MDA20009: Digital Communities

Massively multiplayer online role-playing gaming (MMORG) - my sons are doing it, his friends are doing it (with my sons), and even my boss is doing it (probably with my sons!) – am I the only one left on the station?

I’m more of a single person player, and enjoy social gaming platforms that have a community feel or pique my interest or what Tonnies terms in sociality as Gemeinschaft, formed out of natural will and self-fulfilling.

As a HR generalist for a large agency, I talk, listen, and PLAY with people all day through many platforms, so my little down time activities, include gaming that can help me shut off from people, re-charge, and often procrastinate my next task.   Another trick to my trade (so to speak) is my interest, and ongoing observation of human behaviours.  

OK, if you’ve been following my blogs then I think it’s fair to say I’ve started out a bit of an inactive “newb” to digital and social media, and over the period of this unit,  may of shared some delightful “aha moments”.  One of those being delving into the mystery of the seemingly popular yet tabooed (for anyone over 30 years), world of snapchat!

But why is the app appealing to teens and younger adults, and steadily gaining wider popularity among older social media consumers?

Launched in 2011 by two young adults, Snapchat’s popularity among young users is mainly due to the ephemeral or temporary design of the messages that affords more privacy than public all-to-many communication apps such as Facebook (Vaterlaus et al. (2016, p. 595).

In 2018, 78% of young Americans, aged 18 to 24 years used Snapchat, with 71% visiting this platform multiple times a day (Smith and Anderson 2018, p. 1).

Snapchat co-founder, Evan Speigel is public about his dismissal of the digital dualist  in his claims that “traditional social media required that we live experiences in the offline world, record those experiences and post them online to recreate and talk about it”.  Hoorah – could this be mark an end of th ol’ holiday slide show night!

In a study by Vaterlaus et al. (2016, p. 598), young adults indicated they use Snapchat for their closest interpersonal relationships, and not to initiate new relationships.  Research on jealousy among Snapchat and Facebook users by Utz et al. (2015, p. 141) found a link between the reduced need for self-censorship, as Snapchat affords, and more intimate and personal information sharing.   As “snaps” often include pictures that overlay the text to express emotion and clarify understanding, young adults also reported to prefer using Snapchat to texting as it reduces the potential of miscommunications (Vaterlaus et al.  2016, p. 598).  

When European young adults were asked about the irritants of Snaphchat, they said sending excessive snaps was annoying and grounds for blocking a person, as well as taking screenshots of pictures that were unintended to be saved can lead to tension in relationships (Vaterlaus et al. 2016, p. 598).

For teens, transition to adulthood can mark self-identity and independence from parental control, and Snapchat can provide.  boyd (as cited in Deogracias, 2015, p. 1173) asserts that teens are looking for more privacy, trust and a time to spend with peers without adult supervision. On the other side of the coin, Vaterlaus et al. (2016, p. 600) posit that the generational differences in the way that Snapchat is used, prevent an opportunity for more closeness in the relationship.

So, come on, let’s give our teens the privacy they think they have or need, and who knows what might happen when we start respecting this.

Provocation can be defined as the act of provoking; incitement; or something that provokes, arouses or stimulates (Merriam Webster 2019).

‘Trolling’, often wrongly interchanged with the word provocation, can be defined as the “deliberate” act of making random unsolicited or controversial comments on internet forums with the intent to provoke an emotional knee-jerk reaction from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument” (Drog56, 2014).

As we know, acts of provocation within civic participation and engagement with others, in both online and offline platforms does not come without conflict, and sometimes this can be described as aberrant, harassing, abusing or offensive. 

Media and communications expert, Anthony McCosker (2013), explored the productive role provocation in social media can have, in his research of viewer comments to YouTube visuals of the Christchurch earthquakes and the flash mob performance of haka.  Two events played out in the same country, yet each eliciting a different set of emotions. McCosker (2013, p.215) found that provocation in these contexts lay in the desire to pull together in response, and to push back, often equally aggressively.  

McCosker (2013, p.202) argues that terms such as “flaming”, “hating” and “trolling” become ineffective in sustaining public engagement, and the shift of focus should be on provocation, and its complexities within different contexts (McCosker 2013, p. 202).  This, I feel parallels boyd’s sentiment in her study in online conflict among teens, where she found the term “drama” was used pervasively by teens to describe interpersonal conflict, and where perhaps adults would refer it as bullying (byod 2014, p. 137).  We all know what Shakespeare would say.........

