Social Media Thinkers

             Of these internet/social media thinkers, there seem to be two types; those that seem to focus on what could go wrong and those that seem to focus more on the incredible things we have done with the internet and how we can continue and expand those good aspects. When you strip these issues they focus on down to their base structure, however, it seems less about the internet and more about human behavior. For example, Evgeny Morozov talks about how the internet is used by people, how this new cyberspace of social media affects us, how smart objects will influence our behavior, and I’m starting to see a pattern with others as well. There seems to be so much talk about what social media and the internet are doing to us – especially from Pariser who, in Filter Bubble, seems to paint social media as an ominous doom device – that few stop to think about why we choose to do what we do with our online lives. In the proposed scenario, social media seems to be the scapegoat for ignorant behavior and early internet plays the part of the savior, which Morozov seems to assert is a “communal space” that doesn’t exist anymore. We need to own up to this and realize that these are our actions and no computer is forcing us to do anything. There needs to be more focus on why some people choose their filter bubbles, which is an issue that well predates the internet. Social media is simply one of many tools that makes homophily easier, but it doesn’t force us to do anything. Humanity is responsible for its own actions, no matter how evil social media is painted to be. 

Reading The Filter Bubble- Part 3

“Advertars” are one of the most fascinating forms of advertising in that they seem to say more about the company exhibiting the display than they do the target audience. More importantly, these artificial social media profiles give us a glimpse into what the people personalizing our lives think about us. Advertars are basically the same ads we see everywhere wrapped up together wearing a human mask. In order for someone to admit one of these into their virtual lives the mask needs to be convincing, so Advertars become what they think we will like, essentially giving us a convenient list of what personalization algorithms believe we are.

It is advantages like this that lead me to believe less in the gloom and doom aspect of the filter bubble. Yes, it can be a very dangerous thing that has the ability to shrink someone’s world to an alarming degree; I fully admit the potential threat. There is also a deceptively easy way to get out of it; search for something other than your usual, go a few pages into the results and choose the information you are looking for instead of the information that is first handed to you. If these personalization algorithms operate on click signals, it seems very unlikely they would simply stop processing those signals and forever send you the same media experience personalized for the person you were. If these algorithms are indeed currently processing everyday online actions, then changing the signals that are processed would then change the resultant experience. Personalization is not static; the average person’s wants, whims, and desires are constantly shifting. This means that, in order to be personalized, your online environment needs to shift along with you.

I’m not saying that there aren’t people stuck in filter bubbles, of course there are. Confirmation bias is something that can make one feel comfortable and validated in their ideals, which makes a filter bubble look all the more alluring. This is not, however, a new concept; it is simply an aspect of human behavior that is now seen in context to the internet. Humanity has always found a way to practice confirmation bias, regardless of the existence of the internet or social media. In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis said; “Most of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party.” If you remove the word ‘Christianity’ and substitute ‘News’ or ‘Social Media’, the point still stands. There are, and probably always will be, people who just want to be right.

This does not, however, mean that everyone behaves this way. Human curiosity is endless, and for every person content to stay in their filter bubble, there is another yearning to expand their world. 

Reading The Filter Bubble- Part 2

          The more I read, the more society’s filter bubble problems seem to be a sort of curse of convenience. In a world where an online identity is completely made up of wants, the trend seems to be towards instant gratification and away from awareness, curiosity, and discovery. I start to think of the movie Wall-E and the people in their floating chairs that don’t bother to move because they have perfected the fulfillment of want to the point where should is no longer desirable and therefore no longer relevant. This personalization epidemic seems like such a selfish affliction created simply because people are smothering themselves with their own desires for convenience and immediacy.

            Pariser’s attitude towards those trapped in filter bubbles seems to be that of a shepherd towards a wandering flock. He is genuinely concerned about and interested in the status of modern society online; his work is a gentle wake-up call and warning to many people (including myself). In talking about problems and solutions of the filter bubble, however, he seems to illustrate every person in possession of an online account the same way. Pariser speaks of filter bubble occupants as a mass or flock that have been lead down a dicey path and need to be escorted in a different direction. He is not incorrect or mean at all in this view, but it does reveal a certain lack of faith in the individual to break free of these bubbles. I’d like to have more hope in humanity’s general competence level than that. 

Reading The Filter Bubble- Part 1

           Eli Pariser has perfectly captured an aspect of internet culture that has widened my understanding of life online and how that behavior affects everything. The easiest way to give a consumer what they want is, after all, simply to ask. Acquiring tons of personal data by watching everything someone does online does seem a bit excessive, although from what I’ve gathered so far it seems to have become an effective method (however creepy it may be).

