FAREWELL TO MY THREE FOLLOWERS.

IT’S BEEN REAL

Imagine yourself not being able to access popular websites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Now if you don’t really care about whether or not you can access social media, what if you couldn’t access Google? What if every single piece of information is censored? How would you feel?

You probably would hate it, I mean not being able to use Google to search for homework answers? How crap would that be?

Sadly it’s actually a reality for people in China, they can’t access Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Google. Basically any website we can access, they can’t. Why though?

The Great Firewall of China is why.

I watched the TedTalk which was one of the required readings for this week, and I found Michael Anti incredibly insightful. I honestly didn’t know much about what China was doing in regards to the internet, but thanks to him I know more now, and I realise how interesting it is.

Anti talked about China’s Firewall and said, “It's not only to defend the Chinese regime from overseas, from the universal values, but also to prevent China's own citizens to access the global free Internet, and even separate themselves into blocks, not united.”

I thought this was particularly interesting, especially when he said that, he also followed by saying any website we access, is replicated, and all your information you use to access those replicated sites goes straight into their pigeon hole, basically.

Anti said, “Sometimes this Chinese national Internet policy is very simple: Block and clone. On the one hand, he wants to satisfy people's need of a social network, which is very important; people really love social networking. But on the other hand, they want to keep the server in Beijing so they can access the data any time they want.”

He follows on by saying that was the reason why Google pulled out from China, is because they can’t accept that the Chinese government wants to keep the server.

It’s interesting though, I find myself thinking, why the Government wants to censor everything. Is it because they’re afraid of the damage the internet can do to their current policies. I’m not quite sure.

McKinsey and Company (2013) said, “the country has by far the world’s most active social-media population, with 91 percent of respondents saying they visited a social-media site in the previous six months, compared with 30 percent in Japan, 67 percent in the United States, and 70 percent in South Korea.

So how are they doing it? If they’re leading the way of social media, what are Australia, and America doing wrong?

Hoffman (2013) explained that, “China controls the Internet gateways where traffic travels between China and the rest of the Internet. Through a combination of firewalls and proxy servers at these gateways, they can analyse and manipulate Internet traffic.”

“Many of us often see the Internet as impossible to control based on its very structure, as it routes around points of failure and gives everyone access to a democratic form of communication free of government control. The Great Firewall of China shows us that it isn’t quite that simple — the Internet has its bottlenecks where censorship can be instituted and technologies like DNS can be abused to aid in censorship,” Hoffman (2013) wrote.

I thought it was particularly interesting, as I find it quite hard to understand how they can possibly monitor and censor absolutely everything. Surely it’s impossible right?

To be completely honest, I don’t think China is leading the way when it comes to social media, sure they have a huge presence, but at the end of the day, everything they read, everything they see, everything they write is being censored, although being censored is good in some situations. It takes away our availability to learn from one another, and find out a different side of the story. Although sometimes it’s needed, if we’re censoring absolutely everything, how do we know what’s real anymore?

These are just my thoughts though.

sources cited below:

Anti, M 2011, 'Behind the great firewall of China', TedTalks viewed 27 May 2017, <http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_anti_behind_the_great_firewall_of_china.html>

Chiu, C, Lin, D and Silverman, A 2012, 'China’s social-media boom’, McKinsey and Company, 1 May 2013, viewed 27 May 2017 <https://ilearn.swin.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6273096-dt-content-rid-34296541_2/courses/2017-HS1-MDA20009-220271/McKinsey-Chinas-Social-Media-Boom1_2012.pdf>

I HAD THE PLEASURE OF DOING THE PRESENTATION FOR WEEK 8.

(presentation link here - https://prezi.com/view/TxL8yY7bSFFJrNblaYeJ/)

The group and myself decided to base this week’s topic on Pokemon Go, as it’s become a phenomenon, once again. 

Basically long story short, a young child enjoyed catching insects and tadpoles grew up and became the creator of Pokemon. His name is Satoshi Tajiri. 

Pokemon became a huge franchise, movies, tv shows, games and merchandise was created because of how popular it became. 

Especially in Japan, they go absolutely crazy for it.

It played a huge role in my childhood, mostly because it was insanely popular when I was born. I grew up watching the tv series, the movies and playing the games. 21 years later it’s still around, except now there’s an app, where you’re able to go out into the ‘real world’ and capture Pokemon.

