ellahouse

[ellahouse]

Week 10: Gaming Communities, Social Gaming and Live Streaming

Platformisation refers to “the growing integration of digital platforms’ business models, infrastructures, algorithms, and the practices around them into every facet of society” (Chia, Keogh, Leorke & Nicoll 2020, p. 4). Platformisation encompasses economic and governmental frameworks and occurs as a process of changing societal practices surrounding digital platforms (Chia et. al. 2020, p. 4). The video game industry has undergone long-term platformisation, (Chia et. al. 2020, pp. 7-10); the emergence of streaming platforms and digital gaming communities can be considered a result of this process. 

Streaming, live streaming and broadcasting sites can be considered forms of gaming platforms (Hardwick 2022). Despite many of these sites not being originally designed as gaming platforms, this consideration is due to the large community of gamers dominating such sites, with endless hours of digital gaming content being produced and consumed daily (Taylor 2018, pp. 3-4). Twitch is a streaming and broadcasting platform particularly popular for gaming content, with over 8 million users creating streams and receiving nearly 3 million viewers each month (Twitch Tracker 2022). Online streaming platforms such as Twitch allow players to earn income, grow their brand, and reach audiences, as well as allow fans to easily engage with gaming content. This subsequently facilitates the forming of digital gaming communities and networks (Taylor 2018, pp. 4-12).

Digital gaming communities, a form of social communities, form around streamers and their gaming content occurring on platforms such as Twitch (Hardwick 2022). Online multi-player games saw the first forms of digital gaming communities and networks, allowing for knowledge regarding online communication, self-expression, identities, and the blurring boundaries between friends and strangers digitally (Taylor 2018, p. 12). Online gaming platforms and the inclusion they can foster for sustained digital communities of like-minded people reflect the changes in game culture and the platformisation of the game industry (Taylor 2018, pp. 4-12). 

References: 

Taylor, TL 2018, ‘Broadcasting ourselves’, in Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton University Press, pp. 1-23. 

Chia, A, Keogh, B, Leorke, D & Nicoll, B 2020, ‘Platformisation in game development’, Internet Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1-28.

Hardwick, T 2022, ‘Week 10 Social Gaming Guest Lecture’, HS1 MDA20009 Digital Communities, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 11 May 2022.

Twitch Tracker 2022, Twitch Statistics & Charts, Twitch Tracker, viewed 20 May 2022, <https://twitchtracker.com/statistics>.

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 9: Digital Citizenship and Software Literacy: Filters on Social Media

When we think of heavily filtered photos, we typically may think of images of celebrities or models, however, visual social media platforms are challenging this notion. The use of augmented reality and the new technology available to modify one’s images are growing as a result of the digitisation of beauty (Coy-Dibley 2016, p. 2). This is resulting in seeing heavily filtered images of both oneself and others as a part of everyday life (Barker 2020, p. 217). 

In 2015, the popular social media platform, Snapchat, introduced ‘lenses’, an update for the app incorporating face filters into everyday practice. These filters, which apply accessories, edit features, warp or distort the face, and place images in any situation, were positioned as a ‘fun and playful’ way for users to engage with the platform and switch up their communication and expressions (Barker 2020, pp. 207-209). These filters have however had negative effects on users and projected exclusive beauty ideals. Almost every filter, whether designed to ‘beautify’ or not, emphasises the whiteness and femininity of users. Snapchat lenses slim the jaw and nose, widen the eyes, enlarge lips, smooth blemishes, and lighten the complexion (Barker 2020, pp. 207-217), as demonstrated by the below images. This is portraying a sociocultural stereotype of beauty and pushes these ideals onto users, changing the ways individuals view themselves and leading to dysmorphic effects (Barker 2020, pp. 209-217). 

Before and after using Snapchat filters (Hunt 2019)

With filters warping the way we view ourselves, the dissonance between these expectations versus the reality of our appearance can lead to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) (Mavroudis 2022). Coy-Dibley (2016, p. 2), posits this dysmorphia as the result of digitally edited images as ‘digitised dysmorphia’. The practice of modifying an individual’s self-images projects socially conditioned dysmorphia and societal constructs of body standards. This has led to societal standards and perceptions of how women’s bodies should look being based on edited and modified images (Coy-Dibley 2016, p. 2). While individuals once would compare themselves to models and celebrities, they are now competing with their own digitalised image and perception of themselves based on impossible standards (Haines 2021).

 References: 

Barker, J 2020, ‘Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of snapchat’, Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, vol. 7, nos. 2 & 3, pp. 207-221. 

