blog 7

Chapter 2 (Filtered Reality):

“Perhaps in this case, social media is not simply the kind of filter that removes impurities, but also shapes them and flavours people as the ground coffee beans flavour the water  that  passes  through  them” So this is to say that social media controls people and not the other way around? “Shapes [impurities] and flavors people” sounds like the ruling power is being given to the social media and the users conform to whatever the digital standard is, as opposed to the users “shaping” the media that they (and others) see. A later sentence (“Facebook filters our newsfeed, and it also filters our behavior”) seems to confirm that I am understanding this correctly.

“Users who saw posts with more positive words used more positive words in their own posts, and vice versa” this seems like that saying “you are the company you keep.”

“we know what we are supposed to document from having seen other baby journals and photo albums” This has never occurred to me before. Even in this digital age, where we are constantly criticized for “oversharing everything,” there are still a lot of things we opt not to share (filter out). That also brings up the point that even when bad things are shared, they’re shared strategically—there is always an end goal that makes sharing worthwhile. We’ve all seen a cringe-worthy painful video of someone doing something stupid, but has nevertheless gone viral because it is funny; or a status/ long story about how some angry individual was having a meltdown and the person posting the story gets to be the victim. We see these embarrassing posts again and again, in every media outlet, and yet people keep sharing. So what does this say about us and our thought processes when we decide to filter these negative things in, instead of filtering them out?

“One  reason  the  filter  fascinates  us  is  that  it  gives  the  image  that strangeness that defamiliarises our lives”

“the skill of photographing people of colour well is often hard-learned and self-taught” this whole section made me extremely sad and, like last week’s conversation, has brought to my attention another privilege my whiteness has afforded me.

This chapter overall was really interesting and surprisingly enlightening about the science of selfies. It seems so simple, yet I forgot that “filter” means to eliminate/ reduce something, rather than an editing element to enhance a picture. Whenever I think of “filtering” content, the words “blacklist” or “block” usually come to mind, but never filter. I like the implied flexibility of the word; and I think the section about filtering “genres” could have been really interesting if it had been expanded more.

Chapter 3 (Serial Selfies):

While reading, I got curious and looked it up the videos “Me” and “Everyday.” I thought it was kind of messed up how Kalina’s video got more popular when Lee was the innovator for the genre. However, after watching, I could understand why Kalina’s video surpassed Lee’s. Lee takes her photos in the same spot every day with almost no variation in position; Kalina takes his pictures in different locations, in different lighting, etc. So his video shows a greater degree of “action” so to speak than Lee’s did. Here are the links for both:
“Me” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGdc_qcmFF0

“Everyday” : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B26asyGKDo

“Karl Baden (2007) has taken daily photos every day since 1987 and has exhibited the photos at several places” Oh my god???? That’s a lot of pictures, and real dedication. However, his project seems less lively than both “me” and “everyday.” If the only thing to show progression of time is the date and (eventual) facial features, what’s the point?

“many of these have become very popular too” one of my favorites that I have seen is one of a woman photographing her head after chemo treatment. In this, you can see her hair slowly grow back. Although the pictures were not taken every day, the message still gets across (similar to Rebecca Brown):

blog 6

"Self-Segregation" and "White Flight"

“Self-segregation”

While reading these statistics and polls, I am moderately conflicted on what to say about this article. I’m a white girl who has (quite a few) relatives actively serving in the police force. Based on that alone, my opinion on this issue would seemingly be obvious…but my bigger issue here is that I feel we are comparing apples to oranges? Just this chart alone says to me that we’re (essentially) living in two completely different realities:

And isn’t truth relative? At the very least, truth has to be something you believe—that why someone could be technically lying (like in a lie detector test?) but the individual doesn’t think they’re lying, so to them it is the truth. (Maybe that’s a little too philosophical/ abstract for this particular context.) What I mean is, with such staggering social and cultural differences, how can we not expect disagreements to occur?

I am shocked –but also not shocked –about the whiteness of the average white-person’s social circle. Personally, I think my social circle is a bit more diverse than the article states, but at the same time, I see how accurate it is based on the people I see in my town (predominately white, and almost infamously so). But when I think about social circles I see at school, I am inclined to think that this is not just a white tendency. Most groups I see around campus, I think, are racially homogeneous.

