owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
# Reading Responses (set 2)
# Reading responses 5 out of 5
### Mar 30 Tue - Shaped
According to Joseph Reagle in his chapter, [“Aw Shit, I Have to Update My Twitter,”](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/niu4m6vu/release/2) the traditional theory that seeing one’s face in a public way causes a negative reaction does not apply in the case of a social media profile. Studies have shown that seeing one’s own Facebook profile, a profile of curated images by the user actually enhances self-esteem rather than diminish it. This is probably due to the fact that the person viewing their own image has already decided it is a good one, considering it has been posted. However, that is not the full story. While the user may like their own image, this does mean that other people will and it also does not mean they won’t like other people’s images better. According to Reagle, a large part of the self-esteem issue is the comparing that goes along with posting an image. Comparing one’s own image to another is “why Facebook use can be related to feelings of dissatisfaction, including envy.” This is not where the problems stop either. According to Reagle, mindfulness and attention are also heavily impacted by digital communication and an online presence in social media. In Reagle’s words, “We seem to have found a way to spend time with others without being present,” and being present is what keeps us from becoming easily distracted and becoming unmotivated in work and relationships.
It seems like there is a constant back and forth with the internet; on one hand, it increases self-esteem, but then decreases it with social comparison, then affects our ability to stay mindful, which in turn affects self-esteem. This paradox of high self-esteem mixed with low mimics the discussion in the chapter about narcissism. A disorder where individuals are “preoccupied with success, power, and beauty” while also “respond(ing) to threats to their self-esteem with rage and defiance.” While this paradox is mimicked on social media, this is not to say every person on it is a narcissist, rather with all the mental effects digital communication has, it is a legitimate concern.
From my personal experience I cannot say I have noticed a shift in mindfulness in myself, due to the fact that I cannot remember a time without the internet, but watching my parents grow accustomed to social media use has shown that these findings are not only true but do not discriminate on age, in my experience. Additionally, this discussion reminded me of a Reddit thread called Roast me, where people willingly upload pictures of themselves so that people in the comments can roast them. It fits in with the paradox, It seemingly diminishes their self-esteem, however, they also do it to get attention and a reaction. It is quite interesting.
### Apr 09 Fri - Collapsed context
It may seem obvious that, on Facebook and Twitter, one has the ability to communicate with a limitless amount of people. Really, anyone who views your account, content, or message can be considered part of your audience. However, according to Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd in their article, ["I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience,"](http://www.tiara.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Marwick_boyd_TweetHonestly.pdf) most individuals with public accounts on social media “act as if it (their audience) is bounded.” Some limit this perceived audience to their followers, their friends, or even their fans, however, “given the various ways people can consume and spread tweets, it is virtually impossible for Twitter users to account for their potential audience, let alone actual readers.”
But how does the perceived audience relate to authenticity? In the article, Marwick and Boyd discuss the complex relationship with communicating to an audience while maintaining a sense of authenticity. Many perceive “consciously speaking to an audience” or creating content specifically for followers/ fans as being “perceived as inauthentic.” However, being completely yourself online might not be appealing to many people either, given that personal information such as relationships, work, and personal experiences might harm users if talked about at great length. There is also the challenge of maintaining a balance of being perceived as interesting to a specific audience as well as authentic. To solve this problem, many choose to use “multiple accounts, pseudonyms, and nicknames, and creating ‘fakesters’ to obscure their real identities.”
So, is authenticity online striking a balance of appealing to an audience, whether it be friends or a large fanbase, while also revealing more personal information to appear less scripted and fake? That sounds extremely convoluted. Perhaps, “there is no such thing as universal authenticity; rather, the authentic is a localized, temporally situated social construct that varies widely based on community.” Meaning that the label of authentic is given to you based on those perceiving you and your presence online. According to Marwick and Boyd, authenticity online means whatever your audience thinks it means.
While I myself do not create content for a large audience on any social media platform, I am a part of many large audiences. As a fan, I do look for authenticity in those I follow, but I hold more importance to them giving me what I signed up for. By that I mean, if I follow a fan account for an artist I like, I expect to get content based on that artist (opinions, announcements, theories, etc.). If that is not what I get I will leave. I also am fully aware that many have multiple accounts and therefore personas. Even casual users of social media have two accounts, for example, a real Instagram and a “finsta” (fake insta). I do think it is possible to have multiple personas online and I welcome it. Having multiple personas is important for privacy, peace of mind, and for the enjoyment of social media, no matter how many followers you have. The article revealed that the creator will always be at the will of the audience, so having an account that is only for close friends, gives the creator a break from the stress of balancing life online.