The idea of Pokemon Go became a reality after an April Fools Prank went viral, it was a combination of Google Maps and Pokemon together. This all happened during 2016, and a couple of months later, Pokemon Go started to become a reality. 

CEO of Niantic Labs, John Hanke contacted Nintendo and Pokemon and asked to collaborate with them on this project. Both parties agreed, and their earnings were divided accordingly.

Since it’s release last year it has generated over an estimated $200 million in sales. This is mainly due to the fact Pokemon Go offers in app purchases users can buy to stay ahead, and to catch more Pokemon. 

From there Pokemon Go was created and came to life in July of 2016. Since then it’s been estimated that one in ten Americans play Pokemon Go daily, according to App Annie.

Pokemon Go is still running strong still hold events for fans over the world where they can catch certain types of Pokemon. The latest being in the UK.

Pokemon definitely has their own kind of audience, I don’t think you can really categorise their users because it ranges from kids, to teenagers, and to adults. Which is beneficial when it comes to the term ‘social network’, this is because it’s such a broad social network, users are able to connect with anyone regardless of where they live. (except in Korea - soz not soz)

The beauty of a social network is that it connects you to other’s who have the same mindset, likes and dislikes, like yourself. Pokemon Go has made that connection so much easier because you can walk down the street and see so many people playing Pokemon, and after a while you notice them interacting with one another. Which is really positive. Because when Pokemon first came out back in early 2000′s a lot of the time people would stay indoors and play it, instead of actually going outside. 

Pokemon has completely changed that around, and now if you want to be a Pokemon Master you have to get your butt together and go outside, which is a really good achievement, especially considering there is a minority of people who stay inside to game. 

However there are safety issues when it comes to playing Pokemon Go in public. Numerous amounts of videos are available to watch on YouTube of people going absolutely crazy for Pokemon, and walking into the middle of traffic and etc. Users get injured, are trespassing and doing things they normally wouldn’t do to ‘catch them all’. 

I could speak about this topic forever, but the major concerns behind Pokemon Go is how far it’s gone, how far it will go, and if a social network could possibly become bigger than it should. 

Here’s some video in regards to what I said earlier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWaI1Mfo3zE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xsgCaP0c8w

THROW BACK TO 2014

Back in 2014 social media when crazy with this thing called “The Ice Bucket Challenge” also known as “ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.” 

Basically what this ‘challenge’ entailed dumping a bucket full of ice and water over someone’s head, individuals either poured it on themselves or got someone else to.

The challenge started off as a joke between friends, which was unrelated to  amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is otherwise known as ALS. In August 2014 the challenge went viral and reached ALS suffer Peter Frates. After Frates completed the challenge, his network followed suit and took on the challenge, except it now included a donation to ALS research.

Now this was a huge thing, and I mean HUGE!

Celebrities started jumping on the bandwagon of the Ice Bucket Challenge, including Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Kermit the Frog, Oprah Winfrey, David Beckham and even Jack Black. Those are a few celebrities that took part in the challenge, however there’s way more where that came from.

Wicks (2014) said “every ALS charity reported major increases in donations during a 30-day period that summer. Over 6 million videos were shared on YouTube, and the videos of celebrities such as Bill Gates received over 20 million views.

However the challenge sparked controversy, Wicks (2014)said people were being accused of ‘slacktivism’ and were having fun rather than donating. People were failing to take notice of the important issue at hand, and as he called it were “were participating in a self-congratulatory, middle class wet t-shirt competition.”

However although there was a minority of people who completed the challenge but did not donate, a lot of people, including celebrities like Benedict Cumberbatch explained what the challenge was for and ultimately encouraged viewers to donate as much as they are able to. 

Bernard Muller, who was diagnosed with ALS in 2010 founded Project MinE, an organisation which studies the genetic basis of ALS and are trying to find a cure fatal neuromuscular disease. 

Muller told The Guardian that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was one of the most successful campaigns on social media. 

“The funding has helped us with research, but it has also had a profound effect on the attention not only on the general public but also in biotech and pharmaceutical companies - we are seeing more and more thinking that ALS should be a target [for research],” he said.

The challenge was around social media for a few months, and then it finally died off again. However to this day The ALS association still asks people to contribute to the Ice Bucket Challenge every August and even donate. Since 2014 I personally haven’t heard anything about it. I followed the celebrity endorsements, but after that, pretty much it just stopped. Which is the case for many social media campaigns, they eventually die off. 

