digital-noot-blog

[digital-noot-blog]

Consolidation of Digital Media. A Glance at China

When people talk about Chinese social media, they talk about censorship, the Great Firewall of China, surveillance or the social credit system. So I’m not going to bother with that. Instead, I am here to mention their social media model. 

The proliferation of Streaming Video on Demand (SVOD) services here in the West has got many of us asking, is it too much? 

Want to watch HBO’s latest hit, Chernobyl? Get Foxtel. An Attack on Titan fan? There’s Animelab. Disney, Marvel or Star Wars? Watch the imminent Disney Plus (not announced for Australia. Yet.) Got a special someone coming around to chill? Well, you need Netflix for that.

So how much choice is too much? Too many services just fragments the market and media consumers. It also takes up way too much time and money. So perhaps we need to start thinking about reeling things in a bit...

How do we do this? Look at China.

We are going to start seeing the convergence of online streaming services, or at least their collation into super-SVOD platforms. And I expect it won’t stop with video. Gaming, audio, podcasting, social networking are all out of control.

So what’s the go with China?

If you don’t know much about social media in China, check out this 5 minute video:

QQ is the one I want to focus on today as it was the central Chinese platform for a long time until it was recently overshadowed by WeChat (though the latter is a very similar case). The thing that jumps out if you watched the video is the vast variety of functions and services afforded by the site. It’s an instant messaging platform, social networking site, email, music and video streaming service and web search platform. It also offers gaming and news.

I’m not sure if the consolidation of media services is the solution to our current problem of too much choice - I’m just spit-balling here - but its benefits should at least be considered.

Clearly, if we do follow this model some issues will need to be addressed regarding ownership, competition and regulation. And our motivations will be different from that of the Chinese Government’s desire to protect Chinese culture and maintain national security. We will do this for increased access and affordability of our media.

And just to be clear, I do not want it to be anywhere near as restrictive as China’s platforms.

So, there’s some food for thought. There might be some things we can learn from China. They might just have the next big thing in digital media.

#mda20009

[digital-noot-blog]

It’s More Than a Game - Social Networking Through Play

When you think social media, do you think video gaming?

Unless you’ve been hiding inside a Fallout Shelter you’ll know that video games are a thing and that they often involve playing with other people.

Source: www.giphy.com

Social media are sites and platforms that allow users to interact with each other, and to create and share content with others. This applies to much of gaming!

Steam forums and the PlayStation Network. Game wikis. Facebook groups dedicated to games (I am part of communities for Merge Dragons and Pokemon Go). Communities existing around social media hashtags on Instagram and Twitter (keep an eye out for #E32019 this weekend). Subreddits. My new Youtube and Twitter channels. Omg, the list keeps going on!

There are games that include social functionality within the game, like many of the mobile games I have played. Hay Day, Boom Beach and Clash of Clans afford users to form teams or communities, add or follow friends, and communicate using in-game chats. Many AAA games have online multiplayer functionality where you work with and against other players. Look at COD, Battlefield and Fortnite. Some games, there is no offline mode, the entire thing is experienced with other players.

Teamwork makes the dream work | Battlefield 3 (source: www.giphy.com)

All of this is before you even think about the consumption of video game content on video and streaming sites - which are also forms of social media.

I personally don’t play video games during semester as I know I don’t have time, so I spend hours watching others play and review them on Youtube instead.

Some games encourage sociality offline too, as in the case of Niantic’s Pokemon Go. Players are rewarded for playing together in the real world. Gaming conventions and competitions again bring online friends together geographically.

So what does this mean for us? Are there benefits to video games? is this sociality a good thing?

The Interactive Games & Entertainment Association’s (IGEA) latest Digital Australia report does a great at capturing people’s experiences with gaming. 67% of Australians play video games, with 93% of households having a gaming device. Of these gamers, it was found that:

- 93% of players play with other people  - 68% have used community-made walkthroughs, videos or wikis to help their own gameplay - 28% shared their own video content to social media

Source: DA18

Another trend we are seeing in this report is the more purposeful use of video games. Where in 2015 50% of gamers played to pass time or have fun, this dropped to 31% in 2017. 6% of respondents stated that their primary motivation for gaming is for social interaction. We can assume that it plays an important role in the experience of many others.

