A Giant Leap Out of the Comfort Zone

It was a little after two in the morning. Picture this: I’m lying on the couch in complete darkness, phone in hand. The App Store is open, and I have been staring intently at that tiny blue “Get” button for an embarrassingly long amount of time. My heart is jumping around like crazy, and I’m about ten seconds away from starting to literally sweat. I feel guilty… although I’m not exactly sure why. My husband is asleep in our bed, and every few seconds I pop my head up to make sure I’m still the only one awake.

No, I wasn’t contemplating downloading a dating app and starting a clandestine affair. Well… technically it is a dating app, but I’m not interested in the affair. And for a few seconds after I download the app (an eternity, really), I am on a dating site for the first time ever. During that brief eternity, I find my mind going to some interesting (see: irrational, crazy, paranoid…) places:

What if I die right this moment and my husband finds this app on my phone and thinks I have this secret life!? What if my phone freezes before I get the chance to toggle over into BFF mode and then I have to explain why I have this dating app on my phone!? Oh My God, why did I do this!?

But then, just soon enough to save me from myself, the opportunity arises, and I toggle over from Bumble (the dating app) to Bumblebff (the new-ish app created to help girls and guys find new BFFs!) All irrationality aside, who created this genius app?! A dating site for friends!? This is revolutionary! Because, let’s be honest, as soon as you become a grownup, making new friends becomes much more difficult…

After I downloaded the app and switched to (the much safer) bff mode, the first step was to create a profile.  Bumble bff prompts the user to import information from Facebook (there is a disclaimer that Bumble will never post anything to your account), and the app uploads your most recent Facebook pictures into your profile. 

     Next, you get the opportunity to replace and/or rearrange these pictures. I decided to add a picture that shows me out in the world with friends, so that it is clear that I have real-life friends. I don’t want to appear too desperate…

Trying to avoid desperate vibes

   

               Along with pictures, a user’s profile features age, occupation, college, and a short bio.

                                                                  Here's mine:    

The settings can also be adjusted to find friends within a certain distance from you (mine’s currently 20 miles) and friends of a certain age range (mine is set to find friends who are 24-34 years old). I originally had my distance set a little higher, but I kept getting Manhattan friends, so I adjusted. (Note: Manhattan girls looked a bit too intimidating).

     The morning after I downloaded Bumble, I was alerted that I had my first match! Agh, so intimidating! What to say? Bumble acknowledges that making that first move can be intimidating as hell. They provide gifs:

Best one by far...

                                                                                                             

                                                                                                  Oh, also, 

there’s a taco:

I will admit, all the taco gifs in the world could not save me from feeling like I was on a job interview. At the start of any new convo, there was a lot of reaching for things to talk about-- too many “so what do you do?”’s, and “what did you go to school for”’s.

Some chose to acknowledge the awkwardness right away:

  Source

But, ultimately, I saw the potential in the experience. After the awkward “getting to know you”, it was actually a little fun. Over the course of four weeks I talked coffee shops, school/work, vacations, kids, doughnuts, books, being friends with dogs on Instagram, and planning Pinterest-worthy parties with about 16 ladies.

Disclosure: Yes, I follow dogs on Instagram. I also follow doughnuts. Don’t judge.

                                                                              

As this media adventure comes to a close, I guess the big questions are: Was it worth it? And, did it work?

I set out on this adventure because of a few reasons. For one thing, I missed the whole dating app craze...but my best friend didn’t. She is a serial online dater and constantly talks about the connections that she makes online . I was never able to truly understand what the fuss was all about. Secondly, my online participation rarely goes beyond “liking” pictures and posts on Instagram and Facebook. And to be honest, most of that participation involves connecting with people that I already know--family and friends. I’ve never taken the opportunity to branch out and try to form new connections. This experiment was successful in provoing that exposure: it did give me insight into the online-connection experience, and I discovered what it feels like to really put yourself out there.