            It seems that each individual’s world has become smaller as a direct result of these ‘filter bubbles’. We have come full circle from the pre-technology era – where each person’s world consisted of town they lived in – through the expansion of that world view through higher literacy rates and easier information access, all the way back to a similarly narrow place; the modern era of personalization where, instead of not having access to information, people have the ability to block it out completely. The world of information has become an ever-changing one, completely dependent upon the fleeting whimsy of shares, likes, and ‘click signals’.

            At one point, Pariser talks about YouTube’s “Lean Back” strategy plans. It is something that would take the viewer to another video as soon as the one they chose has finished. ‘Lean Back’ is essentially taking that list of recommended videos and playing them one after the other. In 2011, when this book was written, this endless feed of videos was still simply a project; today this is an established feature of the site. Instead of just a list of suggestions, your viewing choice will now culminate in a countdown to the next video YouTube has chosen for you. With the addition of ads before videos, this is quickly becoming television with a comments section. Unlike television, however, you have the options of creating your own content and a handy personalization algorithm to help you along the way.

            These personalization algorithms are, essentially, looking at your online life and then handing you a reflection of yourself and your choices in order to guide you to what they think you will either enjoy or purchase or both. It is a system entirely reliant on the fickle wants of consumers that are developing shorter and shorter attention spans. But if an overwhelming majority of the internet is giving a consumer what they want, who is providing them with what they need? We all know that, in order to be a functioning human being, it is occasionally necessary to do things you don’t want to do. Say you find an article on your news feed boasting ‘facts’ that prove a political view you agree with. You have found something that endorses your chosen world view; this makes you feel good and smart, you want to go on believing this thing that makes you feel validated. But have you bothered to check if it’s true? I know I don’t do that as much as I would like to admit. But fact-checking is something that needs to be done in order to form a well-rounded understanding, no matter how wonderful it would be for that one article to be true. It’s not something that everyone necessarily wants to do, but what are we if we are simply content to accept the information that is pre-sorted and handed to us? To me, blind faith is something carefully trusted to loved ones, not Facebook. 

American Fake News Sites

            There seems to be quite a lot of interest in fake and satirical news. Some provide a disclaimer, warning its audience that this is all in jest – the rest I think must be kidding, but also cause me to seriously question the editor’s sanity.

            I have compared three fake news sites to determine their portrayal of and impression upon the world; The Onion, The National Report, and The Daily Currant. Of the three, only the Onion and Currant seem to have disclaimers revealing their satirical origins. Although the National Report doesn’t seem to have a disclaimer, it does share something interesting with the Currant; a comments section. These comment sections can be more entertaining than the articles themselves, although sometimes it does cause me to question humanity. The Currant’s comments seem to be evenly balanced (half satirical, half rants from gullible subjects), but while skimming through the comments for National Report pieces, I found something troublesome. All of the comments seem to be completely serious. Some are actually impressively in-depth analyses of the issues presented by the article; the only problem is a simple fact-check (and some common sense) reveals the article to be completely false and there is no disclaimer to prove otherwise. If this is the information some unassuming people unfortunately buy into then no wonder the tone of American political conversation seems to be so loud, stubborn and confusing. No one would ever want to admit their intellectual conversation is stimulated by information that doesn’t actually exist, but this makes me wonder how many people are proudly defending facts they have picked up from satirical and fake news. How many people don’t actually know what they’re talking about because they have unfortunately believed what they read on the internet? What if I have been one of those people?

Needless to say, I will be much more diligent about my fact-checking from now on.

The First Jihad with a Social Media Consultant

           Every great mechanism has pros and cons. Take photographic manipulation for example; namely, photoshop. When used properly, it is a fun way to be creative and make something wonderful- however, if employed improperly it can send misleading signals such as the promotion of an unattainable body image. Social media is very similar to photoshop in that way. It is a great way to connect with people and express oneself, but there are those that use it to promote propaganda and recruit followers.

            At first impression it seems ridiculous to think of a jihad organization trying to take over the world one twitter follower at a time, but further understanding of the situation reveals this to be quite a smart move. Social media makes it easier to spread the word, receive donations, send their message to people who then join their cause. It’s actually quite frightening how easy it seems for them to become social media celebrities.

