#2016election

“The election was rigged, Hillary won but Drump claims different and is now president. It’s not fair, they won’t do a recount, and we are worried.”

“Stop being a crybaby. That’s how elections work. Your choice lost and you need to respect it. Everyone is throwing a damn tantrum because you’re all spoiled snowflakes who want everything to go your way.”

2020:

“THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED, DUMP FOREVER!! WE DEMAND A RECOUNT, DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN, HE’S RIGHT IN NOT LEAVING. DAMN DEMS RIGGED EVERYTHING AND USED CORONA AS AN EXCUSE. THIS IS UNFAIR. THIS IS BULLSHIT. I AM NOT GOING TO STAND FOR THIS. WE DON’T WANT A PEDO IN CHARGE!!”

.......................

Digital citizenship can be used to describe the complex and intricate ways in which people participate in society through digital technologies, such as social media platforms. According to the Australian eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant (2020), a model example of a digital citizen is someone with “the skills and knowledge to effectively use digital technologies in a positive way to participate in society, communicate with others, and create and consume digital content”. Therefore, digital citizenship can be described as the process through which digital communities are formed, which is discussed in further detail in the previous blog post. Platform studies is the study of how platforms dictate user’s online presence and activity, through constraining and enabling particular kinds of behaviours and interactions on their platforms. For instance, some social media platforms afford users the opportunity to remain anonymous, whilst others require formal identification when joining.

This leads onto the concept of platformisation, and the deconstruction of the term ‘platform’ itself, which Principle Research at Microsoft Research, Tarleton Gillespie defines as something “computational” (Gillespie 2010, p. 349). Gillespie contends that platforms are “something to build upon and innovate from”, in both a political and architectural sense (Gillespie 2010, p. 352). This means that platforms are a place where people can freely voice their opinions and be heard, and in a design sense, these social media platforms are ultimately, an “open-armed, egalitarian facilitation of expression” (Gillespie 2010, p. 352). At its core, platformisation is the connectivity between platforms, which is facilitated through their shared language, including coding and other technical features. Furthermore, Professor of New Media and Digital Culture, Anne Helmond defines platformisation as the “transformation of social network sites into social media publics” (Helmond 2015, p. 1).

The idea of social media platforms operating as digital spaces for public discussion and debate, is highlighted through the strategic ways Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump controlled their messages during the 2016 US Presidential Election, carefully constructing digital personal brands to emphasise their character and personality, with the intent of creating “trustworthiness as political leaders” (Enli 2017, p. 59). Both candidates placed significant emphasis on their social media presence and image during the election period, because they were aware that social media platforms are “increasingly used as direct sources of news, bypassing the editorial media” (Enli 2017, p. 50). Another prime example of social media platforms facilitating political discourse is #auspol, short for Australian politics, one of Australia’s most popular Twitter hashtags. Anyone with a Twitter account can use this hashtag to initiate political discussion, although the hashtag is primarily used for “commentary and rumour spreading about the machinations of the federal government” (Bogle 2016).

Another key component of digital citizenship and online communities is hashtag publics, which enable further connectivity through a range of stylistic features, including themes, keyword markers and trending online movements. Hashtag publics are enabled through the search bar function on the explore page on social media platforms, where users can narrow their search for particular online movements, specific topics, celebrities, politics and everything in between, through hashtags. Some famous examples include #AusPol, #MeToo, #athomeworkouts and #COVID_19. Therefore, hashtag publics provide a virtual space for people with similar (or opposing) opinions and interests to congregate and partake in discussion and debate. This can lead to hashtag activism, briefly outlined above, and cancel culture, the complete opposite, also known as shaming culture.

Cancel culture, also commonly referred to as online shaming, and call-out culture, is a form of online public shaming, typically involving ‘leaked’ or private information on the Internet. The ethics and regulation surrounding this virtual form of public humiliation are blurred and are a constant source of debate amongst media scholars. Cultural commentator, writer and fashion stylist, Ayishat Akanbi, has also raised some interesting points about the issues with cancel culture, particularly the speed at which people can change their ideas and opinions (Double Down News 2020). Therefore, Akanbi encourages people to consider this perspective when controversial tweets and comments resurface from famous celebrities and actors that they posted many years ago. This is reflection of their past self, and perhaps they have a more nuanced understanding and standpoint of these topics now. Furthermore, former President of the United States, Barack Obama made an interesting point about cancel culture, stating that many young people have adopted the mindset that we way they can “make change, is to be as judgmental as possible as other people”, which he believes is accelerated by social media platforms (Guardian News 2019). Therefore, it is clear that you can’t bring about change by simply casting stones.

References 

Bogle, A 2016, ‘#auspol: the Twitter hashtag Australia can’t live without’, Mashable Australia, 21 March, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://mashable.com/ 2016/03/21/twitter-australia-auspol/>. 

Double Down News 2020, The problem with cancel culture, 21 January, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ZjTg1OpIE>. 

Enli, G 2017, ‘Twitter as an arena for the authentic outsider: Exploring the social media campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 presidential election’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 50-61. 

eSaftey Commissioner 2020, eSaftey Commissioner, Australian Government, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://www.esafety.gov.au/>. 

Gillespie, T 2010, ‘The politics of ‘platforms’’, New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 347-364. 

Guardian News 2019, Barack Obama takes on ‘woke’ call-out culture: ‘That’s not activism’, 30 October, viewed 25 April 2020, <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM>. 

This devoted Mormon mom who would rather die than terminate a pregnancy had to make a hard decision. From her facebook post in 2016:

“I had to have a late term abortion. It was the worst moment in my life. What made it even worse was the State of Utah had made it illegal. 

“I had one dead twin. The other had severe Spina Bifida. It was so bad that his brain had developed outside his head, and his spine was open clear to the lumbar level. There was ZERO hope, and no medical miracle that could save him. Our dreams were shattered…

“I lay on the hospital floor, bawling hysterically, for twelve hours, waiting for an ethics committee of the health care corporation to decide my case justified what had to be done. My health was in danger due to the dead fetus. My husband and I consulted our LDS Bishop, who assured me I needed to do what I had to do, that it was even within LDS guidelines to do so. He reminded me I had six kids (a blended family) at home who needed their mother to live…

“No woman should have to have the state have a say in the most painful decision she will ever make. Nobody is tearing babies apart in late term. They are humanely done, only in situations where there is a non-viable or severely defective fetus and/or the mother's health is at risk. 

“Since I posted this, many have said "That wasn't an abortion." Yes, it was. In simple terms and in this case, "Abortion" means "to remove a fetus from the uterus." "Abortion" is not a specific procedural method. Even a miscarriage is called a "Spontaneous Abortion." 

“Others have said, "Your situation wasn't typical." Yes, it was very typical. Women don't have abortions in late term for convenience.”

Read on to see not-so-supportive “pro-life” comments she received.

Active Measures | Documentary

NEW: Facebook announces changes that it says it will be making to advertising on its platform:

--political advertisers may be required to ID that they are running election-related ads, and verify their entity and location

--it is building tools to find political advertisers that do not proactively disclose themselves, and require them to verify

--plans to build an archive of federal-election related ads, showing current and historical federal-election related ads