Agnostic pluralism is a political theory conceived by Chantel Mouffe, to describe elements of democratic sociality that are always and (necessarily so), contested.  Mouffe suggests conflict cannot be removed but instead be productively accommodated by social platforms that allow for flows of passion and contested interaction among adversaries. (Mouffe cited in McCosker 2013, p.  202)

Conflict, while difficult can lead to individual change and growth.  This is not to ignore the various ways in which it can manifest into anti-social behaviors such as personal attacks, and repeated bullying with harmful intent.  Therefore, we should be responsible and diligently aware of practices imposed by social media “keepers”, law enforcement agencies, and personal support networks, when theses codes of conduct are breached.

Perhaps the mere fact that we have associated the online term “trolling” with an ugly, fearful, and mischievous mythical creature that comes out to scare us when we least expect, has contributed to the highly negative (and sometimes misguided) connotation of the practice among individuals and society.

Participation includes activism, resistance and conflict as much as the creative deployment of new media literacies and productive cultures of media co-creation encompassed by ideal forms of networked publics – (McKosker, 2013, p. 201-202)

 References

Boyd, D 2014, 'Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?', in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, pp. 128-52.

Drog56, 2014, ‘Top Definition: Trolling’, in Urban Dictionary, viewed 25 January 2019 <https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling>.

McCosker, A 2014, YouTrolling as provocation: Tube's agonistics publics, Convergence, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 201-217.

What is Crowdsourcing?  I have heard many interpretations of the term used in difference contexts throughout the years.  As my review is mainly looking at the verification of User Generated Content (UGC) in general, crowdsourcing can be broadly defined as 'the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online community. (Merriam Webster Online 2014)

 With the rising of crowdsourcing platforms such as “Ushahidi” that means “witness” in Kiswahili, journalists, agencies, states, businesses, and even individuals can start their own mapping website and enable the public to post reports to it. People can organise more quickly, find others who share their views and work together in dispersed locations to produce sources of information. (Ford 2012, p.33).

 But as the sources of UGC grow and the volume of data increases, users of the technology are more and more interested about the authenticity of the information in ensuring they don’t publish anything that is false (Bradshaw 2018).  Further, conflict about what information is considered “verified” and “real” can occur between, journalists broadcasting the content, and government officials acting on the information on behalf of the state.

  ‘Research has demonstrated just how easy it is to create false memories for an event through external suggestions or leading questions.  This ‘misinformation effect’ is thought to be a pervasive phenomenon that relates to the reporting of incorrect memory statements after exposure to misleading information’.  (Patterson & Peterson 2012, p.735)

I agree with Ford’s assertions that “social life of information” needs to be considered when used in crowdsourcing (Ford 2012, p.36). In their studies on witness memory, Petterson & Paterson (2012, p.735) suggest the three common ways that a witness may be exposed to post-event information that potentially impacts on their recollection of the event is; suggestive questioning; re-description of an event such a media report; and information received from a co-witness.  Publishers of UGC can be exposed to all these factors, particularly in the case of people reporting online on behalf of those who are unable to.

Therefore, how do we better verify UGC? Ford (2012, p.37) states that verification is best done outside crowdsourcing platforms and often from anything available online.  Bruns et al. (2012, p. 37) claims that the use of police service media unit throughout the Queensland floods provided reassurance to the public that what was being shared was accurate.  Others suggest it is best verified when overlaid with other online sources.  

Eliott Higgins illustrates this in the video below through the explanation of geolocation as a  verification and proactive news-gathering technique.

Bradshaw (2018) believes there has been a shift of focus on UGC as eyewitness material, to a focus on UGC as a quick way to quote public figures, and I want to believe this prediction.  Until then, we need to heed due diligence and responsibility to both those who report and publish, and to those who commercially use or act upon UGC.

 References

Bradshaw, P 2018, ‘FAQ: How the use UGC and verification has changed in journalism’, viewed 25 January 2019, <https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2018/01/06/faq-how-the-use-of-ugc-and-verification-has-changed-in-journalism/>.

First Draft 2016, Eliot Higgins demonstrates geolocation for FDlive at the Guardian, 14 May, viewed 30 January 2019, < https://youtu.be/D7zvsXv2ECI>.

Ford, H 2012, 'Crowd Wisdom', Index on Censorship, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 33-39.

