How to become viral... accidentally

Judy Perly owned a small restaurant, and used vine as a marketing tool to promote her brunch specials. One day she decided to post a vine of herself on an airplane, just for fun. Instead, her vine become viral, having millions of loops, and many people parodied the original vine for comedic purposes. Judy Perly was not intentionally attempting to self brand herself, but instead was trying to promote her restaurant using vine. Judy Perly unconventionally achieved Alice Markwick's criteria of self branding by creating an authentic self and an image in which viewers see you as REAL and OPEN with your viewers. Her little makeup, unflattering angle and piece of food lingering on her face, along with her unique accent seemed to make viewers adore her. In Fuchs, "Social media and Productive labour" he discusses that Marx distinguished the workplace and social realms to be different, but social media has instead blurred the boundaries of this relationship. Our obligation to network online had be a priority, utilizing the internet as a institution has proven successful for many businesses.  This has become very true for Perly, as her work and social activities have become synonymous with the use of vine.  However, Mark Andrejevic in his article, "Estranged Free Labour" discusses that our tendency to use social media and the online infrastructure for socialization is problematic. He explains that we do not have control over our creativity on the internet because we often cannot control how our content is used.  This is evident due to the numerous "trolls", parodies and "gifs" created of this single vine Perly created.  Unfortunately for Perly, this vine success did not impact her business success in a financially positive way, but her own self brand has become known by millions.    

How can it be problematic for people to lose control over their creative on the internet?  Do you think there are more benefits or losses in publishing your content via the internet/social media?
Read the Buzzfeed article here

Are we becoming addicted?

In our hyperconnected world, apps give us immediate access to connectivity and can be used for both practical and entertainment purposes. In class we have discussed the amount of time that we devote daily to checking our phones and visiting our apps. Some of us even said that the first thing we do when we wake up is check our Instagram or other social media accounts. For Jodi Dean, apps not only fasten us to our devices, but they also “withdraw us momentarily from our larger world [and] the pressures of everyday life,” (Dean, 233, 2014) offering us an escape from reality, even if only for a few minutes. I know that this is especially true for me when I need a quick break from my work. Whilst some might get up and stretch or go for a walk, I’ll either check my Instagram or my BuzzFeed app. Did you guys know that they even have apps that help users to limit their time spent using apps on their phone? For example, there’s an app called Offtime that you can download right to your mobile device, which limits a users access to any apps that they overuse and records their activity to create charts on how much time they spend on their phones. There is also another app called BreakFree that monitors phone and app usage and tracks how addicted you are to your phone and apps. Do any of you think that there will ever become a point in time where you need to download an app that helps you to lower or control your time spent using apps or your phone?

Watch the following YouTube clip to see whether or not you are considered addicted to your phone. Obviously this exaggerative little clip is a marketing ploy to try and get you to download their app, but it does get you to consider whether or not you think you spend too much time using your apps. 

Dean, J. (2014). Apps and Drive. In A. Herman, J. Hadlaw, & T. Swiss (Eds.), Theories of the Mobile Internet: Materialities and Imaginaries (pp. 232-248). New York: Routledge.

Alternatives to Corporate Social Media Sites

“The oligopoly structure of social media has resulted in the circumstance that a few large transnational companies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter control the vast majority of social media use” (Fuchs, 2015).

I am sure many can agree that today’s media is ‘mass’ in terms of consumption, yet continues to be limited in terms of both production and participation. In Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media, Fuchs discusses alternative forms to corporate social media and the problems that they face i.e. the problem of mobilizing resources without state support and advertising. According to Fuchs, capitalist media structures limit the liberal freedoms of speech, opinion, expression, association, and assembly (Fuchs, 2015). In order to combat this capitalistic control, Fuchs believes that media reforms are needed for establishing a social media sphere that transcends particularistic control and represents the public interest so that the social potential of the media can be realized (Fuchs, 2015). Generally, alternative media focuses on depoliticizing formulas to advocate for agendas of social change. Alternative social medias then, could overcome the Internet’s antagonisms and serve the people (Fuchs, 2015).

