PrincessVette

Bello bello❣️Welcome to my last blog🥹 The last topic I will be discussing on how digital communities save lives during crises.

🚨 Crisis Can Happen Anytime

Imagine a massive flood, bushfire, or earthquake striking a community. Roads are blocked, communication systems are disrupted, and emergency services are overwhelmed. In situations like these, information can save lives. Surprisingly, some of the most valuable information often comes not from authorities, but from ordinary people using digital technologies to report what is happening around them.

🌐 What is Crowdsourcing?

Crowdsourcing refers to gathering information, ideas, or services from a large group of people through the internet. During disasters, citizens can report incidents, share updates, upload photos, and identify areas that need urgent help. According to Riccardi (2016), crowdsourcing has become a powerful tool in disaster response because it provides real-time information directly from affected communities. Instead of waiting for official reports, emergency responders can access valuable information from people on the ground 📱✨.

📍 Giving People a Voice

One of the most successful examples of crowdsourcing in crisis management is Ushahidi. The platform allows people to submit reports through mobile phones, websites, and social media, which are then displayed on interactive maps (Ushahidi, 2018). This helps emergency responders understand what is happening in affected areas and make faster decisions. More importantly, Ushahidi gives ordinary citizens a voice during emergencies, ensuring that local experiences and urgent needs are not overlooked 🌍📍.

📱 Social Media as a Lifeline

Social media has become an essential communication tool during disasters. Platforms such as Facebook enable communities to share safety updates, locate family members, and spread important information quickly. Organisations such as the Australian Red Cross also use social media to provide emergency updates and support resources to the public. During a crisis, a simple post or update can help connect people, reduce uncertainty, and even save lives ❤️.

🤝 Digital Volunteers Making a Difference

Crowdsourcing is not limited to sharing information. Organisations such as CrisisCommons and Random Hacks of Kindness bring together volunteers with skills in technology, design, and data analysis to create solutions for disaster response. These initiatives demonstrate how people from different backgrounds can collaborate to solve real-world problems and support communities in need (CrisisCommons, n.d.; Random Hacks of Kindness, n.d.). It is a powerful reminder that technology works best when it brings people together 🤝💻.

⚠️ The Challenges of Crowdsourcing

Despite its many benefits, crowdsourcing is not perfect. One major challenge is misinformation. During emergencies, inaccurate reports can spread rapidly, creating confusion and making it harder for responders to identify genuine needs. As Riccardi (2016) notes, information gathered through crowdsourcing must be verified to ensure it is reliable. Additionally, not everyone has equal access to digital technologies or internet connections, which means some communities may still struggle to participate in these online networks 🌐⚠️.

✨ More Than Just Technology

Crowdsourcing is about much more than apps, websites, and digital maps. It reflects the power of collective action and demonstrates how digital citizens can contribute to their communities during difficult times. Patrick Meier’s work on iRevolution highlights how technology and crowdsourcing are transforming disaster response by allowing citizens to become active participants rather than passive observers (Meier, n.d.). In moments of crisis, people are not just consuming information—they are creating it, sharing it, and using it to help others.

🌍 Final Thoughts

When disasters occur, communities no longer have to rely solely on official sources of information. Through crowdsourcing, social media, and digital collaboration, ordinary people can actively support emergency response efforts. Platforms like Ushahidi, along with initiatives such as CrisisCommons and Random Hacks of Kindness, show how collective intelligence can make a real difference during emergencies. Sometimes, the crowd is not just watching the crisis unfold—it is helping to save lives 🚨❤️.

References

CrisisCommons. (n.d.). CrisisCommons.

Meier, P. (n.d.). iRevolution: Exploring crowdsourcing, technology and disaster.

Random Hacks of Kindness. (n.d.). Random Hacks of Kindness.

Riccardi, M. (2016). The power of crowdsourcing in disaster response operations. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 20, 123–128.

Ushahidi. (2018, January 26). Ushahidi’s crowdsourcing software gives people a voice in times of crisis.

Hiii friends❤️ Scrolling through social media often feels like stepping into a space that is constantly active 🌙✨ People are talking, arguing, laughing, posting, reacting — all at once, all the time. It looks open, even democratic. But underneath this constant noise is a quieter and more uncomfortable question: who actually feels safe enough to speak? Because for many users, especially women and marginalised voices, digital spaces are not neutral at all. They are shaped by tension, visibility, and sometimes hostility that can turn even a simple post into a target 🎯

💬 “It’s just the internet” — or is it?

