The Digital Community

In China, due to government censorship, Chinese consumers cannot access social media like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, even the Google as well. So there are many social media platforms having similar functions with Facebook, Instagram appeared in China. China’s Internet evolved into a one-of-a-kind creature. The isolated Chinese social media community has not only created networks that mimic those in the West but has also grown unique platforms, functions, and user habits.

Wechat, an instant messaging application developed by Chinese Tech Company Tencent (the same company that created QQ in 1999). WeChat has over one billion registered accounts with 850 million active users (Dörrer, 2017). The app and its competitors are amassing giant amounts of data about its users in China – data that the Chinese government can monitor.

WeChat’s “City Services” tab offers functions like paying utility bills, scheduling doctor’s appointments and checking driving penalty points.

WeChat censors private and group chat conversations, banning words linked to Tiananmen Square, Tibet or the forbidden religious group Falun Gong, as well as nicknames mocking its or its allies’ leading politicians (Dörrer, 2017). In the past, the app would notify the user that they had been censored. But now the user is unaware that the message was never even sent. The ban on certain keywords is also constantly adapted to the political situation in the country. Sending sensitive messages can have dire consequences. “There are cases of individuals that have been incarcerated for sharing pictures on sensitive topics, such as the Dalai Lama, on WeChat,” Crete-Nishihata (2016) said.

Keywords relating to the protests on Tiananmen square were censored without notice.

 Sina Weibo was created in August 2009. With assurances to the authorities about keeping information flows under control, the SINA Corporation, one of the largest Chinese online media companies, successfully obtained permission from the central government and created the first micro-blogging platform Sina Weibo (微博) in mainland China(He, 2014). Soon afterward, more and more Internet companies branched out into the industry and launched their own Weibo businesses.

According to He (2014), Weibo has enabled the Chinese to disseminate information with surprising speed and has also promoted freedom of speech to a great extent, which has never been seen before. Facilitated by this Twitter-like social media, both the Chinese grassroots and the social elites have broken through traditional media’s discourse monopoly and the government’s strict surveillance, sharing information instantly, setting the agenda for public opinion actively, discussing sensitive topics implicitly, exposing injustice cases publicly and even calling on the public to put pressure on the authorities directly.

Source from Gentlemen Marketing Agency, Shanghai, China

But, undoubtedly, in mainland China, where political and social stability has always been considered as the supreme interest of the CPC (Communist Party of China) and the Chinese government, Weibo can never become an absolutely special zone for free speech (He, 2014). In fact, any individual or media undermining or threatening this stability will definitely be punished, although they could probably enjoy limited and temporary freedom under specific circumstances. 

The current media-government relationship will, ultimately, challenge the authoritarian control of the party-state. In a country like China, which belief in the overwhelming power of propaganda, the central authority is unwilling to see such a situation come about. Nevertheless, although the future is precarious for Chinese media, the current environment allows the media an opportunity to seek greater freedom. The extent to which Chinese media can achieve freedom and autonomy is dependent upon the uncertain future relations between the local and national political arenas.

 Reference

Dörrer, K., (2017). Hello, Big Brother: How China controls its citizens through social media. Deutsche Welle.

Ruan, L., Knockel, J., Ng, J. Q., & Crete-Nishihata, M. (2016). One App, Two Systems: How WeChat uses one censorship policy in China and another internationally. The Citizen Lab.

Talking about the social game, most of us are thinking of the game on social media platform OR the game we play with friends on the party. Most games you’ll find on social media can easily be considered casual games. Such as the Farmville on Facebook, or Japan Life and the Hay Day. They don’t require much knowledge or any exceptional skill to be good at. They usually have a free version if they aren’t free altogether. They aren’t technically heavy either and tend to be played often but in short sessions.

While mobile devices have proved to be more diverse than social media in their selection of games, many of these can be considered casual as well. Think of whatever game you play to pass the time during a 5-minute bus ride or during business meetings. Casual is definitely a key feature of most social games.