Physical games like Pokemon Go, and the recent Harry Potter: Wizards Unite, promote exercise outdoors (5% of Australian gamers said fitness was their biggest motivation to play).

Importantly, social gaming plays a role in the psychological development of children and teens. Despite parents’ and society’s fears that games are isolating the young, video games are becoming more critical in the social development of kids, as they use these games to communicate and network with others. Games encourage teamwork and positive communication. They also provide safe spaces for young people who are disadvantaged or experience mental or physical ill health.

Of course, I’m not saying we should not worry about video games - gaming is not always healthy and can go too far. Just last week the WHO decided to add ‘gaming’ to its list of diseases.

However, it is important to understand the social aspects of gaming and how they exist, along with their benefits. The numbers are showing that gaming and its communities are growing.

Here is a quote from a DA18 participant that I think sums up this topic:

“Video games have helped me connect with other people around the world, and also helped me to create the bond between my partner and I when we first met”

Is that not goals??

Have you ever thought how social media and gaming interact? Did you realise some gaming platforms are, by definition, social media?

Reply below or over on my gaming/entertainment Twitter account!

#mda20009 #Social media #video games #da18

[digital-noot-blog]

Yeah, I’m a gamer.

[digital-noot-blog]

Internet and Mental Health. It’s a good thing!

CW: Mental Health and Suicide

I have so much to say on the topic of mental health as mental ill health (MIH) has been a big part of my identity.

Personally, I think social media and the online space is great for mental health, despite some of the concerns raised by the media.

Last week I had the privilege to be invited to a national consultation as a youth ambassador by a mental health organisation looking for ways to improve awareness and delivery of their outreach services that include an array of online services such as web help centre, email chat, phone chat and forums. It gave be the opportunity to reflect back on my mental health journey and the role that digital communications have played in it.

When I was first diagnosed with anxiety and depression, I spent countless hours researching different mental health websites (like BeyondBlue, SANE and Headspace)

I used Google to look up the number for Lifeline (13 11 14)

After I tried to take my own life, I reached out to my networks on social media for support.

When I was alone and struggling in 2015 I turned to online mental health forums trying BeyondBlue before settling on the ReachOut forums that were specifically for 14 to 25 year old youth.

When my teenage brother suicided I created a Facebook page to share information and form a community, attracting 3000 people to it.

In my recovery, I have shared my story on social media.

Participated in Movember in 2019.

I have begun using my volunteering platforms to make a positive impact on the MH of my community.

All the above can be categorised using the three areas of digital health: public, social and shared spaces.

Public refers to public health campaigns and health promotion. This is basically what you see MH organisations do. The purpose of MH promotion is to destigmatise MIH and to encourage positive attitudes and behaviour. It’s the campaigns like RUOK? Day and Movember, and all the websites I looked at for information about MIH. Public health is incredibly integrated with communication technologies and Movember is a great modern example. 

The Movember Foundation is an organisation focused on promoting men’s health, including MH and suicide prevention. Awareness is raised by male participants growing their moustaches and generating conversation offline, requesting donations via online fundraising accounts, and by using the #movember hashtag on social media. It’s the last one that has made it so successful. It is where traditional public health communication spreads into the social.

The second type of digital health is social. This is a focus on the shared health and personal experiences of MH. This is where the formation of ad-hoc publics comes in. Twitter and other social networks afford the formation of ad-hoc publics around hashtags. Movember latches onto this function very well to spread its messages, crowdsourcing participants in the campaign to share its messages too.

Without realising it, I created a public when I established the Facebook page for my brother. Our family and our community were in mourning. It was this page that brought people together to remember and celebrate his life. Three thousand of them. Communities tend to band together as a way to cope after suicide.