Coy-Dibley, I 2016, ‘“Digitized Dysmorphia” of the female body: the re/disfigurement of the image’, Palgrave Communications, vol. 2, no. 16040, pp. 1-9. 

Haines, A 2021, From ‘Instagram Face’ To ‘Snapchat Dysmorphia’: How Beauty Filters Are Changing The Way We See Ourselves, Forbes, viewed 16 May 2022, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/annahaines/2021/04/27/from-instagram-face-to-snapchat-dysmorphia-how-beauty-filters-are-changing-the-way-we-see-ourselves/?sh=78ceedc24eff>.

Hunt, E 2019, Faking it: how selfie dysmorphia is driving people to seek surgery, The Guardian, viewed 16 May 2022, <https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/23/faking-it-how-selfie-dysmorphia-is-driving-people-to-seek-surgery>.

Mavroudis, J 2022, ‘Week 8 Body Modification Guest Lecture’, HS1 MDA20009 Digital Communities, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 27 April 2022.

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 8: Digital Citizenship and health education: Body modification on Visual Social Media

The control over one’s online identity, representation, and self-image; including the production and distribution of an individual’s photos, has been seen as a tool for women’s empowerment digitally (Carah & Dobson 2016, p. 3). Social media users are able to curate their own digital identities - particularly on visual platforms such as Instagram - whilst this has given women the power over their own image and representation, online practices surrounding the sharing of self-images also leads to many negative effects (Carah & Dobson 2016, p. 3). 

Users can become obsessed with their online images and social media algorithms, leading to a shift in behaviour or posting to gain visibility and attention (Carah & Dobson 2016, p. 3). Such algorithms favour pictures which conform to highly sexualised standards of beauty and attractiveness. This includes posts such as the below examples, fitting the aesthetic templates of enhanced features, aesthetic ‘hotness’, hourglass figures with small waists and big hips, and sexualised poses. This perpetuates online heteronormative power dynamics, and beauty and sexuality ideals (Mavroudis 2022). These pictures are examples of the pornification of social media images, the result of sexualised online identities and conformance to digital beauty standards (Drenten, Gurrieri & Tyler 2019). Such images are typically targeted toward a male audience; intensifying the normality of men embodying the ‘male gaze’ and internalising this view in women (Carah & Dobson 2016, p. 9).

These high online standards of beauty and pressure for visual ‘hotness’, have resulted in a strong trend of dissatisfaction with body image and a link to body dysmorphic disorder (Mavroudis 2022). Women are consequently seeking aesthetic work or body modification procedures in order to maintain and achieve the perfect body and features made popular through social media (Carah & Dobson 2016, p. 8). Nearly 50% of patients are now stating the reason for seeking aesthetic surgery is to improve their Instagram and social media appearance (Dorfman et. al. 2018, p. 332). Such patients are also engaging with plastic surgery content on social media, further increasing their want for such procedures and gaining knowledge of the practices (Dorfman et. al. 2018, p. 335). Demonstrating the effects of visual social media on body modification practices. 

References: 

Carah, N & Dobson, A 2016, ‘Algorithmic Hotness: Young Women’s “Promotion” and “Reconnaissance” Work via Social Media Body Images’, Social Media & Society, October-December 2016, pp. 1-10. 

Dorfman, RG, Vaca, EE, Mahmood, E, Fine, NA & Schierle, CF 2018, ‘Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing’, Aesthetic Surgery Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 332-338. 

Drenten, J, Gurrieri L & Tyler, M 2019, ‘Sexualized labour in digital culture: Instagram influencers, porn chic and the monetization of attention’, Gender, Work and Organisation, vol. 27, pp. 41-66. 

‘Kim in Lace Bodysuit’, Kardashian, K 2021, Kim Kardashion, Instagram, viewed 5 May 2022, <https://www.instagram.com/p/CVIhtolljxw/>.

‘Kylie in Swimsuit’, Jenner, K 2021, Kylie Jenner, Instagram, viewed 5 May 2022, <https://www.instagram.com/p/CPG0TYznI0y/>.

Mavroudis, J 2022, ‘Week 8 Body Modification Guest Lecture’, HS1 MDA20009 Digital Communities, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 27 April 2022.

‘Molly in Leather Jumpsuit’ Hague, MM 2022, Molly-Mae Hague, Instagram, viewed 5 May 2022, <https://www.instagram.com/p/CZhnvFrIOT8/>.

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 7: Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Feminist Issues on Social Media

When conflict occurs on social media, we are reminded that issues in our society are reflected in online communities and digital forms of speech (Milne 2022). Harassment that takes place online is typically targeted toward minority groups, of whom are also the groups most policed in society, including women, people of colour, and members of the LGBTQ+ community (Markwick & Caplan 2018, p. 545). This demonstrates that the same imbalances of power occur both in the physical world, and in the online world (Milne 2022).

