# Reading Responses | Set 2

## 1 | Reflection on: [TikTok's catfish problem is worse than you think](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2021/7/6/22561197/coconutkitty-diana-deets-itsnotdatsrs-asianfishing-deepfake-catfish)
<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/iBw3sBvLwV9Mn3t31f" width="480" height="269" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/mtvcatfish-catfish-the-tv-show-catfishmtv-iBw3sBvLwV9Mn3t31f">via GIPHY</a></p>

"Our ideas about truth and authenticity are meaningless.." - Rebecca Jennings

Catfishing used to be fun! Being able to become a completely different person and mess with people was something I used to do as a kid funnily enough. The thought behind doing it was just to entertain myself. I could act older and mess with people I would never see again. I would not go beyond myself and try to create a popular online persona, I would just get my laughs in and log off.

This new era of catfishing is just disturbing. From legitimate CGI influencers to deepfakes to appropriation, people are taking it too far. Tiktok is a breeding ground for this kind of behavior. Everyone wants to be something **they are not**.

You have the wannabe Kardashians. People who would like to capitalize off of black culture and adopt only certain aspects. You have people who love to fetishize Asians; to make it seem less weird by trying to adopt stereotypical Asian features. Then you have weirdos like Coconut kitty who purposely makes herself look like a young teen to capitalize off of pedos.

Then you have deepfakes of celebrities and known figures. In general, this is an area of concern but only to those in susceptible filter bubbles. If your community takes something from a political leader or celebrity as truth from just one source you're not doing yourself justice.

Kim's argument of well this is what the promise of the internet was, what should we have expected is a bad take in my opinion.

Are we just supposed to allow people to deceive others because they're allowed to on the internet? I think it is in the best interest of parents and the general public to be educated on these types of things. Deception can lead to fraud and exploitation of those who are vulnerable.

## 2 | Reflection on: Online Advertising

Online ads were a genius way to make lazy people **actually buy something**.

Rob Stokes identifies the difference between online advertisement and offline advertisement being "the consumer can go from advert to merchant in one easy click" making an instant sale and conversions. This is great for business but horrible for people like me that have no self-control and look for signs to do something, or in this case, buy something.

This may not seem as bad initially but it is worrisome. [Cleo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFyaW50GFOs) shows us through the Vox video that ads are becoming unavoidable and too intense. Businesses alongside companies like Google wants to make their money.

Companies understand the convenience of cookies. Lou Montulli invented cookies to solve the problem of memory on the internet. Companies like google understand first-party cookies are essential and use them to their advantage; Offering companies the ability to mix first-party cookies and third-party cookies together so that the relationship (and monetization) between the company and the business stays strong. Advertisers pay for every 1000 clicks on an ad, according to Stokes

###### first party cookies are essential for smooth sailing on the internet and overall convenience and third-party cookies are what make the ad banners on sites possible

"Safe spaces" like social media are also partaking in this but I would argue it is not as effective. Sites like Twitter, allow people to promote themselves and sometimes promote ads. I would argue it is not as effective as regular advertisements are on sites like Vox. The tracking done on sites like Twitter is more useful for promoting ideas and building a following.

The most concerning aspect of this tracking for me is Ad servers. Specifically geo-targeting and serving an ad depending on the time of day.

The ability to serve ads based on where you live and even just through your IP address is concerning. Having this information secure is important. Especially if companies like Google and Facebook are finding loopholes for the sake of money.

## 3 | Reflection on: [Manipulated: "Which Ice Cube Is the Best?"](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/1cubrkat/release/2)

Buying something online is inescapable. Since ads have become so invasive, when people do end up contemplating a purchase, they look for reviews. As Reagle mentions,
##### "User comments, ratings, and reviews are valuable because, in economic terms, they address the marketplace problem of information asymmetry".

Since people are skeptical, they are more likely to seek outside information they see as more valuable or credible than from the salesman or site.

This reminds me of my past part-time job where my boss had "reviews" or customer testimony boasting about the store. These reviews were done out of manipulation. The boss asking them to make a review in exchange for service at the business.

Similarly, to trip advisors' proprietors, My partner's older sibling was asked to create positive reviews for the restaurant she worked at. She had asked her mother to write good reviews for her restaurant because her boss asked her to help with the restaurants google rating.

Their argument for creating these false positive reviews was that customers who had good experiences never leave a good review.

It is not hard to leave a false review online. Reagle mentions how these "fake reviews can be used for ideological purposes, such as to censor a viewpoint or laud a politician". Or in the case of H3H3, just for laughs.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jbZ0qCm4t7s" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[The case of H3H3 and wikifeet](https://youtu.be/jbZ0qCm4t7s) can be explained by online influence. Online influence as Reagle describes it, can be measured by something like twitter followers and retweets. Ethan from the H3H3 podcast used his viewers to gain #1 status on the website wikifeet. He made sure not to explicitly say to leave 5-star reviews of his feet but encouraged to leave their "actual" opinions.

He did something similar with his online back and forths with Ryan Kavanaugh; which led to the website [does ryan kavanaugh look like harvey weinstein](https://doesryankavanaughlooklikeharveyweinstein.com/). His motivation to do so was because Ryan Kavanaugh, like many of online competitors who want to have a positive face to their prospective consumers, did not want negative commentary surrounding him. So, to combat this tried arguing defamation. Both parties were just trying to argue their point and wanted to maintain a positive reputation.

