# Reading Responses Set #2

## #1. Shaped (10/25)
“Are we being warped?” What should be nothing short of positive thoughts have become reactive, insensitive statements: online comments have facilitated a concerning change in how we view and feel about ourselves, leading to “digital self-harm (boyd), narcissism (Reagle), and altered identities. Sharing every moment of our lives on social media comes with consequences, we are subject to other peoples’ commentary and approval. As Reagle argues, people are shaped by online commentary because it affects how we view ourselves in turn, thus altering our behavior.

Anonymity has progressed online hate, as users can leave hurtful comments without being identified. Why should we care about the thoughts of people we don’t even know? The issue is: we still do, and we allow it to affect our core. Most people have cringed at seeing unflattering pictures of themselves in someone else’s album (Reagle). What concerns me, is instead of remembering the important tangible moment captured in the picture, we are first directed to features of our physical appearance. This reminded me of a TikTok I saw where a woman who had just given birth hated her delivery pictures because of her appearance, disregarding the life-altering moment they had captured. This makes us incredibly narcissistic, as this example exemplifies.

Reagle uses the metaphor or a mirror to understand how people are shaped by comments online and their self-esteem. This reminded me of a recent study I read while conducting research for another class, TikTok utilizes algorithms for its “for you pages” that shape our identities by altering our behaviors to align with the personalized content we are fed. This affects marginalized communities including LGBTQ+ and African Americans because they found that TikTok actually suppresses their content. We are living in a digital world where social media is actively facilitating the suppression of marginalized communities, as it is not only affecting our self esteem and self perception, but it is redefining what communities “belong” and which do not.

## #2. Appropriation (10/28)
Orientalism was a movement in art history that hypersexualized Asian and Middle-Eastern women, depicting them as seductive, mysterious, and desirable. These pieces of art grossed high profits, based off of sexual fallacies about “exotic” women. Fast forward to today, white America still profits from appropriating non-white cultures, including Black culture and Asian culture (Kim, 2021). However, Kim argues there is a new mode of appropriation; users are embodying cultural features in an attempt to actually *be* part of that culture.
Kim says that this new form of image and technology led appropriation betrays not only old prejudices, but emerges ones as well. He calls this, “techno-orientalism”, which I find fitting considering art history. Technology has allowed this to happen, Asian profiles are now something to be sought after and mechanically replicated. This idea is also analyzed by Cherid (2021) in her article on blackfishing and the increased commodification of black culture by white women. She specifically calls out celebrities like Ariana Grande and Christina Aguilera for incorporating elements of Black culture into their music videos, without crediting them. Just like Kim says Americans want to be Asian, Americans also claim to be Black and thus contribute to blackfishing (the Kardashains being a prime example).
Kim illuminates a 2020 TikTok trend titled “Fox-eyes” where makeup influencers were teaching users how to essentially look Asian with certain eyeliner tricks. Not only is this appropriation problematic, but platforms like Instagram and TikTok facilitate this injustice with how their algorithms favor content (Kim, 2021). Videos like fox-eye tutorials are favored by the algorithms because of their high engagements, widening the audiences and increasing the speed of content diffusion.
Reading Kim and Cherid’s writings circle back to one question: should technology (including social media) be held accountable for facilitating cultural appropriation? Kim’s discussion of “techno-orientalism” and Cherid’s discussion of “blackfishing” are parallel in their explanation of white wannabes stealing elements of marginalized cultures. Both Kim and Cherid’s arguments reveal a dark reality of cultural appropriation: people that have never experienced the prejudice and struggles of these marginalized groups are benefitting from cultures that they are not a part of.

## #3 Online Dating & Living Alone (11/1)

Dating mediums have transformed with online technologies.Thompson (2019) claims that robots are supplanting the role of matchmaker. As the influence of friends and family is declining, more single people today are on their own; utilizing online dating apps to “shop”, where one’s worth are determined by perceived appearance, interestingness, quick humor, sex appeal, and photo selection (Thompson, 2019). However, Ruddler (2010) claims online dating has blurred the lines between fiction and reality when it comes to accurate dating profiles.

The shift to online dating is parallel with the new age of “DIY-everything”. Thompson (2019) claims that individuals now construct their own careers, lives, faiths, and public identities…instead of inheriting them from their parents. Yet the new autonomy allows for casual browsers to fall into traps of depiction on these dating sites. Income and height are among these factors of depiction, found by Ruddler (2010). Additionally, online daters are more likely to use outdated photos of themselves on their profiles. I’d also argue that unfaithfulness is more easily executed on dating sites as locations can be set to different regions.

