For this week’s reading, I did a critical media analysis on “The Initial Ask” by Aziz Ansari. The key term I chose from this reading is phone self. According to Aziz, “phone self is defined by whatever it is you communicate onto the other person’s screen” (47-48).

In this age and time, our cellphones are big part of our lives and how we act when using our phones to communicate might not necessarily match how we act in the real world. By having this extra barrier between us and the other person we are communicating with, sometimes we feel more comfortable or braver to say things we would never say in-person, whether it be because we do not want to see how the person reacts, how their voice might sound in a response, etc. However, even though many people find this way of communication easier and more convenient, not everyone likes what others become when they use their phone.

In this video above, we see some sons who have volunteered to allow their mothers to go through their phones. Most millennials I know, including myself rarely let other people look through their phones. In a Vanity Fair article, Aziz Ansari mentions that your most intimate relationship is with your phone, and I agree. You may not have any scandalous things on your phone, but you can tell a lot about a person from their phone: who they talk to, what do they talk about, what do they look at, what kind of apps they use, etc. In the video, a lot of these mothers are shocked and appalled to see what their sons text their dates or girlfriends. How the sons speak to their partners through their phone is not going to be the same as when they speak to their partners in-person.

Everyone texts differently depending on who is the recipient, but you can also act differently with the same person offline and online. This idea that you can say things you would never say in-person is an idea that we have been talking about throughout the semester. Also, I think this key term can be used in the other contexts that we have spoken of, like communicating via a computer or laptop. It can be any digital medium, not just a cellphone. In the context of online/phone dating, you are technically not anonymous, but there is no guarantee that you are who you say you are or the way you message is the same way you talk in-person. However, when you are your “computer self”, you can be anonymous, and some people take advantage of that. Some people post negative comments, some take on different identities to see what it feels like (identity tourism) , etc. All of the discussions we have had about our readings have pointed to the fact that we have two selves, a real world self and a digital self.

Richness V.S. Leanness / Media Richness Theory

Richness

The abundance of Nonverbal cues that add clarity to a verbal message

Leanness

Messages that carry less communication due to a lack of nonverbal cues

1:53-2:50

Communicative richness and leanness is something that has been very prevalent in our culture today with how immersed everyone is in their phones at all times. According to Business Insider, US smartphone owners aged 18-24 send 2,022 texts per month on average– 67 texts on a daily basis.

That is a lot of texts a day. As a clear medium of communication between people, we should understand how it differs from the face-to-face communication we’re used to. When we’re communicating face-to-face we have very rich messages, meaning we talk with not only our words but with our tone, with our body language, or any non-verbal cue. For example, if someone tells you they feel great but you can tell from nonverbal cues that they are uncomfortable based on the fact that they aren’t smiling, or their body isn’t facing you, or if their voice seems solemn, then you can tell that they aren’t telling the whole truth and those are the cues that you wouldn’t receive through a text message. Not only do we have less information to work with lean messages, but we tend to construct our own messages when the messages themselves are lean. For example when your partner or significant other sends you an ambiguous  message like “whatever then,” you might fill that message with your own reason of why he or she sent that message. Misinterpreting a message can lead to fights and a poor relationship. Just like the video said, if our brains are looking for a fight, then everything will look like a reason to fight, even if those incoming texts are harmless. Of course, texting is invaluable for all of us, it provides us with a means of communication that is so easy and quick, but we should be mindful about what we decide to communicate over text and what we decide to communicate over person. Even in Aziz Ansari’s experience when texting another, 

he encounters trouble when there are time gaps after a significant question. Perhaps the other person was just busy, or maybe they wanted to convey the feeling that he or she did not want to hang out. There are a lot of missing clues for us to take in and based on what we do have, we might come to the wrong conclusion. Another part of the video that was particularly interesting is the point that even though women try to be more constructive with their texts, their relationships in general still don’t end up being any more successful than those who don’t use texting as a medium to maintain the relationship. It conclusively seems as though that you shouldn’t let texting become a big part of your relationship as it is difficult to manage the real messages that want to come across. When in any kind of relationship you want to have great communication, and the key to healthy communication point to rich messages over lean messages.