Sharing

The other most important element of social gaming is the social part. It’s both similar to and different from multiplayer in games like Call of Duty. Social games are multiplayer of course in the strict sense of the word, but they come at multiplayer with a different approach. Social games are generally structured around more intimate interactions between players. Sharing items, trading compliments rating your friends and inviting new players to join are integral parts of most social games (Community BUFF, 2018).

In-game purchases

I do have to admit that I have spent much money on the social game for times, especially when you play with your friend together. It will arouse your strong competitive spirit, and when you really get into the game you always purchase in the game. Not at the beginning, but always the end. While this is not a feature of all social games, this has proven to be an effective way for this genre of games to monetize their efforts. 

And there are some companies come up with the virtual currency system. Such as the BUFF.game. Since BUFF rewards you with BUFF tokens as you play, you don’t really need to spend your hard-earned cash on in-game purchases anymore, you can just use BUFF coins. That way, your gaming pays for itself and you don’t need to be locked out of special levels or kept away from the best in-game items anymore(Community BUFF, 2018). Just keep playing and enjoying. Forget about the rest.

Reference

Social media has changed the way people interact with health care providers, and when it comes to accountability and decision-making, the state of health care has changed as a result. Social media differs significantly from other forms of communication in terms of immediacy and interactivity. There is also the fact that a lot of the content on the platform is provided by the users, not the service providers. The impact of social media is often both positive and negative. Understanding these effects is central to ensuring that we get the most use out of it, with minimal risks.

In its recent publication, Social Media “likes” healthcare, PWC found that 42% of consumers in the United States have used social media to access health-related consumer reviews (e.g. of treatments or physicians). Nearly 30% have supported a health cause, 25% have posted about their health experience, and 20% have joined a health forum or community. The implication here is that there is an enormous amount of information available that has been created by the consumers of health services.

In developing regions, smartphone use has “leapfrogged” ahead of computers because of problems with traditional internet connectivity. The World Health Organization’s article What Social Media Offers to Health Professionals and Citizens (2009), states that there are more than four billion mobile phone subscribers globally, two-thirds of them in developing countries, with the fastest in Africa. This means that people in developing parts of the world often have similar levels of access to social media as those in industrialized nations, and often have more reason to use it, for example as a way of overcoming geographical isolation.

Valuable information from consumers includes disease symptoms, treatments and discussions about healthy lifestyles, as well as mental support for BBS members in treatment or with a specific illness. People who lose weight quit smoking or other addictions have shown that when they share their experiences with others in the same situation, they feel responsible in some way to others in the BBS. As a result, they are more likely to stick to their health plans.

From the service providers perspective, providing information through social media platforms can save doctors' time. In many cases, patients don't really need to see a doctor, they just need certain information. Importantly, consumers can also share their experiences with certain healthcare providers or healthcare medicine. Hospitals, doctors and pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the consumer experience, as they risk losing business should information surface that discredits them in any way.

While social media has provided many advantages, the possible downsides must be considered as well. The danger of incorrect self-diagnosis increases dramatically when members are able to communicate over supposedly credible platforms without any contribution by a medical practitioner; 45% of consumers in the PWC study said it would affect their decision to seek a second opinion.

“More than 40% of respondents reported that information found via social media would affect the way they coped with a chronic condition, their approach to diet and exercise, and even their choice of doctor (McNab, 2009).  ”

Although this can be helpful, it can also be based on inaccurate and incomplete information, which can endanger the patient. The other concern that arises with the sharing of personal information of any kind over social media platforms is that of privacy – a reality that should always be taken into account.

References:

PwC Health Research Institute. (2012). Social media "likes" healthcare: From marketing to social business. Available at: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/publications/pdf/health-care-social-media-report.pdf

Crowdsourcing is a term first published a definition for the term crowdsourcing in a companion blog post to Jeff Howe’s June 2006 Wired article, "The Rise of Crowdsourcing". Howe defined it as: ‘Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job found performed by a designated employee and outsourcing it to an undefined generally large group of people in the form of an open call’(Howe, 2006). People must be physically together to create communities in the past, but with the Internet, they can create virtual communities of Shared interests and preferences.