However, I do thoroughly enjoy YouTube videos of the challenge fails, which usually include people throwing the actual bucket on their head instead of the water. 

Social media has a huge influence on public health campaigns, and I honestly don’t think the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge would have been created if it wasn’t for the powerful tools that we call the internet.

resources cited:

Sample, I & Woolf, N 2016, ‘How the ice bucket challenge led to an ALS research breakthrough’, The Guardian, viewed 23 May, <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/27/how-the-ice-bucket-challenge-led-to-an-als-research-breakthrough>

CROWDSOURCING, WHAT IS IT? WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES THAT FOLLOW IT? BUCKLE UP. TIME TO FIND OUT.

First things first, let’s define what crowdsourcing is.

Hammon and Hippner (2012) defined it as, “the act of outsourcing tasks originally performed inside an organisation, or assigned externally in form of a business relationship, to an undefinably large, heterogeneous mass of potential actors. This happens by means of an open call via the Internet for the purpose of free, value creative use. The incentive to participate can be monetary and/or non-monetary in nature.”

Now if you’re like me and that entire definition goes over your head that’s okay, because I, Rebecca Johansen of ineedahighdistinction.tumblr.com, have made it simpler to understand, because why use complicated language?

Crowdsourcing is basically obtaining information, and gaining input from the public. Crowdsourcing is based online, and it’s where organisations and individuals have the opportunity to request assistance from a large audience via a large platform - (aka the internet). 

Here’s a quote from a cool article I read about crowdsourcing data, and whether we can trust it.

“Social media has given consumers so much more power than they had before it became prevalent. Their complaints are public and their complaints are amplified through social media channels.” - Joel Gurin, senior advisor at New York University’s Governance Lab and author of Open Data Now. (sourced from informatica) 

(WHat a LONG TITLE LOL, SAY THAT REALLY FAST)

I don’t know if it’s relevant but it sounded pretty great. 

Hammon and Hippner (2012) also said in relation to crowdsourcing, “to possess access to the enormous knowledge potential of the crowd provides the possibility to obtain more efficient and qualitatively better solutions than this would be the case if approaching a problem or task from inside the organisation where resources are limited in quantity and quality.”

Here’s what I know:

Crowdsourcing is extremely useful, especially when it comes to social media. You have the ability to connect with people during times of crisis. The perfect example is the earthquake the struck Nepal back in April. 

Ravi Kumar, otherwise known as Ravi Nepal is a co-founder of Code for Nepal, a non-for-profit organisation which aims to increase digital literacy,  the access to open data, and build apps to improve lives. According to the New York Times, Kumar crowdsources via social media to help circulate information about relief aid for victims affected by an earthquake.

Kumar told the New York Times (2015) he was using technology to help connect volunteers and people affected, using an app called Viber to get status updates on volunteers to help with needs, which then get posted via Twitter and Facebook. Also he was using technology and social media to help dispel rumours and doubts about areas being able to recover from a natural disaster. 

From what Kumar created, it’s easy to assume how much volunteers and rescue teams rely on crowdsourcing, and helpful it is. However there has to be a downside to crowdsourcing. I mean nothing is ever perfect is it?

Weaknesses

Referring back to the New York Times interview with Ravi Kumar, he said he’s unaware if all the information that is posted, via the crowdsourcing document they have provided on their website, are accurate, because anyone has access to the document and are able to comment. However only 20 users do have the ability to fully edit a post. 

Also Kumar mentioned that he does follow up with information individuals have provided on the document, and his team manages to contact and clarify and organise to send help if needed. However from reading the article I found out that they don’t always follow up with people who have requested information. Which seems to me like a weakness, there’s no follow up, and there’s a real lack of connection, especially considering whether Kumar and his team are located near the natural disaster.

There we go, the natural disaster that was this blog post. I honestly have no clue about whether or not anything I’ve said makes sense, but you know what that’s completely okay. Because I know deep down in my heart that I did my absolute best, and that my other posts via this blog will make this one reach for the stars. (hopefully)

Until the next post, you’ve been reading my sad and unfortunate blogging skills I acquired when I came out of the womb. 

Cited resources:

Hammon, L & Hippner, H, 2012, ‘Crowdsourcing’, Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol.4, no.3, pp 163–166.