 

This week, I did my Critical Media Analysis on the reading, “A Million First Dates” by Dan Slater. After my analysis the key term I chose was “Monogamy”.  The original definition of Monogamy was being married to only one person in his or her lifetime. However, ever since the times have evolved the definition has changed to the practice or state of having a committed relationship with only one partner at a time. Technology has had an especially profound effect on the way we connect and converse with others in our society and its effect on the dating world is no exception. We as a society all have the desire to meet with new people. Now that we can easily get access to online dating apps or websites, we have even more opportunities to meet and choose a suitable partner. Online dating websites may provide us with choices in searching for our desired partner but they can also have a negative affect. While some hope to find “The One” and plan for a monogamous relationship, others use these apps and sites to their advantage by using them to date, see and enjoy themselves with several partners. They aren’t open to committing to just one relationship. Breaking up with a significant other isn’t as big of a deal anymore because they can easily go online and meet new people and go on dates and perhaps be in another relationship at anytime. Now that online dating is so common, most people don’t find it necessary to be dating just one person.

This video that I would like to share with you explains as to why online dating will not work out the way we would hope it to.

We constantly search for better relationships until we are completely satisfied. But we really need to realize that online dating is not the only solution to achieve a better and satisfied relationship. It often leads to people getting greedy which never ends well. These new apps and sites will cause us to constantly be looking to meet new partners, instead of being committed to one relationship. Unconsciously, we will be getting ourselves into multiple unhealthy relationships that will eventually go downhill.

Cyber Social Justice is the way in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society using the internet and social media including Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr.

As shown in the first image the idea of people standing together in different platforms of social media and taking a stand is what cyber social justice is and that is how it makes a movement in the community. This particular photo showcases how the many different social media platforms have a way of showcasing human rights. In all they are equal and like the article mentioned Tumblr is one of them.

We are using social media as a way of fighting for what we feel is right which is exactly what cyber social justice is and stands for.

In the video clip that is showcased it is mentioned that people who fight for what they feel is right and what they feel is necessary hide behind the screen because that’s what they feel is right. They use the digital screen as a mask to possess anonymity. With the anonymity we are able to state what the authorities lack in saying in the real world. We are able to step into the world of internet and allow ourselves to step up for what we want to be done instead of what the government for example feels needs to be done.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llk2N1wWlP4

#Hashtag movements are an example of cyber social justice because we make a certain cause become known. #BlackLivesMatter is an example of people coming together and showcasing what really needs to be showcased in this day in age of America. Black lives are taken and with the help of the internet we are able to spread the cyber social justice and like in the article are able to showcase other things that many people don’t tend to realize halfway across the world.

 

Hashtag activism plays a major role in digital activism landscape since it has the ability to reach a countless amount of people. This massive reach has brought people together and united them under a cause, but in an unstructured manner which is something that traditional society is still getting acclimated to. As Jen Schradie mentioned in her article, “building and sustaining a political movement, even an online movement, still requires organization.” Even though this is a fairly new outlet for activism, it still requires some structure to function effectively. Hashtag activism is a medium and stepping stone into the creation of more structured online movements. Social media is optimized for the delivery of short messages which is why “hashtagging” can be seen as an ideal way of protest. The key thing about hashtags is that they are memorable. When people see a hashtag pertaining to a movement, they will automatically recognize it and it attracts more people to a cause. #BlackLivesMatter has been a major breakthrough in the hashtag activism and social media scene. People from around the world were given the opportunity to defend their opinions through a unified method: a hashtag. This type of activism has even opened the doors for celebrities to voice their opinions on certain issues.

