#mc7019

Blog 4/20

The article “The Future of Dataveillance in Advertising Theory and Practice” by Strycharz and Segijn analyzes how technological developments have changed the advertising landscape by extending the possibilities to collect, process, and share consumer data to optimize advertising.

This article advances advertising theory by conceptualizing the impact of consumers’ perceptions of dataveillance in digital data-driven advertising and applying long-standing advertising research theories to this new phenomenon to provide an overarching framework for future research. Scholars have been adapting to new technological advances by changing the definition of advertising and adjusting its practice.

Consumers have been shown to feel uneasy that their data are so widely collected and processed for advertising purposes, as such harvesting threatens their privacy. Research in digital ethics focuses on developing frameworks and guidelines for ethical decision-making in the context of emerging media. As emerging media technologies become more prevalent, ethical issues such as privacy, security, and transparency become more important. To access consumer data, researchers can, for example, ask consumers to donate their digital trace data. This donation would make it possible to examine real-life data in relation to this topic.

As for the future of dataveillance in advertising theory and practice, data collection and analysis will likely continue to play a significant role in advertising. However, there may also be increased scrutiny and regulation of data privacy as consumers become more aware of how their data is used and its potential risks. Advertising professionals will need to balance the benefits of data-driven advertising with the need to protect consumer privacy and maintain consumer trust. Additionally, there may be developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning that could enhance the effectiveness of dataveillance in advertising but also raise ethical concerns around the use of personal data. Ultimately, the future of dataveillance in advertising will depend on technological advancements, regulatory developments, and societal attitudes towards privacy and data protection.

The article “Tech companies and the public interest: the role of the state in governing social media platforms” by Stockmann addresses the question of how to govern social media platforms is complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, social media companies have significant power over the flow of information and the public discourse, and their actions can have far-reaching consequences. On the other hand, social media platforms are private companies, and they have the right to operate their business as they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.

Social media have recently been criticized for spreading false information and hate speech, polarizing people, promoting dissatisfaction and citizens’ distrust in institutions, and threatening peace and stability. The debate has shifted towards tech lash, with many critics pointing towards technology companies undermining democracy, stability, and sustainability. As a result, policymakers self-regulation has to move towards co-regulation.

Some have argued that social media platforms should be treated as public utilities and subject to the same regulation as other critical infrastructure. Others have proposed creating a new regulatory framework specifically for social media platforms, which could include requirements for transparency, data protection, and content moderation. Still, others have called for social media platforms to be broken up or nationalized to limit their power and influence. While social media platforms have significant power and influence over public discourse, they are private companies with the right to operate their business as they see fit, as long as they abide by the law.

The article “John Oliver as the Pandemic Fundraiser? Championing Causes and Political Participation Through Satirical Television” by Becker discusses one of the most pressing questions posed by scholars is whether exposure to political satire content can engender greater political participation among these media-consuming citizens who might otherwise remain disengaged from the political process.

Blog 4/13

Deepfakes create a serious trust problem in a society that is already as polarized as ever.

The article “Deepfakes and Disinformation: Exploring the Impact of Synthetic Political Video on Deception, Uncertainty, and Trust in News” by Vaccari and Chadwick discusses how artificial intelligence now enables the mass creation of what has become known as “deepfakes.”

The authors conclude that deepfakes may contribute toward generalized indeterminacy and cynicism, further intensifying recent challenges to online civic culture in democratic societies. Most people may be poorly equipped to discern when deepfakes deceive them. The article found that people correctly identify fakes in only about 50% of cases, statistically as good as random guessing. We have shown that political deepfakes may not necessarily deceive individuals, but they may sow uncertainty which may, in turn, reduce trust in news on social media. “On a more optimistic note, we have shown that an educational video about political deepfakes can succeed in reducing uncertainty, and in so doing can increase trust in news on social media, compared with deceptive deepfakes.”