So, who is using these new dating methods? Thompson (2019) says that gay couples who met online soared to 70%, from the mid-1990s. This is justifiable, as one suggested reason for the rise is “a diminished sense of belonging within communities”. But another factor to consider is culture: individualistic and collectivist. Building off of Chamie’s research on men and women living alone (2021), singles in collectivist countries like India and China are less likely to utilize dating sites because traditional familial matchmaking is still prevalent. The proportion of people living alone is so low in these countries (India, 2% and China, 5%) because it is uncommon to live alone unmarried. So, while there’s a record high of American men and women living alone today (Chamie, 2021), this societal trend is not applicable to other parts of the world due to a divergence in cultures.

## #4 Ads and social graph background (11/4)
Lou Montulli claims he had no idea that his invention of cookies would begin a monopoly among big businesses for personal data collection of online users. Montulli had created cookies to “bring memory to the web”, but his invention allows companies like Facebook and Google to track online activity and build personal data profiles of people instead (Vox, 2020). Consequently, the personal data collected can be funneled into algorithms that serve users high personalized advertisements based on their online activity. This practice has dramatically transformed online advertising, and how companies build successful digital marketing campaigns.

Cookies are utilized to store data in several different ways, from remembering login credentials to saving the items in your online shopping cart. Because of this capability, companies can leverage them to promote online advertising efforts, increase sales, improve brand awareness and raise share of voice in the marketplace (Stokes, 2013). Companies can collect data on what types of visuals (photos, videos, games, etc) are most successful among certain target audiences, and then use that data to make strategic decisions regarding the execution of their marketing campaigns. The three key steps to online advertising are: inform, persuade, and remind (Stokes, 2013). Cookies allow all three steps to happen, as the information they provide leads companies to decide where to place their online advertisements for optimal engagement.

While cookies are beneficial for companies, their abilities can also hinder marketing objectives. Pop-up ads, for example, were heavily utilized in the very beginning of digital marketing. However, due to “audience annoyance”, most browsers now have built-in pop-up blockers. Today, many social media users promote movements like “Make Instagram Instagram Again”, referring to the increased monetization and advertising done on the platform, interrupting users’ scroll sessions. Companies also need to consider the different audiences and content appropriateness for different platforms. For example, a fun and witty advertisement on LinkedIn could lead users to question that company’s credibility…even if the company knows that its target audience is on LinkedIn. Contextualization and social media marketing go hand in hand, and many unsuccessful marketing efforts fail because of that lack of understanding.

## #5 Manipulated
What does it take for you to “comment” on a business? Establishments are hungry for positive publicity in the form of comments, and people are incentivized to do so. Liking in hopes for a discount, strategically discussing Yelp around servers, receiving coupons in exchange for restaurant reviews, purchasing fake followers…this behavior is driven by the high value of comment today (Reagle, 2015). Businesses have “let the truth live” with user comment, but that truth is being overtaken by fakery and manipulation. Thus, there has been a “loss of innocence” due an increased importance on user reviews and monetization of this in our globally socially networked world (Reagle).

Sites aren’t the only mediums that take advantage of our social networks for commercial interests (Reagle), so does social media. Instagram pods, direct messages between groups that require members to like or comment on new posts to boost engagement (Forsey, 2018), also perpetuate online manipulation. Operating on a like-for-like basis, pods follow rules aligned with the platform’s algorithm to boost content in users’ timelines (Forsey). However, like being exposed for paying customers to leave positive reviews, companies avoid getting caught using pods because they damage brands’ integrity (Forsey).

Information asymmetry is problematic when we buy things unseen. Yet user comments, ratings, and reviews alleviate this (Reagle). Many brands have taken advantage of influencer marketing, sending social media celebrities “PR Packages” of free products in exchange for video reviews. These videos are meant to persuade users to buy the product. Because influencers want to receive them, they are inclined to leave positive reviews, even if untrue. Building strong relationships with brands creates opportunities for influencers to join marketing campaigns, be invited on brand-sponsored trips, or even earn affiliate rewards per sponsored sale. While brands don’t encourage influencers to leave negative reviews on competitors’ platforms, they do legally restrict them from signing brand deals with competitors. This introduces another form of manipulation, as followers are then directly influenced by the content they see.

Online influence can be measured by followers, yet these are easily purchased by the thousands (Reagle). So, why do we value it? I’m curious to know what institution manipulated our minds to equate follower count and credibility.