Reagle also mentioned the U.S. federal trade commission's guidelines from 2009 which require the disclosure of nonobvious "material connections" for consumer endorsements, including those "disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media". Although this is not spoken about regularly, the emphasis on influencers, particularly beauty influences, to disclose whether they are sponsored to say certain things is important to their followers. When it is made aware to their followers that it is a sponsored post, their review is deemed less valuable.

Reagle brough up the deletion of views on YouTube videos, specifically from channels belonging to large music labels. This is, in my opinion, necessary. As the stan community becomes more knowledgeable and their skills become greater; their want to have their artist win an award can become easier to obtain

##### K-pop stans on twitter constantly tweet about streaming numbers and methods to gain views on music videos to help the artist win an award.

Reviews for me are the most valuable when they have a raw image attached to it. For example, on amazon, I will be more hesitant to buy a product like hair dye, if there are no product reviews that include images of the people that bought it.

I believe the world of reviews will not have a huge impact overall on consumers. People will just end up buying and returning something they do not like. Have their plate sent back if they do not like their food. It will just become a bigger inconvenience than it already is.

## 4 Reflection on: [Authenticity Online](https://tiara.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Marwick_boyd_TweetHonestly.pdf)

Who are you online? Yourself or your perceived sense of self? According to Alice Marwick, "We present ourselves differently based on who we are talking to and where the conversation takes place". (2010)

This sounds familiar, the word code-switching comes to mind.

**Code-switching: ["code-switching, process of shifting from one linguistic code (a language or dialect) to another, depending on the social context or conversational setting."](https://www.britannica.com/topic/code-switching)**

The reason Marwick and Boyd give for this change of character online is the idea of catering to an "audience". Through social media, since everything is almost always public unless made to be private, your posts online will always be viewed by someone.

Marwick cites Papacharissi describing "the personal homepage as ‘a carefully controlled performance through which self presentation is achieved under optimal conditions’ (2002: 644)"

No one posts anything that will make them look bad. Everything online is tailored to what the user wants their followers to perceive them to be.

###### "Similarly, social network site users select ‘markers of cool’ based on an imagined audience of friends and peers."

I am familiar with this. My social media account, specifically my Instagram has a specific ***look***. I want those who come onto my profile to be able to see that my aesthetic is dark and red. Why? Possibly because it links me to my other interests; Possibly because I want to be perceived as cool because of my interests and aesthetics.

Marwick cites Liu's study "of ‘taste cultures’ on social network site profiles found that participants listed favorite books, music, movies, and TV shows to construct elaborate taste performances, primarily to convey prestige, uniqueness, or aesthetic preference."

###### This could be used to explain this phenomenon.

Social media is a way to connect with others but also a method of attention seeking as we've seen with catfishing. The way you present yourself online will help you gain attention from certain audiences

Although some claim they wouldn't want to be too unfiltered online, people still find a way to do so without being identified. As Marwick states some users have multiple accounts (2005).

In high school, classmates of mine would have their main Instagram and then their spam Instagram. This spam is where they would usually post pictures of them crying or memes with rants as their captions.

There is no such thing as being authentic online. Even with Bereals, either you want to present yourself as decent as you can at any given moment or you don't post. No one is voluntarily posting an unflattering picture of themselves.

## 5 Reflection on: [Influencing](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/influencers-are-faking-brand-deals/578401/)


Street smart vs book smart vs to now SNS smart.

The notion that fake sponsored posts are the way influencers are getting actual brand deals isn't surprising; [Even the brands themselves don't check their own campaign ads props](https://www.glossy.co/fashion/the-balenciaga-controversy-explained/)

Taylor Lorenz shined a light on this mind-boggling fact. Fake it till you make it, usually said when speaking about emotions. Now influencers, mostly the smaller ones, are now faking their "brand deals". To secure legit ones.

It is easy to do so because everything online has become so saturated no one is paying attention to whether or not it is fake. Although this is true, the opposite also reigns true.

Tiktok MUA, Mikayela Nogueira, caught a lot of slack for creating a lot of videos speaking highly of so many brands. They saw her positive reviews as an advertisement for the product. This language could be viewed as "ad speak" as Lorenz called it.

Fake sponsored posts aren't the only way of "gaining a reputation" for these small influencers. Posting similar advertisements of brands as well as tagging them is another avenue for them.

I am a victim of trying to do this. Like many of these influencers Lorenz mentions, I was in high school when I attempted to pursue my influencer career. Tagging brands to the posts that I made, tagging them to the clothes I wore, the makeup I was wearing, and even the owner of the brand at times. I still do this occasionally but mostly to get noticed by Oliver Sykes.

The thought process makes sense, and it seems to work for some people but hearing the brands' perspective is interesting. I would have never believed that this influx of promotion would be an issue for these brands. It makes sense because USUALLY, unlike Balenciaga, you would want to approve an advertisement or sponsored post to make sure it aligns with your mission/image as a brand.

Although, just how Mikayela was scrutinized with her ad speak videos, the sixth sense of sniffing out these scammers will be passed to those consuming this content soon enough.