The final area of online MH is managed spaces. These are the self contained communities and forums you can find on some MH organisation websites and even social media. This is what I had to say about the ReachOut forums at the workshop last week:

“The most positive service in my struggle and recovery was the ReachOut forums. I did try out BeyondBlue forums, but they felt a little bit more structured and boring? The ReachOut youth forum felt fresh and the content youth directed. I can’t exactly remember how or why I stumbled upon these forums. I think I just stumbled upon them when trawling mental health sites. I didn’t know what to expect. But it gave me what I needed. I was extremely lonely, this was probably the most difficult struggle at the time. But on these forums I found a community. The people on these forums made me feel acknowledged, and I gained a sense of identity as a person living with mental health. They celebrated my achievements with me and I chilled out in their social spaces. I’m also naturally drawn to helping others, so being able to mutually support others gave me purpose. Though most of the time I gravitated to the social aspect, and didn’t share as deeply my own experiences as you’d expect. Yet, it filled that gap in my life”

So when you’re feeling down or you’re struggling with the black dog, the internet can be a good place to turn to.

#mda20009

[digital-noot-blog]

Brenda the Civil Disobedience Penguin has some things to noot about!

What’s your take on the 2019 Australian Federal Election?

While Labor sadly failed in a number of ways, during this election we saw a glimpse at how the digitisation of our society and the role of the online public sphere plays a part in the democratic process.

This election was defined by every pre-election poll’s failure to predict the Liberal win, and much of the online discourse appears to have missed the fact that the Opposition party’s unlosable election was in fact losable.

Did filter bubbles have a role in this surprising result? A month ago I wrote a post about navigating politics on social media and the effects of filter bubbles (or echo chambers) have on our perception of politics. While I do not think filter bubbles are absolute, and we are privy to different and conflicting ideas, people generally do congregate to those similar to themselves. However in terms of politics and voting, I feel like this made many people on the Left complacent. They see every pre-election poll claiming Labor has an election-winning lead on the Liberals. They look around at their digital communities and go “huh, I guess they’re right”, forgetting they surround themselves with people who think (and therefore vote) similar to them. And they thought that our society finally saw the value in the progressive change Labor and the Greens were promising. Then we had the election:

We first saw this complacency in the lead up to the 2016 US Elections when a populist billionaire celebrity was elected President. And we saw it again here. Granted the polls were telling us this was a sure bet for the Opposition, but we can’t just blame the numbers. We need to consider whether we are blinding ourselves with the confirmation bias afforded by our bubbles. Yes, you may be seeing mostly progressive posts from your friends but is this representative of the wider community? And yes, the world needs to change, but are we doing enough to understand our society and why people vote the way they do, and to bring them onboard? And are we doing enough to promote our own brand of politics to our networks?

The changing role of technology in our lives and the system’s failure to keep up may have also contributed to disparity between what polls said and what the results said. The outdated Australian election advertising blackout laws that ban political parties from running ads in the last 3 days of the campaign only apply to traditional media, so while the blackout was in force the social media marketing powerhouse kept rolling out ads - on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and Google. The day before the election when I Google searched ‘early voting centres’, a Liberal Party ad showed up first before the official Australian Electoral Commission website’s ad! I can’t say whether this changed the result or whether it was balanced on all sides, but digital marketing must be brought in line with the rest of the Australian electoral law.

I think we have some reflecting to do over the next three years - about our political system, about campaigns, and about the internet’s role in all of this.

As citizens we need reflect on how social media use influences our sociality, and continue engaging in healthy discourse online - use the #AusPol Twitter hashtag, follow politicians from both sides of the spectrum, open your bubble to more diverse opinions, and engage in some level of activism for the things you’re passionate about.

Oh, and cast a VALID vote when you have the chance!

#australian election 2019 #australian politics #bill shorten #scott morrison #australia news #mda20009

[digital-noot-blog]

Crowdsourcing in Emergency Management

Social media is useful in emergencies!

I have never thought about crowdsourcing and its role in my community. It is actually somehow a new concept to me, and it has made me reflect on how it is used.

Crowdsourcing is the process of enabling a large number of individuals to participate in the gathering and sharing of information to achieve a common goal and has grown with social media. It is easy to see why, with 88% of Australians on social media. Crowdsourcing is increasingly used in forming government policy, news journalism and disaster response. It is this last one I want to discuss today, as we are seeing communities becoming increasingly reliant on social media during emergencies.

Sure we may joke about how technology has taken over our lives, and people would go straight to posting on social media, but as it turns out that is a good thing!