In the photo above, FLOTUS Michelle Obama openly shows her support for the #BringBackOurGirls movement which sparked from the kidnapping of Nigerian girls from a boarding school. It is interesting that she chose to use the hashtag to show her activism as opposed to using just posting a video speaking about the topic or just posting a status on Facebook about it.

Another example of activism is what is happening at the moment with Trump winning the election. The hashtag #notmypresident arose after the controversial election results. Young millenials are taking to Twitter to express their thoughts on what is happening to our country politically.

People are emotionally invested in the election results since this is a major change in the U.S. political climate. Currently, there are many cities protesting the outcome of this election. People are living in fear of what’s to come from this presidency. It is promising to see that people are organizing and uniting through social media to promote activism as this response is being written. Most of these protest groups were organized primarily through social media and hashtag activism. The power of social media activism is prevalent and effective since platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were able to unite people in less than 24 hours.

This week I did my Critical Media Analysis on the reading, Bringing the Organization Back In: Social Media and Social Movements by Jen Shradie. The key term I chose was Internet Activism. Internet Activism aka #Hashtag Activism aka Clicktivism simply means using any from of electronic or online communication to spread a message and raise awareness about a social/political issue to a large audience, FAST. Whether people agree or disagree with you will determine whether or not this act becomes a social movement- where you see this message reposted or retweeted all over the place. The media I chose to represent internet activism is something that hits quite close to home considering its the day after the election, and this photo has been posted ALL OVER the place. I first saw it when I woke up this morning on my Instagram feed, and then I saw it on Facebook, then it was on Twitter and it kept popping up all day long. The photo reveals what seems to be a response to an interview question from People Magazine, Trump replying with the message below. This is a form of activism because by people reposting this photo, they are trying to reveal the character of the man we elected to be the president of our country. They want those who voted for him to feel some type of way and expose him for what he really is. Usually internet activism only goes as far as the internet. People feel that if they re-tweet or re-post they did their “due diligence” and no longer are obligated to the issue. However, today, along with this photo, were captions like “Meet tonight in Columbus Circle for a protest” or “Meet tonight in Union Square for a protest,” proving that the people who are campaigning online are also campaigning offline- which is unique to this type of internet activism. This is just one example of many forms of online activism but I thought it was especially relevant considering the time and I found it interesting that this happened post election rather than prior.

Social learning theory: This theory was made famous by Albert Bandura and states that social behavior is learned primarily by observing and imitating the actions of others.

Some may know him as the behaviorist who conducted the Bobo doll experiment in 1961.

 

 

In this clip, Sonny can be seen playing a prank by placing a stick on the ground where a person rollerblading is bound to cross over. The man falls into the lake to Sonny’a amusement, and this is all taken in by Julian. In the next cut, Julian is seen following Sonny’s lead and trips the man rollerblading by placing a stick in his path. Like Sonny, he finds it funny and cheers after the man falls, and is even further encouraged by Sonny saying, “That’s my boy.”

These clips from Big Daddy illustrate the social learning theory. Julian is a young child and at that age, children learn by observing others and imitating their actions. Observing a role model encourages people, especially children, to be more likely to engage in the same type of behavior. Being rewarded increases the likelihood of repeated actions. Sonny is the only adult figure in Julian’s life at the time, so he is constantly taking in information and learning to act in a similar way. He doesn’t know what is right and what is wrong unless someone he looks up to tells him so. Since no one taught him that tripping someone is a bad action, he feels no remorse for his actions. By copying Sonny’s mean actions and being rewarded with a smile and favorable comments, Julian is encouraged more and this is essentially the social learning theory. He is engaging in behavior that he learned in a social setting and from a figure that he looks up to.

This is seen often in today’s society, where people copy the behavior of others because they were not told that it is wrong. Common examples are stealing, making fun of others, and cheating. If the person is not caught, they are also more likely to engage in the same behavior. Social learning theory can encourage both positive and negative actions.