It was actually pretty exciting to get a notification that I had a new match or that I had a new message from someone that I was talking to.

                                  It was also validating to discover that someone that I might be interested in getting to know wanted to get to know me as well.

     So, I would say that in this way, Bumblebff worked for me.. But did it lead to any new real friendships? Not yet. Do I expect it will? Honestly, not really.

                                                 Here is what didn’t work for me:

1. You have to make split-second decisions about people based only on a few pictures and a short bio (bio’s aren't necessary, so some people didn’t even have one).  
2. Unless you choose to share your phone number with the people you are talking to, all communication happens through the app. This is problematic because, even with notifications, it was too easy to forget to check in on these conversations. Sometimes days went by before I picked up the thread again.
3. Due to this lack of fluidity, the conversations and connections sometimes felt forced or unnatural. They never moved past the “small-talk” phase. It sometimes took days to get through the type of introductory conversation that would only take a few minutes if it occurred in-person.
4. It was sometimes difficult to get a good read on people. I couldn’t really tell what kind of person someone was based only on the type of small-talk that we engaged in. I think that meeting people in-person allows for a better read on sense of humor, pet-peeves, and if someone is fun (or annoying) to be around.

With that said, I will likely keep the app on my phone and use it from time-to-time with the understanding that even though I don’t expect to find any new real-life best friends, it’s sometimes fun to talk to new people.

    

   

       I have had the same two best friends since the sixth (Jess) and eighth (Andrea) grade. I don’t think that the kind of relationship that we have can be replicated or grown from an online connection.

                                               Here’s some unnecessary proof:
                                              
                                                 Real best friend conversation:          

                                                         versus                  

                                                 Bumblebff convos:

       To conclude: Bumble BFFs are people that you can make small-talk with when you’re bored; Real-life BFFs don’t do small-talk; there’s no need. Why talk about the weather when you can talk about how your bestie just matched with Black Phillip on Tinder.

 

Three months ago, I had no idea what Netprov was, so I tried to do some research online. What I found was an example of Netprov that used Twitter as the platform, and the result seemed very random and disjointed. So, prior to starting our own Netprov project, I was still confused and also a little anxious.

When I finally learned about the idea behind Air-B-N-Me, and the decision to use a website created specifically for this project as the platform, I was relieved and excited to participate. This was such an interesting and unique project idea! I also appreciated the opportunity to get creative in developing a character for the game. I don’t know if I would have been very successful in trying to find creative ways to market the real me…

Originally, I wanted to create a character that was a young child and have the pitch be something about being able to “be young again” and “have endless energy again”. Interestingly, Dave had a very similar idea, and in the end, neither of us went with our child characters. I decided that it would be too difficult to try to film the scenes that were necessary. Also, after signing up for the website, I realized that you had to choose a birth-date for your character (the minimum age was eighteen).

The idea for my serial killer character came about from joking around with the group as we were working through possible character ideas—thanks Dave, Melissa, and Omar! Having such an easily identified character type actually made it more fun to participate. I created Lurk4You, a lovable murderer in a bit of a killing rut. He hoped that by putting himself out there on Air-B-N-Me and having other people lurf him, he could once again learn to love murdering other dudes.  

It was also fun to stay in character when I reviewed other user’s ads. Although I watched plenty of videos, I had to choose which ones to respond to based on the character that I had created. For example, I watched some of Debbie and Martha’s videos, but, alas, I couldn’t come up with a murderer-esque response. I did get to review Laura, Colin, Melissa, and Maria’s ads. 

As far as accessing and creating videos, I agree with what others are saying about it being a little messy and confusing. Some people chose to use Periscope, others used YouTube to upload their clips, and some people just had a paragraph describing the lurfing opportunity. When the project was first introduced, I was an advocate for using Periscope; it seemed like the perfect tool for this project. In actuality, it turned out to be a nuisance--and a nightmare. 