Merriam Webster Online 2014, 'crowdsourcing entry', viewed 25 January 2019,<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crowdsourcing>.

With the rapid digital technological advances in how we share, store, access and view information, we are led to believe that this will improve our lives. Mossberger et al. (2008, p. 1) refers to the potential benefit for society to facilitate membership and participation from the new digital tools as digital citizenship.

Habermas defines the public sphere as a place where private individuals come together as a “public” for the purpose of increasing critical knowledge, which in effect lead to political change.  (Habermas cited in Kruse et al. 2018, p.62). 

While Habermas argues that the public sphere does not exist in modernity, largely due to the influence of money through corporate interests within mass media, he claims it can be revitalised with speech communities.  Speech communities can be referred to as communicative action that is respectful and open without intimidation and aimed at a common goal of finding the truth (cited in Kruse et al. p.63).

I have the technological means to participate in issues affecting my society, and care about the state of the world that I will leave behind to my children and their families and so on.  These convictions led me to the GetUp! site, signing an online petition to stop the Adani coal mine.   GetUp, as its website proclaims, is a not for profit organisation, powered by the values of every day people coming together to do whatever it takes to make extraordinary change.    This is done online, offline, and with the guidance of employed expert strategists, and in the media (GetUp! 2019).

Shirky argues that social media has revitalised the public sphere, and the networked population has more opportunities to engage in public speech and to take collective action.  Although, he admits that it is difficult to keep online conversations dissolving into name-calling or blather (Shirly cited in Kruse et al.  2018 , p.64)

So, could this explain Micah White’s view around the changes to activism and networked populations of similar minded people? White, who co-founded the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 (he now considers a failure), believes the expectations of participants have also shifted, likening protests to going a show or concert.   

 "We've started doing these large spectacular marches, whose goal is not to actually overthrow the government or anything like that, but to be a beautiful experience,"  (White cited in Funnel 2017).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/activism-is-broken-heres-how-we-fix-it/9077372

Gladwell (cited in Jericho 2012, p.257), a critic of the role social media has on effective activism, agrees that good grassroots campaigns is about action, and not playing it safe. Slacktivism – a pejorative term for the ‘feel good’ measures of activism surrounding social and political issues, is argued by Harvey (2014, p 282) to generate a false sense of accomplishment.  Harvey adds that despite negative connotations as lazy and ineffective, since the 2000’s social media networks have played a key role in recruiting various activist groups.

With GetUp’s claims of doing “whatever it takes to make extraordinary change”, I’m not convinced it stacks up against current individualism that promotes the generating of one’s own wealth and capital that exists in society.

References

Funnel, A 2017, ‘From slacktivism to ‘feel good’ protests, activism is broken: Here’s how we fix it’, Future Tense ABC News, 25 October, viewed 24 January 2019, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/activism-is-broken-heres-how-we-fix-it/9077372>

Getup 2019, viewed 26 January 2019, <https://www.getup.org.au/>

Harvey, K 2014, Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics, CQ Press.

Jericho, G 2012, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe, Victoria, Australia.

Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum (2018) Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media, The Sociological Quarterly, 59:1, 62-84, DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143.

Let me set the scene – it’s a few days before the end of the working year, and there is a combination of exhaustion, relief and excitement for the imminent holidays among colleagues. Then  in random unison…….we get, not one but two unsolicited text messages from Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party (UAP) proclaiming support for a ban on unsolicited text messages! 

Clive himself, hailed the campaign as a success for the UAP, claiming that after the scatter-gun distribution of 5.6 million texts, 265,000 people looked at his party’s website for longer than one minute, and only 3,000 formal complaints were received ( Sweeney & Doran, 2019).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-14/clive-palmer-says-to-expect-more-text-messages/10714048

I think this twitter summed up my sentiment fairly  well

 If the measure of success was the number of hits on the websites (as inferred above by UAP), then how does this translate to civil and democratic participation with the goal of “making Australia great”?   Or am I, along with others just caught up in the entertainment (or irony) of the campaign, that we don’t stop to think or expect a political party to achieve goals that improve our way of life? Political science professor, Jodi Dean (2013) terms this as reflexivity, and one element to her argument that social media are not powerful forces for egalitarian purposes.  Dean(2013) asserts that the pleasure and pain psychological drives in individuals can mean we are caught in the experience and not the content.