Online harassment is not exclusive to women and minority groups; however, these groups are often the target of digital abuse such as revenge porn, doxing, shaming, and intimidation; forms of harassment that stem from men and men’s rights activists making up the online ‘manosphere’ (Markwick & Caplan 2018, p. 544). The manosphere is an online community concerned with men’s rights and issues, masculinity, and is known for theorising that feminism and feminists are threats to men. The manosphere promotes a discourse that feminists are villains and men are victims of misandry, this leads to a systematic trend of online harassment and harmful e-bile (Markwick & Caplan 2018, pp. 545-547). Feminist scholars connect such online behaviour against women to structural sexism (Markwick & Caplan 2018, p. 545).

(Forum on men's issues, Fabrizio Costantini/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Gaslighting, referring to psychological manipulation with the intention to make someone question their sanity, is a relatively new term for this form of abuse. Like other forms of harassment, on or offline, gaslighting is an abuse of power and control (Gleeson 2018). It is often used to demoralise and dismiss the abuse of women. The term has received a recent emergence as a popular term used in online discourse, particularly following the #metoo movement as women share their stories online. This growing use of the term across forms of digital media has had a positive effect, leading to a widespread understanding of forms of abuse. It has however also had a negative effect, with many users taking the word out of context (Gleeson 2018). This has happened particularly on the platform TikTok, with the phrase ‘gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss’ being used widely as a form of platform vernacular. This phrase began as a way for digital feminists to poke fun at ‘girlboss feminists’, a term used to describe (often) white women, only concerned with individual empowerment (Hamilton 2021). The below Instagram post by feminist illustrator, Lily O’Farrell, outlines the timeline of girlboss feminism and what it means for digital communities.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CYhL9zMoC7k/

(O’Farrell 2022 @vulgadrawings/Instagram)

References: 

‘A Timeline of Girlboss Feminism’, O’Farrell, L 2022, Vulga Drawings, Instagram, viewed 30 April 2022, <https://www.instagram.com/p/CYhL9zMoC7k/>.

Gleeson, J 2018, Explainer: what does ‘gaslighting’ mean?, The Conversation, viewed 30 April 2022, <https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-gaslighting-mean-107888>.

Hamilton, P 2021, ‘Gaslight, Gatekeep, Girlboss’, Know Your Meme, viewed 1 May 2022, <https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gaslight-gatekeep-girlboss>.

Marwick, AE & Caplan, R 2018, ‘Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment’, Feminist Media Studies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 543-559.

 Milne, E 2022, ‘Week 7 Social Media Conflict Lecture’, HS1 MDA20009 Digital Communities, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed 20 April 2022.

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 6: Social Media Influencers: Fast vs. Slow Fashion

The rise of social media influencers has resulted in a shift in fashion culture. Influencers now set new fashion trends, and social media accelerates trend cycles. This leaves consumers turning to fast fashion retailers in order to keep up with the latest trends (Rudalevige 2021). 

Fast fashion refers to mass and unethically produced, extremely cheap clothing, often associated with trends, and not designed to last long. This subsequently produces mass amounts of textile waste and encourages overconsumption (Chi, Gerard, Yu & Wang 2021, p. 101). In contrast, slow fashion refers to clothing made ethically, sustainably, and with the intention to outlast trends (Lai, Henninger & Alevizou 2017, pp. 82-83). Lai et. al. (2017, p. 83) outline that sustainable fashion must be considered environmentally, socially, and economically responsible, as well as must be produced within ethical conditions. Despite its positive social impacts, slow fashion is still an underdeveloped market, with fast fashion brands being often more attractive to consumers due to price and convenience factors (Lai et. al. 2017, pp. 82-94). 

Due to the low price and easily accessible nature of fast fashion (Lai et. al. 2017, pp. 82-94), consumers rely on these brands to keep up with trends promoted by their favourite influencers (Rudalevige 2021). Fashion influencers constantly trigger need recognition from their followers when promoting new trends and apparel (Sudha & Sheena 2017, pp. 18-20). Fast fashion brands quickly mimic these trends, with the goal of producing mass amounts of new and trendy clothing allowing consumers to keep up with trend cycles (Chi et. al. 2021, p. 101).

This leads to the culture of fast fashion brands copying designs from small, often slow fashion businesses. Online retailer Shein is particularly known for this; adding hundreds of new styles to their website daily. Many of which are direct copies, being mass-produced and sold at a much lower quality and price. Designers who are victims of having their designs stolen use social media platforms to call out the company (see the below example) (Michie 2021). This subsequently promotes the culture of slow fashion and encourages ethical consumption. 

