owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
Reading Responses
# Oct 26 Tuesday - Gender, communication, & contribution
#### Reading: Hanna Krasnova, Natasha F. Veltri, Nicole Eling, Peter Buxmann, 2017, “Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences.”
In high school, one of the social media apps I used the most was Amino: a fandom-based app that catered to my specific interests. I met some online friends on there; however, once my circle was big enough, I slowly stopped talking to new people. When strangers messaged me, I would be warier of their intentions. What made these people different from the friends I met in the beginning?
According to Krasnova et.al (2017), this is aligned with why other women behave on social network sites, and why we decide to keep using them. Women tend to stay on sites to maintain ties with close friends (whether IRL or online friends) and "gain social information on those close connections." From my experience, this is pretty accurate. I usually keep to myself and my circle on social media, and don't engage in much else. I do make acquaintances and "lurk" online, which is typical for women as well according to the study's findings.
Men, on the other hand, seem to use social media to gain general information on social media networks. The article states that men enjoy "being better informed on topics of broader interest... [this is] seen as beneficial." I found this interesting. This might be one of the factors that contribute to "mansplaining," when a man talks over others (particularly women) in a patronizing, "know it all" manner. But I like seeking out information just as much as I like maintaining ties with close friends. I'm sure gender and behavior on social media is merely correlation, not causation.
All in all, I have to wonder if all of these findings are merely generalizations are applicable to all men and women. After all, there are many gender-nonconforming people out in the world, and men who act feminine and vise versa. What effect does gender identity and presentation have on why people stay on social media? That is definitely a topic for future research.
# Oct 19 Tuesday - Exam Review
Craft two multiple choice questions and two short/essay questions that could appear on the exam. For each question, provide an answer/explanation, or even a mnemonic, in a section below all the questions.
**1. According to Chayko, which most closely describes continuous partial attention?**
a. scattering bits of one's attention among a number of things at any given time
b. multitasking and completing several things at once
c. communicating asynchronously through digital platforms
d. digitizing communication and social media leading to fear of missing out
**2. What is hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) used for?**
a. provide addressing and routing
b. name to address mapping
c. request resources from servers (HTML, images, etc.)
d. reliably deliver data
Short answer questions:
**1. What is the "tragedy of commons?" Define and explain using an example.**
**2. Explain Sarnoff’s law, Metcalfe’s law, and Reed’s law. What are the implications of these network laws on social media startups?**
---
**MC 1. Answer: a**
**MC 2. Answer: c**
**Short answer 1:**
Tragedy of commons is when people overconsume a resource that is rivalrous and non-excludable. An example of the tragedy of commons is a saltwater fishery that has a lot of fish. Since anyone can fish in the waters with no limit, fishermen overfish the area, causing fish populations to dwindle and be unable to repopulate for future years.
**Short answer 2:**
Sarnoff's law dictates that the value of (broadcast) network is proportional to the number of viewers. Metcalfe’s law dictates that value of (telecommunications) networks is proportional to the number of potential transactions (quadratic). Reed's law dictates that the value of (social) networks is proportional to the number of possible groups/affiliations. It’s exponential. The implications of these laws for social media startups are that in a new market, you need to grow and acquire users fast. This is called blitzscaling. Also, in an existing market, it’s hard to displace incumbents.
# Oct 15 Friday - Haters
#### Reading: Joseph Reagle, 2015, "[Alienated: You Fail It! Your Skill Is Not Enough!](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/euf2ckop/release/2)"
The year was 2013, and I was enjoying my sweet time posting messages on my favorite Pokemon online forum. It was my own slice of paradise: I had my own friend group, I traded Pokemon and items, and I even had a shop where I made pixel sprites for in game currency. One day, a wave of troll accounts raided the forums, posting pornographic material all over the threads and private messaging users explicit photos and links, including 11 year old me.
What was the point?
In this chapter, Joseph Reagle (nice!) explores how and why the anonymity and open access of the Internet breed hate and degenerate behavior. Trolls, like the group of people who raided my favorite Pokemon forum, are people who intentionally post offensive content or messages online in hopes of eliciting a response. Whatever the reason, trolls simply enjoy being a nuisance for attention, or because it's funny. Trolls and other people who "flame" only have "internet balls"-- which The Urban Dictionary defines as "the courage to use a computer screen to write “whatever you want, to whomever you want” in a way you would not if you were face to face." (Reagle, 2015) And this checks out: most people would never dare to make such a scene in real life. It only happens online so much because there's no easy way to tie the action to a face. The internet is anonymous, for better or worse.
In a study on anonymity and integrity, Psychology researcher Tatsuya Nogami experimented whether or not people would lie about getting a more favorable result if they remained anonymous. They found that "asking people to identify themselves perhaps prompted them to be more aware of their ethical standards even when they could not be linked to unethical behavior." (Nogami, n.d.) This result is not too surprising. Being aware of one's identity made one feel more obligated to be truthful and act in a moral manner. However, on the internet, there's no way to monitor everyone's identity. As a result, trolls, flamers, griefers, and even regular people having an argument often spiral into hate and degeneracy.