One of the most common ways online harm is dismissed is through the phrase “it’s just the internet.” But this mindset is exactly what allows harassment to continue unchecked. Haslop, O’Rourke, and Southern (2021) found that gendered harassment in student online cultures is often normalised, minimised, or reframed as humour 😐 What may appear as “banter” or “jokes” can still create real emotional pressure and exclusion. Over time, this shapes a culture where harmful behaviour is not always challenged — it is tolerated. And when harm becomes normal, silence often becomes the safer option 🤐

🔥 The manosphere: anger, identity, and belonging

Some online communities are built not just around content, but around emotion — especially frustration, resentment, and identity. The “manosphere” is one example. Rich and Bujalkagence (2023) explain how figures like Andrew Tate gain attention by speaking to feelings of uncertainty, lack of direction, and social frustration, particularly among some young men. But this emotional appeal often comes with a shift in narrative: women are framed as the problem, feminism becomes an enemy, and dominance is treated as success 🧠⚠️ What makes this powerful is not just the ideas themselves, but how they are delivered — confidently, repeatedly, and in ways that feel like “truth” to those searching for certainty.

🧠 When harassment becomes a system, not a mistake

Online harassment is often imagined as isolated incidents — a rude comment here, a toxic reply there. But Marwick and Caplan (2018) describe something more structured: networked harassment. This means harm is not random; it is repeated, connected, and culturally reinforced 🔁 And that changes everything. It turns single experiences into patterns. It turns interaction into pressure. It turns participation into risk. For many users, this leads to hesitation — deleting posts, avoiding engagement, or choosing silence altogether. Not because they lack something to say, but because speaking starts to feel like a cost they cannot afford 💔

🎭 Gaslighting in digital spaces: “you’re overreacting”

Not all harm online is direct. Some of it comes through denial. Gleeson (2018) explains gaslighting as a process where someone is made to question their own perception of reality. Online, this can appear in responses like:

“That didn’t happen.”

“You’re being dramatic.”

“It’s not that serious.”

Over time, this kind of response can create self-doubt 😶‍🌫️ People begin to second-guess their experiences, hesitate to report harm, or feel unsure about whether their reactions are valid. The result is not just silence — it is uncertainty about whether speaking is even justified.

🎮 Gaming culture & quiet exclusion

Exclusion online is not always loud or obvious. Sometimes it is embedded in expectations and culture itself. Maloney, Roberts, and Graham (2019) highlight how gaming culture is strongly shaped by masculine norms 🎮 This influences who is seen as belonging, even without explicit harassment.

It can shows up in different ways:

💣being ignored in group play

💣being assumed inexperienced

💣being questioned as a “real gamer”

These small moments accumulate. And over time, they send a clear message about who the space is really designed for.

⚖️ Governance: protection that often arrives late

Platforms and governments have introduced systems to address online harm, including Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and the Online Safety Act 2021 ⚖️ These frameworks aim to improve reporting mechanisms and reduce harmful behaviour. However, much of this governance is reactive. It tends to respond after harm has already occurred — after someone has already been targeted, affected, or silenced. This raises an important concern: if protection only arrives after damage is done, how effective is it in ensuring safe digital participation?

💥 But the internet is also resistance

Despite these challenges, online spaces are not defined only by harm — they are also spaces of resistance and creativity. Vitis and Gilmour (2017) show how women have used humour, art, and public exposure to challenge sexual harassment online 🎨✨ These strategies reclaim control and shift attention back onto perpetrators. Similarly, movements like #MeToo have shown how shared storytelling can transform individual experiences into collective visibility 🌍 Sundén and Paasonen (2019) highlight how emotion, humour, and connection play a role in how people process and resist online harm. Even in difficult spaces, users continue to find ways to speak, respond, and support each other.

🌪️ So… who gets to speak?

Digital citizenship is often described as equal participation — the idea that everyone has a voice online. But in practice, participation is shaped by unequal experiences.

Some voices are amplified 📣

Some are challenged 🤨

Some are targeted 😔

Some are pushed into silence 🤐

Not because they matter less, but because speaking comes with different levels of risk depending on who you are and how others respond to you. So maybe the real question is not just whether people can speak online — but whether they can speak without fear, distortion, or punishment 🌐 Because until that becomes possible, digital citizenship will remain uneven, no matter how “open” social media appears on the surface.

References

Haslop, C., O’Rourke, F., & Southern, R. (2021). #NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide in UK student online culture. Convergence, 27(5), 1418–1438.

Gleeson, J. (2018). What does gaslighting mean? The Conversation.