I think it might have worked better if we had all downloaded the app, traded usernames, and followed one another before the project began. (Although I will say that I was beyond relieved that none of  you were following me when my son broadcast his NAKED LEGS to random internet weirdos and they thought it was ME! He is still grounded for that one...) 

YouTube was a more successful and accessible tool for creating and viewing ad videos.  Although, I will also note that sometimes I didn't even need the videos in order to interact with other users. Sometimes their written descriptions of the lurfing opportunities were enough. 

Overall, (well, other than that Periscope horror story) I really enjoyed the experience! The best part was creating a character and interacting with the other characters that everyone had created. It was interesting to see what everyone came up with. If the creators were going to experiment with Air-B-N-Me 2.0, my only suggestions would be: 1) make sure everyone is on the same page (especially concerning video creation); and 2) have the project take place over a longer period of time (it felt a little rushed, and it would have been fun to see this play out over the course of a semester). 

Chapter 6: “Democracy, Civic Action, and Activism”

Chapter six of Participatory Culture in a Networked Era opens with an introduction by Henry Jenkins. Jenkins begins the discussion on “Democracy, Civic Action, and Activism” by discussing the role of participatory culture, and more precisely fan culture, in political engagement and the articulation of a better world. He uses the term “civic imagination”, or the relationship between “acts of the imagination and the origins of political consciousness”.

“Before we can change the world, we need to be able to imagine what another, better world might look like.”

Jenkins asserts that young people are learning to understand themselves as political agents and expressing their political visions with the help of language and practices inspired by popular culture and participatory culture. He uses the example of how is own involvement in the Star Trek fandom gave him the opportunity to see diverse people working together. This is something that he was sheltered from in his segregated Atlanta neighborhood in the 1960’s. For Jenkins, this contributed to his vision of what a better society might look like.

Next, Jenkins writes about a deviation from standard research that typically suggested that young people follow the political example laid forth by their parents, teachers, and school communities.  He notes that, according to the YPP network, involvement in informal learning communities like fandoms and gaming influence the political involvement of young people as well.

Later in the chapter, the challenge of “transfer” is discussed. This refers to figuring out the connections between these online, niche worlds and other sites of power.

“It’s important to recognize both the ways in which participatory culture and online worlds develop these kinds of capacities in their participants and that these capacities need to be explicitly organized to have influence in ‘big P’ politics.”

The authors note the importance of building pathways from politics within an online, participatory culture to more traditional forms of political action. Participation in the Harry Potter fandom is used as an example of the process of empowering fantasy and then linking it to real-world issues and problems. The Harry Potter Alliance (HPA) created a space for fans to participate in a way that makes a real difference in the world. Jenkins mentions that HPA has partnered with government agencies and non-profit organizations to participate in activities such as shipping books to Africa and fighting for marriage equality.   

“The HPA has been very effective at helping participants to map their identities as fans onto their identities as citizens or activists and to organize an effective network committed to ongoing social change.”

Toward the end of the chapter, other network-enabled political activist groups are discussed. Included in this discussion is the group that calls themselves Anonymous. This network has spoken out against and targeted government agencies and commercial entities. While many are critical of this groups fight against anyone that they deem corrupt, Danah Boyd argues that this group is an example of young people coming together in a networked, coordinated effort and that this group is an example of the emergence of new forms of activism.

Is this political activism or anarchy? Jenkins questions who really gets to decide what counts as politics. He notes that many young people who are a part of this culture would be hesitant to label their actions as political or civic. “Youth see themselves as exerting change at a cultural rather than an institutional level”, Jenkins writes. This is acceptable, he argues. And we need to accept this as politics.

Participatory Culture in a Networked Era-- Chapter Four

    Mimi Ito begins Chapter four (titled "Learning and Literacy") by discussing her support for "learning in the wild", or out-of-school learning; her work with the MacArthur Foundation's Digital Media and Learning Initiative; and an approach called "connected learning". Learning, Ito argues, is inseparable from the cultural identities, practices, and material setting of everyday life. In other words, educational practices shouldn't only be concerned with how much knowledge can be crammed inside of a young person's brain while they sit inside of the classroom. Learning happens everywhere, and it occurs all of the time.

