After watching the 2014 PBS documentary, Generation Like, I was met with many ideas that are ubiquitous in current-day social media. The film discusses the generation of millennial teens and young adults who have transformed daily interactions with their use of social media. It has been three years since its release and a few changes have been added to the list of social networking advancement. With the creation and flourishing of Snapchat stories, Instagram, Youtubers and the “Facebook Famous”, the far reaching impact of the like button did not surprise me. As millennials, we have a general understanding of how people and companies who can get likes, favorites or retweets make money off of them, but the exact linking of likes to data and systematic control in real time was an interesting look at something we engage in regularly. Generation Like showed the influence of the consumer who initiates the like, and therefore a chain of data that sends monetary gain and social impact to the producer of the product. The push of a button has the capability of placing t fame, money and access in the hands of those in power AND in the hands, or thumbs of the consumer.

I argue that we, as users of social media, possesses an immense amount of power at our fingertips that can provide a source of agency for social justice issues. Not only do consumers generate data with every like, they create patterns and suggestions for other users in their friend group or their followers when they use Google search, shop online or view the pages of people they like. Collectively, this is a powerful position of influence that does not go unwatched. The focus of Generation Like, is the individualistic nature of these likes (individual fame, fortune etc.). I began wonder how these likes can instead empower us in a way that benefits the greater good and simultaneously help a large number of people come together in solidarity.

In terms of social justice, social media can have an important role in creating data that speaks to people in a way that will better society and connect on issues of injustice and inequality.  In Social Media Freaks, Dustin Kidd exemplifies social media’s tendency to give its users a “valuable course of action” or agency. When tragedies occur, social media can be a way to congregate, respond and act. In addition, viral videos on social media often come from organizations that strive to see a change in the world. For example, Ditch the Label and its anti-bullying campaign produced a video last year, “Are You Living an Insta Lie? Social Media VS. Reality”: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EFHbruKEmw) that yielded over two million viewers. The video showed discrepancies between people’s lives on social media and in real life. By portraying the lives of people displaying false versions of themselves online, it revealed a vulnerability that is present in everyone. This was Ditch The Label’s biggest hit online earned by teaming up with Boohoo, a popular UK clothing site. Together, they were able to  create a video that still stays within the mission of Ditch the Label’s intentions of inclusivity, anti-bullying, anti-hate and self-love through collaboration, art and access to resources.

Additionally social media provides us with agency by providing a useful source to uplift one another. This occurs in two ways: 1. By creating a space for positive influence (also known as techno-optimism ) and 2. By creating a space for community. For example, the human rights of women are not fully recognized in every society nor every household. Seeing powerful women engaging together online provides visibility and empowerment in spaces where it is otherwise inaccessible. An example of this is a video created by The Global Goals, entitled #WhatIReallyReallyWant. The video went viral with 1.8 million views online: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZQ2RUFd54o.). Some of the messages included are, “ Equal Pay, End Violence Against Girls, End Child Marriage”. This video of young women dancing around the world displays an intersectional feminist message emphasizing girl power and egalitarian society.

The album Lemonade by Beyoncé tells the story of the experience as a black woman. Beyoncé retraces the infidelity and reconciliation with her husband, Jay-Z.  Beyoncé uses this love story as a platform to the larger story that women have had to face for many generations before her such as black women’s bodies being property, fetishized, the overall disrespect black women have faced from their people and society. While many agree that Lemonade does tell a powerful story of the black women’s’ experience, many are not convinced that this story is one that Beyoncé has faced. Many people believe that Beyoncé & Jay-Z has sold this story to make money, but Beyoncé is indeed telling the story of her relationship with Jay-Z. I argue that Lemonade is not only a reflection of black women’s experience, but of Beyoncé’s life.

One criticism that people first argue over Beyoncé is that she does not write her own music. Nevertheless, that does not mean that a person cannot collect various pieces of original art (songs) to create a large piece of art (Lemonade). When looking at the writing credits of the various songs, many songs have multiple writers, but in every song Beyoncé has writing creds. It is more than possible for Beyoncé to receive a song and have it tailored to her life. For example, in the song “Formation” the lyrics are “My daddy Alabama, momma Louisiana/You mix that negro with that Creole make a Texas bamma” which is where she and her parents are from. It is lyrics like this that are tailored to her life, which Beyoncé more than likely has influence over.