### Apr 13 Tue - Gendered work
In social media influencing the role of gender makes an impact on expectations and actions, just like it would in any field of work. For some, that means being an [“Instagram Husband”](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/instagram-husband-tips_n_57db0afae4b0071a6e0620c9) one whose job it is to take pictures of their significant other to post online. However, it is not always that light-hearted and fun. In a [study done by, Brooke Erin Duffy & Urszula Pruchniewska](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1291703?scroll=top&needAccess=true), they looked into the role of gender and entrepreneurship on social media. They specifically looked at women and their experiences as influencers online.
Given the “traditionally masculine-coded nature of entrepreneurship and its markers of success,” it makes sense why women would find similar struggles online, as they would in a regular workplace. The term “digital double bind” coined by Duffy and Pruchniewska touches on this. In their words, “The digital double bind is thus a testament to enduring structural inequalities that render female self-enterprise an inferior category of entrepreneurship; promises of digitally enabled meritocracy, we conclude, are largely superficial.” Their study explores this further, not only the structural inequalities already present in the entrepreneurship field, but how that translates to social media and online presence, “given social media’s governing logics of impression-management and reputation-building.” What they found, through interviews, was interesting. Many female social media entrepreneurs felt pressure to conform to not only society’s traditional views of women, but also social media views. They felt a need to show “femininity” while also showing “modesty.” They needed to show “sociality” while also maintaining “an aura of decorum.” Additionally, the writers explain that the “social media imperatives” mainly fall into three categories.
“(1) soft self-promotion, branding the self in ways deemed ‘organic’ or ‘subtle’
(2) interactive intimacy, relation-building practices; and
(3) compulsory visibility, the injunction for workers to put their private selves on public display.”
Essentially, these women must maintain cultural and traditional norms of femininity, soft and “subtle,” while also showing authenticity, intimacy with the audience, and vulnerability. All while selling a product. Subtle, yet sharing “their private selves on public display.” It seems an almost impossible balance to maintain. While this strive for a balance of authenticity and promotion is faced by all genders in the field of influencing, the article reveals that women must also fit the more traditional views of an offline workplace environment. Maintaining femininity along with everything else, even when those do not always match up.
Personally, I have seen this firsthand. My cousin is a small social media entrepreneur. She sells wine mainly on her Instagram and Facebook. She has to tailor her posts to this exact mindset. Making the perfect business pitch without being too overbearing while also showing her authentic self. Finding a balance that works for your audience is challenging, and even more so when that audience grows. It has always confused me to expect authenticity in a business setting, but social media is changing that. The expectation has shifted and will continue to shift as long as people use and interact with social media.
### Apr 16 Fri - Bemused
If you have ever heard someone who uses Twitter talk about Twitter, you may question why they still use it. This is because Twitter, like many other online forums where people can give their opinions, is a breeding ground for not only odd and embarrassing behavior but also harmful bullying and toxic behavior.
In [Chapter 7 of Reading the Comments](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/czwl2qwg/release/2), the author Joseph Reagle discusses the many unbelievable actions people take in online comments sections and why they do. It is not just Twitter, which will be discussed later on. Odd behavior can be found on all types of content on the internet, from videos on YouTube to rating on amazon. One example discussed is the phenomenon of commenting “first” under a post of a video or article, within seconds of it going public. Many would argue “first” is a useless comment, and having joy in being first is odd, however, this phenomenon comes from “preferential attachment” which “fosters the dominance of early movers.” Essentially what is first is powerful, similar to how important being first on the trending page is.
Additionally, odd behavior can also show itself in misunderstandings online. For example, when ranking products on amazon, a scale of 1-5 stars mean very different things to different people. Ranking something 1 star because it arrived broken may make sense to some, however, others might give 2 stars if the company was understanding and gave them their money back. Even on social media, the symbols of thumbs up and likes can be confusing. If a post about a tragic event is trending, do people like the post? Some might confuse the like with the actual feeling of being happy or amused, however, others might see the like as an act of showing respect or simply just acknowledgment. The key here is misunderstanding and lack of communication. In a conversation, these miscommunications would likely not happen because of context clues and more time to explain each individual choice. However, online these odd behaviors seem odder because they come with little to no context, as we do not know who is behind the screen.