As discussed in previous articles and in class, educating the public to help prevent misinformation sounds like a good strategy at first, but it is not realistic when attempting to implement it. In the case of deepfakes, it creates an even more confusing environment to teach users what is real vs. fake. Due to their erratic speeches, the current and previous presidential administrations have created even greater confusion around what is real or fake. Donald Trump was so off the cuff, erratic, and shocking with his real speeches that the public often was left confused if it was edited or real. Joe Biden stubbles, misreads, and loses his train of thought so often that it also can be confusing for viewers to know what is real or edited. Both of these scenarios are unique and different from what is discussed in the article. The fact that AI can create perfect deepfakes of well-trained, polished speakers is scary what can be done for average speakers. As stated in previous AI articles, this type of technology needs to be kept in check and carefully contained to help prevent issues in the future as it continues to evolve.

The article “Different platforms, different uses: testing the effect of platforms and individual differences on the perception of incivility and self-reported uncivil behavior” by Sude and Dvir-Gvirsman investigated differences in perceived incivility between seven social media platforms.

Differences in perceived affordances between platforms were related to differences in perceptions of incivility’s prevalence. Platforms that were perceived to allow greater anonymity were perceived to have more incivility. Specifically, platforms characterized by either perceived anonymity or perceived network association were, in turn, perceived to be more uncivil. American users see certain platforms as more uncivil than others, even considering differences in their behavior.

The article “Tackling Misinformation: What researchers could do with social media data” discusses how platforms play a significant role in the diffusion and amplification of mis and disinformation narratives. The overarching scope of the research is not defined by the researchers but by the platforms themselves. In the rare case, data sharing is a possibility, negotiations have been slow for several reasons, including platforms’ concerns over protecting their brands and reputation and ethical and legal issues of privacy and data security on a grand scale.

The article “Dark Participation” Without Representation: A Structural Approach to Journalism’s Social Media Crisis” by Miller and Nelson concludes by observing that “dark participation” is not unique to journalism alone and by discussing the implications of our findings for communication stakeholders invested in overcoming the current, global climate of populism that frequently results in hate, harassment, and hostility within social media.

Blog 4/6

Scientists posting “selfies” to Instagram from the science field were perceived as significantly warmer, more trustworthy, and no less competent than scientists posting photos of only their work.

The article “Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists” by Jarreau et al. 2019 claim that self-portrait by STEM professionals on social media can mitigate negative attitudes toward scientists.

Participants who viewed scientist selfies, especially posts containing the face of a female scientist, perceived scientists as significantly warmer than participants who saw science-only or control images. Participants who viewed selfies also perceived less symbolic threat from scientists. People are more likely to pay attention to and act upon “quality information communicated by sources they see as trustworthy in terms of expertise, honesty, and shared identity” and from sources they “like.” High-quality interactions with likable scientists encourage positive beliefs about science and scientists’ messages.

Social media platforms may offer women and minority scientists an opportunity to create their own narratives through self-images and new takes on what scientists look like, what they do, what they care about, and how both warm and competent they are. A diversity of real-life scientist faces in our media environments could help others begin to individuate scientists, help break down stereotypes, and foster more inclusion in STEM.

Individuation processes, where viewers pay attention to a person’s individual attributes and see that person as human with ideally shared beliefs and good intentions, can help counter negative stereotypes about that person and their group. By humanizing themselves on social media, scientists may be able to increase trust, public support, and interest in science. 

This study is a very interesting concept because, when looked at at a glance, it seems trivial and not a serious topic. However, after reading it, the study addresses a possible solution to a long-time problem. Something as simple as a selfie posted on Instagram can help break down stereotypes in the science field in general, but especially in women and minorities. It humanizes people thought of as emotionless robots that work with mostly things regular people do not understand. 

The article “Digital platforms as socio-cultural artifacts: developing digital methods for Cultural research” by Vicari & Kirby 2022 discusses how social media platforms are increasingly looked at as means to investigate social phenomena like collective events, issues, or causes. 