     The authors note that progressive education is both hands-on and meaningful, and one must consider the potential of digital and social medias for progressive education. They use the term "positive deviants" to describe people who are unusually successful in mobilizing resources that are widely available in a community setting. This term can also be used to describe those young people who are learning more by producing, collaborating, and organizing in a digital environment than they are from the traditional learning that takes place inside of a classroom. However, the authors do note a disparity:  only a small number of these young people are taking their community-based learning and connecting it to in-school, civic, or career-relevant settings.

     They argue that it is not enough to celebrate the things that teens are learning and creating in a digital environment. In order to form connections between these settings and make these activities matter in an educational sense, young people need parental and educational support.

     One means of providing such support is through interest-centered after-school clubs or specialized camps. The Digital Media and Learning Initiative focuses on connecting the interests that young people have with peer-centered learning with academic and civic participation and career possibilities.

     The authors mention that there are challenges, one being that the networked world of today requires a different set of skills, literacies, and social relationships. What social skills and competencies do young people need to acquire if they are going to participate?

     The next section of the chapter focuses on information overload, or our inability to consume all of the information that is thrown our way digitally—there is simply too much information. The authors note that not only is there too much information, there is also a wide array of different types of information: news articles, status updates, tweets, informative blog posts, GIFs, etc.. It’s not easy for one to sort out what to consume.

    The authors cite different perspectives on the argument of how to solve or resolve the problem of information overload. Some argue for tools that make people more effective at consuming more information, some argue for multitasking or simply accepting the way that things are. To this side of the argument, the author’s respond with the opinion of Linda Stone, who argues that there is no such thing as multitasking, “there is only continuous partial attention, and its physiologically and socially costly”.

    This then leads to the discussion of information quality—“In a world where there is so much information, how much of it is credible?” How does one fine the “good” information?

    To that end, it is important to think about what kind of information gets attention and becomes widespread and why. The authors use the example of teenagers whose tweets get read by millions of people. Why? They note, “What captures people’s attention is often the most salacious, fearful, and gossipy content available. It’s the junk food of content”.

    With this in mind, there exists a debate about whether these technologies are good or bad for kids. Considering this onslaught of information (not all of it good), can we still focus? Can we effectively reflect? But disconnecting and hoping that technology will simply go away is neither realistic nor desirable. According the authors, one must consider “how new norms, practices, and literacies can make our engagements most productive individually and collectively”. They write, “It’s easier to be afraid of technology and media than to engage critically with it”. But, information is power. One must not only understand the information that is presented to them in a digital context, one must also understand how that information gets there, how technical systems work. This is technical fluency.

     Finally, the authors discuss participation as part of a meaningful civic, community, or political engagement. Sometimes, the act of participation is valued more than the quality of the contribution. The authors argue that it is important not to celebrate the act of contribution on its own. There are different kinds of participation, and all participation is not created equally. For example, rating a Netflix movie or hitting “like” on Facebook is not equal to the act of contributing to a group blog.

     The chapter concludes with the message that it is important for adults and educators to not impose their ideas of what is “good” participation on young people. The authors note that the agendas of schools are not always well aligned with what young people find rewarding about participatory culture. The example of Harry Potter fanfiction writers is used. While some educators might argue that teens who write fanfiction are in violation of copyrights or are reading and writing inappropriate material, the authors see these spaces as places where young people are reading critically, writing creatively, and mentoring one another. And they are doing this because they want to, not because they are seeking validation from teachers.