Emergency services are increasingly using information from people impacted by a bushfire as everyone is a potential source of intelligence. Pictures of a fire can provide information on size, direction, terrain and other important factors before emergency services arrive on scene. Social media is used because platforms are open, convenient to access and cost effective, and are more reliable than telephone infrastructure.

Communities are also flooding to share information and resources with each other, including accommodation, services and emotional support.

I have been running a Facebook page for my local fire brigade for a number of years. I use this page to share community safety messaging, share brigade events and activities, and to create a positive image of the brigade in the community. And I was surprised that even at a local level I have already been using crowdsourcing in a few small ways:

- Learning about potential hazards in the area (sometimes community members will message the Facebook Page with concerns rather than calling 000 or a dedicated hotline) - Identifying gaps in community knowledge around emergency management - Sharing safety information through social media user networks

We rely on post engagement to break the limitations of follower numbers and Facebook algorithms. This is crowdsourcing as we are encouraging community members to promote safety information for us. This is done via comments and shares. Liking the post also pushes the brigade page posts into other people’s feeds.

Learning about crowdsourcing has given me a deeper understanding of community response during the Bunyip Fire in south-east Victoria. The community mobilised online, primarily on social media, to share information, advice and support. Communities formed online around the #BunyipFire Twitter hashtag and in closed Facebook groups.

It’s actually pretty cool to better appreciate the mechanisms behind social media promotion of safety messages. Every little bit helps, so we can equip our communities with the right knowledge to stay safe.

[digital-noot-blog]

#MDA20009

[digital-noot-blog]

Trolls belong in dungeons, not on social media.

I was pleased to see Facebook and Instagram’s recent crackdown on high profile right-wing extremists. Chief among them was Alex Jones and his controversial talk show Infowars.

If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, here is John Oliver’s 22-minute deep dive into Jones and Infowars from 2017 (content warning: very funny).

But tl;dw, Jones is a right-wing conspiracy theorist. The stuff he spouts is objectively vile. His most popular theories are that 9/11 was an inside job (his store sells bumper stickers) and that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. Oh, and tap water turns frogs gay! Yeah...

The election of Trump in the US demonstrated the rise and popularity of right-wing extremism. Nowhere is this more evident than in the digital space. Facebook had previously banned Jones and others, however they quickly found a new home on Instagram - a new hub for hate speech. These platforms have increasingly become echo chambers of fear and hate. One of the latest crazy theories is that the 2019 Christchurch shooting was a hoax too. All of this can be considered trolling. Trolls are terrible creatures that reside under bridges and feed on billy goats. They can also be found online feeding on the tears of others. Trolling is when someone deliberately baits, annoys, or shares inflammatory content on social media. That is the goal of these commentators. Which is why Facebook and Instagram have not only banned Alex Jones, but all posts about Infowars content (that isn’t explicitly critical of it) are also banned.

I'm actually surprised to see social networks taking this sort of action. Their traditional stance has been to claim that bad content shared on their platform isn’t owned by them so it isn’t their responsibility. I have always believed that social media networks and tech companies should do more to moderate online content to protect digital citizens.

Especially when it comes to another dark side of the digital experience: cyberbullying.

.

#MDA20009 #alex jones is secretly a tomato

[digital-noot-blog]

“I’m an activist”. Omg, #MeToo!

I am not involved with traditional activism. I have signed a couple of online petitions and participated in online conversations and advocacy. But I still call myself an activist. I may not march the streets but I feel like I make an impact in my own ways.

So today I want to walk about digital activism.

I get reallllly annoyed when people complain about online activism, as if it isn’t ‘real’ activism. ‘Slactivism’ they call it. Ugh.

The development of the modern internet has (naturally) led to the digitisation of social movements and the emergence of new publics. These communities can be found in online forums, social networks, and club penguin?

A movement I have followed closely for the past two years is #MeToo. The 2017 #MeToo movement is an ongoing social media movement, which is characterised by its emphasis on using digital platforms to mobilise and sustain feminist activism. Feminism, as defined by bell hooks, is a movement to end “sexism, sexual exploitation, and oppression”. The global feminist movement has been strengthened by the interconnectedness afforded by social media. And I believe this is the case with all movements.