The study investigated the potential of digital methods for cultural and cross-cultural research. “With ‘digital methods’ we refer to techniques that ‘follow the medium’ and focus on ‘born digital data, namely, medium-specific methods that usually exploiting computational techniques or tools allow researchers to collect and/or analyse data that originated online.” 

Blog 3/30

New media algorithms assertively answer anyone’s “what should I watch” question with a flood of answers. 

The article “Why’s Everyone on TikTok Now? The Algorithmized Self and the Future of Self-Making on Social Media” by Bhandari Bimo claims that TikTok departs from existing platforms in the model of self-making it engenders, called “the algorithmized self.” This term is a complication of the preexisting “networked self” framework. TikTok engendered a mode of self-representation and identity creation that departs significantly from the model of “the networked self” that is found on other social media.

This understanding of a “networked self” shows that social media sites, apart from the influence they may have on social practice through their design, are relatively neutral tools for individuals to engage in these processes of identity management and representation. Interaction and curation are self-directed; despite the growing claim of algorithmically directed feeds, for example, “these sites at least claim that the content that users consume is essentially within their control and is ultimately chosen by the user through their conscious choices: the site thus provides a space for free self-representation.”

TikTok has changed the way social media platforms show content to users through their personalized algorithm. Their surge in popularity has put a strain on other big media companies such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. These giants have implemented spinoff features of TikTok on their apps. TikTok still is ahead in most categories over its competitors. 

I believe that one reason many politicians are so against TikTok and claim that it is a Chinese spying device that collects Americans data is because so many of those politicians are associated with big tech companies. Companies such as Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, when TikTok came along as a threat to their interests, they are trying to shut it down. It works because of the popular anti-Chinese narrative that has been pushed politically in recent years. The public has seen in the TikTok hearings that these people who claim it’s a spying device cannot even define what TikTok is or how it works. A recent hearing with TikTok’s executive was almost commercial at how bad the questions were from those conducting it, such as, “is TikTok connected to the house Wi-Fi, can it connect with other devices in the home.” The executive did not know how to answer the questions other than by saying that it’s not how it works. I don’t believe it is a spying divine and should not be shut down. 

“Influencer Celebrification: How Social Media Influencers Acquire Celebrity Capital” by Brooks et al. discusses how influencers differ from traditional celebrities in that they are experts in the medium through which their celebrity capital is typically leveraged, which is social media. Influencers work with advertisers; this produces even more celebrity capital; the process becomes a continual loop. 

Blog 3/23  

Social media does not exist in a separate virtual reality but is embedded in more traditional forms of activism and helps facilitate and organize these actions. The motivations behind its use impact social media’s impact on behavior.

The article “Social media and activism: A literature review,” by Allsop 2016 discusses social media’s role in activism and its effects on social movements. There has been an increase in interest in the role social media plays in facilitating activism, particularly since the wave of protest that erupted in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, embodied in the Arab spring, the Occupy movement student protests in the UK and several widespread protests in Spain Greece and Ukraine. 

During the Arab Spring, activists at the anti-consumer organization Adbusters sent an e-mail to their subscribers suggesting similar action on New York’s Wall Street. A movement fueled by Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr took off, and soon there were Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests in many locations. The movement’s physical and philosophical Wall Street home was in Zuccotti Park, where thousands of protesters set up a community for a long-term protest. Their goal was to raise public awareness of the country’s growing level of income disparity-the gap between the richest Americans and those in the shrinking middle class and the swelling ranks of the poor. OWS’s slogan, “We are the 99%,” was designed to highlight the fact that the income and opportunity gap between the richest Americans, the 1%, and everyone else was rapidly growing and becoming a permanent part of American life. Making New York’s financial district the site of its main activities was intended to signify that it was the practices of the nation’s financial elites that were responsible for people’s increasing economic issues. It aimed to raise awareness and, through its non-violence actions, make the moral argument for economic fairness. 