In the past, in order to reduce production costs, enterprises would outsource their work to countries with low labor costs, such as China and Southeast Asian countries. But now, through the Internet and online connectivity, companies can put jobs which required hiring people on a platform, and everyone in the world can participate and spend their free time creating content, solving problems, and doing research and development. The current online encyclopedia Wikipedia uses this concept to develop itself.

Another example is photos, which used to cost hundreds of dollars for a photo taken by a professional photographer. Now digital cameras are affordable for everyone. Because of mass outsourcing, the audience and consumers can now participate in production and create things that they think are meaningful. In short, Crowdsourcing is a way of solving problems and producing things by connecting online with people that you otherwise wouldn't know.

Moreover,  The once-popular virtual choir is completed by using the power of the masses, using the Internet to connect thousands of singers from different countries to form the works. Let's see the creator Eric Whitacre at TED to recreate the wonderful singing:

Reference

Cyberbullying is a common phenomenon in the space of public opinion. Different from the individuality of violent behaviors in the real society, the most prominent feature of Cyberbullying which is dominated by groups. It emerged in the early BBS era of the Internet and rampant in the era of social media (Hinduja &Patchin, 2008) . Most participants are not necessarily malicious, but they will have no scruple to vent in the face of different views, different positions.

Few people have a rational expectation of the consequences of words when they express their emotions. In their eyes, the object of verbal violence is not people with flesh and blood, but symbols and targets that they do not agree with. Whether or not the victims of are previously known, once they are attacked by a group, they do become "public figures" in some sense. Some people derive pleasure and satisfaction from the competitive attacks on "public figures". Moreover, from the sense of security of conformity, mass cyberbullying is unconscious and easier to cross the boundary of morality and order. Participants rarely feel guilty unless they are actually punished (Pettalia, Levin,  Dickinson, 2013).

Famous scholar Hannah Arendt have put forward the concept of ‘the banality of evil’, and the main characteristic of this concept is ‘thoughtlessness’ (White, 2018). Thoughtlessness is not meaning stupid and has no connection with people’s intellect but refers to the idea of ‘refuse to think’. Arendt candidly notes (White, 2018), each of us in our "social life" automatically uses thoughtless things such as clichés, idioms, conventions and standardized codes of expression and behavior otherwise we will be exhausted. And in the cyberbullying, you will become the trolls if you don't stop or even participate in the violence. Because you refuse to think and just habitually engaged or keep silent. If we look at the certain participant of cyberbullying, he/she may be just the ordinary people around us. But when the bits and pieces offensive language add up, they can be devastating.

The worry is that when cyberbullying becomes a habit, a mode of online public opinion, it will be exploited for sinister purposes. After provoking netizens to accept one-sided facts, netizens who support "justice" have become pawns of public opinion manipulators. In the era of social media, opinions overshadow emotions and positions are more important than facts, which are the conventional means of some we-media authors to attract traffic (Kowalski, Schroeder & Lattanner, 2014). However, more netizens have developed we-media thinking habits imperceptibly. They may not be directly involved in writing but perceive the world and evaluate public affairs according to the framework designed by we-media.

The expression and output of human civilization lie not only in posture but also in motivation and idea. The reason why cyberbullying becomes violence is because it causes substantial harm to people in psychology and it also distorted civilization. The Internet is the product of the latest technological revolution, and human society expects it to promote the progress of civilization, not the other way around. And the progress of civilization, about the sense of rules, about individual responsibility. No one can use the collective unconscious as an excuse. The place that you speak is the internet, your level of civilization measured the scale of internet civilization.

Reference

Hinduja, S.; Patchin, J. W. (2008). "Cyberbullying: An Exploratory Analysis of Factors Related to Offending and Victimization". Deviant Behavior. 29 (2): 129–156. doi:10.1080/01639620701457816.

Pettalia, Jennifer L.; Levin, Elizabeth; Dickinson, Joël (November 1, 2013). "Cyberbullying: Eliciting harm without consequence". Computers in Human Behavior. 29 (6): 2758–2765. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.020.

Kowalski, Giumetti, Schroeder & Lattanner, R. M., G. W., A. N., M. R. (2014). "Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth". Psychological Bulletin. 140 (4): 1073–1137. 