Marwick, A. E., & Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 543–559.

Rich, B., & Bujalkagence, E. (2023). The draw of the ‘manosphere’. The Conversation.

Maloney, M., Roberts, S., & Graham, T. (2019). Gender, Masculinity and Video Gaming. Palgrave.

Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2017). Dick pics on blast: resistance to online sexual harassment. Crime, Media, Culture.

Sundén, J., & Paasonen, S. (2019). Inappropriate laughter and #MeToo affect. Social Media + Society.

Hey everyone! 👋

When people think about video games, they often imagine competition, high scores, or fast-paced action. However, many games today focus on creativity, relaxation, and everyday simulation experiences that still manage to build strong communities. A great example of this is Good Pizza, Great Pizza🍕, a casual restaurant simulation game that has developed a surprisingly active and social player base.

🌟 Understanding Good Pizza, Great Pizza

Good Pizza, Great Pizza is a single-player simulation game where players run a pizza shop, take customer orders, prepare pizzas, and manage business upgrades. While it may look simple, the game’s charm comes from its storytelling, humour, and increasingly complex customer requests. From a game studies perspective, indie and casual games like this often gain cultural value not only from gameplay mechanics but also from the communities that form around them (Keogh, 2021). Even without built-in multiplayer features, players still participate in shared discussions, strategies, and experiences.

🤝 Social Gaming Beyond Multiplayer

Social gaming is not limited to online competitive games. Even single-player games like Good Pizza, Great Pizza create opportunities for interaction through online platforms. Players actively share:

🍕difficult customer orders

🍕pizza design strategies

🍕gameplay screenshots

🍕personal achievements

These interactions often take place on social media platforms, forums, and fan communities, showing how play extends beyond the game itself into everyday digital culture (Hjorth et al., 2021). This demonstrates that “playing” is not just an individual activity — it becomes a shared cultural experience shaped by online communication and creativity.

🎥 Live Streaming & Watching Others Play

Live streaming has become a major part of modern gaming culture. According to Taylor (2018), streaming platforms have transformed gameplay into a form of public performance, where audiences actively watch, react, and participate in gaming experiences. Even games like Good Pizza, Great Pizza are popular on platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, where creators:

🍕showcase gameplay strategies

🍕complete fun challenges

🍕share relaxing “cozy gameplay” content

Streaming allows audiences to feel connected not only to the game but also to the streamer, forming parasocial relationships and community interaction in real time (Taylor, 2018).

🌍 Platformisation & Game Communities

Modern gaming communities are also shaped by larger digital systems and platforms. Chia et al. (2020) explain that game development and distribution are increasingly influenced by “platformisation,” where platforms like mobile app stores and social media shape how games are discovered, played, and shared.

For Good Pizza, Great Pizza, this means:

🍕 visibility depends on mobile platforms

🍕communities grow through algorithm-driven content

🍕creators help spread gameplay trends online

This shows that gaming culture is not just about players — it is also shaped by the platforms that host and distribute the content.

⚠️ Challenges in Gaming Communities

Even in positive and relaxed gaming communities, challenges still exist. These can include:

🍕repetitive content in online discussions

🍕misinformation about gameplay strategies

🍕negative or unhelpful comments in community spaces

As Hjorth et al. (2021) suggest, digital play spaces reflect broader social behaviours, meaning online interactions can be both creative and problematic. This highlights the importance of digital citizenship, respect, and responsible participation in online gaming communities.

🎯 Final Thoughts

Good Pizza, Great Pizza may seem like a simple cooking simulation game, but it represents something much larger: the way games create shared cultural experiences. Through online discussions, content creation, live streaming, and platform-driven communities, players connect in meaningful ways even without direct multiplayer gameplay. As Keogh (2021), Taylor (2018), Hjorth et al. (2021), and Chia et al. (2020) all suggest in different ways, gaming today is deeply social, platformed, and culturally embedded. So whether you’re making pizzas, watching gameplay videos, or scrolling through fan content online, you’re part of a much bigger digital gaming community than you might think. 🍕✨

Reference

Chia, A., Keogh, B., Leorke, D., & Nicoll, B. (2020). Platformisation in game development. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1515

https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/platformisation-game-development

Hjorth, L., Richardson, I., Davies, H., & Balmford, W. (2021). Exploring play. In Exploring Minecraft: Ethnographies of play and creativity (pp. 27–47). Palgrave Macmillan.