Known as an Australian wealthy businessman come politician, does Palmer’s obtrusive campaign demonstrate an ostentatious lifestyle both on and off the political stage, and one far removed from most of the population? Jodi Dean (2013) asserts that democracy is a political slogan, and that the convergence of communication and capitalism has materialized into the formation of “communication capitalism”.  Further, Dean draws a comparison to industrial capitalism, in which she states there was an exploitation of workers, communication capitalism is an exploitation of communication (cite video).

“We pay with attention, and cost is focus”    (Dean, 2013)

The UAP, along with other politicians may be using social media and digital platforms to appeal and attract younger votes.   As Jericho (2013, p.256) claims, Malcom Gladwell was right in saying that social media are never going to change things if political activists don’t relate to the offline world.  Although Gladwell adds that social media may be the spark that lights the fire needed for social movement (Jericho 2013, p.258).

In a US study of politics on social media by Kruse et al (2017, p. 62), information collected from millennials and generation Xers found that they avoid political discourse online due to the following influences; fear of online harassment and workplace surveillance;  only engage with politically similar others, or a “hug box” mentality; and they consider social media as a happy place for light interactions.

Although social media may strengthen existing social movements, there is little evidence  suggesting their role in encouraging civil political discourse. 

“Social media moving political attention away from the doing to the appearing” (Dean, 2013)

 Democracy or noise?  You choose.

 References

DCU School of Communication 2013, IAMCR 2013 Plenary No. 3 - Jodi Dean, 3 July, viewed 26 September 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5ABPuNQ6IU>.

Jericho, G 2012, 'How many votes are there on Twitter?', in The Rise of the Fifth Estate, Scribe, Victoria, Australia.

Lisa M. Kruse, Dawn R. Norris & Jonathan R. Flinchum (2018) Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media, The Sociological Quarterly, 59:1, 62-84, DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2017.1383143

K, ok, let me take it from here.

I’m going to try and convince you why it’s crucial we keep the anonymity debate out of the hands of government and big business.

I pose the question, what do you consider should be truly free to every person who claims this world as home?

 Just as most of us take for granted clean water or fresh air, so we should assume automatic entitlement to the free exchange of information. In Professor of sociology, Gary Marx’ (1999), comprehensive rationale outlining why online anonymity is socially accepted, he posits that anonymity facilitates the flow of information (van der Nagel 2013).  

I believe that for the most part, humans have proven how incapable we are to provide anything for free.  So in fact, what I have come to accept in this life, is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. 

This rings true with the use of algorithms, a form of technological code that sorts online content, and on some websites such as Reddit, determines what information is more predominantly seen by audiences.  Chief executive of Upworthy (website for “meaningful viral content), and internet activist, Eli Parisi, goes as far as saying that algorithms are the new gatekeepers of online technology.  

 “The more users to frequent sites that employ algorithms, the more they end up in a personal “filter bubble” (van der Nagel, 2013)”

These filter bubbles, or “echo chambers”, as they are also referred to, are terms used to describe homophily or the tendency to link to similar others (Siapera, 2012).  A study on echo chambers and the influences on climate change in online discussions found that peer attitudes had a strong influence on individual perceptions of climate change. Further, a critical aspect of homophily is the effect it has on an individual’s social identity, that can be defined as aspects of an individual’s self-image, and how they perceive themselves as belonging to others (Williams, McMurray, Kurz & Lambert, 2015).  As van der Nagel (2013) asserts in her assessment of the reddit gone wild website, although anonymity is encouraged, users are lulled into a false sense of neutrality of code and freedom.  Or should we subscribe to the proclamations of Mary Cross (2011) that social medium such as blogs enable the wisdom of the crowds without official gatekeepers.  The latter view possibly taking us to a place where it is safe and you accepted.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/11/get-out-of-my-echo-chamber-its-cosy-in-here

With this in mind, how do we then position our online selves to avoid the magnetic tendencies within human psyche, given I have asserted earlier that the human psyche remains inherently susceptible to cohesion, conscious and subconscious code? Van der Nagel (2013) suggests that online anonymity provides freedom of speech from surveillance, or judgments such as those being made based on gender, age or appearance.  Information that has no bias, has no motive and is not tainted by artificial or inherent data influence.