Slacktivism is a derivative term of activism, mainly used to describe the limited role of the Internet in political participation. It refers that the convenience of participation does not necessarily lead to the improvement of the quality of participation and may also have adverse effects (Davis, 2011). It can be seen from the literal meaning that slacktivism is a self-created word, which is the reconstruction of ‘slack’ with a negative connotation and ‘activism’ with a positive connotation, creates a seemingly contradictory conflict context.

On the one hand, this concept embodies certain positive connotation and aims to advocate a kind of low cost and low-risk political participation. On the other hand, it is more critical, aim to satirize some online political participants who obtain illusory self-satisfaction through so-called online public engagement (Carr, 2012). For example, ‘The ice bucket challenge,’ ‘Earth Hour’, ‘retweet candles to pray’, and other popular events and phenomena are typical "slacktivism" activities. Most of these activities do not necessarily affect real-life political outcomes but increase participants' psychological satisfaction.

So, what is the basis for slacktivism?

Firstly, there is a serious disconnect between online and offline behavior. Some scholars have conducted a large number of empirical studies on the Internet movement and summarized some common problems that are likely to occur in the network action, which concludes disconnection between online action and offline political system (Christensen, 2011). In other words, the propose of network actors may not affect the decision-making behavior of the actual sector at all.

The emergence of the Internet has changed the structure of social relations to a large extent. People can easily find groups with same interest online. Traditional organizations that lacked effective means to expand the number of participants in the past now have channels of direct communication with target groups, and scarce resources can be allocated. However, with the increasing interactivity and connectivity of the Internet, the effectiveness of network participation has been magnified. Following, retweeting, commenting, thumb up, etc., is too easy for the public to create the illusion that social media can effectively turn ideas into actions (Courtney, 2011).

In addition, social platforms cannot escape the nature of entertainment and performance. The attribute of network media determines that online activities must have the nature of entertainment. Today's citizens are reduced to consumers who lack the ability to interact socially (Courtney, 2011). And the media is an important accomplice of social capital loss. In the long run, the sense of civic political participation will inevitably decline.

At the same time, the behavior conforming to the label of "slacktivism" generally has a certain performance nature. Participants may have good intentions, but there is a general lack of enthusiasm to sustain the action. If the brief participation of citizens is only for the purpose of obtaining psychological vanity and satisfaction, then undoubtedly it is just a self-moving performance.

However, we cannot deny that these online, micro-political participation patterns are in line with current social trends and the lifestyle of young people. These so-called "lazybones" also spread information in their actions, and even made the behavior of political participation become routine. Therefore, the significance of putting forward this concept does not lie in simply denying a certain behavior, but in alerting all stakeholders to better transform the actual benefits of civic participation and better promote the solution of existing social problems.

Reference

Davis, J. ( 2011). "Cause Marketing: Moving Beyond Corporate Slacktivism". 

Carr, D. (2012) "Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits". The New York Times.

Christensen, H. S. (2011). "Political activities on the internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means?". First Monday. 16.

Political advertising can be said to be a thing with American characteristics. In the United States where political elections are highly streamlined and even entertaining, politicians release advertisements through various media forms to express their political opinions and attract votes, which has become a necessary measure.

When political advertising exists only in traditional media such as television, print, and radio, everything is reasonable and controllable. But in the age of social media, the tacit partnership between political advertising and the media has soured -- and even brought disaster to social media platforms. Political advertising is a big part of the reason why Facebook, Twitter, and other social media are suspected of manipulating the election and leaking citizens' data.

The first President which truly connect with social media was Barack Obama. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama not only set up his own official website but also personally approached Chris Hughes, the co-founder of Facebook, in the hope of promoting himself through opening an account and establishing Q&A activities on Facebook (Gerodimos &Justinussen, 2015).

Later, through a series of performances on Facebook, Twitter, and even Reddit. Obama's young, elite, and the politically correct image was well suited to the tastes of young Internet users at the time. In the 2008 election, 87% of the Obama campaign's money came from Internet donations of less than $200. In 2012, perhaps in keeping with the then-booming tech industry, the Obama team began touting how it used big data to deliver political ads with precision, beating its rival Mitt Romney by $100 million (Gray, 2017). But after the Obama era ended, so did the honeymoon of social media and political advertising.