Informatica, 2017, Crowdsourced data: Can you trust it?, Informatica, viewed 18 May 2017, <https://www.informatica.com/potential-at-work/crowdsourced-data-can-you-trust-it.html>.

First off let’s define what trolling is.

If you search trolling on Urban Dictionary the definition that comes up is, “Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.”

For me, this is exactly what I believe trolling is. I personally find it really difficult to define whether trolling is good or bad, because in reality that’s what it is. 

The thing about trolling is that it’s mostly done via an online platform. That’s where the issue lies. 

Social media is a wonderful thing, but it can be dangerous.

The whole issue with social media is that everything you write online can be done anonymously. You can make sarcastic comments on sites such as Tumblr, and other sites like Qoohme, and Askfm. Sites in which you are able to ask questions with the option of staying anonymous. 

Sites like these can be very dangerous because there’s a very fine line between trolling and bullying. Sometimes people don’t even understand whether they’ve crossed that boundary.

Bullies Out calls trolling a form of bullying as it involves sending abusive and hurtful comments across any social media platform. “The messages are meant to cause the most distress they can and no consideration is given to the victims by the people who troll online.”

Earlier I watched Steph Guthrie’s Tedx Talk about “Don’t Feed The Trolls”, I found it extremely interesting and eye opening, because the truth is social media has made it so much more easier to bully people. Everything is based online, giving bullies the opportunity to say something crude, whilst being anonymous. They are then able to step away from their computers or their device and are able to go back to doing whatever they did before.

Before social media you couldn’t troll someone without having to say it to their face. Nowadays you are able to do it within seconds. Which is such an issue in today’s society because so many people are bullied everyday, and even commit suicide because of these issues. Mental illness is serious, and bullying plays a massive role in your self confidence, your self esteem and your life. Personally bullying has affected me, as I’m sure it has affected anyone else reading this. 

Amanda Todd

Suicide is at an all time high, and social media has played a huge role in it.Take Amanda Todd for instance. In 2012 Amanda committed suicide, less than a month before her 16th birthday. The news was plastered all over social media and television. I remember scrolling down through Facebook and even turning on the news to hear that she had ended her life. Amanda had posted a video on YouTube a month before her death, the video contained herself holding up cue cards which described her life story, and how bullying was affecting her, even though she had changed schools and moved cities. It followed her whenever she went. 

She bravely wrote her entire story on cue cards, and the nine minute video was then posted on YouTube where it went viral. Although there were a lot of nice and supportive comments commending her for her bravery, there were also a lot of negative comments that told her to die, and drink bleach. 

I remember scrolling through facebook one day and witnessing meme being created such as these. 

[psa: there’s a lot more where these come from]

Amanda received a lot of crap online for her video, and instead of helping her. A lot of people continued to tear her down. This is where the line blurs between trolling and bullying. The real question is, how far is too far? When does it get too much? That’s a question I pose for you. Is the line distinctive enough? Is trolling really classified as bullying?

May Amanda Todd Rest in Peace

Is social media amplifying meanness and cruelty?

Reading through Boyd’s article was actually really interesting. I found the voice throughout the article to be constant and clear. One of my favourite quotes from it has to be, “social media has not radically altered the dynamics of bullying, but it has made these dynamics more visible to more people. We must use this visibility, not to justify increased punishment, but to help youth who are actually crying out for attention. 

I completely agree with this opinion. We must be vigilant when it comes to situations like this and I think discussing with the person who has engaged in the negative behaviour why they think it’s acceptable is appropriate. Continuing to ignore the issue at hand won’t make it disappear, if anything it will become more prevalent in the future. Technology won’t disappear, and neither will social media. Instead we use it as a means for blame, where in fact we should be blaming the people who are conducting the abuse. Yes technology and social media provide the platform to do so. But ultimately users do have the choice to decide what they use it for.

In conclusion, I honestly don’t know what to believe. All I do know is that we shouldn’t be blaming social media for EVERYTHING. I mean it’s not all bad, right?

Cited Resources:

Boyd, d. (2014) ‘Bullying: Is the Media Amplifying Meanness and Cruelty?’, in It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, pp 128-52.

Guthrie, S 2013 (26 September 2013) The problem with "Don't Feed the Trolls"  TEDxToronto viewed 15 May 2017,<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KHEkR5yb9A>.