The New York Times, the self-proclaimed paper of historical record, wrote nothing about the occupation, which was occurring only a few blocks from its offices, for the first five days. By 2011 the presence of phone cameras, Twitter accounts, Facebook, and YouTube could spread what was happening instantly to millions. Instead of a couple of thousand people coming to Zuccotti to rally or assemble for marches during the day, the crowds swelled to the tens of thousands. 

The article “Effects of Issue Ownership, Perceived Fit, and Authenticity in Corporate Social Advocacy on Corporate Reputation,” by Lim and Young 2021, analyzes the rise of social media that has provided contemporary firms. It creates a new gateway to interact with consumers and take stances on diverse social and political issues, known as corporate social advocacy. The current research examined the effect of corporate social advocacy on corporate reputation. 

Happy Black History Month! It’s where the greatness resides.

This week’s reading of Hindman’s Internet Trap provided insight into understanding online advantages and disadvantages. I think his usage of the word stickiness and concept attention economy sets the book’s tone. Hindman describes “stickiness” as the “firms’ ability to attract users, to get them to stay longer, and to make them return again and again” (p. 2). This concept shows the repetition of technology’s usuage of advertising and consumers’ willingness to engage. Attention economy emphasizes how money and attention get the audience stuck. Hindman states that understanding this concept is critical to understanding digital media’s impact, which may seem like a “duhh moment” but took time to identify the relationship’s depth.

Understanding the significance of content or the ability to inspire political polls allows one to determine the internet’s competitive dynamic. Thus, smaller platforms can’t truly win. This notion made me wonder how intentional the internet and social media have to be, for example, the page loading lag time. These small differences have a big outcome that develops a digital survival tactic in a lopsided economy.

I found it interesting the focus on the internet and local news because when I think about local news, my mind goes straight to television and local newspapers. I agree that with the expansion of internet local news, a sense of online media diversity arises, making chapter 6 crucial for research. Hindman explains that television and newspaper sites “have established brands and habits of readership, more usable websites, and larger and more attractive bundles of content” (p. 104). However, this expansion makes me wonder: when does it become too much? I wonder how the expansion could cause an increase for one source/information and a decrease from another.

Reading about The Netflix Prize was interesting. I don’t believe I was exposed to Netflix until 2015, and it was the first streaming service to my knowledge. I look at its expansion to charging per TV’s watching or its consistent and quick increase in content and further understanding the importance of filter bubbles, algorithms, and data. It is apparent, for me, that Hulu tries to do the same.

The following are quotes that stood out to me from Hindman’s text:

“Building an online audience is like pumping air into a balloon with a slow leak. One has to keep pumping, to keep up a constant level of investment, or previous efforts will quickly be lost” (p. 13). Thus, maintaining a certain level of stickiness is a challenge.

“Sites live or die based upon their stickiness— their ability to attract readers, to make those readers stay longer when they visit, and to convince them to return again once they leave” p. 48).

The Elephant in the Room

Bundling is a common method streaming services use. I think many small businesses, especially those started during the pandemic, have equally taken advantage of the idea of bundling for products and advertisement, but those who didn’t fell short.

This idea of bundling, I wonder if it could apply to the ability to bundle on social media. For example, the ability to quote tweets or favorite & like tweets.

QTNA

This week’s readings focused on the hybrid media known as second screening. In the fast paced technology driven world we live in today, one screen is just not enough. Often times, like this past weekend, I found myself watching Saturday Night Live while also scrolling through the infinite social media feeds. Since I had just read this week’s articles, I realized how many skits I missed because I was engaged on my iPhone. It made me question how much I miss because of second screening. I was watching SNL with my two roommates. When I looked up to see what my roommates were doing, they were both completely involved on their iPhones. They were missing just as much as I was.  Zúñiga, Garcia-Perdomo, and McGregor note in their article that, “multiple tasks can be processed effectively in parallel so long as they do not use the same brain resource (Wickens, 2002) (e.g., listening to music and reading a newspaper).” They also note that, “the cognitive cost of second screening may manifest in difficulties with factual recall and news comprehension.” So often, we are disengaged with people because we are constantly connecting on our devises, it’s interesting to realize that we are also often disengaging from one screen for another. This makes me question the long-term implications of second screening and how it will affect future generations. In fact, Kazacova’s research finds that media multitasking behavior may substantially alter the way media viewers process media content.