Cambridge Analytica, Blue state digital, SS+K and other companies are listed together as several famous political advertising companies in the United States, which are specialized in serving politicians and providing them with services in data marketing and new media marketing. Blue state digital has served Obama, SS+K has served trump, and Cambridge Analytica has served trump's party rival, Ted Cruz. It's scary to think that Cambridge Analytica's illegal access to Facebook came to light in 2018 (Graham-Harrison &Cadwalladr 2018), and it seems that political ads have already mined our behavior data. Therefore, Obama looking more like a President of the invasion of privacy than a President of the Internet or big data.

When the use of social media for political advertising was no longer a secret, the hype began to cause resentment. As the number of political advertisement providers grew, these companies began to compete. And the best way to compete is to promote how they use control of social media and social media data to influence the outcome of political elections. Cambridge Analytica once made a public speech at a promotional conference, claiming that they used social media data to analyze users' personalities and thus delivered accurate advertising to Ted Cruz, which increased his approval rating from 5% to 35% (Graham-Harrison &Cadwalladr 2018). In the comment, most YouTube users responded with the phrase 'creepy'. That is why the reaction to the Cambridge Analytica scandal has been so strong.

At present, social media is no longer a new form of media, and there are more and more relevant restrictions. While political advertising still generates a lot of revenue for social media, an overly transparent delivery system can influence election teams ‘decision. As with any form of media, the greater influence with greater responsibility and limited freedom. Perhaps, politicians are already looking for new media to use for political advertising today. AR, VR, games...The next media space that is about to explode will also have room for political advertising amid growth. Maybe the next US President will be the "VR President".

 Reference

Gerodimos, R, & Justinussen, J 2015, ‘Obama’s 2012 Facebook Campaign: Political Communication in the Age of the Like Button‘, Journal Of Information Technology & Politics, 12, 2, pp. 113-132, Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts

D. M., Gray 2017, ‘Social media on the campaign trail: Barack Obama and Donald Trump’, Content Group.

The debate over whether tumblr is a blog or social network site is tricky. It basically depends on their functions, how people use tumblr and is there any difference with using social network. From the list of social network sites of Wikipedia, tumblr is concluded and described as Microblogging platform AND social networking website. So maybe we can tell that tumblr is a blog with social network site functions.

A social networking site is an online platform that allows users to create a public profile and interact with other users on the website (Obar, J. A.; Wildman, S., 2015). Social networking sites usually have a new user input a list of people with whom they share a connection and then allow the people on the list to confirm or deny the connection. After connections are established, the new user can search the networks of connections to make more connections (Boyd, d.m.; Ellison, N.B., 2007). Social networking sites have different rules for establishing connections, but they often allow users to view the connections of a confirmed connection and even suggest further connections based on a person’s established network. Some social networking websites like LinkedIn are used for establishing professional connections, while sites like Facebook straddle the line between private and professional. There are also many networks that are built for a specific user base, such as cultural or political groups within a given area or even traders in financial markets.

Tumblr is a microblog platform which between blog and twitter. Compared with twitter, it has more complex functions, stronger content presentation and more emphasis on multimedia applications. Blog is too heavy, twitter is too light, tumblr just meets the intermediate needs, its interaction is stronger than Blog, personalization better than twitter, and accurately hit twitter does not support the weakness of multimedia information.

Users do not focus on people on Tumblr but thematic blogs. They don’t even know who maintain the blog. There is no impurity in the content under the label, and users can constantly find out the endless quality content. Collaborative blogs make people feel like they are checking out a professional site. Instead of annoying "people you might know," they should always be interested in what tumblr recommend.

So, based on the functions of tumblr that we can find out it does provide a platform for people to share content and connect with others. And it also works as a microblog like twitter, so that we can say tumblr can be defined as both a blog AND social network site.

References

Obar, J. A.; Wildman, S. (2015). "Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue". Telecommunications Policy. 39 (9): 745–750.