As social media continues to pervade (what feels like) every facet of our lives, human behaviour becomes monitored, recordable.  The plotting of users’ social media activity allows Facebook, and subsequent marketing firms and advertising strategies to monitor past and predict future habits of consumption.  As a result, audiences are now viewed not as a homogeny, but rather a highly fragmented collection of individuals, to whom advertising is specifically tailored.  As Siegel (2013) puts it, organisations are endowed with “an entirely new form of competitive armament.”  The ethics of this practice have been scrutinised at length, insofar as consumers complaining that they (though legally consenting - by accepting the applicable social media platform’s privacy agreement for use) haven’t consciously consented to the relaying of their online activity.

Harrington (2013) characterises the modern era of television as “post-broadcast” and “post-network”, in that television consumption is no longer hindered by physical televisions and timeslots.  Personally I am a proponent of this trend.  In my day to day life, very little of what I watch is viewed on a television; increasingly I am drawn to services like ABC’s iView and SBS’s On Demand service for their convenience.

Similarly, social interaction has turned to the online.  More than that though, the construction of identity is done online.  The personalisation of Tumblr accounts, the ‘liking’ of Facebook pages that reflect tastes and empathies, the sharing of links to evince political ideology and so on are all palpable examples of social media users’ construction of identity online.  I’m guilty of engaging in this practice: I’ve ‘liked’ and shared many pages that I thought to be interesting.

I soon began to notice the adverts on the sidebar of my Facebook newsfeed becoming strangely relevant to me.  For example, as a follower of music, I received adverts for offshore rare record traders who stocked artists I had liked.  This trend continued though, and soon the advertising was recommending similar artists, clothing for those artists, and tickets for upcoming gigs.  Most interestingly though, one day I received an ad for discounted protein supplements (to mind, I’d neither followed links to supplement pages or even links vaguely pertaining to fitness or muscle building).  This raised the question in my mind though: was I being exposed to this ad simply because I am a male?; or does my omission of fitness pages suggest (to the entity plotting my social media activity) that I am not maintaining my fitness, and by extension, would appreciate protein supplements? 

If the latter is so, Siegel (2013) proffers this would be tangible evidence of social media’s role not only as a predictor of consumer behaviour, but as a veritable shaper of consumption. 

It seems to me that consumers must strive to protect themselves against such sophisticated advertising strategies.  At the very least, whether or not social media users are comfortable with the ethics of their online activity being tracked, they develop an awareness of when they are being manipulated. 

References:

Harrington, S. (2013). “Ch 18 Tweeting about the Telly: Live TV, Audiences, and Social Media.” In Twitter and Society edited by Katrin Weller, Axel Bruns, Jean Burgess, Merja Mahrt & Cornelius Puschmann, 237-248. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

The seismic technological shifts in communication networks during past decade now sees the public able to engage with one another more easily than ever before.  Contrary arguments have been proffered as to whether this shift has enhanced to or degraded public dialogues.  One point that seems beyond contention though is that Computer-Mediated-Communication (or CMC) has resulted in an unprecedented fragmentation of communication.  This blog post will identify examples interpretable as persuasive for both arguments .

CMC can be distinguished from traditional forms of communication by its conversational style, a characteristic which Baron (2008) refers to as the “written speech” phenomenon.  It has been conversely suggested, however, that the users‘ greater ability to revise content reflects more of a ‘writing’ style in communication generally (Crystal 2006, 50).   

The suggested conversational characteristic is less obvious than the writing characteristic to this blogger’s mind when reflecting on my own experiences.  Prior to popularisation of Facebook, an overwhelming majority of my own personal interactions were conducted either face-to-face or on the phone (save a small amount of interaction on Windows MSN).   Communications were generally kept private with my interlocutors; and the substance of conversations was decided on a largely spontaneous basis.  Further, communications bore an intimacy and responsiveness (Baym 2010, 51).

By contrast, a significant portion of my interactions are now executed on Facebook.  I do so because Facebook provides me the ability to connect with friends from great distances (Valentine, 2006).  Furthermore, conversations undertaken on Facebook reflect my most self-reflective, self-conscious style of communication to date (Baym 2010, 50).  This can attributed to a) my awareness that my conversations (that is, wall posts) can be viewed by others and b) my ability to edit prior to disseminating content.

Baym (2010, 66) argues against the categorization of CMC as ‘conversational’ or ‘writing‘ styled exclusively; suggesting CMC instead represents a “mixed modality”, in which users incorporate both conversational and writing styles, as well as film, television, photographic styles and so on.

This contention is persuasive considering the broad spectrum of communication avenues encompassed by the internet.  Users are now able to disseminate: text, music, photos, videos, hashtags and emoticons.   

Communication practices are ultimately shaped by the interconnected influences: technologies, social practices and self-formation (Baym 2010, 66). In this blogger’s personal experiences, most social media users engage with sophisticated communication networks to relay content which is shaped by an awareness of social norms.   As Baym (2010, 62) cogently writes, “As people appropriate the possibilities of textual media to convey social cues, create immediacy, entertain, and show off… they build identities for themselves, build interpersonal relationships, and create social contexts.”

In conclusion, it can’t be said whether technological shifts have categorically enhanced or degraded interpersonal communication.  Rather, people have now adopted new means of engaging in evolving dialogues.

References

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. 

Crystal, David. 2011. Language and the Internet. Cambridge University Press.

The presence of the internet has effectively birthed a ‘hybrid’ of the two traditional economy categories  - commercial economies (those which build value with money at their core), and sharing economies (those building  value without financial consideration) (Lessig 2008).  This is due largely to the purported redistribution of power as to who creates online content.

