, who are supposed to have a distinct voice “for the public.” I also enjoyed how Schradie (2011) expressed the significance of “elite creative functions “and further assessing that education levels matter along with materials (p. 165). The study made me wonder how society can build off these findings in a manner that isn’t “fixing.”

Apple provides classes to those who face technological issues. They teach what your device does because they already understand the possible complications. They attempt inclusivity even if everyone does not access the classes.

         The Elephant in the Room:

Robinson et al. (2015) successfully acknowledged factors that may not seem like a critical digital inequality: wrong usage/engagement.

Some countries may have a high level of smartphone adoption, but their basic access to digital sources for skill development lacks or nonexistent (p. 570).

Some children or adolescents are given access to digital spheres like smartphones and engage for nonacademic reasons. Without specific guidance, children lack web or interpersonal skills.

It makes me wonder the following:

School systems transition over the years pertaining to foundational topics/skills like computer classes that advanced Microsoft skills. How does the younger generation get equipped with digital media now? How does it impact their academic interest?

With the advancement of societal dangers, younger kids typically have access to smartphones in emergencies. Does this digital divide strive to a deeper issue of how news or news crime communicates differently based upon social groups?

….Privilege Lives On!!!!!! *reference Elmo gif*

QTNA:

“Does the widespread uptake of mobile telephony and mobile Internet represent a step forward or back for the alleviation of socioeconomic disparities?” (Marler, 2018, p. 3499

Emerging Media comes with excitement, physical and mental investments, and frankly, different privileges broadcasted to others. Whose at fault? Everyone. We crave communication and technology. We feed off the idea of multitasking. "The desire to communicate and share content" becomes the primary reason people use social networking sites (Ellison and boyd, 2013). Thus, I want to discuss COVID-19 and the spike in protesting in 2020 in the same context of social or digital media.

COVID-19

boyd (2015) acknowledges that social media's maturity caused a rise in "new business models, technologies, and social critiques" (p. 2). With the pandemic, many people lost their job and turned to entrepreneurship (i.e., making masks), using social media and other digital spaces to promote their new venture. Also, applications like Tik Tok found an increase in users and influencers, expanding the field of research for scholars.

With the need for social distancing, technology with cameras (phones, tablets, laptops, etc.) became necessary for face-to-face communication. However, this privilege identifies the wealth gap in society from families to schools. COVID-19 exposed the financial differences for students who did not have access to a computer or wifi. I wonder how this impacts the idea of emerging technology that should be the "Standard" for students? How can the gatekeepers advance accessibility along with the technology?

Protesting in 2020

I enjoyed Schroeder (2018) approach to critiquing the existing mindset about digital media and further challenging the idea of mass and interpersonal communication. I always believed the two had to co-exist. Schroeder (2018) also points out that digital media theory should consider that traditional media sometimes dominates. With the George Floyd video or the recovered videos from Breonna Taylor's house raid, this past year shows conventional and digital media working together. The duality allowed activism to take on multiple forms, especially in digital spaces.

Many protests happened nationwide, and because of COVID-19, a lot of people refrained from attending for health concerns. Thus, digital activism is a growing factor that scholars should study. This research field has room to discuss how activists should navigate protesting in a virtual but impactful way. For example, #BlackOutTuesday was a media campaign where people and businesses showed their support in #BlackLivesMatter movement by posting a Black photo. There were a lot of arguments about its effectiveness and purpose. While some people just posted the picture, others also spent their money at only Black establishments for the day.

Even in a moment of media being useful and continuously emerging, the privileges are still visible.

The Elephant in the Room:

Ellison and boyd (2013) discuss the concept and importance of a friend list on social media platforms. With the creation of Instagram's "close friends" list, I wonder how users social encounters shifted.

I wonder how recorded videos of protest for the BLM impact children, specifically when they engage in classroom discussions. How are teachers communicating the incidents? Are the students' parents allowing access to the digital sphere like Facebook or Twitter?

QTNA:

As emerging media scholars, how do we strategically navigate our research interest to keep relevance?

When does the advancement of technology & media become dangerous or "too advanced"?