Keogh, B. (2021). The Melbourne indie game scenes: Value regimes in localized game development (Chapter 13). In P. Ruffino (Ed.), Independent videogames: Cultures, networks, techniques and politics (pp. 209–222). Routledge.

Helloooooooooo😜 These augmented reality (AR) filters are now a part of social media culture, ranging from ‘dog ears'🐶 on Snapchat to ‘perfect skin' on Instagram and TikTok. In a single tap, users can smooth skin, alter facial features, add makeup, and even completely alter their appearance. These filters can be innocuous and amusing, but they also ask questions regarding digital authenticity and digital self presentation.

But what are AR Filters?

AR filters are digital overlays that alter a user’s appearance in real time using facial recognition and tracking technology. They are designed to enhance interaction, creativity, and entertainment on social media platforms. However, understanding how these filters work is an important aspect of software literacy. Software literacy refers to the ability to understand, evaluate, and critically use digital technologies rather than simply consuming them. Many users apply filters without considering the algorithms and design choices behind them. Developing software literacy helps users recognize that filtered images may not accurately represent reality. Understanding the technology behind AR filters empowers users to become informed and responsible participants in digital environments.

The Rise of Filtered Reality

People’s self-perception and perception of others have undergone a complete transformation as a result of social media. Digital technologies are becoming more and more important in the way people build their identity and interact with others. The images that are shared online are often purposefully chosen, edited and filtered, and may not accurately depict what life is like for you (Rettberg, 2014). Besides, AR filters are part of this, enabling users to showcase their perfect selves. Users will look more in tune with the socially acceptable beauty standards, such as larger eyes, smoother skin, slimmer faces and improved facial symmetry. This makes viewers become aware of “unrealistic” and “digitally altered” images and compare themselves to them without knowing how much technology has affected their appearance. The problem is, it isn’t just images that are edited. The features of photo editing have been around for years. The worry is that nowadays these changes are virtually undetectable in AR filters. The more advanced the filter, the more it is difficult to tell the difference between a real look and one that has been enhanced by the filter (Rettberg, 2014).

The Impact on Self-Image

A major worry with AR filters is how they affect the image of the individual and their self-esteem. Numerous beauty filters do a bit of tinkering with the face to make it look more appealing. As time goes on the user may get used to seeing a “filtered” version of themselves and develop a preference for the filtered image rather than the image itself (Barker, 2020). It is a topic that is especially salient with teenagers and young adults who use social media extensively. Faces that are always perfect and filtered can lead to unrealistic expectations of beauty and appearance. When users look at other images with enhanced features and compare themselves to them, they may develop a dissatisfaction with their own features. Confidence and mental health can also be impacted by differences between the online “self” and the “self” in real life. As digital enhancements become commonplace, authenticity might come across as less acceptable and it may be necessary to seek validation through increasingly edited content (Coy-Dibley, 2016).

AR Filters and Digital Identity

AR filters are not just about altering appearances; they also shape the ways in which people construct and manifest their digital identities. Filters can influence the way people present themselves in their social media profiles, which can be public or private. A lot of users take into account a particular design, state of mind, or personal brand when creating their filters. This may be an expression of creativity and self-expression, but it also poses the question of authenticity. Where does personal expression end and misrepresentation begin if a person’s online identity is a reflection of their ‘real’ identity? As technology increasingly influences the way people communicate, it is important that users understand that their online identity is not just formed due to their own decisions but because of the software and algorithm that are part of the digital platforms they use (Rettberg, 2017).

What is the role of Software Literacy?

You can’t be a good software user without being software literate. Software literacy requires an awareness of the fact that technology is not neutral. Each filter, algorithm and platform feature is intended to drive a specific goal, such as higher engagement, more content creation, or more user actions. Once users know how AR filters operate, they can better consider the information they come across online. They can identify when pictures are made up and not hold themselves to unrealistic standards. Software literacy can foster an attitude of active, rather than passive, software users. As digital content constantly evolves and is curated, it is just as important to understand how as well as what it is.

Digital Citizenship in a Filtered World

Digital citizenship is about being responsible, ethical, and respectful with technology. Responsible digital citizenship for AR filters is when we are aware of how filtered content might affect our self and others. Users need to be aware of the critical aspect of thinking about the image they post or view in the digital context. The following questions can foster more conscious use of internet content: “Does this image reflect reality?,” “Could this content lead to unrealistic expectations?” Responsible digital citizens shouldn’t have no filters at all. Filters can be a fun, creative and useful storytelling and self-expression tool. But for responsible usage, there must be an understanding of their effect on perceptions of beauty, identity and authenticity. Digital citizenship and software literacy can be integrated together, allowing the users to interact with technology creatively and intelligently.