 References: 

Chi, T, Gerard, J, Yu, Y & Wang, Y 2021, ‘A study of U.S. consumers’ intention to purchase slow fashion apparel: understanding the key determinants’, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, vol. 14, no. 1 pp. 101-112.

Lai, Z, Henninger, CE & Alevizou, PJ 2017, ‘‘An Exploration of Consumers’ Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion – A Qualitative Study in the UK’, in CE Henninger, PJ Alevizou, H Goworek & D Ryding (eds), Sustainability in Fashion A Cradle to Upcycle Approach, Palgrave, pp. 81-101.  

Michie, N 2021, Shein Accused of Stealing From Small Designers — Again, Fashion Magazine, viewed 20 April 2022, <https://fashionmagazine.com/style/shein-stolen-designs/>.

Rudalevige, E 2021, How TikTok Makes Fast Fashion Faster, Lithium Magazine, viewed 31 March 2022, <https://lithiumagazine.com/2021/06/15/how-tiktok-makes-fast-fashion-faster/>. 

Sudha, M & Sheena, K 2017, ‘Impact of Influencers in Consumer Decision Process: the Fashion Industry’, SCMS Journal of Indian Management, July-September, pp. 14-30. 

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 5: Digital Citizenship: Political Engagement on Social Media

As the world has experienced a digital shift, political engagement has also changed and adapted with new online cultures (Vromen 2017, pp. 2-3). This has resulted in a shift in the way individuals interact and get involved with politics and how political parties and m and share their views and campaigns (Nelimarkka, Laaksonen, Tuokko & Valkonen 2020, pp. 1-2). Due to digitalisation, political engagement now often happens in a more individualised manner, including the use of social media to both express and analyse views and opinions (Vromen 2017, pp. 2-3).

Social media has had a large impact on politics; making political engagement occur in everyday life, leading to the development of digital citizenship (Vromen 2017, pp. 2-4)

 Digital citizenship refers to the concept of an individual participating positively in society - through areas such as politics - online (Mossberger et al. 2008, pp. 1-2). Social media assists in the widespread distribution of political ideas and information, and allows individuals to easily get involved, making it a popular destination for politicians to engage with their publics (Nelimarkka et. al. 2020, pp. 1-2). This refers to the platformitisation of politics (Chia et. al. 2020, pp. 3-7). Twitter is particularly effective for political reach, as the platform encourages the sharing of news, information, and opinions (Nelimarkka et. al. 2020, pp. 2-7). 

Due to the politically oriented vernacular of the platform, Twitter is often used by political parties and politicians during election campaigns. This provides the opportunity for candidate-voter discussion; increasing a campaign’s efficiency, and leading to a benefit for candidates, reflected in election results (Nelimarkka et. al. 2020, pp. 1-2). Indirect persuasion occurs through the process of interpersonal communication, explaining the impact of social media on political campaigns (Nelimarkka et. al. 2020, pp. 1-2). This was demonstrated in the 2016 United States Presidential election, with both candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, communicating via Twitter multiple times daily, capturing the attention of social media users globally, and making political engagement a part of everyday life (Crockett 2016). 

References: 

Chia, A, Keogh, B, Leorke, D & Nicoll, B 2020, ‘Platformisation in game development’, Internet Policy Review, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1-28. 

Crockett, Z 2016, What I learned reading 4,000 Trump and Clinton tweets, Vox, viewed 20 April 2022, <https://www.vox.com/2016/11/7/13550796/clinton-trump-twitter>.

Mossberger, K, Tolbert, CJ, McNeal, RS 2008, Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Nelimarkka, M, Laaksonen, S, Tuokko, M & Valkonen, T 2020, ‘Platformed Interactions: How Social Media Platforms Relate to Candidate–Constituent Interaction During Finnish 2015 Election Campaigning’, Social Media & Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1-17.

Vromen, A 2017, Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement The Challenge from Online Campaigning and Advocacy Organisations, Palgrave Macmillan, London. 

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 4: Digital Community and Fandom: Can Reality TV have Political Benefits?

The role of reality television (TV) in our society is often overlooked; being seen merely as a form of mindless entertainment. Reality TV, first defined as ‘docusoaps’, are television shows featuring people depicted in behaviour that appears unscripted (Kavka 2018, pp. 5-7). These shows are described as displaying “hypervisibility, coalescing over-the-top emotions with behavioural transgressions that promise the thrill of unpredictability within the security of televisual contrivance” (Kavka 2018, p. 7).