   

    

Participatory Culture in a Networked Era and Vlogging

     Chapters two and three of Jenkins, Ito, and Boyd's book, Participatory Culture in a Networked Era, are about youth culture and their participation in this "participatory culture" and also about the assumptions that we make about that participation.
     We, as a whole, sometimes pass judgement about younger generations, the "digital natives". The authors point out that these young people are often lumped together into a generational category and that adults often fail to see the diversity of youth practices. Chapter two mentions "the need to unpack what people think about youth and technology versus what we are able to see through our research".
     In terms of the social and cultural makeup of the people that participate, there is so much more diversity than one might assume. Three genres are cited in chapter three: entertainment, academic, and construction.
     The section on entertainment used examples that I remember: SimCity, Math Blaster, Carmen Sandiego, and Oregon Trail. I remember playing all of these on my grandma's computer!

(Sorry everyone! I didn't get to finish my blog this week. My dog Tater had emergency surgery last Thursday night and we just got him home yesterday! This is as far as I got with the blogging...)

Rettberg: Chapters 2&3 of Seeing Ourselves Through Technology

Jessica Taylor

3/28/2016

Dr. Zamora

ENG5085

 

Chapters Two & Three of Jill Walker Rettberg’s Seeing Ourselves Through Technology

 

In chapter two of Seeing Ourselves Through Technology, “Filtered Reality”, Jill Walker Rettberg uses “filter” as both an analytical term to understand algorithmic culture and as a metaphor for the ways that technology alters and distorts—and even sometimes removes—certain aspects of our text, images, and data. Throughout the chapter, Rettberg discusses the similarities between the visual filters that we apply to images, the technological filters that alter our social media feeds, and the cultural filter that shape our choices and actions online.

In terms of visual filters, Rettberg notes that “one reason that filters fascinate us is that it gives the image that strangeness that defamiliarizes our lives. The filtered image shows us ourselves, or our surroundings, with a machine’s vision” (26). And although filters have become so overused and commonplace that the defamiliarization effect wears off, “seeing ourselves through a filter [still] allows us to see ourselves anew” (26). Using a filter is simply one way to make our everyday experiences more special to ourselves.

Another reason that people may choose to apply filters to images has to do with selfies. Rettberg writes that selfies can sometimes feel raw or revealing—too real. Filters allow us some distance from images of ourselves. According to Rettberg, it’s “as if we are outside of ourselves” (27). Perhaps that is why some people choose to use filters and apps that alter their image so drastically. This could explain why apps such as SkinneePix and Facetune exist.

Rettberg also discusses cultural and technological filters which frequently overlap and are often affected by one another. Cultural filters are the rules that guide us and teach us to filter out some forms of expression. Rettberg notes that we know what we are “supposed to” do because of the shared ideas of our culture. One example that is provided is the use of preformatted baby journals. Rettberg argues that cultural filters teach new parents what they are “supposed to” document and share. Creativity is often limited—inside of these preformatted journals there are prompts and spaces dedicated for certain pictures. She goes further to say that digital versions of these baby journals are even more restrictive. While you can alter non-digital baby journals to some degree by ripping out pages or pasting larger pictures overtop of some, you cannot usually alter digital versions at all.

Algorithms are another example of technological filters. Recently, Instagram announced that they would be switching their feed from a reverse chronological order to an algorithm similar to Facebook. This caused a huge backlash. One has to wonder if this is because the digital community is aware that algorithms filter some people out.

In chapter Three, “Serial Selfies”, Rettberg argues that one needs to see social media genres as feeds and analyze each post or image as part of a series. She goes on to discuss some visual self-representation genres that are very serial such as time-lapse videos and profile pictures. The first example of a serial selfie artist that Rettberg mentions is Suzanne Szucs. Szucs began taking Polaroid pictures every day in 1996 and continued for 15 years. Rettberg likens her mass of self-portraits to Instagram.