This chapter explores into the development of prejudice and discrimination on the internet, also the review of course on how online prejudice influence offline behavior.  People have projected that the internet has the possibility to se a surge in prejudice, while a decline in discrimination. The opening part of the chapter discusses the differences about who is using the internet and for what reason. It explains that the “digital divide” happens to have turned over from a simple approach and toward utilization. When technology became more affordable and available, a “digital divide” between the rich and poor is still present. The rich and educated are still more likely to have better connection to digital resources. “Digital divide” is the gap between people who have accessibility to the internet and those who do not. Having a shortfall of the internet is a disadvantage to the people who cannot get access to the internet because of the extensive knowledge that can only be found on the internet.

The digital divide causes a major problem in countless parts of the world. The parts of the world with the most access to the internet are the United States, Europe and Northern Asia. Where as Africa, India, and southern parts of Asia are limited.

The reason for limited internet access in these parts of the world, is that these nations are not able to afford the basic start up cost to be able to invest into technology. Techno-activist Aleph Molinari has created a way to closing the “digital divide” gap by creating spaces around the world for kids to have access to the internet and teach them how to use computers. Here is a TED talk with Aleph on what he did to bridge the gap of the “digital divide”.

Access to computers and the internet and being able to use them are becoming a crucial part of our lives. Technology creates an impact on the way teachers are teaching children in the classroom. While children are being exposed to these technological advancements at a young age. It will will help them in the workplace, where technology is becoming imperative.

Cyber Social Justice otherwise known as Internet activism is the use of electronic communication technologies such as social media, especially Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube, e-mail and podcasts for various forms of activism to enable faster communication by citizen movements and the delivery of local information to a large audience.

 

North Dakota Pipeline Protest

How are people taking the North Dakota Pipeline Protest online?

One cyber social justice movement that is taking place right now is one that calls for Facebook users to “check in” at Standing Rock Indian Reservation in order to confuse the Morton County Sheriff’s Department that has been using Facebook check-ins to locate and target protestors who are trying to protect the Indian reservation’s holy land and water supply. Here we see a Facebook user (my friend Marissa), check in on Facebook and then post a separate call for action post to her Facebook friends that informs them of the situation and provides guidelines on how to use the social media platform to successfully help the cyber social justice movement. Access to the Internet and a desire to help enable cyber activists to help even if they cannot physically be present in North Dakota. This type of aid is something that would not have been imaginable just ten years ago.

With the ease and speed of access to information via the Internet today, many people feel overwhelmed by the amount of suffering going on in the world and feel lost and powerless when it comes to picking which ones to focus on and finding ways to help these causes. Cyber social justice movements empower people across the globe and give them not only a voice, but a way to participate, rather than just read an article.

Is Cyber Social Justice just as powerful as in in-person social justice?

As excellent as the web is at connecting, informing and giving a voice to the voiceless, the activist movements that take place online aren’t always effective in changing anything. Much like the Times article, “Millennials and the Age of Tumblr Activism” states that there are many instances when outrage on the Internet does not “translate into participation in the real world” (Safronova 3). Saying that cyber social justice or “hashtag activism” doesn’t accomplish anything is a gross generalization and falls in line with the rhetoric Baby Boomers use against Millennials (lazy, apathetic, entitled) meanwhile in reality Millennials are one of the most active, progressive generations the world has ever seen. Sometimes just the spreading of information online is enough to get someone to volunteer, donate, or change their mind. Of course there are others who feel that their job is done after they post a status but that is not the case for all. While in-person protests can be very effective, not everyone is able to be present and the presence of cyber social justice is a great help. It is the easiest, cheapest and fastest way to reach a large audience of people and can be an excellent tool to organize in-person meet ups. Online activism does not always turn into slacktivism but it is good to be cognizant of this phenomenon and try to not let it happen to you or close friends if you truly care about helping an issue.

Does the easiness of a Facebook check-in make the Standing Rock check-in an example of slacktivism?

