While I agree with
both Castell and Nicole Reynold’s that social media is a form of mass
self-communication, I also believe it is a form of self-advertising. As said by
Livingstone, “Internet is a means of managing one’s identity, lifestyle and
social relations” (PCH 239). Even though by nature, important elements of
participatory culture are self-expression and collaboration, some take it too
far.
We all know that person
who uses Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat for shameless
self-promotion. Whether this promotion is held in a positive or negative
manner, it influences the narrative surrounding the emergent media self. There
is a fine line between sharing and sharing too much, as the Internet has made self-promotion
increasingly available and for better or worse, transparent. However, it can be
incredibly fruitful when individuals not only share their own content, but the
content of others, thus contributing to and engaging in conversation.
Furthermore, here is my response to your
question- If social media, which has the potential to shift the structure of
power, is not used for that purpose, has it really shifted society’s power
structure? I believe the stratification of power lies predominantly in
user intention. Whether a user owns, curates or promotes content, greatly
affects the power structure. Although access certainly attributes to many
instances of power, interpersonal communication and traditional media are still
very much in effect. While mass media communication certainly has the ability
to reach wider demographics, I believe it is not the sole or best means to
spread information, and as a result, does not shift the power structure. Since
social media does not stand on its own, other forms of media still have the capacity
to permeate through society and access individuals.
Both cultures of
participation and conceptions of democracy in social movements are greatly
affected by communicative mechanisms. Thus, these communicative mechanisms have
great importance in the construction of relations within the power structure.
Communicative practices may also be sustained through media as technological
support enables the exchange of information between individuals. Depending on
the culture of participation at stake, media may be used in different ways to sustain
communicative practices. Different forms of media are selected for based on
what will best stimulate and organize mobilization. As proven, social media can
greatly enhance and expand social movements.
In relation to
Twitter specifically, I believe that it is still very much a public sphere.
Granted that certain accounts are owned and privatized, thus generating
revenue, their content is still widely available to the public. The public can
go ahead and engage with content however they may choose. Yet, Twitter as we
know it, is built on the fundamental objective to generate capital. If a
derivation of Twitter were designed in a non-capitalist enterprise, users’
agency would not be influenced by monetary incentive. Rather than assigning a
numerical value to content, its compensation would instead be measured in terms
of informative value and contribution.
On another note, I
loved Chapter 23 in PCH. I think it’s important for the incarcerated youth to
have access to digital media and more so, the opportunity to expand and promote
civic engagement. Incarcerated or not, the younger generations should be empowered
through access to academic information. However, there is much concern around
the question as to whether participatory culture can be created in an
institution where self-expression is discouraged. Ucreate’s and Edge’s plan was
to work with America’s incarcerated youth to develop their digital media skills
in order to tell personal stories about critical choices they have faced. Many
issues of privacy came up since the incarcerated were communicating in a public
forum. I believe that is imperative for this demographic of people to have
access to digital media education as it provides vital skills for the modern
workforce. Lastly, such exposure can only help these youths to better
themselves upon being released.
Lily, I really liked your discussion about Chapter 23 in PCH. I think it’s important for the incarcerated youth to be able to continue to learn and express themselves in a way that will prepare them for their future. However, I can understand the concern brought up about privacy – some of those youth would be severely disadvantaged in the future by revealing details about the poor choices they had made. I see now even less severe poor choices negatively affecting job searches for peers, so I would wonder if it really is necessary for those incarcerated youth to have that privacy so as to not further harm their future. At the same time, telling their personal stories is important – I would wonder whether the voice would be enough, as the authors explored, so that the individuals could narrate and tell their stories without showing their faces or otherwise identifying themselves.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also think that what you expressed about access was very important, and it was discussed on a more broad level in Chapter 28 as one of the five fundamental areas of ethical concern, access. Henderson mentions that “scholars note gaps in access based on race, ethnicity, income, and geographic location,” and I think there is also a gap in access based on one’s status in the U.S. as a criminal or not – certainly incarcerated individuals, youth included, do not have the same amount of access as non-incarcerated individuals. I would wonder how necessary some of the authors in PCH, as well as Fuchs, would feel it is to allow incarcerated individuals access to social media and other forms of mass communication.