Whilst reality TV traditionally offered authenticity and realism at the core of its entertainment, many now question the true levels of authenticity involved in these programs (L’Hoiry 2019, p. 1). This nature has led to many viewers categorising reality TV as a ‘guilty pleasure’ and a form of escapism (L’Hoiry 2019, p. 3). However, the influence reality TV has on political talk and contributing to the public sphere may be majorly overlooked. Social media generates a vibrant digital community in which political talk is common and strengthens the public sphere. This has helped generate a culture of individuals discussing and involving politics in everyday life (Graham & Hajru 2011, pp. 18-21). 

Reality TV and social media both follow a system of publicising the private (Graham & Hajru 2011, p. 29), however, they may both also work together to create a politically active digital sphere. Practices involved with reality tv viewing have come to rely more on social media and less on the actual program itself (L’Hoiry 2019, p. 1). As viewers become active on social media whilst engaging with reality tv, political talk regarding the program also emerges (Graham & Hajru 2011, pp. 20-29). A study on political discussions surrounding reality viewing found the most common triggers for online debates included the behaviour, discussions, lifestyle, images, and identities of contestants (Graham & Hajru 2011, pp. 23-27). This use of political talk in everyday and informal situations can help contribute to a more politically active society, meaning ‘trashy’ reality TV can provoke important conversations and generate change just as much as documentaries can (Graham & Hajru 2011, p. 21). As online communities of viewers come together to have these conversations with political undertones, knowledge and interests are shared, contributing to a larger public sphere (L’Hoiry 2019, p. 11). Reality TV triggers political conversations in informal settings such as social media. This further may lead to political benefits as viewers engage in such topics in their everyday life. 

 References: 

Graham, T & Hajru, A 2011, ‘Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere’, European Journal of Communication, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 18-32.

Kavka, M 2018, ‘Reality TV: Its contents and discontents’, Critical Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 5-18. 

L’Hoiry, X 2019, ‘Love Island, social media, and sousveillance: new pathways of challenging realism in reality TV’, Frontiers in Sociology, vol. 4, pp. 1-13. 

#mda20009

[ellahouse]

Week 3: Digital Communities and Tumblr: Discussing the Role of the Public Sphere

“The networked population is gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action” (Shirky 2011, p. 29).

The above statement describes the way in which online communities contribute to ‘the public sphere’. The public sphere referring to a concept in which individuals come together to publicly share knowledge and understanding, ultimately guiding change. A public sphere must provide full access to information, promote fair participation, and act as an environment free from political, economic, or social surveillance (Kruse, Norris & Flinchum 2018, pp. 62-63). Digital or online communities therefore may generate further access to the public sphere by connecting users globally.

The online community that exists on Tumblr is one that is unique to any other social media platform; it is an environment that may be better described as a ‘digital sociality’. The concept of digital socialities refers to the various factors of digital relationships, the fluidity of individuals both on and offline, and the nuances that occur across multiple platforms (Keller 2019, p. 2). Online communities, however, often implies a distinct and identifiable group (Keller 2019, p. 2), and due to the online culture Tumblr creates, this is not the case. Tumblr offers more privacy than other platforms, with the option of users remaining completely anonymous, as well as not displaying verification nor follower counts for users exploring, leading to an equal community of anonymous and identifiable voices (McCracken 2020, pp. 37-40). 

 Due to the anonymous nature of the platform, Tumblr can often be a space for political discussion, as users feel a sense of freedom (Keller 2019, p. 8), further demonstrating the platform’s role as a public sphere. This has been particularly the case regarding feminist movements and discussions. Online communities have facilitated an environment in which feminist identities can be explored whilst users share their own experiences and raise awareness of societal issues regarding equality (Keller 2019, pp. 2-9). This has led to the wave of feminism we see today, and empowered feminists by providing a platform to use their voices, all whist contributing to the public sphere. 

 References: 

Shirky, C 2011, ‘The Political Power of Social Media Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 28-41. 

Kruse, LM, Norris, DR & Flinchum, JR 2018, ‘Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 62-84.

Keller, J 2019, ‘“Oh, She’s a Tumblr Feminist”: Exploring the Platform Vernacular of Girls’ Social Media Feminisms’, Social Media & Society, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1-11.

McCracken, A 2020, ‘Chapter 3 ‘Going Down the Rabbit Hole: An Interview with Amanda Brennan, Head of Content Insights and Social, Tumblr’’, in A McCracken, A Cho, L Stein & IN Hoch (eds), A Tumblr Book: Platform and Cultures, University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp. 37-47. 

#mda20009 #digital communities