#ashleynoye

Week 9 of Internet, Self, and Beyond focussed on big data and telemetrics. As has been discussed over the semester, new media has provided a multitude of opportunities to share, communicate, and connect with others.

According to Siegel (2013, 3 – 5), “data embodies a priceless collection of experience of which to learn”, and that each digital experience “can be encoded as data and warehoused”. New media technology has a newfound capacity for intelligence, and it is giving us the ability to understand ‘big data’, visualise and make predictive notions based on analysis of this data. From this, we can learn more about how consumers and society operate. 

The Dark Side of Data - posted by The Economist

It is large corporations and companies that have access to this data, mainly because they have both the financial and technological resources to store this information. I must say that the idea of ‘big data’ concerns me quite greatly. It seems unethical for large corporate entities to have access to private user information, which subsequently gives them the ability to manipulate this data for their own financial gain. As the video The Dark Side of Data posted by The Economist explained, over 1,800,000,000 people have access to your information on Facebook – and that’s under default privacy settings (2012). In addition to this, approximately 72% of privacy policies allow third parties to track our Internet activity and online behaviours (The Economist, 2012).

Siegel noted, big data “uncovers what drives people and the actions they take – what makes us tick and how the world works…with the new knowledge gained, prediction is possible” (2013, 4). An example of utilising personal data for predictive analytics is online pop up and sidebar advertisements. These ads are selected by online advertisers to reflect previous sites you have personally visited, making you more inclined to click on their ad. Large corporations such as Google, Facebook or Twitter collect a significant amount of users’ personal data, and then sell this to online advertisers.

  An email I received from Coles recently about my 'top in-store specials' - data that was received and analysed via my Flybuys account (which is creepy...)

As Darryl Woodford (2014) mentioned in the lecture, big data is frequently used as business intelligence to help with target advertising towards individual consumers – it is “a currency across industry”. This is achieved through analysing the data regarding the items or products a customer has purchased previously, commonly referred to as a ‘purchase history’. I have personally experienced this, through Coles Supermarkets. I am often sent emails by the chain informing me which of my ‘favourite’ products were on sale or suggesting special deals I would be interested in. When it first happened, I found it extremely creepy, namely because I don’t have an online account with Coles (for online shopping) and I had never done a survey or something to give them this information. After a while I realised that Coles had retrieved and then analysed this data from my Flybuys account, which records purchases whenever I scan my Flybuys card. Whilst Coles probably intends systems like this to be efficient and helpful for consumers, it is quite worrying knowing they have all this data about my consumer behaviour that I didn’t give them.

REFERENCES:

The Economist. 2012. “The Dark Side of Data” YouTube video, posted June 26. Accessed May 11, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahZGEusG13A

Siegel, Eric. 2013. “Introduction: The Prediction Effect”. In Predictive Analytics: The power to predict who will click, buy, lie or die, edited by Eric Siegel, 1 – 16. Hoboken: Wiley. Accessed May 11, 2014. https://qutvirtual3.qut.edu.au/qv/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB206

Overall, I think that social media and online activism are effective in promoting awareness and change for various issues. Shirky explains that the communications world has become more dense, complex and participatory. As a result, the “networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action” (2011). New media technologies allow for sites such as change.org and Wikileaks to open our eyes to the issues of the world that are going unnoticed.

Image source: http://nelliesshelter.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/social-media-activism-1.jpg 

However, Gladwell brings up the point that social media can be detrimental for larger scale, high-risk activism. Gladwell argues that there is a lack of organisation and hierarchal structure within social media, therefore it is unable to create effective political mobilisation. As Bronwyn demonstrated in her 5-minute review, the London riots is just one example of Gladwell’s theory. Through the use of Twitter and free online/mobile messenger networks, rioters could post videos, photos and messages about what was going on to the online world. In addition to this, social media provided a platform for communication between rioters, and summoning masses of people to join in their cause. As Gladwell notes, this network had no centralised leadership structure or clear lines of authority, therefore they were “chronically prone to conflict and error” (2010).

As Shirky and Gladwell discussed, there has been extensive critiques of the ineffectiveness of social media in activism – namely “slacktivism”. This term denotes “whereby casual participants seek social change through low-cost activities, such as joining Facebook groups, that are a long on bumper-sticker sentiment and short on any useful action” (Shirky 2011). I think this term has come from the overwhelming amount of articles and videos and photos posted on social media, aiming to create discussion or action but don’t actually achieve anything.

Image source: http://afritorial.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/kony2012-poster.jpg 

A great example of this would be the KONY 2012 campaign, which is considered by many to be the largest activism campaign to utilise social media. Invisible Children, Inc. released a short film across multiple social media sites to promote and raise awareness about African militia leader and indicted war criminal Joseph Kony. The main criticism of the campaign regarded its engagement in ‘slacktivism’. Users donated to the cause, posted, re-tweeted, shared and liked Kony related content. In reality these actions had little to no effect, other than giving the user a sense of contribution and involvement.