Although my recent experience seemed negative, second screening can be very beneficial to the viewer. As I talked about last week, when watching my guilty pleasure, The Bachelor, I always look forward to following the #BachelorNation on Twitter, which is filled with hilarious memes and commentary on the show throughout. The Bachelor is such a ridiculous show, as many viewers know, but when second screening, it brings the entertainment to a whole different level. 

This can be related to Williams and Gonlin’s research concerning How to Get Away with Murder and second screening. According to the article, second screening has benefitted engagers by having, “positive reactions to representations of a generally marginalized type of Black femininity in HTGAWM.” Williams and Gonlin highlights the importance of having these conversations online. McGregor also finds similar results when it comes to political engagement due to second screening.

The readings also dive in to the political effect that second screening has. McGregor researches second screening in relation to online participation – which overall positively impacts political participation. However, when individuals disagree with the messaging, it can lead to political disengagement, as seen with Trump during the 2016 Presidential election. Zúñiga and Liu also looks into political effects when it comes to voting habits, but found no difference in voting patterns between second screen users.

This week’s readings focused on the psychology behind behavior of individuals and brands online. Carah uses music festivals to study the way companies promote their products. According to Heineken’s ad agency director Amir Kassaei, “Marketing is not about content, but the management of infrastructure.” The article gives examples of brands using bloggers, influencers, and social media contests to persuade consumers to post about their company online. As an avid music festival goer, this is seen at every single music festival I attend. One example of this was at Hangout Music Fest in Gulf Shores, Swisher Sweets had a promotional tent set up. Every picture you took in front of their Swisher Sweets sign gave you a chance to win free merch such as T-shirts mugs, etc. Carah explores how companies are beginning to focus more on products that are likely to get posted. Companies are focusing more on the “aesthetic” of their product so it will get more online attention. Personally, I believe this is one of the most useful marketing strategies to target young consumers.  Carah also mentions, “Corporate appropriation” of authentic culture. I loved this term because I think it describes “hip” companies so well. As Carah notes, brands are becoming more social and less symbolic, meaning brands like Swisher Sweets are much more likely to adapt the “festival vibe” to attract younger consumers.

Waddell checks out how negative social media commentary affects consumers’ responses to TV shows. The MAIN model theorizes that user comments affect users’ perceptions of content through the bandwagon heuristic. Waddell finds that negative comments influence consumer’s perceptions of a show. The perfect example of this is the newest season of The Bachelor (Yes, I watch this reality TV trash for pure entertainment, please don’t think less of me). This season has been very boring in comparison to past seasons, however, every Monday evening my roommates and I scroll through the #TheBachelor twitter during the show for tons of entertainment. The negative comments towards the show are not only hilarious, but offer tons of commentary between #BachelorNation fans that can change our opinions of contestants. (If I know my perception is changing based on social media, it’s okay, right?)

Neubaum dives into people’s fear of isolation. Neubaum goes in depth about social protection theory and silence theory (both worth discussing in class) Neubaum‘s research suggests that human ability enables individuals to continuously observe their social environment by using their quasi-statistical sense. Humans, especially online, tend to form opinions that others in their network agree with. This can be seen daily by your crazy aunt or uncle on Facebook.

Gvirsman repeatedly makes me think about the habits of our current President as she researches audience homophily and selective exposure. Gvirsman points out that being selective on how you consume politics can strengthens one political identity. Media websites cater to a homogenous, like minded group who have needs of self-consistency, according to Gvirsman. There is no better example of this than Trump’s tweets that constantly attribute Fox News… sometimes at 3 a.m.