#maddisonkellaway

With the significant domestication of new media it has become arguably impossible to avoid falling victim to big data. Technology is everywhere. In a modern world, it is essential for global communication via social media, as well as everyday tasks such as Internet research, watching television and even grocery shopping. However, to commercial entities, these daily practices aren’t as simple as they seem. For companies such as Nielsen SocialGuide and BlueFin Labs, which have recently been purchased by Twitter, these practices are a means of collecting data, tracking consumers and placing them into databases (Woodford et. al, 2013: Gray, 2014). Big data provides companies with a new way of thinking, enabling them to turn data into action (Woodford, 2014). The following post will discuss the dark side of big data, and in particular its invasion of our privacy as consumers and participators in social media.

An average person’s online data is worth around 10 cents to marketers. However, add pregnancy to the equation and that value jumps to $1.50 (Gray, 2014). American mother Janet Vertesi attempted to keep her entire pregnancy hidden from the Internet. The aim of this experiment was to avoid being flagged as an expecting mother, being tracked and exposed to an excessive amount of advertisement for baby products. However, this process was not as simple as signing off social media. Although keeping off social media ruled out cookies, bots and other online data collectors, in order to keep her pregnancy under wraps she and her husband avoided all use of technology. This included credit card use to ensure companies were not able to access or sell her purchase history information (Gray, 2014). All these efforts made to preserve the privacy of her pregnancy. In reflection of her experiences avoiding technology and big data, Vertesi said, “technologies are making us produce data in a particular way, and to opt out isn’t really an option….in certain situations it is critical to be able to opt out” (Gray, 2014).

This experiment highlights just how easy it is for corporate bodies to get their hands on our information and use it for marketing and advertising purposes. According to the Economist (2012), over 1800000 people can easily access your information under Facebook’s default privacy settings. Despite having privacy measures and policies in place, modern users of Web 2.0 are left vulnerable by lengthy and confusing Internet privacy policies. To make matters worse 72% of these polices still allow third parties to track internet activity (The Economist, 2012). Based on these statistics alone it is clear that in order to keep our private information private we must be extremely conscious of the ways in which we chose to participate in social media.

Big data does indeed present a threat to the privacy of new media users. However, when it comes to social media we must consider who the onus is on to keep our information private. Even greater, if we are really that threatened by big data invading our privacy on social media then perhaps we shouldn’t be posting our private details in the first place.

 REFERENCES

Gray, S. (2014). One woman’s attempt to hide her pregnancy from big data — it’s more difficult than you’d expect. Retrieved May 11, 2014 From http://www.salon.com/2014/04/28/one_womans_attempt_to_hide_her_pregnancy_from_big_data/ 

The Economist. (2012). The Dark Side of Big Data. Retrieved May 11, 2014 From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raJOkguPrH4

Woodford, Darryl, Katie Prowd and Axel Bruns. 2013. “Telemetrics: Towards Measuring Social Media Engagement with Television.”

According to Gladwell (2010) the digital revolution has provided new tools that have reshaped social activism. Better known as social media, these tools have given power to the minorities, allowing them to “collaborate, co-ordinate and give voice to their concerns” (Gladwell, 2010). Social media has been instrumental in creating awareness for injustices and mobilising citizens in all areas of the world who face mistreatment, exploitation or discrimination by Government bodies. However, is this sense of empowerment an everlasting mode of social change, or simply a fleeting effect of “slacktivism”? 

A prominent feature of social media is its promotion of a participatory culture. When related to political engagement, social media is often hailed as a revitaliser of public participation (Sauter, 2014). Social media allows citizens to have input into policy-making through creating conversation around political issues (Shirky, 2011). Most recently, Obama’s team has been utilising Twitter as a means of generating support for a rise in the current federal minimum wage through the use of #RaiseTheWage. Not only does this act as a call to action for the Senate, it also allows Americans to voice their own opinion on the matter through posting their own tweets with this hashtag. 

In the same light, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have enabled the mobilisation of citizens through the collaboration and co-ordination of demonstrations, protests and civil wars (Sauter, 2014). For example, Twitter was used as a key tool in organising protests and demonstrations throughout the Arab Spring Uprising. In addition, social media allows activists to spread their messages of concern regarding the unjust acts of the Government to citizens all over the world in order to create further awareness and support (Sauter, 2014). Through increasing access to conversation, social media has mobilized citizens who are dissatisfied with their Government and living conditions by creating global awareness for such political injustices.

However, just how effective are these methods in creating real social change? This idea of online activism is coined by some as “slacktivism”. In some instances there is no doubt that social media contributes to real justice, such as in the Arab Spring Uprising. However, a portion of the population is still convinced that a simple act of clicking the “Like” button on Facebook or changing their profile picture can make a real social difference. Despite the potential to raise awareness, in most cases, this does not amount to any real social change.

  BIBLIOGRAPY

Gladwell, Malcolm. (2010). “Small Change: Why the Revolution will not be Tweeted.” The New Yorker, October 4. Available at:http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Sauter, Theresa. 2014. “New Media Politics and Engagement - Lecture Week 8.” Retrieved May 1, 2014 from http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/

Computer mediate communication offers society an attractive alternative to traditional means of communication. With the assistance of social media in particular, communication has become a quick and easy process, available across time and space (Sauter, 2014). Today, computer mediated communication has capabilities that were virtually unimaginable prior to the invention of the Internet. But, is this technological progression of our communication practices a blessing or a curse?