Unfortunately, hateful and harassing messages will likely stay commonplace online. There is no easy solution to remedying this. Yet according to feminist blogger Anita Sarkeesian, the answer to mitigating conflict is not to feed or flat out ignore trolls, but simply to support those being attacked. This way, we aren't feeding into the conflict, but we aren't letting victims fight their own battles alone either. I personally like this solution, however, it doesn't solve the root of the problem: the fact that trolls and hate speech are still multiplying on an ever grander scale every day. Is there any effective way to teach internet etiquette? Should social media platforms do more to mitigate hate speech and censor users? Or, will we choose to fail the future 11-year olds of the internet like me again?
# Sep 28 Tuesday - Fake News
#### Reading: danah boyd, 2017, "[Did Media Literacy Backfire?](https://points.datasociety.net/did-media-literacy-backfire-7418c084d88d#.d46kox6e1)"
A few years ago, my Environmental Science teacher asked the class what all flat-Earthers had in common. Aside from the obvious "They believe the Earth is flat," I was stumped. Her answer: They all hold a distrust for commonly held beliefs and sought to challenge them.
Though flat-Earthers are clearly incorrect, there's nothing specifically incorrect about this line of thinking. After all, doubting and challenging what we read and hear is a core part of media literacy. So where did things go wrong?
Danah Boyd explores the multi-faceted approach to media literacy and how it can backfire. First off, when people look up information on the web, many dig through websites to find any piece of information that aligns with their beliefs. We also make the mistake of not checking our resources, as mentioned in Joyce Valenza's 2016 article “Truth, Truthiness, Triangulation: A News Literacy Toolkit for a ‘Post-Truth’ World.” It's easier to simply find information that affirms us instead of accepting our beliefs may be wrong.
For a fairly innocent example, my mom told me once that grass jelly was healthy. I wanted to believe her, since I was eating it at the moment, so I flipped through 5 or 6 websites that stated it had no significant nutritional value before I stumbled on one that said it had lots of vitamins and helped with digestion and acne. How convenient! It didn't matter to me that I didn't know what the source was, as long as it aligned with what I thought. Though frankly, in retrospect, grass jelly probably has little nutritional value.
Another irony of media literacy is that obvious fake news is still widely circulated, moreso by doubters than actual believers. It's more profitable for news sites to create intentionally doubtful news "because [doubters are] far more likely to spread the content in an effort to dispel the content." (Boyd, 2017) In an effort to spread awareness on how to be more media literate, people end up giving clickbait articles more traffic. The internet is filled with endless Catch-22s, and it becomes harder for readers to grapple with information.
There is no clear path up ahead. Our society is becoming increasingly polarized and distrustful as fake news, hate speech, and propaganda fill our news feeds. The question is, how can we tiptoe the line between being well informed and misinformed without digitally burning out in the process? As Chayko (2017) says, 24/7 superconnectedness is as beneficial as it is exhausting.
# Sep 17 Friday - Attention
#### Reading: Chayko, 2017, Superconnected, “More benefits and hazards of 24/7 superconnectedness”, ch. 9.
“Would you rather give up your phone forever, or give up one of your senses forever?” Five years ago, I wouldn’t bat an eye at this question. I liked my phone, but it wasn’t that important. But now, I’m glued to my devices for hours in a day, whether for school, work, chatting, or play. Has my answer changed? Would I be willing to never smell again if it meant that I could keep in contact with my friends across the world?
Our society has become increasingly integrated and reliant on technology, even in only the past two decades. Cell phones have replaced newspapers, social media have replaced billboards, and kiosks have replaced food service workers. Is it possible to walk outside and not see a screen? Chayko dubs this phenomenon as 24/7 superconnectedness--and she explores the various benefits and hazards of it. For example, the constant availability of “information, resources, and other people” can provide a good feeling, like there is always a helpful companion with you. However, people who over-rely on digital media can feel “anxious, lost, and unmoored when disconnected.”
I can personally attest to this--though I try to unplug, I typically don’t go more than an hour without turning on some sort of screen. All of my work can be completed on a computer, and any questions I have are simply a Google search away. Even when I’m out on the town, I’ll still take my phone out to look at a map, send a text, or snap a photo. I don’t remember the last time I went a full 24 hours without using any device. And is it even possible anymore in this age, with the constant stream of work that must be completed digitally? It’s unlikely, unless I decide to drop out of college and become a cow rancher in Kansas.
Another major point Chayko brings up is multitasking and attention span. Multitasking is difficult enough as is, since it’s doing “several complex cognitive tasks simultaneously. If one chronically attempts to multitask throughout their daily life, they will likely “suffer cognitive and behavioral deficits.” Giving continuous partial attention to many things at once can be overwhelming and stress-inducing. I can attest to this because I am often distracted by my phone and other outside influences while I’m trying to work. I know that my attention span is also not as good as it used to be. This trend is common among people who consistently use technology, which begs the question--what course should we head towards next as a society, as our bodies and minds change? Should we leave the need for change in the hands of the people, or should we somehow put the responsibility on tech companies and manufacturers? Or should we embrace this as our new way of life, welcoming digital burnout and 24/7 superconnectedness happily into our lives?