There is a strong storytelling aspect to cumulative self-presentation online. Time-lapse videos allow the creator to present months—even years—of their lives in a matter of minutes. Ahree Lee and Noah Kalina created “Me” and “Everyday” respectively. Both videos where posted on YouTube in 2006 and feature the creator’s selfies over a long period of time. Rettberg notes that audience fascination with these types of projects often has to do with watching change happen in hyperspeed.  She also notes that race and gender may have influenced the different receptions of these two videos. Some of the YouTube comments for “Me” are cited including: “Lol she’s Asian so she looked the same for the whole thing” and more that mentioned her gender (37). It was interesting to watch examples of pregnancy and childhood time-lapse videos because the idea of a story is more obviously present. I found myself responding more to videos like these.

Next, Rettberg discusses profile pictures as visual identity. Profile photos are a form of communication, a “visual expression of identity” (40). They change over time and taken cumulatively, tell a story. Later, Rettberg mentions temporary profile pictures or filters, like the ones sometimes offered by Facebook. Sometimes users are given a choice to add filters or icons that have to do with the changing seasons or upcoming holidays. Also, Facebook often allows users to add a filter to show support after terror attacks such as the flag of the country. Rettberg writes that these types of temporary profile pictures are used to show support and solidarity, but they can also be coercive as people may feel pressured to use them.

Both of these chapters highlight how technology can be used to form digital identity and how cultural and technological filters can alter and shape that identity. As Rettberg notes, technology comes with certain affordances and limitations. In certain ways, our culture shapes our interaction with technology and vise-versa. Our choice of digital self-representation and performance tells a story; in some aspects we get to choose in which ways we tell that story, and in some ways we have no choice at all.

 

Discussion questions can be found on the Google Doc!

Boyd's "White Flight in Networked Publics?”

Dana Boyd’s “White Flight in Networked Publics?” begins with a comment from Kat, a fourteen-year-old from a charter school outside of Boston. In 2007, Boyd asked Kat why her friends were moving from MySpace to Facebook. Kat’s response: Myspace is more “Ghetto”.

In the article, Boyd uses data collected from 2004-2009—interviews and observations from teens in diverse communities across 17 states, 2,000 hours of observation of online practices, and 10,000 randomly selected MySpace profiles—to form the argument that teen preference for one form of social media over another reflects “a reproduction of social categories that exist in schools throughout the United States”. The choice is racialized and reinforced because of self-segregation in schools.

Personally, I don’t know how much I agree with this. I missed the MySpace boat. I don’t really remember if I just wasn’t interested or if it had anything to do with my mom. She was very overprotective (I wasn’t allowed the watch MTV at 16 :I) And I didn’t join Facebook until 2009, when a long-distance friend pretty much bullied me into it. Maybe I was just out of the loop, but I do remember a few people from school having MySpace profiles. In my experience, it just seemed to fizzle out when Facebook became more popular. Facebook was newer and therefore better.

Anyway, Boyd goes on to say that a teen’s social world is shaped by race, and that in terms of their choice of social network, a distinction emerged. Facebook was more popular with white, more affluent teens. Boyd writes that “one way to conceptualize the division that unfolded is through the lens of white flight”. She likens teens moving to Facebook with white exodus to the suburbs. Boyd then notes, “Drawing parallels between these two events sheds light on how people’s engagement with technology reveals social division and the persistence of racism”.

In schools (even diverse schools), children self-segregate by race. There are social categories that come along with labels: “cheerleaders”, “goths”, “nerds”. These social categories mark people and groups based on a shared identity. According to Boyd, online spaces are also often organized by social categories.

Many teens cited personal preference as their reason for switching from MySpace to Facebook. They liked the features or the aesthetics. Also, many noted that pressure from friends (or simply following their friends to the new site) caused them to switch. Boyd mentions that “teens choose to use the social network sites that their friends use”. I say, “duh.” Isn’t that the whole point of social media sites… to be social? Again, I think that these are more plausible reasons for the switch. Teens often have a strong sense of FOMO. They want to be like their friends; they don’t want to be left behind or seen as different.

But Boyd says that this doesn’t disconnect their departure from issues of race. (?) She concludes that their experience with race and class shape their attitude towards aesthetics and features. I’m still not completely convinced.