The North Dakota Pipeline example is not an example of slacktivism. Most people who are checking in at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation and sharing information about it, are not able to fly out to North Dakota and add to the number of protestors there. Using the same means that the local sheriff’s department is using against the protestors, to confuse them, is an excellent use of an accessible tool. The easiness of it doesn’t translate to slacking but rather adds to the numbers of check ins, thereby making those who are targeting protestors’ jobs much more difficult to accomplish.

 

My Critical Media Analysis (made possible by digital media technology):

https://youtu.be/ENFLTOfI38E%20

 

 

The term Prejudice is defined as a negative attitude towards a cultural group based on little or no experience. Prejudicial judgements can be formed based on a persons ethnicity, gender, age, social status, nationality, religion, sexuality and other characteristics.

Why are people prejudice?

Prejudice may stem from the personal need to feel positive about ones own group and negative about others, or it may arise from real or perceived threats. Prejudice attitudes function as a way for people to reaffirm their own beliefs and viewpoints. Especially when it comes to relationships between different groups and how they fit into society.

Prejudice on the Internet

In the early days of the Internet it was hypothesized that the anonymity the Internet afforded it’s users could lead to an increase in the communication of prejudice ideas but it could also result in the decrease of discrimination. A quote from our reading Online Prejudice and Discrimination: From Dating to Hating by Kimberly Barasamian Kahn, Katherine Spencer, and Jack Glaser accurately explains this idea:

“The thesis that was posited was that the internet had the possibility to decrease discriminatory effects, but also to increase expressions of prejudice. Specifically, we argued that the anonymity of the internet would allow for freer expression of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings by reducing the influence of social desirability concerns, resulting in less self-censoring of prejudicial attitudes. Furthermore, the vast reach of the internet would allow prejudiced individuals to access hate groups or easily contact like-minded others” (Kahn, Spencer, & Glaser p. 202).

While it may be true that anonymity protected some users from discrimination, we can clearly see from current experience that this same anonymity has allowed online hate groups to prosper. This has become increasingly obvious over the course of the current Presidential Election, in which supporters of the Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, have taken to the internet with their displays of prejudice. A recent example of this that I find especially disturbing are the personal attacks and harassment aimed at liberal media members.

Recently an editor and journalist at the Huffington Post, Emily Peck, released this article criticizing Donald Trumps proposed parental leave policy:

Emily Peck’s article on Trump’s Parental Leave policy

This piece was then picked up by an Internet based hate website called the Daily Stormer. They republished the piece, as well as images of Emily Peck. Leading to personal attacks; first in the comment section of the the editorial, and later to Emily Peck’s personal Twitter account. These attacks specifically focused on her gender and religious identity as a Jewish woman, with members in the comment section posting some of the most extremely prejudice and hateful comments and images one could imagine.

The white supremacist publication the Daily Stormer’s attack on Emily Peck (Trigger Warning NSFW)

The users of the Daily Stormer displayed extreme anti-semetic views as they went as far as photoshopping images of Emily Peck, like the one below, and far worse.

Following this, Donald Trump’s supporters took to Twitter to continue attacking Emily Peck in this same fashion. Eventually going as far as tracking down her phone number and sending threatening text messages aimed at her and her family.

One might minimize this by stating that these people are only acting this way because they are hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. But as a person of Jewish heritage this was a scary and shocking reminder that prejudice is still alive and well in our country. Of course, Jews are not the only victims of this same type of prejudice. Over the course of this election we have seen similar rhetoric and attitudes displayed towards Latino/as, African Americans, Asians, and people of Middle Eastern descent. I believe it is fair to say that the writers of Online Prejudice and Discrimination: From Dating to Hating were correct in theorizing that the internet would increase the expression of prejudice, as we can see in the case of the attacks on Emily Peck and others.

To close, here is a short video clip showing an example of yet another instance of online prejudice precipitated by Donald Trump’s supporters.