Have you ever just stood beside someone on a platform and out of the corner of your eye see someone there beside you?  Have you ever then tried to imagine their gender without specifically looking at them just using your perception alone?  The point I’m making is that this suspension of detail is probably the closest we can ever come to real anonymity.  Real anonymity relies on us allowing ourselves to negotiate within ourselves.  To remain open to discovery.  Anonymity on your terms no one else’s.

 Because of our inherent flaws as human beings, we can never experience true anonymity if the opportunity is being offered from an external source. If it is from an external source, then we no longer have anonymity. 

 So we can’t have it both ways.  We cannot be truly anonymous without first understanding consent.  We cannot expect similar value in data with or without attribution, and sadly we can rarely ever trust human kind to ever do the right thing, regardless of setting. 

 “Anonymity makes us all strangers, and strangers are hard to trust”, claims A. Michael Froomkin (1999: 114), (cited in van der Nagel, 2013)

 References

 Cross, M 2011, Got Blog, in Bloggerati, Twitterati: How blogs and Twitter are transforming popular culture, Praeger, Santa Barbara.

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

Williams, McMurray, Kurz and Lambert, 2015, “Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change, Global Environmental Change, vol. 32, pp. 126-138.

I consider myself as an in between-er. Beginning my first “real” office job in the early 90’s, I entered the new and exciting world wide web, along with shiny new portable devices such as the iPod - wow it’s so tiny I can hide it; and, brace yourself (drum roll) touch screen smart phones!

This, however, was not without constant reminders from colleagues about how this letter was written by pen, typewriter, blood (not quite), followed by a walk to a “real” mail room for a “real” postman to personally deliver.  Or how that resource was found in a “real” library with “real” books and “real” people – you get the idea.

Back to the shiny new – real time access to information and technology supporting this, continues to grow at a much more rapid pace than my brain can process, and myself along with many consumers of this new media were swept away with the promise of a more enriched, liberated, and prosperous life for it.  Howard Rheingold, author of several books on virtual communities, supports the notion that virtual communities mediated by communication technology are decentralized, and more democratic than communities predating the industrialization era.  However, he points out this is only the case in the absence of government and commercialism (Siapera, 2012). Personally, I don’t feel less governed or certainly not as wealthy as I would like to be.  

“ We use communication devices and social networking sites, to choose, construct, and show who and how we want to be seen (Wilken & McCosker, 2014).”

Contemplating my “real”, I am selective about what and how I use social media, and in my personal life, would rather engage in online communications with those whom I have developed a genuine (perceived or otherwise) connection with in a private forum. Robert Putman, political scientist, suggests that without a group of individuals with strong connections, social capital will dissolve (Siapera, 2012).  Alas I do not get left behind!

Psychologist and author of many resources exploring the relationships between humans and technology, Sherry Turkle, asserts that we use technology to clean up the messiness of the “real” world. Turkle coined the term the “Goldilocks Effect”, to describe how we control how and what we communicate and present to others in real time to a just right state (TED-Ed, 2013). The thing is, I find attractiveness in imperfections, and perhaps even part of me is caught up in the nostalgia of yesteryear.  

Admittedly, I am blown away by my son’s new virtual reality console (very generous birthday gift!). I put on the helmet and am instantly transported to a Venetian Piazza playing “fetch it” with robo-dog, then click, I’m standing on a mountain peak enjoying the calm. My physiology changes as though I was “really” there experiencing this, am I? Robert Putman (1995), following extensive data collection from the 1950’s to the mid 90’s, used the term virtual reality helmet to symbolise the erosion of social capital and growing isolation, largely due to technology.  Seemingly, this term used by Putman in 1995 is now closer to the truth in 2018 (Siapera, 2012).  Although my son has yet to connect with others online via VR, he tells me that this can be done, and I believe him.

 Image: courtesy of Jackson McDonald “VR in Action”

 For now, can I have the best of both worlds?  As dana boyd (2012), scholar in technology and social media laments, it is assumed that we are always switched on, however, we can choose when to switch off and find that balance.  

Being stuck in the middle isn’t really such a bad place to be, is it?

References:

Boyd, D 2012, 'Participating in the always-on lifestyle', in M Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media', in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 26 September 2018, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

“Wang Chun-Kuan 2018 “Vecta Illustration”, viewed 9 December 2018 <https://www.123rf.com/photo_70305947_stock-vector-cute-cartoon-cellphone-tug-of-war-with-finger-great-for-your-technology-concept-design.html>.