The next point is the lyric “Becky with the good hair” being a reference to someone that Jay-Z cheated with years ago. While it Is mostly speculation as to who exactly “Becky” is, there has been many women that Jay-Z has been suspected of cheating with such as Rita Ora, Rihanna, and most notably Rachel Roy who posted a selfie quoting herself with the “good hair” just days after Lemonade premiered. However, this is not the first-time Beyoncé has talked about cheating while with Jay-Z, as she did a powerful rendition of Resentment in the video listed below. Beyoncé has had her fair share of struggles with her marriage as she has suffered from miscarriages, constant backlash from those who oppose her support of the Black Lives Matter movement, and cheating.

Lastly, one cannot deny the anger and sadness behind her videos such as “Don’t Hurt Yourself” and “Sandcastles”. While music videos are supposed to display a certain emotion depending on the song, in the video “Don’t Hurt Yourself” you can clearly see the rage behind Beyoncé’s lyrics and her movements throughout the video. In “Sandcastles” the sadness behind this song is strong and clear from her acting to the moment she says “Bitch, I scratched out your name and your face/What is it about you that I can’t erase, baby?” At this point, her voice even cracks releasing the tears, as she reflects on her relationship. This type of emotion is even reflected in Jay-Z’s 4:44 with his response to Beyoncé’s album “Lemonade”. Jay-Z affirms things that he has done wrong in their relationship, all of which align with themes and issues that Beyoncé addresses in Lemonade.

In conclusion, no one absolutely knows what goes on behind the scenes with Beyoncé & Jay-Z besides the two. However, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to infer that there is indeed going on. Beyoncé & Jay-Z are both human beings with flaws and no relationship is perfect. There will be difficult times and there will be great times. While many argue that this is simply a piece of art that Beyoncé is marketing, it can also be said that this reflects her life as well.

Even someone as majestic as Beyonce is not immune to criticism. This should teach us as activists and as listeners of Beyonce that constructive criticism is just part of being outspoken and putting yourself out there; criticism for the sake of promoting awareness to different issues and intersectionality can be helpful in igniting important conversations, as my Sociology of Popular Culture class demonstrates. Iconic activist and Black feminist Gloria Watkins, better known as Bell Hooks, wrote this essay critiquing Beyonce’s cinematic visual album, Lemonade, mainly pointing out that Beyonce is capitalizing off of the presentation of Black bodies, and presents an argument which I argue is important to consider.

Beyonce’s “Formation,” a song included in Lemonade which was made more widely available than the rest of the songs in the album, can present a good example of what Bell Hooks mainly critiques--“It’s all about the body, and the body as a commodity.” Hooks argues that what is different about the commodification of Black bodies in Beyonce’s visual album is that instead of them being bought and sold, the intent of their presentation is to entertain and challenge societal views of Black women. I would agree that this still counts as commodification and perhaps even objectification for the purpose of capitalization, but I would also add that the intent of Lemonade should not and cannot be overlooked; Beyonce did not simply want to tell the story of her experience with infidelity, she wanted to celebrate Black culture. Although Lemonade cannot possibly succeed in changing the entire script for Black women in society, it can contribute to that. In a cultural context where white men and women capitalize off of appropriating Black culture, it is empowering to see Black women capitalize off of celebrating their own culture.

Another valid point that Hooks brought up was that there was not enough time dedicated to the mothers of the young Black men taken too soon due to police brutality--that they went unnamed. Hooks precedes this point by saying that, “Portraits of ordinary everyday black women are spotlighted, poised as though they are royalty,” so the two points can be connected because even though the audience largely had to guess who the mothers were and what their significance was, they were still portrayed in a way that most Black women who have been traumatized and suffered loss are not. I still agree with Hooks that the mothers of the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Eric Garner, should have been noticeably named to the audience, so as to countervail the hegemonic norm of avoiding confronting Black women who have dealt with police brutality and violence.

Lemonade is the sixth studio album by Beyoncé. On her sixth solo album, Beyoncé Knowles Carter starts rolling mid-scene: She’s just realized that her husband is cheating on her. The surrounding context is familiar to anyone who follows popular culture. Beyoncé and Jay Z are the most famous musical couple on the planet, and Beyoncé in particular is in a great place. With 2013’s Beyoncé, MJ-level talent met pop-perfectionism in a moment that defined album-cycle disruption; moreover, it was a victory lap Bey took as pop feminism's reigning goddess. I argue that Beyoncé’s political bent takes a back seat to personal matters; these are, though, expansively contextualized.