This article discusses a few alternative social medias and the difficulties they face in terms of overcoming Facebook. If you are unfamiliar with alternative social media networks like Ello, then this article might be an interesting read. Ello for instance, is an invite-only alternative to existing social networks, free from ads. It was created by a small group of people who became tired of ads, data mining, and the overall negativity brought about from corporately owned social medias. After reading the article and learning about a few of the alternative social medias offered to us, would any of you consider using an alternative social media network, such as Ello? My other question is, if you were to open an alternative social networking site, would you still keep your Facebook account – (assuming you have one)? Why or why not?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/10/ello_diaspora_and_the_anti_facebook_why_alternative_social_networks_can.html

Fuchs, Christian. Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media. New York: Routledge 2015

Social Media Is Not Real- Really, Essena?

Update on Essena O'Neill for anyone who's been following the news on former Instagram Star- Essena O'Neill. She's writing a book titled: "How to be Social Media Famous"

... are you kidding me? She claimed that "social media is not real" and it is "evil" yet she's writing a book on how to become everything that claims she hated about her life. Admittedly, she states that she is exposing a lot of "behind the scenes" information that ultimately does not shed a positive light on social media corporations, and all of those involved, but that still does not take away from the fact that she has her own website titled www.essenaoneill.com in which she is participating in what Jose Van Dijck calls a culture of connectivity, and is demonstrating that she is still consumed in being apart of a "sharing culture." The website domain name was recently changed from www.letsbegamechangers.com to her own name where she posted content on things she passionate about like veganism but also straight up asked for monetary support... kind of fishy if you ask me. Although she may not be portraying the same image that she was before Essena is still decently active on YouTube and keeps up with her website - which generate her a profit at the end of the day.

Do you believe that Essena O'Neill has genuine intentions with her book release or that she's merely taking on a new neoliberal economic project (having a career within the capitalist social-media driven society)? Do you think a lot of people will buy her book and be satisfied/disappointed with the content? Would you agree that Essena O'Neill is participating in a culture of connectivity?

Merry Christmas from Anonymous

I found this Christmas message posted by anonymous this year, the group is asking, or rather scaring the public into being aware of what they are doing this year for Christmas. With all the material objects that are purchased simply fueling the dominant classes. Anonymous set out to remind individuals of the simulation of buying gifts for loved ones in the Christmas spirit is a way for corporations to maximize their profits and push their products onto the public. Anonymous want to display their presence in the digital world, yet messages like this set a tone that is not too welcoming for the public inviting them to support their cause. Yet these hacktivists are neutral as they want what is best for the people and make attempt to slow the control of the capitalist powers on our society.

Do you think messages from hacktivists remind people of the control they are under by the higher powers or do you feel that these messages that are distributed online mean very little?

The Digerati

With the development of technology, a new type of worker is born, the Digerati. As developed earlier in the semester in Eran Fishers “Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age”. The digerati are essentially the masters of their work, they have the intellectual ability to understand these new network devices and use their technical expertise as tools to apply to their work. The digerati are integrating new devices into the workplace in order to further develop production and efficiency. The new network devices have also allowed for mass data collection whereby workers can easily be monitored. By using these new devices, companies have a much better overall understanding of how their business is essentially developing.

This YouTube video discusses the integration of technology into business with the introduction of the digerati. The video develops the skills that the newly developed individual has within the workplace, and what they are able to do to assist with the development of the company that they are employed with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyEdvzCmm04

Do you think that the workplace will still tolerate or hire individuals who are unable or unwilling to integrate technology into their lives as our society progresses into a new digital era?

Flexible Hours for Millennials

As we've discussed endlessly in class, the labour force is changing and as graduating students, we will be at the heart of it. Neff and Castells both predict that in the new economy, flexible work hours will replace the 9-5 hours that have been the norm since the industrial revolution. Neff analyzes the ways in which this type of work can be exploitative - temporary, unstable, lack of job security, few governmental benefits - and she explains that there are a few reasons we accept these forms of exploitation. One of these reasons is a lack of options, and another is the way literature and business media presented what is essentially capitalist propaganda for how great flexible work is. While Neff was writing about the 90s, this trend continues as flexible work is increasingly essential to the growth of the digital age, which is exemplified by this Mashable article (it also appeals to us as young consumers of digital media through it's Clickbait-like format).

This article argues for what sound like great upsides to flexible hours (yay naps!) without criticizing any of the individual or societal effects. What do you guys think? Would you prefer flexible hours or a regular schedule? How else could the implementation of exclusively flexible work be exploitative?