Above all things computer mediated communication enhances our connection with others across time and space (Sauter, 2014). In particular, the introduction of applications such as Facebook, WhatsAp and Skype have revolutionised the concept of international communication. Before such applications existed, our only option was to write to our loved ones - a process which would take weeks, sometimes months. Today this process is instantaneous. We can send personalised instant messages through a variety of different platforms, or keep our entire contact list updated on our whereabouts and adventures through posting real time photos and statuses. Within the realm of computer mediated communication, time and space are no longer communicative barriers (Sauter, 2014). In the same respect, computer mediated communication allows us to engage with writing and creativity seamlessly, allowing our mind to speak without the attachment of a physical body (Baym, 2010). We can now express ourselves creatively through blogs without being bounded or victimised by pre-exisiting stereotypes or prejudices on how we should think or act upon certain topics of conversation (Baym, 2010). Through this, computer mediated communication enables us to connect with others and ourselves on a deeper level, giving us the courage to think and say things we might not believe possible without the anonymity granted by the Internet.

However, this wall built by the Internet certainly has its downfalls. In particular, it is argued that computer mediate communication enables bullying through a compete abandonment of etiquette (Baym, 2010). Without the intimate nature of face-to-face conversation, the Internet gives the ability for trolling to occur, a situation were users of social media publish hateful comments aimed at others users. Recently, media personality Charlotte Dawson ended her life – a long time victim of social media trolls (Needham, 2014). Although computer mediated communication provides anonymity that helps us communicate on a deeper level, social media platforms such as Twitter also enable a culture of bullying as a result of the lack of accountability associated with sometimes vicious content (Needham, 2014). Additionally, computer mediated communication has seen our language practices deteriorate rapidly. Our written language has now become a series of emoticons, abbreviations, fragments and hashtags – to the point where it has become a part of our speech (Baron, 2010). It is now socially acceptable (to some people at least) to say “lol” rather than physically laugh out loud (not sure is SRS?).

 Although computer mediated communication has enhanced the ease of communication across time and space, the ways in which the Internet and social media platforms have hindered our communication and language practices should also be considered. In order to ensure social media does not get the better of us, we need to be conscious of the ways in which social media shapes the way we communicate, and work with it to strike a healthy communicative balance.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baym, Nancy. 2010. “Ch 3: Communication in Digital Spaces.” In Personal Connections in the Digital Age, 50-70. Cambridge MA: Polity Press

Baron, Naomi. 2008. “Ch 1: Email to Your Brain: Language in an Online and Mobile World.” In Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, 3-10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Needham, Kirsty. 2014. Charlotte Dawson death: Twitter criticised for failing to act against trolls Available: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/charlotte-dawson-death-twitter-criticised-for-failing-to-act-against-trolls-20140222-338z6.html#ixzz2ym5Lj4qY

The rise of new media has restructured our role as consumers of media across all platforms. We are no longer forced to sit back and simply absorb messages from predominately large broadcasting companies and social agencies in a one-way, top-down model of media consumption (Rosen, 2006). With the introduction of new media, its consumption has developed to allow for the addition of a horizontal flow of communication. This model encourages audiences to engage in “citizen-to-citizen” conversation (Rosen, 2006). Although the former means of consumption still exists and continues to be widely used, the rise of the participatory audience is quickly enabling audiences to give media new meanings through the creation of conversation and empowering consumers to become “produsers” of new media.

The term “produser” is used to describe the convergence of two formerly separate roles within the media – the producer and the user (Bruns, 2007). Today, guided by the formerly mentioned empowerment of the audience, the ‘mediasphere’ has become dominated by user-led content creation (Bruns, 2007). The explosion of Web 2.0. in particular has enabled this shift, with blogging websites such as Tumblr and Blogspot and well as social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter and Youtube encouraging those, as Rosen (2006) coined, “formerly known as the audience” to speak up and be heard – to not only absorb, but to create new media content. Now more than ever, audiences have the power to chose what, when, where are how to consume media and similarly, have the choice of whether to be an active or inactive consumer of that media (Rosen, 2006; Green and Jenkins, 2011). For example, throughout history news and current affairs have been limited to broadcasting over the radio, television or in print at a set time, with content selected by large corporate bodies (Rosen, 2006). Today, consumers can not only access the news across a number of different platforms such as the Internet, podcasts and YouTube clips, they can also chose to actively respond to pressing social issues through creating their own content, whether it be by posting a status update to their friends on Facebook or blogging on a current social issue on Tumblr. As Rosen (2006) cited in his piece “The People Formerly Known as the Audience”, the public have become “realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable”.

Furthermore, this participatory culture has created ease in the spreadability of new media content. According to Green and Jenkins (2011) audiences contribute in determining what gets valued through their choices, investments and actions. However with media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter hosting an increasing amount of hybrid economies, the question of who really has the power remains. For example, a recent video entitled “First Kiss” posted to YouTube became viral through audience sharing via various social media channels. The video depicts a series of strangers meeting for the first time being filmed kissing. In just one week, the video went viral and currently has over 68 million views. However, what was spread for it’s sparking of human emotion and intrigue was actually just a very clever advertisement for a UK clothing company, WREN (see article). Although the shift towards new media has empowered audiences to have a more participatory role in the consumption, creation and spreading of new media, the influence of commercial bodies is still present.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruns, Axel (2007) Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation. In Proceedings Creativity & Cognition 6, Washington, DC.

Green, Joshua and Henry Jenkins. 2011. “Spreadable Media. How Audiences Create Value and Meaning in a Networked Economy.” In The Handbook of Media Audiences edited by Virginia Nightingale, 109-127. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.