The album’s title comes from Beyoncé’s 90-year-old grandmother-in-law, Hattie White, who endorsed the old epigram that since life served her lemons, she made lemonade; a testament to female endurance and pragmatism. What unfolds is an album about male-pattern infidelity and female self-examination. That cycle can be broken with forgiveness, Beyoncé implies – but not before she breaks stuff with a baseball bat on Hold Up. With a sassy dancehall lilt, Beyonce unexpectedly quotes a Yeah Yeah Yeahs track, a cocktail of warmth and fury. “What’s worse, looking jealous or crazy?” she wonders. She appears, for half of the album, to be as mad as hell at Jay Z. It is tremendous.

At its basest level, then, Lemonade is a gossip rag, as art-directed by a Vogue stylist who’s smoked the budget. In a series of sumptuous vignettes, in which Serena Williams gyrates and a range of other famous black female figures make visual cameos, Beyoncé appears to launder her business in public. Rumours of a rift in the marriage ricocheted around the internet in 2014 after Solange Knowles, Beyoncé’s hipper little sister, attacked Jay Z in a lift. Now Beyoncé names names, regrets the ring, and threatens to leave if he “try that shit again”.

The songs, though, are not just prurient catnip, but actual dynamite – a dazzling series of edgy, but tuneful collaborations with a diverse array of guests. Beyoncé’s hurt is articulated magnificently, often quoting Somali-British poet Warsan Shire, who doesn’t mince words like “menses”. You can hear the confident hand of Jack White on the superb digital-analogue confection Don’t Hurt Yourself corrects where Beyoncé unleashes a righteous hip-hop blues-woman holler. Even heavier and freakier with organ is Freedom, a declaration of intent that features a typically electrifying Kendrick Lamar verse.

After Beyoncé makes nearly half an album’s worth of glorious rage songs directed at an unfaithful partner, she gives it a little time and remembers that she was raised to value hard work and spirituality. And so, she can’t give up on her marriage, the same one she spent her last two albums celebrating. Beyoncé even kind of sells it, surmising with a tear-inducing sincerity on relaxed-fit soul jam “All Night” that “nothing real can be threatened.” It’s an easy platitude to make, but it’s also an extremely Beyoncé way of looking at things. For a perfectionist who controls her image meticulously, Beyoncé is obsessed with the notion of realness. That’s the biggest selling point of an album like Lemonade, but there’s a quality to it that also invites skepticism: That desire to basically art-direct your own sobbing self-portrait to make sure your mascara smears in the most perfectly disheveled way. But who cares what's "real" when the music delivers a truth you can use.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/arts/music/beyonce-lemonade.html

           The documentary “Me at The Zoo” is a documentary that takes a close look at one of YouTube’s infamous bloggers, Chris Crocker. Me at The Zoo examines multiple topics such as social media, notoriety, and sexuality. Chris Crocker is not at all shy when it comes to expressing himself and his sexuality. Chris was often harassed in his small home town and threatened because of how he expressed himself. School officials even refused to offer him any protection because they did not agree with his expression of himself either, leaving Chris to be homeschooled. Sexuality played an important role in the film, especially after Chris went viral with his “Leave Brittney Alone!” video. While thousands of people on the internet loved the video, many of those on the internet hated it so much that they threatened went as far to threaten him in real life. However, despite the threats and hate, Chris continued to use YouTube and other social media platforms to express himself, which led me to believe that there is something about the internet that attracts people despite the bullying and harassment. Therefore, I argue that social media is a safer place for those whose sexuality is different from the norm.

           In physical space, or as we might say “real life”, people do not have the ability to remain anonymous. Whether a person expresses themselves by the things they say, wear, or do, the lack of these forms of expression communicates how a person is as well. In physical space, those who identify as LGBT are often harassed and have a difficult navigating through spaces such as schools, work place, and even just going out in public spaces. According to a study conducted by UCLA’s William’s Institute, 21% of LGBT employees report that they have been discriminated against in hiring, promotions and pay. According GLSEN’s study conducted in 2015, LGBT students were 5x more likely to be bullied in middle and high school than non-LGBT students. It has been shown time and time again that these places are notoriously unsafe for LGBT people, however, as time progresses there has been more education and understanding in recent years than before.