Rosen (2006), expounds this point in the article “The People Formerly Known as the Audience.”  Prior to the rise of universal social media use, there lay considerable barriers in the way of those wishing to disseminate content – namely the costs associated with paying for printing presses, radio airtime, shooting, editing and distributing video and so on.  These barriers have been dispelled in the new participatory culture of information sharing.  Furthermore, consumers now ostensibly possess a far greater power to choose the content they engage with, a phenomenon referred to as ‘audience fragmentation’.

The nature of our new participatory system of disseminating information lends audiences a chance to think more critically about the agenda of content they consume.  This is because content is no longer interpreted as ‘captical T Truth’ , or objective truth, for anyone is able to produce it.  As Green (2011, 114) writes, “we think about not only what the producers might have meant but also what the person who sent it our way was trying to communicate.”

The argument has been made however, that veneer of consumer liberation to the role of ‘produser’ in fact renders media audiences exploitable at the hands of professional media producers.  Green and Jenkins (2011) provide a cogent distillation of this point:

“every mouse click or video viewis logged and even these inactive lurkers are ultimately (unwillingly?) generating data to refine content delivery systems or recommendation engines, and ultimately drive up the popularity of online media businesses. The emergence of social networks transforms each of these everyday acts of consumption, giving them greater public visibility, increasing their social dimensions, and ultimately expanding their economic and cultural impact.”

This insidious practice of logging a user’s activity is perhaps no more prevalent (to this blogger’s mind) than on the platforms of Facebook and YouTube.  I can recall in my own personal experience occasions in which evidence of my social media activity’s being logged have manifested.  A follower (albeit, a time-starved one) of music, literature and politics sees me ‘liking’ and viewing certain Facebook pages and viewing certain YouTube videos.  In a very short period of time all ‘recommended videos’ on YouTube reflected my browsing.  Most discomforting though was Facebook’s adoption of advertisements tailored to my interests.  Users are offered no option as to whether or not their browsing is to be logged.

  This leads to a larger question (one confirmed by Green and Jenkins (2011) later in this paragraph): are social media users truly liberated producers and engagers of/with content, or are we mere agents for media corporations, surreptitiously manipulated into relaying and providing advertising content for the sole purpose of corporate financial gain? Green and Jenkins (2011) provide that audiences now adopt an active role in ‘spreading’ content.   Is the purported ‘hybrid’ economy really more a commercial economy?  It seems to my mind the answer to both questions is inescapably ‘yes’.

  References

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.  

Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. “Chapter 7: Hybrid Economies” In Remix: Making Art and Culture Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, 177-224. New York, NY: Penguin  

According to Deuze (2011, 137), in the past few decades, the key areas of human existence, spanning home life, work and recreation, have “converged in and through our concurrent and continuous exposure to, use of and immersion in social media.”

To most, social media has been assimilated into the daily normality.  Interestingly, Deuze (2011, 137-138) expands on this point, asserting that media has now adopted an invisibility, a disappearing from the user’s consciousness as a result of intensive use.  This, he argues, should be read not merely as a failure to acknowledge media habits arising from their ubiquitous presence, but as a constitutive part of them as selves.

Certainly this is a conceptually staggering notion in the mind of this blogger.  Its basis, however, is difficult to refute when considering my own experiences on social media.  Take for example a Facebook user’s selection of a profile picture and cover photo for public viewing.  The selection of a certain photo can construct your online identity as being an artistic person, or an academic person, a laissez faire person and so on.  The dissemination of this information becomes a tool not only for relaying your identity, but extending it through constructive meaning.  One particular Facebook friend of mine consistently ‘likes’ charity and human rights pages.  In doing so, it could be said she disseminates information to construct her identity as an empathetic, socially conscious person.

The method, range and volume of information shared via converging social media networks raises concerns for users’ privacy (Papacharissi and Gibson 2011,78).  It seems many social media users are submitting more and more personal information to an invisible audience of unknowable scale.  The distinction between what is public and privately shared content is becoming increasingly blurred (boyd 2011, 49).

To again draw on personal experience to reflect the theory: one particular female Facebook friend of mine, whom regularly shared photos of herself drinking at the certain bars and clubs and frequently ‘checked in’ to cafes, restaurants, bars, cinemas and so on, was shocked to learn her account’s privacy settings allowed any web-browser, Facebook friend or not, access her entire profile.  She remained adamant though (after adjusting her privacy settings) that she would continue sharing this level of personal information, for the sole reason that doing so reminded her friends that she wasn’t “just sitting at home”. 

This quid pro quo scenario was distilled by Thompson (1995, 214), who writes:

“The double-bind of mediated dependency: the more the process of self-formation is enriched by mediated symbolic forms, the more the self becomes dependent on media systems which lie beyond its control.”

Personally, it is social media companies’ relaying of users’ personal (that is, their most personal, in fact, a part of them as selves Deuze (2011, 138)) information to companies, whom then tailor their advertising to appeal to specific profile demographics that makes me most uncomfortable.

References

boyd, danah. 2011. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics – Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In A Networked Self – Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites edited by Zizi Papacharissi, 39-58. New York: Routledge.

Deuze, Mark. 2011 “Media Life.” Media, Culture & Society 33 (1): 137 - 148.

Papacharissi, Zizi and Paige L. Gibson. 2011. “15 minutes of Privacy: Privacy, Sociality, and Publicity on Social Network Sites.” In Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web, edited by Sabine Trepte and Leonard Reinecke, 75-89. Heidelberg and New York: Springer.