I see digital platforms as a way for citizens to engage in activism who otherwise wouldn’t participate in more practical methods. These people may be passionate about an issue, yet taking action in protest may be a step too far. There are challenges to this level of participation. Accessibility, cost, effort. Social standing and even safety are considerations in the #MeToo movement.

A study into the high school students who used the 2014 #BeenRapedNeverReported hashtag reported that these students only found it safe to campaign online. Individuals were often restricted in participating in local communities, however were empowered to reach out for support and take action with the power of social media. This appears to be the same for those in the #MeToo movement.  

Looking at social identity theory we can see how this sort of participation is appealing. Sometimes we aren’t able to, maybe for fear of consequences if your friends or community disapproves. So we shape our identity depending on the community we are members of. 

An additional benefit of digital activism is that it is not restricted by geography or even time. As of March 2018, #MeToo was being used in more than 85 countries including many non-Western nations like Iran, India and China. If like-minded people can’t be found in your immediate community, you can find and connect with them all around the world.

Sometimes old-fashioned activism just doesn’t budge entrenched opinions. Just ask the vegans. They received extreme backlash, counter-protest and online trolling following their recent coordinated action.

The reality is no single form will ever act in isolation. Different types of activism work in sync with each other, as well as external change agents, including organisations and even governments. I quite like the Victorian Government’s “Call It Out” campaign promoting respect for women.

(I’d say this is a good example of Government activism, it has received 5x as many dislikes as likes - how...)

So really, If people are passionate about an issue, we must not discourage them to take action in any way they can, even if it isn’t taking to the streets or smashing an egg on a racist politician’s head.

#MeToo is an example of the global community working together to make an impact. It demonstrates the power and benefits of not just the feminist movement as a whole, but also its members that may otherwise face barriers to active participation.

So what are some of the takeaways of all this:

Let people take action in their own way

Support small change and big

Know that you can form a different identity if activism doesn’t mix with your real-world situation (Just like Batman!)

We must all band together, respecting each others’ own unique contribution to making change;

#the greater good #activism #metoo #respect women #Social media #digital #activist #feminism

[digital-noot-blog]

My bubble! Navigating politics on social media

The other night I opened up Twitter and unsurprisingly the Australian federal budget was trending. Budget night is an annual night where we all hold our breaths while we wait to learn whether we are winners or losers (spoiler: fire ants are losers).

This topic may not excite you, and I’m sure many of you have switched off already. But you really should care about it. Yeah, it might seem boring, but politics is one of the most fundamental aspects of our lives. And social media has made it infinitely easier to be engaged and to have a say.

Twitter is perhaps the greatest example of this. Australia has one of the biggest online political communities in the world - #auspol - representing all aspects of Australian politics. So Twitter is also the place to discuss the federal budget. This is what was top of my trending list that night:

On this list what I was drawn to the #fakesurplus hashtag. It started out as part of the #budget2019 conversation, however it soon became its own thing. #fakesurplus became its own conversation with almost all users questioning the government’s claim of a surplus. It didn’t fully separate from the larger conversation about the budget (many tweets included multiple hashtags), did it become an echo chamber of critics all saying similar things? Scrolling through this wasn’t entirely the case, but it was definitely one-sided.

This leads us into the conversation on political filter bubbles more generally. It is believed that social media becomes an echo chamber where we only see content that confirms our particular world views, and platforms have a role in filtering this content based on what we like. This is done by the algorithms that curate our news feeds. For example is that I lean Left/liberally in politics so my social network sites go “hey, Noot seems to like this type of political content - let's give him more of that!” This begins to cause problems when we only hear things that confirm our own biases and we start to think that only our viewpoint is correct.

I am wondering if by creating a counter hashtag like #fakesurplus we actually create our own echo chambers. If so, is this what happens in other spaces too? In sport, in gaming, in activism? (In my next big post I am going to dive into digital activism, stay tuned). It is worth considering whether splintering off into our own comfortable sub-cultures actually helps us or hinders our understanding of the world. I think most of us can agree we feel more comfortable in our own bubbles.