Hack Attack, and the politics of fear

“Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts… perhaps the fear of a loss of power.” – John Steinbeck

            At first I thought media moguls like Rupert Murdoch had influence on government officials purely because of money. Although I have no doubt that money is a factor, I now see it as more of the icing on the cake; It’s nice to have and convenient to be able to throw around but, in the end, power and the fear it inspires are what allow News Corp to be as influential as it unfortunately seems to be.

            If, for example, a prime minister looking for re-election refuses to cooperate with a media mogul, that rebellion could cost them funding and public support (no matter how true the newspaper’s allegations may be). Instead of losing power, it seems that the media mogul in question would rather unfairly cheapen the prime minister’s name through a smear campaign and tilt public opinion towards a candidate that would be easier to control. The loss of control seems to be more influential than its gain.

            Fear is a powerful motivator, and quite an unpleasant feeling. If you present someone, anyone, a task laced with fear or intimidation, often they will want to get it done regardless of method or consequence, simply to make the fear go away as completely and quickly as possible. This does not, however, in any way make it acceptable for anyone to use that against others – no matter their net worth. 

Hack Attack: after finishing 2/3 of the book

           Throughout this book something has been hounding me. The question of ‘how?’ seems to apply to every new piece of information; yes Coulson denied everything, but how did anyone buy that; how could Scotland Yard take a cursory look at News of the World and call it a “careful investigation”; how could a line of Prime Ministers appear to become Murdoch’s personal boot lickers, quaking when he or one of his henchmen calls upon them? (To the Prime Minister’s and Scotland Yard’s credits, this is simply the agitated view of one who has yet to ascertain the entire story. I have hope there is some instance of bravery that has yet to be revealed.)

            I am still searching for the answers to my deluge of how; nevertheless, there are some things that have become clear. For instance, I have finally shed my impression that these newspapers were competing for readership; it was a misleading veil grasping to hold on to naïve hopes of moral decency. It seems that, for every decent newspaper whose mission truly is to inform society (journalism without brainwashing? Perish the thought.), there is another who exists not to inform but to manipulate, to persuade, to make more money.

When I first started reading about how much News Corp was getting away with, my initial reaction was to question how the authorities – police, politicians, etc. – could possibly turn their heads, bow to the will of this hideous operation. Now, however, I am two-thirds of the way through Hack Attack with a clearer understanding of the methods of bullying employed by Murdoch’s pets, and I can’t help but show concern for my potential level of hypocrisy. Had I been in the same place, would I have possessed the incredible fortitude that Nicola Phillips exhibited, or would I have cowed at the first call threatening my career? After learning so much about those controlled by power and money, will I bother to reevaluate what influences me, or will I take the easy route and settle back into blissful ignorance?

              For now, I am eager to keep reading.

Hack Attack: After finishing the first third of the book

           The one impression that remains in the foreground of my mind while reading Nick Davies’ accounts of Fleet Street journalism is my incredulity at how easily the lawlessness seems to bleed through the ranks of the tabloid papers and into other institutions. Murdoch-owned British tabloid journalism seems to be a force with a visage complex Dorian Gray would identify with. To the casual observer (or bribed authority figure) the monopoly seems perfectly fine, albeit a tad enamored with itself. Even though it reeks of mischief it is accepted because of the pleasing aesthetic form- the front pages splashed with images of the young, beautiful, and scandalized. Their true self is hidden away with consequences for those who choose not to conveniently forget the grotesque image they have witnessed.

            There’s a question that fuels my naïve disbelief, leaves me unsatisfied there is any reason or excuse one would get so carried away as to subject another person to this kind of treatment. I can’t help but wonder what was powerful enough to start this, what is so feared and desired as to convince an entire business that it is perfectly acceptable to flirt with legal, moral boundaries, tap dance into private lives, and hold no regard for guilt. Davies flags Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of Murdoch-owned newspaper the Sun from 1981-94, as the reason for so much going wrong in British journalism. MacKenzie is described as a terror who threw caution to the wind and the rulebook out the window, starting a generation of newspaper workers terrified for their careers and who were instructed to ignore moral journalistic standards.

            The more I read, the more News Corps seems to be a Dorian Gray- I only hope that the two don’t share the same fate. 

Historical View - Reading A History of News Chapters 7 and 12

          The history of the news seems to hinge upon the whims of humanity’s fickle nature – and short attention span. I think the History of News book sums it up perfectly when referencing what Conor Cruise O’Brien calls “the Scheherazade Syndrome”. This so-called ‘syndrome’ makes the reader the boss who says “like the Sultan, ‘If you bore me, you die.’” Although it does seem a bit extreme to put the reader in place of a Sultan who beheaded a wife a day, fighting for your life (or, in this case, the life of a newspaper) by telling a story is, essentially, what keeps the news going. To some, the idea of a news outlet that exudes unbiased fact and distributes only serious news updates may sound nice; however, after reading these chapters on human interests and how they have affected the media, I am of the opinion that we need the occasional fluff piece.