           When it comes to one’s presence online, you can completely mask who you are or create an entire new personality to an extent. Also, even if you do present a certain persona online, you could always restart and become someone else. On the internet, no one knows who you are, what you look like, or anything else about you. In addition to this, there are communities and forums that LGBT people can join for social support or even just to know that there are people like them in similar situations. The internet offers a safe space for LGBT to navigate and connect, allowing them to escape the harsh realities that they might face in real life.

           Despite how safe the internet can be, social media remains one of the biggest spaces for harassment and bullying. In the case of Chris Crocker, his videos started off with him simply expressing himself, but as he grew more popular, his sexuality entered the limelight and many people expressed horrible comments to him. If it wasn’t for the strong social support of his family, specifically his grandmother, his situation may have been as pleasant. However, despite all the hate he received, he still appealed to those who supported him and appreciated him for who he is. This sort of reflects real life in the sense of how people function. For those who get harassed in real life, they do not continue to hang around their tormentors, but rather separate themselves from them. On the internet, for those who are harassed, often do their best to ignore those who are against them. Therefore, despite the dangers of potential harassment one may face on the internet, the benefits that the internet can have such as connecting with similar people, creating a more favorable identity, or simply just escaping their everyday lives outweighs the risk that the internet can present.

After watching the documentary Me at the Zoo, I was confused at first. I didn’t understand exactly what the point was supposed to be, and then I dived into the world of Youtube and the long-time creators that have thrived there. I argue that this documentary gives a small but accurate glimpse into what life is actually like behind the camera of popular online influencers.

The focal point of this film was the one and only Chris Crocker, who may not be well known now by those younger than myself, but I couldn never forget this icon. When these creators start their online presences at young ages, we as the audience see them evolve and grow attached to this faux interpersonal connection we feel like we’ve made, and depending on how “passionate” a viewer might be could cause an unhealthy idolization. Once a creator like Crocker puts any part of their personal life online, these kids and even young adults feel as if they are entitled to know every single aspect from now on. And when they aren’t given the amount of transparency that they think they deserve, the internet can become an even more nasty place. The concept of being an social media influencer on any platform can be misconstrued into making these creative individuals seem like puppets, and these puppets aren’t even getting paid well. When talking about how Crocker was not being partnered or paid for his millions of views and branding, I couldn’t help but think about how many other influencers must also be struggling financially. Especially now, almost everyone wants to be an internet start, and more specifically a “Youtuber”. This craze is clouded with dreams of making lots of money for just making videos, but logistically that is not how this works. If you are not the spitting image of what Youtube wants from you, than your payments will suffer. Without advertisements and company support, the biggest names on the internet will just be that: a name. You can read a more specific example of creators and their financial struggles despite being internet famous here.

The documentary then dives deeper into a part of the internet everyone knows about: hate. Crocker experienced a tremendous amount of hate comments and discrimination just from being online. Yes, he was an openly queer individual in an extremely conservative and religious town, but people loved to hate Chris Crocker. You often see in videos that the creator has learned to roll things off their back and don’t pay attention to what people have to say, but that is not realistic either. Of course, having a large audience that supports you makes it much easier to deal with any negative comments, but growing up along with the internet I know that things can get really nasty. Kids think that once they have any sort of following that their lives will change for the better, or that everything will be easy. This misconception of what it is like to be considered “internet famous” causes people to have a false sense of reality. Anna Akana, a well-known personality on Youtube with over 1.9 million subscribers, a successful comedian and a promising actress posted this video titled “Why I’m a Sell Out”. Without going too in-depth in the video, the premise is that Akana was receiving hate because she was posting brand deals on her social media accounts, and audiences don’t like that. It doesn’t seem to occur to people that making a video doesn't produce money. Ad revenue is was bring in the profit, and Akana did a good job bringing this topic to light.