I agree with Shirky (2011); obviously we cannot “click our way to a better world”, but that doesn’t mean social media serves no purpose in activism. As was discussed in the tutorial, at the end of the day awareness and ‘slacktivism’ is better than nothing. The viral nature and power of social media means that one person’s ‘slacktivism’ by liking or sharing some content could lead to another person’s activism. Social media provides the opportunity for global exposure and awareness, therefore allowing the possibility for change. As Theresa said in the lecture, “new media technologies provide the power to connect with more people – and make more change” (2014).

  REFERENCES

Bailyn, Evan. 2012. “The Difference Between Slacktivism and Activism: How ‘Kony 2012’ Is Narrowing The Gap”. Accessed May 3, 2014. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-bailyn/kony-2012-activism_b_1361791.html

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. “Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.” In The New Yorker, October 4. Accessed May 4, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “Week 8 – New Media Politics and Engagement.” Accessed May 4, 2014. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_4_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fcontent%2FlistContent.jsp%3Fcourse_id%3D_108110_1%26content_id%3D_5232450_1

In this weeks’ reading, Burgess and Green investigate the role of YouTube in mainstream media. I am particularly interested by the discussion regarding the meanings of amateur video and the DIY celebrity culture they produce. According to Burgess and Green, “YouTube has been mythologised as literally a way to ‘broadcast yourself’ into fame and fortune” (2009, 22). While there are few cases where amateur content from YouTube has actually lead to ‘fame and fortune’, it does occur. 

Part 1 of A Very Potter Musical

A Very Potter Musical is a parody based on the Harry Potter series, it was written, produced and directed by University students. It was first performed at the University of Michigan, and in 2009 a video recording of the musical was uploaded to YouTube. It quickly went viral, generating millions of views from global audiences and fans of the series. Since then, the musical has lead to the creation of StarKid – a successful theatre production company that has  (StarKid, 2014). Founding member of StarKid and lead actor (playing Harry Potter), Darren Criss, has subsequently become a well-known and respected actor and musician. You probably know him best from the hit show Glee, or perhaps the Broadway musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (which, funnily enough, he replaced Daniel Radcliffe). In this case it is as Burgess and Green suggests, “raw talent combined with digital distribution can convert directly to legitimate success and media fame” (2009, 21).

A Very Potter Musical also demonstrates the opportunity and ability we have as an audience and as consumers to contribute through a blurring of distinctions, which is one of the propositions from the lecture. The cast/producers of this musical were amateurs, and YouTube provided an accessible platform for the commercialisation of their content. As a result the amateurs (including StarKid, and Darren Criss) have been turned into celebrities, essentially becoming apart of the ‘bona fide media world’ that the Burgess and Green discussed.  

Interestingly, musical was conceptualised whilst one of the creators was actually reading the fourth book in the Harry Potter series. This ties in with the propositions surrounding fandom and audience alliance. As discussed in Shefrin’s reading, “…fans often appropriate corporate-generated imagery, and then embellish or transform it with person artistic expressions such as…creative fanfiction…[or] digital films” (2004, 273). A Very Potter Musical was essentially fanfiction that came to life through a musical and subsequent YouTube video.

A peek at Pottermore

Shefrin also discussed the importance of participatory fandom and forming alliances with audiences. It is clear that actively involving fans (especially in a franchise) in the decision-making and production processes is extremely important, and will ultimately determine a person’s ‘symbolic capital’ (Shefrin 2004). As I discussed in my 5-minute review, J.K. Rowling has done this with the Harry Potter fandom, albeit not to the same extent. Whilst the 'HP' fandom wasn’t consulted as such throughout the film series’ production, she did form an alliance with her audience, “drawing inspiration from fans’ thoughtful perspectives and studied observations” (Shefrin 2004, 262-264), and most importantly respecting them as a community. This is evident through the Pottermore interactive online experience, which was launched for the fandom. Pottermore allows users to interact with the Wizarding World and create their own Harry Potter experience. “….It’s the same story but a few crucial additions; the most important one is you” (Valeri 2011).

    REFERENCES

Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green. 2009. “You Tube and the Mainstream Media.” In YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture edited by Jean Burgess, Joshua Green and Henry Jenkins, 15-37. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “Week 5 – New Media and the Entertainment Industry.” Accessed April 2, 2014. 

Shefrin, Elana. 2004. “Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Participatory Fandom: Mapping New Congruencies Between the Internet and Media Entertainment Culture.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (3): 261-281

StarKid. 2014. “About”. Accessed April 3, 2014. http://www.teamstarkid.com/about.html