            I am not, by any means, belittling the role of in-depth political analyses. I am, however, saying that even sensationalist crime and gossip pieces provide an insight into the human condition that a summary of politics or stock market prices just can’t provide. Unbiased, informative news pieces are equally as necessary as passionate opinion pieces that cry for a call to arms or the latest criminal sensation.

Dunja Mijatovic and the OSCE

This past Thursday, Webster Vienna was proud to host Dunja Mijatovic, a press freedom advocate and the Representative on freedom of the media at the Organization For Security and Co-operation in Europe (the OSCE). She is a very accomplished and intelligent woman who, during her talk, spoke not only of The power the media has over it's audience, but also the power of those who own the media. Dunja speaks of difficult situations Where governments and politicians own more and more media avenues in order to censor and control information that gets to the public. This means that good, courageous, unbiased journalism is becoming harder to find, especially when sorting through a sea of false or misleading news reports.
The talk with Dunja, although interesting, seemed too short. The audience received a summary of the OSCE's duties and Dunja's opinions on the state of media ownership; however, neither were elaborated upon to the extent that the topics deserved. A very important call to arms was made, but it is a call that needs to be discussed at length. Dunja made some wonderful points and definitely deserved more time than was given.

President Obama's Interviews

As someone who grew up in the United States, I can definitely say that very little is done to involve young adults in learning about politics. It’s not a question of access to information- it’s very easy to find what you want to learn about, if you know where to look; however the information that is readily available is, to put it simply, daunting. When turning on the news means watching well-dressed adults sit around and scream at each other like children, there is little incentive to be a part of that world. There is also little pressure from some parents and authority figures to be involved. School is about passing tests- whether you actually retain the information past a semester is of no concern, and forget about in-depth conversations of current events. Of course, you’re listening to someone who went to school in a state that currently ranks 48^th nationally in education. I have hope that other states were more proactive in involving their students in political conversations.

            I’m telling you how uninviting American politics and news outlets usually are for young people because the White House has recently broken this trend. It started when the State of the Union address was, for the first time, released early online for anyone to see. There was then collaboration with Google to bring three top YouTube vloggers to the white house for interviews with the President. This brought millions of conversations regarding both the speech and the government’s political agenda to Twitter and Facebook among other social media avenues. The 2014 State of the Union address on the White House’s YouTube channel has 521,493 views; the 2015 State of the Union has almost tripled that score with 1,552,361 views on just that one channel. President Obama isn’t avoiding major media; he is involving himself in the chosen media venue of a very large percent of the population that is often left out of political discussion. It is a demographic that needs to know what is going on, needs to be brought into the conversation in order to be aware of the world that will be passed on to them. It may be easy now for younger Millennials to stay silent on the issue of politics, but we cannot have an entire generation that regards the news and the information it reports to be a joke. This is why it is so wonderful and important that the White House has increased its online presence and made a name for itself in social media. This is a move that should have been done a while ago and, hopefully, will show younger generations that a political discussion is not a vehement screaming match.

A Discussion at the International Press Institute

         After journeying through an unassuming grey gate and halfway up a spiral staircase, I found myself in the offices of the International Press Institute. A few twists and turns through various rooms found my way through the labyrinthine space and into a back room where my classmates and I had the opportunity to be a part of a discussion with Barbara Trionfi, the interim executive director at IPI. After brief introductions (and some pretty wonderful croissants), she delved into the topic of press freedoms and how the western idea of freedom of the press as a fundamental right doesn’t always line up cohesively with the values of every culture. It seems some societies’ morals put so much value on the respect of authority that the freedom to be able to criticize, even insult authority is out of the equation. The question then arose of whether certain governments were using culture as a reason to keep such complete control over their country, and eventually drifted to the direct topic of government control in various places. Some countries with heavy government control have a seemingly democratic system that is spoiled by commercialism. Although citizens may be free to think what they wish, the media that informs their thinking is heavily censored, and unbiased true journalism is rare if found at all. There seem to be quite a few indirect but visible methods of censorship exercised by various authorities as well, the most surprising of which was the case of a government controlled paper industry in Latin America. The publishers that get the most paper are the ones saying what the government wants the people to hear; however, if someone prints what the authorities deem unfavorable, then their only access to needed materials is taken away.