Throughout history, there have been many inventions which changed the world. While initially invented for scientific or military purposes, some of these technologies end up being used for entertainment. The television is a perfect example and has held a monopoly on the entertainment around the world for many decades. Recently, however, the internet has been rising in the entertainment industry giving rise to new forms of entertainment and expression. Along with these new forms such as Vlogging and Streaming, new celebrities emerge from the woodwork. Chris Crocker is a perfect example of such a celebrity. Almost overnight, his short YouTube Video managed to gain millions of views, garnering thousands of supporters. I argue that with the progression of time, the internet will supersede television and other forms of entertainment based on trends of viewership, ease of access, and monetary incentive.

Television has been a powerhouse for many decades. However with the increase in internet speed, capacity and availability, the internet has been slowly taking over. In the early 1980’s, nearly 230 million people regularly watched television at least once a week in America. However in the early 2010’s, that number has decreased to nearly 170 million people. That is a staggering drop. However in the past fifteen years, nearly every American has gained internet access and regularly uses it. While there is little growth available for internet to expand, the amount of time people spend on it is steadily increasing. From just several hours at their houses, to every hour on their mobile phones. As a result, there is less of an incentive to use the television when most of the news that they receive is already done so through the internet. Instead of waiting for the morning or evening news, people now learn about events as they are developing. With such trends, television is becoming obsolete.

The internet has become significantly more accessible and continues to do so. Initially, you had to live in a certain region of the country so that internet suppliers could reach your house. However now, the big companies are reaching out to even the most remote of locations while offering different speeds and constant maintenance. More recently, the internet has been adapting by being spread into telephones that most people carry. Most smartphones have internet capability and many large and small cities are now completely covered with wifi hotspots. This allows people to surf the web at any time. This promotes constant use and interacts with people to a level that infiltrates every aspect of their lives.

There has been more reason to join the internet than ever before. Many people such as PewDiePie on YouTube or Lirik on Twitch have made millions just streaming games or making videos. These success stories are not backed by large companies or governments but just regular people putting themselves and their content out there. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people also try to get a piece of the action. As advertising increases in these mediums, the amount of potential money increases as well. Such industries are only growing and with recent scandals with television personalities, advertising is leaving television. The scales seem to be shifting towards the internet becoming the prevailing medium for entertainment and communication.

In the documentary “Me at the Zoo” Chris Crocker brings to light the supportive yet destructive nature of social media, more specifically Youtube. His videos reached millions of people who made him into an internet star, whether it was for his sassy videos, or for his “don’t hate on Britney” rant. But his fame was short lived as soon people started hating on, bullying, and threatening Chris, and although he didn’t let that prevent him from making his videos, you could tell that it was affecting him. I argue that although social media can be a great escape from reality, and a place to connect to people that understand and support you, it also opens the opportunity for people to judge you and hurt you anonymously.

  When there is nowhere for kids to go, and no one to turn to, they turn to the internet for support. This is especially true in the case of young transgender kids like Chris, who have no place where they can express themselves, or people that support their lifestyle. Social media provides a lifeline for these people, providing them with role models, like Britney Spears was for Chris Crocker, to look up to and “worship.” This allows them to feel less alone, and gives them a purpose in a way, like Chris thought he had a duty to protect Britney’s image. Although it is great for them to finally find a space where they feel comfortable, not everyone online is supportive of, and respectful of others decisions.

  As Duane Byrge from The Hollywood Reporter states, “smeared with garish make-up and his hair bleached blond, he's kind of neo-Ziggy Stardust, without the talent.” Basically saying that with a little bit of pizazz anyone can get big on youtube whether you have any talent or not. Chris Crocker may have achieved a lot more fame than other youtubers get, almost getting his own tv-show, but his fame was not all that great. He received death threats, hate mail, and at times you could see that although he tried so hard not to let it affect him, it got him down and depressed. This definitely highlights the harm that social media can do on someone that already seems to be alone and in need of support. The internet in this manner allows for people, who apparently have nothing better to do, to feed into others weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

  Putting all the negatives aside, social media does allow for people that have similar interests or experiences to connect and find support. It also provides a sort of a safe haven for people that need it. The camera, he says, “was my way of defending myself against the people in my hometown without having to fight back physically,” Jon Caramanica from the New York Times explains. His videos allowed him to express his true self to the world in a way that his small town did not. He was more comfortable being himself on camera than he was in reality because he knew that behind the camera people can say hurtful things, but no one would be able to hurt him. In the end you have to decide whether the good overrides the bad or not. 

Citation:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/me-at-the-zoo-youtube-film-review-287164