Conclusion

AR filters have revolutionized the ways of communication, expression and interaction on social media. They provide thrilling prospects for creativity and fun, but also have the potential to create a blurring of reality and digital enhancement. With the rise of filtered content, authenticity is becoming more critical than ever. Software literacy and digital citizenship both contribute to users knowing about and behaving responsibly and ethically on the internet, with software literacy helping to make people understand the technology behind AR filters. These skills can help people to be more aware and confident in digital environments. Next time you're browsing the social media, pay attention to what you're viewing. Is it a true depiction or a carefully-honed digital version of reality? Learning to question what we see may be one of the most critical digital skills today in this filtered world.

References

Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). “Digitised Dysmorphia” of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16040. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.40

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Filtered Reality. In Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2

Welcome back to my blog❣️ It's hard to not come across a series of “perfect✨” faces and bodies when scrolling through Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat today. The image of sharp jawlines, perfect skin, petite waists and accentuated features is the mainstay of image-based social media sites. Some of them are filtered or cropped while others are associated with cosmetic surgery or plastic surgery. Social media has taken plastic surgery from a private medical choice to a highly publicized web trend, which has brought up some significant issues of digital citizenship, health education and body image (Wen, Chia, & Hao, 2015).

Visual social media platforms are meant to prompt users to showcase a hyper-realistic version of themselves. Social media algorithms tend to favour content that gets attention and engagement, particularly captivating body images. This leaves pressure on users, especially the young female, to continually present a “golden image” on the internet. Posts with a more conventional draw will likely get more likes, shares and recommendations. Thus, beauty ideals get restricted and unattainable online😞 (Carah & Dobson, 2016).

Platforms such as Instagram and YouTube have in particular seen an abundance of plastic surgery content. Not only is there education, but marketing too using plastic surgery related hashtags are widely used😯 (Dorfman et al., 2018). Before and after photos, videos of procedures, and recovery stories will be posted by surgeons, influencers, and clinics to draw in viewers and clients. Some of this content might be informative, but it also can help normalise cosmetic surgery as a regular self-improvement option (Dorfman et al., 2018).

Online influencers are a significant influence in the attitude towards body modification. In the realm of digital culture, beauty and attention can be monetized through sponsorships, ads, and followers. It can push influencers and followers into setting unrealistic beauty standards, leading to cosmetic enhancements to seek online approval (Drenten et al., n.d.).

Meanwhile, platform algorithms determine who sees what creators and content online. Algorithmic invisibility occurs when creators don't receive visibility of their content on social media platforms because they are determined by their algorithms. This puts pressure on creators to evolve around platform standards and trends that are geared towards beauty and appearance. People will think that to be relevant or successful, they NEED to look good online🗣️ (Duffy & Meisner, 2022).

Health education is important to help the user to critically think about the risks and realities of cosmetic surgery. While the procedures may look glamorous on the internet, there are health, psychological and economic concerns. Many social media posts do not talk about the complications, the pain of the recovery or the mental health effect❤️‍🩹.A lot of social media posts do not mention the complications, the pain of the recovery or mental health effect (Victorian Government Health Minister, 2019).

Cosmetic surgery also influences public opinion, as seen in media outlets such as YouTube. Cosmetic surgery videos are typically seen in a favorable light, highlighting the confidence and transformation that comes from the procedure while downplaying the risks⚠️. These changes are often met with applause from the audience, reinforcing the notion that changing one's appearance brings happiness and social acceptance (Wen, Chia, & Hao, 2015).

The digital citizenship aspect of this is that users need to be equipped to interact with social media in a responsible, yet critical, way. Digital citizenship is about awareness of how algorithms, influencers, and online cultures impact self-image and decision making. Practicing critical thinking to question perfectionistic ideals💡, identifying sponsored and edited content and researching accurate medical information before undergoing cosmetic procedures (Duffy & Meisner, 2022; Carah & Dobson, 2016).

In conclusion, plastic surgery in the context of social media platforms visuals is a reflection of those issues of identity, beauty, and online culture. Social media can also be used to help give education and support, but it can also worsen body dissatisfaction and social pressure. Media literacy and health education is an important component in enabling people to make informed choices and have positive, healthy interactions with their body online💖.

Reference

Carah, N., & Dobson, A. (2016). Algorithmic hotness: Young women’s “promotion” and “reconnaissance” work via social media body images. Social Media + Society.