"White Flight"

“digital ghetto” an interesting way to refer to the overall attitude and aesthetic of a website. This idea of “white flight” from “ghetto” environments makes me think of “Black English” (the vernacular used by Black people is so different than that of the rest of the population, that it has essentially become its own language). So far, I am thinking that these white teens moved from MySpace to Facebook—“Not to be racist”—but because the commonality between the users was lost. Even the origin of these sites seems to point towards a lack of commonality.

I didn’t have MySpace as a kid, so this division between “safe” and “unsafe” has a different connotation to me. I was unaware of the fact that the user base of MySpace was primarily Black/ “urban.” My understanding was it was unsafe because you didn’t know who you were talking to. The term for that now is “catfishing,” but back then, it was this unnamed fear looming over all digital interactions. This is still kind of the case, but we are so used to being distrusting of digital social worlds, that the fear is less omnipresent. Or at the very least, less tangible. So to me, it is kind of shocking to think that the unsafety factor of MySpace was actually linked to race. In fact, I am surprised the “predator” factor wasn’t mentioned until page 27. I actually didn’t think they were going to bring it up at all.

The bit about Facebook being “safer” is actually kind of laughable to me, since my parents were really strict growing up, and they were even skeptical of Facebook.

I thought this article was interesting to a point—after a while it felt a bit repetitive to me, and I think the message could have gotten across in less time. I thought there would be more focus on the overarching social connotations that the “digital white flight” insinuated rather than such a heavy analysis of Facebook / MySpace users. My mind is honestly blown by how racially diverse this problem was, because for me growing up, everybody had both while I had neither. I didn’t get Facebook until high school, and even then I was allowed on between the times when I finished my homework and before 9 or 10 PM. So a lot of the stuff discussed in this article went right over my head. I guess even my own experiences cans serve as testimony to what Boyd was trying to prove.

blog 5

Selfie Culture (parts  1 - 4)


Ms. Posner sounds like the kind of teacher everybody should have; the labels and departments and whatever else shouldn't play a role so much in the development of a course as the content and lessons do. Also, I think a course primarily geared towards social norms for millennials is a great idea. I know every generation sees change, but I honestly believe they have seen the most drastic changes of any recent generation. Or rather, the most has changed between their generation and the previous one. I think it is important to explore these changes and integrate them into current curricula. We often complain that schools are teaching kids outdated information/ that lessons are impractical/ do not teach any useful life skills. I think "selfie courses" and things of the like will prove to be a first step in a very good direction.

on "blurry pictures" - almost anything can be aesthetically pleasing when done a certain way. Even if it isn't done a certain way, there are still people who will like an image - whether it be genuine or because they think it is cool to do. Example, I came across this image today:


It had over 1,000 likes, even though it's nothing particularly interesting, creative or original. I guess it follows the "no reason" logic mentioned in selfie pedagogy ii.


"nothing exists outside of context" an interesting point, although I disagree. In fact, I think a selfie is a perfect example of something that can stand without its context. At the very least, the context does not matter yet. I'm sure the context of historical paintings that we now put on display in museums didn't matter much when they were created (although those paintings are some of the few clues we have to life back then, so I guess its possible that causes us to overemphasize the context). And I don't think our selfies will ever reach that level of importance, since there are so many ways to document life now. But I do believe the importance of the context will emerge in the future. Until then, I don't think context really plays that much of a role in selfie culture.

"This kind of self-reflection scrutinizes aspects of self consciousness." This is more what I was expecting these 4 articles to be like. And this idea is extremely interesting to me. A good mix of digital interface and psychology. 

"Playbour" I really like this term and that it has been brought into question. Often times, when companies make a contest or a challenge where people have to post themselves with the company's product, I think, "The company gain free advertising, but what do these people gain?" 

I also love the topic of representation. From reading personal narratives on my own social media platforms, I have learned how important media representation is to the everyday person. 

Final thoughts: these articles were pretty good, although I was expecting a bit more analysis. I felt that 1 - 3 were more explanatory that I expected. I felt 4 was more analytical and I liked that one the best. I think it was a good note to end on, and hopefully it sets the tone for our own class discussions.