Social Networks = increased workload

I found Danah Boyd’s article really interesting to read. She talks about the increasing use of social network sites and in particular does ethnographic studies on users of myspace. On page 3 of the article, she specifically distinguishes between the classes of teenagers who refrain from using myspace. She includes teens whose parents have successfully banned them from using the internet and teens who deliberately want to object to the use of social networks. It made me wonder whether there are a large number of teens who do not use social networks purely because of the additional social maintenance that they require you to participate in. This was a major reason why I refused ( until recently) to join the popular facebook network. While I have and enjoy my social group of friends, initially I found the idea of continuously receiving messages, photo updates etc to be almost like a form of social pressure, where I felt pressured into doing the same. Often I find that I am accused of being rude on facebook as I often fail to respond to messages or posts. I feel that being a part of these social networks requires high maintenance. While most teenagers seem more than happy to engage in this type of social maintenance, Boyd does not consider whether the teens who do not join the networks refuse to do so because of the pressures and demands they place on individuals to keep up to date with social events, people and places. I am not sure if such a reason exists for younger teens. Perhaps its something only older users experience. For me, my experience on facebook could be equated to a high powered CEO who is never able to turn their blackberry phone off. It is an avenue for increasing one’s accessibility to other people and to be this is something I often like to avoid! More me time!

Another interesting point in this article, is Doyd’s point of self identity on social network sites. She mentions that most of these sites are based on profiles. It is essentially the profile which allows you to develop and present your personality to the world. New age philosophy always conveys a message of detachment. It encourages people to detach from the world and often suggests that spending time alone with yourself is the only way to relax, meditate and understand yourself better. I wonder, in a world which is as fast paced as ours, how does the social networks affect our ability to understand ourselves? Do we create profiles to make ourselves look good to others? Are our profiles accurate reflections of who we really are?
Thats all from me!

PRESENTATION - Online Communities - Myspace and Teenagers

The article that I am focusing on is the third article of the week by Danah Boyd, called "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life."

"If you're not on Myspace, you don't exist." This is the opening quote to Danah Boyd's article about online communities, and the role they play in the lives of teenagers. Being a teenager myself in today's society, I somewhat agree with this quote. However being the (mature) person that I am now, I have advanced from my teen days of Myspace and now spend my days checking up on my Facebook profile. However, no matter which online community one belongs to, it is no doubt that these sites play a huge part in the majority of people's lives.

I found that Danah Boyd's article focused more on the logistics of Myspace rather than the issues surrounding it. So I ask the question, why do we join these sites? Why do we post photos, comments and information about ourselves that anyone around the world can see? Is it to do with inclusion, or to do with expressionism?

In Boyd's article, she claims that an online profile can be seen as a form of 'digital body', where individuals can write themselves into being. People can post altered photos, give false information and say anything about themselves they want. This differs to the offline society. In the offline society people are less inclined to find out information about others. No one would come up to you and ask for your date of birth, relationship status or to look at photos of you. However, online one can look at anyones profile, and find out who they are online, rather than offline, a whole lot easier.

I find that on online communities, it is also alot easier to showcase more information of yourself. As the article focuses on teenagers, it says that most of them join Myspace because everyone is on it and to be 'cool'. In the offline reality, one doesn't showcase openly to the public what famous people they are friends with, or what they have done during the day or holidays. However on Myspace and other online communities, you can tell the world just about anything about yourself.

With these points from the article in mind, what has become more of a reality for society? Online or offline? Has online interactions become the new reality? Are you more 'real' now online than offline? And do people have two separate identities, online and offline?

Pranking Rhetoric: “Culture Jamming” as Media Activism

OMG. First off, so sorry. I thought I had posted this last week, but apparently... >__>
My bad.

Checked in today and was rather 0__o!!

Sorry for the delay!


------------------------------
Pranking Rhetoric: “Culture Jamming” as Media Activism


The article discusses the phenomenon of Culture Jamming, in which pranksters use the tools of mass media to subvert the messages of authority, in this case, usually powerful corporations. It is interesting precisely because it takes advantage of the very same tools and methods that these powers use and turn it against them in a way that does not directly resist the original message, but rather turns it inside out and expose its flaws.

Christine starts by examining the Adbusters 2003 campaign called Blackspot, in which they attempt to sell a black canvas shoe with a white spot where a logo would traditionally be. This and other Adbusters projects attempt to subvert the methods of advertising and use it against the corporations, but after awhile, even this gets tiring. Adbusters fiercely direct opposition to certain brands feels like a rehashing of the very same “do this, do that” rhetoric of the big brands themselves - being “told what is best for them is no more welcome coming from Adbusters than it is coming from advertisers”.

Instead she advocates a more playful approach, represented by Joey Skaggs, ®™ark , the Biotic Baking Brigade, and the American Legacy Foundation's INFKT Truth Campaign.

Why this playful approach might work, whereas a directly oppositional one may not, is that the latter functions by a “rhetoric of negation” - that merely by a constant process of saying “No”, no new framework is established, and more limits and boundaries must then be overcome.

Perhaps, rather than being told what is right or wrong, people might prefer to be given control and a sense of power over the message.

A quick summary of what the various groups/individuals accomplished.

Joey Skaggs
- Opened a false dog brothel for dogs, and posted advertisements up. Whilst it may sound silly, it drew uproar, with Skaggs quickly earning ABC News interviews and eventually even criminal charges. The charges were dropped when he revealed it as a hoax.

®™ark
-Switched voice-chips within Barbie toys and G.I. Joe action figures and then returned them to stores, leading to G.I. Joe proclaiming “Let's plan our dream wedding!” and Barbie exclaiming “Vengeance is mine!” on Christmas day when said toys were opened by unsuspecting families. Ensue resulting hoo-haa and discomfort/enlightenment over toys promoting gender-based sterotyping.

Biotic Baking Brigade
-Ambushes celebrities and powerful leaders (like Bill Gates) and hurls a pie in their face, often at a very serious and public speech-giving session. Plays with the image of power, and the media's obsession with images and scandal.

American Legacy Foundation's INFKT Truth Campaign.
-This one was interesting because it was a public service campaign. It was, however, catchy and slick, using modern graphic design and rather than telling kids not to smoke directly and using fear tactics, had 2-page spreads in magazines in orange and white screaming messages like “CIGARETTE SMOKE HAS ARSENIC”, and “AMMONIA IS ADDED TO CIGARETTES”. The genius of the plan was this bit though – to urge the readers to “Spread the knowledge. Infect truth.”

It also had pictures of these adverts opened strategically at a magazine store opened to said pages.

Another of their campaigns gave free stickers in the shape of blank conversation bubbles, with a picturenext to the stickers showing a Marlboro advert with a sticker attached to it, giving kids a convenient way to hijack existing adverts.

Conclusion
It is suggested that these methods work better than directly oppositional and ascetic methods. Instead of saying “No”, how might we subvert the very tools of power (the media) to gain emancipation and ownership?

In this way, instead of being slaves to media, we make media our tool as well, and by riding upon the wave created by corporations/people in power, we harness that power for ourselves.

Powerthirst

I just wanted to share a link to an add spoof thing for sports drinks. Some of you may have seen it before just from general browsing or because it was featured on The Gruen Transfer. Although there is not a specific focus on gender, the idea that sports drink substances have the ability to 'enhance' the sporting performance of the drinker is often directed at men. The Powerthirst add uses the term 'menergy' as you will see and parodies those elements of sports drink adds that we see so often.

I think it's brilliant!