Dorfman, R. G., Vaca, E. E., Mahmood, E., Fine, N. A., & Schierle, C. F. (2018). Plastic surgery-related hashtag utilization on Instagram: Implications for education and marketing. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 38(3), 332–338.

Drenten, J., Gurrieri, L., & Tyler, M. Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention. Gender, Work and Organization.

Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2022). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437221111923

Victorian Government Health Minister. (2019). Protecting Victorians From Dodgy Cosmetic Surgery.

Hello guys and girls, this week’s topic is about sosial media influencers and the slot fashion movement💕. Being a good digital citizen in the current digital age is not about acting responsibly online but also about how individuals use online platforms to raise awareness, influence others, and bring social change. A good example of this is the way the social media influencers are utilized to promote the slow fashion movement.

👗 What is Slow Fashion?

Slow fashion is a reaction to the environmental and ethical issues created by fast fashion💡. It promotes sustainability, ethical production, and mindful consumption. Slow fashion helps people to make a quality, rather than a quantity choice, to ensure that the brands they buy and their purchase decisions are environmentally responsible and considerate of fair labor practices😍 (Domingos et al., 2022). This movement questions the culture of overconsumption facilitated by such brands as Shein that are often linked with mass production and waste.

📱 Influencers as Digital Citizens

Social media influencers are digital citizens as they use their platforms in a responsible manner to educate and inspire their audiences. Instead of just pushing the trends, nowadays many influencers create awareness about sustainable fashion and ethical trends.

For example:

💗The material that Tiffany Ferguson produces criticizes fast fashion and details sustainable options.

💗Venetia La Manna is an activist who uses her platform to raise an issue against unfair labor practices in the fashion industry.

💗Kristen Leo promotes minimalism, shopping second hand, and thoughtful consumption.

These influencers show responsible digital citizenship behavior by making their voices heard to foster positive change.

🇲🇾 Malaysian Influencers & Local Relevance

Influencers are also playing their role in slow fashion in more subtle yet profound ways in Malaysia. Although not all of them claim to be the followers of slow fashion, still, the content of their posts does encourage the idea of mindful consumption and sustainable practices.

🔥Jane Chuck promotes the idea of rewearing outfits and styling them creatively, demonstrating that fashion does not necessarily mean having to purchase new garments all the time.

🔥ZaraZya specializes in classic and simple fashion which is consistent with long-lasting and versatile clothes.

🔥Fatin Zakieyya is a curated fashion instagram that features considered fashion styling rather than excessive consumption.

These influencers demonstrate how local digital citizenship can be exercised by encouraging the responsible fashion choices in the Malaysian culture.

🌎 How Influencers Shape Consumer Behavior

Influencers are important people affecting the attitudes and behaviors of the audience by using the content they share on the Internet🌳. They educate followers about environmental issues, promote alternatives like thrift shopping and clothing swaps, encourage outfit repeating and creative styling, and raise awareness about unethical fashion practices. An example is the communities, such as Big Sister Swap, who promote a more sustainable fashion cycle by encouraging its members to swap clothes rather than constantly purchasing new ones. This illustrates how influencers can be used to speed up the slow fashion movement and be responsible and impactful online users❣️ (Ting et al., 2021).

⚠️ The Issue of Greenwashing

Nevertheless, not everything that an influencer posts is good💢. Not all brands and influencers are immune to greenwashing, where the products are marketed as sustainable without real effort. This may confuse the consumers and lessen the confidence in the actual sustainability programs (Kopnina, 2019). Both influencers and audiences as responsible digital citizens should think critically and ask themselves to verify the information they come across online.

💡 Digital Citizenship in Action

The slow fashion movement is a vivid example of the digital citizenship in action, as people resort to the social media to make responsible and knowledgeable decisions. Digital literacy can help users to be more engaged by sustainability claims and engage more ethically in consumption habits❤️‍🔥. Simultaneously, critical thinking enables the audiences to challenge the fast fashion culture, and online activism helps the audiences to disseminate and raise awareness about the issue, thus calling for change. Collectively, such practices demonstrate that social media can be a potent instrument in the marketing of a more moral and environmentally-friendly fashion industry🥇.

✨ Conclusion

The collaboration between social media influencers and the slow fashion movement demonstrates how digital citizenship may have a real-life effect🏙️. Influencers (both internationally and in Malaysia) are significant in influencing the behavior of the consumers and ensuring they adopt more sustainable behaviors. Today to be a digital citizen did not only imply consuming content, but also making informed and ethical choices utilizing digital platforms to construct a better future🧚🏻‍♀️.