We have seen the effects of filter bubbles in politics over the last few years. With the increase and specificity of the data that is being collected about us, there are companies out there who are using this information and echo chambers against us - even influencing election outcomes.

Case in point: Trump, the 2016 US Presidential Elections and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Effectively Trump’s campaign bought data that Facebook had sold to Cambridge Analytica about its users. This data was so detailed that it could supposedly be used to target political advertising at particular individuals in a way that was predicted to be most influential. This meant that what voters were seeing on Facebook was not organic content from friends and liked pages, but carefully curated to manipulate their voting habits. It is said that this is what won Trump the election. And no one had a clue until after it was all over.

However, that said, some platforms are more susceptible than others, and the idea of completely closed echo chambers is not entirely accurate. Firstly, the logic (and affordances) of Twitter effectively diminishes the effects of echo chambers. Twitter’s very public and fluid functionality means that users are not immune to seeing different viewpoints.

This is why having a broad public that includes both sides of politics is essential for this post-truth era. #auspol provides a platform for both sides of politics to shout their truth, debate, counter. This is important as it opens us to other viewpoints.

My Twitter feed is a majority of news and politics. Over the past 7 years I have continually drifted left, I feel like I have collected a good amount of the political spectrum as I’ve gone. On Facebook, I’ll follow politicians across most of the spectrum. 

I hope this post has given you some insight into how social networks influence what content you see and even what you believe. Now you know how to digitally engage with politics a little more safely.

My final tips on being an informed citizen: - Engage with politics at every level. Know who your local candidate is and know who the Prime Minister of the day is - Do research on everything. Learn to be critical about what you hear and take a minute to google it - Follow some people with perspectives different to your own - Show up to vote (and grab a democracy sausage on the way out)

#MDA20009 #auspol #social media

[digital-noot-blog]

#auspol is quality 👌

[digital-noot-blog]

Sociality?

[digital-noot-blog]

What’s a Tumblr?

When I started a degree in social media last year I decided to branch out my social media usage. I was already active on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Snapchat and Twitter. Soon I had added Flickr, Vimeo, Youtube, Google+ (lol) and a food blog on Wordpress to that list. But when I was chatting to a younger friend about joining Tumblr, the impression I got from our conversation was I’d be too old to get it. And maybe she was right. I am looking around and wondering: What even is Tumblr?

What is its purpose? Is it a social networking site (SNS) or is it a blogging platform? I want to know, so I’ve done some digging to work out what exactly I’m dealing with. Let’s start by looking at what Tumblr has to say for itself:

“Tumblr is where your interests connect you with your people”

So two things: it has a focus on social, and it’s a place for communities.

Tumblr’s communities exist through their affordances. Affordances are the set of rules and structures that determine how an object or - in the case of digital media - a platform can be used. These uses aren’t always intended. A simple example is single-use plastic bottles designed for holding liquid. Some people have found innovative uses for these plastic bottles including using them to build houses for refugees in Algeria.

So what are some of the key affordances of Tumblr:

It is an online space that connects people regardless of physical place and time

Tags categorise content

Posts can be up to 500,000 characters long

Users can set up multiple blogs with different social identities.

Blog names are generally created to keep the user anonymous (eg, you don’t know whether I’m a human or secretly a techno-literate penguin disguised as a uni student)

Tags are the most significant affordance for Tumblr communities. Tags categorise posts on social media sites, increasing exposure, and making content easier to find through a simple search of or click on a particular tag. Tags are useful for creating virtual communities and to display a user’s group identity. These communities aren’t always a good thing though. Anonymity has lead to groups forming around taboo topics such as self-harm and thinspiration (hopefully an unexpected affordance). Tags and their role in connecting groups make Tumblr function like an SNS in the way it develops networks for people to interact and socialise.

On the other hand, a blog can be defined as a web page where users post information chronologically, in an informal or conversational manner. In that case, Tumblr’s feed design and reverse-chronological posts scream blog.

So what is Tumblr? If I can give Tumblr just one classification, I would define it as an SNS in a similar way to Twitter. Though by definition, most social networks with a running feed of text and images are blogs, including Facebook, I consider these SNSs - so I am content in simply calling Tumblr an SNS too.

#MDA20009