Generally, odd behavior online, in the ways just discussed, can be explained by phenomena such as preferential attachment, or simply misunderstanding someone's intentions, however, the worst kind of behavior online is harsh bullying, especially when escalated. In Reagle’s words, “people openly post appalling comments. These are not only shocking for their bigotry but for their candor.” Twitter is a great example of this. Something I am very familiar with is a side of Twitter known as stan Twitter, usually a group of fans of an artist (musician, actor, etc.) who have accounts only for the purposes of discussing that artist. But when someone comes and gives said artist criticism in any way, these Twitter users will not only bully this person, but they will also harass them about physical appearance, gender, race, sexuality, etc., and tell them to die or kill themselves. In the worst cases, they will find out personal information about them a leak it. This is called doxing, and they will leak addresses, phone numbers, names of relatives, and will post any private information whether it is defaming or not. This also happens when someone is "canceled" whether it is a nobody or a celebrity. It should be noted not all people act this way; however, it is more common than one might think. It does not just happen on Twitter, this is also becoming a problem on other social media sites popular with younger generations, such as tik tok.
This is canceling to an extreme, even if the person being canceled only expressed criticism. Sure, there are sometimes good reasons to cancel people, however, leaking the address of them and their loved ones is far too common and beyond “odd” or “embarrassing.” Simply put, it is out of control and the worst manifestation of the problem discussed in this chapter. As Reagle puts it, “in the age of the Web” “people can comment from the living room, office, and street via clicks, text, images, audio, and video. This enables a degree of ubiquity and scale never seen before.” Reagle states it can “lead to accidents and revelations of stupidity.” However, I have seen firsthand how it can also ruin people's lives, even if they weren’t the ones making a mistake.
### Apr 20 Tue - Pushback
Online communication and social media can be exhausting. This is not a controversial statement by any means. With comments sections filled with misinformation, scams, harassment, and bullying, it may not be surprising to find that many have tried to remedy the comment section or step back from the entire world of online communication altogether
This idea of pushing back on online communication is one that is becoming increasingly popular. According to a [study done by Ricardo Gomez and Stacey Morrison,](https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/47322/008_ready.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y) pushback is, “a growing phenomenon among frequent technology users seeking to establish boundaries, resist information overload, and establish greater personal life balance.” While they discuss many reasons why people choose to push back, such as the need for privacy and fighting the distraction and addiction of being online, the one that fits in this story is the emotional dissatisfaction from being online. Oftentimes this comes with the feeling of not being fulfilled on social media. A comment section can certainly contribute to that. But is pushing back on comments a good thing?
In the [last chapter of Joseph Reagle’s book Reading the Comments,](https://readingthecomments.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/4nufia50/release/3) different viewpoints on pushing back on comments are shared. Reagle mentions the fear that if comment sections continue to be monitored to avoid negativity it can turn into “a neutered filter bubble that serves advertisers rather than users.” Reagle also mentions Jeff Atwood, the founder of discourse, who believes that “if you are unwilling to moderate your online community, you don’t deserve to have an online community,” essentially putting the responsibility on the creator/ poster of the content to simply just handle it and moderate the bad parts of a comment section. Reagle seems to also take the view that a “Comment is as “commenterrible” as we let it be,” echoing the idea that comments are a reflection of us. Apart from whose fault it is, the chapter discusses the idea that while negative comments can outweigh positive ones, feedback and discourse are incredibly important and should be preserved.
In my opinion, a lot of a comment section is garbage, whether it is a post with millions of likes/views, or a small creator posting a tik tok or Instagram post. I spend a lot of time online and on social media sites such as tik tok, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc. There are a few good conversations and helpful feedback in the comment sections, however, people love to hate. And when there are nice comments, they are often superficial, simply “I love this.” I can see why people feel dissatisfied, no matter how big your reach is. Additionally, to say the creator just has to deal with negative comments sounds a little tone-deaf. Many people go online to make fun of people’s physical characteristics, mental health issues, race, gender, sexuality, political views, etc. The amount of time I have seen people in the comments calling someone a “terrible mother” or racial slur is way too much. I cannot put the responsibility on the person being harassed. I agree that you have the right to say what you want and that should be protected, but I also think a creator has every right to turn off their comments.
Online communication is awful because a lot of regular communication is awful. That mixed with anonymity causes a lot of issues for online communication. It is definitely possible to push back and opt out of certain parts of online communication (turning off comments, not posting on social media etc.) however, we live in an online world. I do think that it’s impossible to opt-out of all digital communication, but the seriously negative parts of social media can be opted out of. Even big stars with millions of followers turn off comments or go on posting breaks, it is possible, and I have seen it happen, yet you can never completely stop online communication as a whole. Whether you choose to participate or not, it will always be going on around you and it is up to you to find the balance that works for preserving your own mental health and happiness.