Reference

Domingos, M., Vale, V. T., & Faria, S. (2022). Slow fashion consumer behavior: A literature review. Sustainability, 14(5), 2860. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633570?wrap=1

Geiger, S. M., & Keller, J. (2018). Shopping for clothes and sensitivity to the suffering of others. Environment and Behavior, 50(10), 1119–1144. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633444/download?wrap=1

Kopnina, H. (2019). Greenwashing or best case practices? Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 613–621. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633739?wrap=1

Hellooo friends💕Welcome back to my blog! In our increasingly digital world, digital citizenship is more than just being an ethical internet user. It's about the ways in which people engage online in an ethical, empowered💥and active manner. The Council of Europe defines digital citizenship as having the skills to use digital technologies critically and to participate in society (Council of Europe, 2022). This is particularly important when considering the potential of social media to form a hashtag publics and engage in online activism (Vromen, 2017).

Hashtag publics are created when people come together to share, debate and take action around a particular hashtag✨. Social media sites such as Twitter and Instagram enable the visibility of otherwise marginalised voices (Theocharis et al., 2023). For instance, hashtag campaigns like #ShoutYourAbortion show how online platforms can be used to engage the public on controversial social topics (Kim & Lee, 2022). These virtual discussions are not merely opinions but participatory democracy 🗳️.

In Malaysia, hashtag campaigns were vital during the COVID-19 pandemic🦠 to raise public awareness and mobilise collective action. Malaysians leveraged social media to disseminate information, honour frontline workers 👩‍⚕️👨‍⚕️, and debunk misinformation (Hashtag Campaigns During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Malaysia). This is an example of what Moonsun Choi and Dean Cristol call intersectional digital citizenship - when people engage in social discussions while taking into account various identities and inequalities (Choi & Cristol, 2021).

Digital media has also shifted political engagement 🏛️. Campaign hashtags and Australia's #auspol are examples of online spaces as political forums. Researchers such as Ariadne Vromen point out that digital citizenship in the age of the internet means participating in political discussions, often initiated by online advocacy movements and grassroots campaigns (Vromen, 2017). Likewise, studies like Yannis Theocharis' demonstrate how social media's affordances (shares, likes, and comments) promote political engagement (Theocharis et al., 2023).

But digital citizenship is not without its challenges‼️.Problems such as fake news, trolling and algorithmic filtering can hinder participation. As Andrew McCosker describes it, digital citizenship entails a balance between control, culture and participation (McCosker, 2016).

To conclude, digital citizenship in the era of the hashtag public is not just about being online, but also about being engaged, empowered and responsible. Activism, politics, and communities are just some of the ways users shape online environments. As social media platforms grow and change, so must the concept of digital citizenship adapt📱.

Reference

Council of Europe. (2022). Digital citizenship education handbook. https://www.coe.int/en/web/digital-citizenship-education/-/2022-edition-of-the-digital-citizenship-education-handbook Strasbourg, France.

Choi, M., & Cristol, D. (2021). Digital citizenship with intersectionality lens: Towards participatory democracy driven digital citizenship education. Theory Into Practice, 60(4), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1987094

Kim, Y., & Lee, S. (2022). #ShoutYourAbortion on Instagram: Exploring the visual representation of hashtag movement and the public’s responses. SAGE Open, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221093327

Vromen, A. (2017). Digital citizenship and political engagement: The challenge from online campaigning and advocacy organisations. Palgrave Macmillan. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633566?wrap=1

McCosker, A. (2016). Negotiating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633567/download?wrap=1

Theocharis, Y., Boulianne, S., Koc-Michalska, K., & Bimber, B. (2023). Platform affordances and political participation: How social media reshape political engagement. West European Politics, 46(4), 788–811. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633497?wrap=1

Hola! Welcome to my first Tumblr Blog, this week I will be sharing about the Reality TV in Digital Community. In the contemporary media, the reality television can be best perceived in the way in which viewers interact with it over the internet. This is evident in the Single’s Inferno🔥 where the show itself is just one component of a much bigger digital discussion created by the viewers on various platforms.

One of the major characteristics of the Single’s Inferno is that it promotes the culture of participation. Viewers do not just see the show; they engage in active discussions and remakes on the sites like Instagram and TikTok (Chen & McCabe, 2022). The audience often discusses the characters of contestants, their love choices, and their motives. Such debates usually transcend into the entertainment, with topics like beauty standards, gender expectations, and emotional behaviour in relationships being discussed (Todd Graham & Auli Harju, 2011). This demonstrates how Single’s Inferno can be more than a show it can be a place of social thought and common opinion (Deller, 2019).