            Overall, the visit to IPI was very pleasant and filled with extremely interesting conversation topics that are sure to fuel future writings. 

Censorship in China and the Occupy Hong Kong movement

Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts of Harvard University published their study in the American Political Science Review in 2013. This particular study delves into methods of government censorship – specifically those exercised by the Chinese government. From website banning to keyword blocking, the authors took an impressively in depth look at Chinese censorship methods and posts from the country’s various social media sites. After analyzing all of this, they hypothesize that the Chinese government censors posts with “Collective Action Potential”, or the danger of protests and demonstrations. It makes sense that such a government would want to quash the thing that, historically, has been the Achilles heel for many an authoritarian regime.

            But then how did the Occupy Hong Kong movement slip through the censors? How did so many people come together to demand democracy if it is so allegedly difficult to express oneself through social media without being censored? Let me quickly remind you that this study – although extensively researched, well-written, and detailed – was conducted in 2012 and published in May 2013. I have no qualms regarding the credibility and aptitude of these authors; however, the truths of the past can be misleading when looking for the truths of today.

            In September 2013, just a few months after the aforementioned study was published, China made Facebook available to a small area in Shanghai. Today Facebook and other social media avenues are available to the citizens of Hong Kong, which would explain the organization of a mass pro-democracy movement. Evidence of the Occupy Hong Kong movement (often called the ‘Umbrella Revolution’) is definitely visible online. People organize on Facebook to bring yellow ribbons, umbrellas, and banners to various events, and you can even listen to their unofficial anthem on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2mR9mvDoU

In essence, comparing this study with the Umbrella Revolution is not a question of right or wrong but of facts in time.

My home country is very enthusiastic about the subject of freedom in regards to…. well, everything, really. The United States of America was built upon ideals of freedom to act, to speak, to express, to worship; however, it has become clear that freedom and tolerance are two separate things entirely.

            It seems that the biggest hurdle a serious journalist (that is, one who desires to report the unbiased truth) needs to bypass in America is that of commercialism and the ignorant citizen. The practice of purchasing an actual physical copy of a newspaper is becoming less and less prevalent in my home town of Houston and many other cities as well. Those still printing have turned to celebrity reports, expanded sports sections, and entertainment news in order to appeal to a broader pool of customers. A beautiful and insightful piece detailing horrors of the Boko Haram in Senegal may be pushed aside or to the back page to make room for yet another fluff piece about the movie The Interview that is guaranteed to get reader’s attention. Whether that is also influenced by governmental pressures or dealings, I cannot say. I can, however, say for certain that the average American’s increasingly short attention span can and has been detrimental to those wishing to report deep, insightful truths. 

In our (rightfully founded) empathy and support for those closer to home, we appear to have overlooked the sufferings of others in this world;

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/world/africa/boko-haram-rampage-in-nigeria-is-shown-in-satellite-images-groups-say.html?_r=0

Although, unfortunately, it is seeming more and more difficult to keep track...

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

-Voltaire

            If you asked any number of random people on the street if they were in favor of freedom of speech, odds are the majority would be supportive. Everyone has the ability to think and speak for themselves – possessing freedom of speech simply means that some high governmental authority is allowing you to do this in public, free of consequence…well, free of consequence from that specific authority, at least. Unfortunately there are, as we have witnessed through recent events, those who see themselves fit to play god and rob others of the gift of boundless expression.

            I have heard the opinion of those who question not Charlie Hebdo’s right to express opinion, but their justification in provoking such a volatile situation. If they had been attacked before, why would they continue to satirize the world, upsetting many in the process? Does freedom of speech, freedom of the press include a right to offend? Is Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of Britain, correct in his assertion that offending for the sake of offense is not freedom of speech?

            But I worry that a silent press would be misconstrued as one supportive of and subservient to those offended. As soon as one does something, alters thoughts or actions for someone, in consideration of something, there is an acknowledgement of influence and agreement between the two parties. If a bully gets their way, they will expect nothing less than the compliance of the victim. By trying to change the victim, we are condoning the actions of the bully. For example, if someone is sexually harassed should we tell them not to provoke that person again, or should we try to prevent others from harassing in the future? If satirical cartoon artists are murdered should we quiet ourselves and warn others not to be as provocative, or should we teach that violence is not the way to a peaceful, understanding future?

Silence is a quick and easy solution to a microscopic aspect of a bigger problem.

“We realize the importance of our voices only when we are silenced”

-Malala Yousafzai