#nickpaterson

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.