The show further illustrates how viewers are able to have a shared viewing experience by interacting digitally📱. Even though Single’s Inferno is made available on a streaming platform, the fans create a live-like experience by responding to the episodes simultaneously online. Watchers leave comments, reactions and meme during watching, this brings about a feeling of belongingness to the viewers all over the world. This is particularly significant, as the show has a global following, and individuals of various cultures will be able to learn the same material and comprehend it simultaneously (Mark Stewart, 2020).

The inviting aspect of the Single’s Inferno💍to the audience is another important aspect. Watchers tend to wonder the extent to which the show is real through the editing and behaviour of contestants (Xavier L’Hoiry, 2019). Fans wonder whether some of the scenes are predetermined or producer-biased and tend to research the backgrounds of the contestants in real life. This demonstrates the non-passivity of audiences in that they are now questioning and critical of what is viewed (Deller, 2019).

Another way the show portrays identity and cultural norms is the presentation of the same in the form of reality TV (Michael Lovelock, 2019). The contestants in Single’s Inferno tend to be a symbol of certain standards of beauty💅🏻, achievement🥇, romance👩🏻‍❤️‍👨🏻 in the Korean society. Such images shape the view of the viewers towards relationships and self-image (Misha Kavka, 2018). Simultaneously, these ideals, too, are challenged and criticised by the viewers, particularly in discussions related to beauty standards and gender roles online. This makes the show a platform, in which cultural values are not only exhibited but they are also debated.

Fandom is one of the key components in the continuation of the life of Single’s Inferno to the screen. Memes, edits, and alternative storylines are some of the content that fans produce on the basis of the show (McCracken et al., 2020). Certain audiences go to the extent of backing other couples or comprehending relations in other forms that are not depicted❤️‍🩹. This implies that the narrative of Single’s Inferno does not come to an end with the episodes but carries on through fan creativity and discourse via online platforms (Jacquelyn Arcy, 2018).

But the problems of modern reality TV are also brought to light in Single’s Inferno💡. The demarcation between authenticity and performance is not always clear as the viewers are left wondering whether the contestants are acting or being sincere (Kavka, 2018). Moreover, participants must endure scrutiny through intense online scrutiny and public judgment👁️, and it can have an impact on their lives even once the show is over. This begs key questions regarding the moral accountability of reality television production (Helen Wood, 2022).

To sum up, Single’s Inferno is not only a dating program but a good illustration of how reality television works in the digital era. The close relationship between reality TVand social media📺is evidenced by every feature of the show, along with the interaction with viewers and discussions online, the representation of identity, and ethical considerations. The emphasis on Single’s Inferno makes it obvious that today, the reality TV is not only influenced by the producers but also by the viewers who are actively involved in it (Deller, 2019).

Reference

Arcy, J. (2018). The digital money shot: Twitter wars, The Real Housewives, and transmedia storytelling. Celebrity Studies, 9(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2018.1445104

Brennan, N., & Gudelunas, D. (2017). Introduction. In RuPaul’s Drag Race and the shifting visibility of drag culture: The boundaries of reality TV. Palgrave Macmillan. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633481?wrap=1

Chen, A., & McCabe, K. T. (2022). Roses and thorns: Political talk in reality TV subreddits. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221099180

Deller, R. A. (2019). Reality television in an age of social media. In Reality television: The TV phenomenon that changed the world. Emerald Publishing. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633257?wrap=1

Graham, T., & Harju, A. (2011). Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere. European Journal of Communication, 26(1), 18–32. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633496/download?wrap=1

Kavka, M. (2018). Reality TV: Its contents and discontents. Critical Quarterly, 60(4), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/criq.12442

L’Hoiry, X. (2019). Love Island, social media, and sousveillance: New pathways of challenging realism in reality TV. Frontiers in Sociology, 4, 59. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00059

Lovelock, M. (2019). Introduction. In Reality TV and queer identities: Sexuality, authenticity, celebrity. Springer International Publishing. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633285?wrap=1

McCracken, A., Cho, A., Stein, L., & Neill Hoch, I. (Eds.). (2020). A roundtable discussion about the cultures of fandom on Tumblr. In Tumblr: Platform and cultures. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.11537055

Stewart, M. (2020). Live tweeting, reality TV and the nation. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(3), 352–367. https://swinburne.instructure.com/courses/75132/files/42633514?wrap=