“Respond to this quote from last week’s reading: ‘It seems most likely that the virtual public sphere brought about by [computer–mediated communication] will serve a cathartic role, allowing the public to feel involved rather than to advance actual participation.’”

A topic that was briefly mentioned in discussion last week was Yik Yak, and I think this prompt is a great opportunity for me to voice my thoughts about Yik Yak as a virtual public sphere. I think I am particularly fascinated by Yik Yak because it is anonymous and location-sensitive. I guess at an institution as renown as Stanford, it has been an eye-opening experience to see how anonymity affects the best of us.

In general, I hate to admit that I believe Yik Yak is serving a cathartic role for the public, or at least not contributing anything new and good to the society. I will focus on three particular features that attribute to this: anonymity, Yakarma, and the 5 downvote process.

Anonymity, though it might provide comfort for users who are afraid of voicing opinions under a username, makes it difficult for users to be accountable for their words and content they publish. Now, instead of being able to flip a laptop screen down in order to avoid hateful comments, you can even avoid people attaching a name to your comment. There seem to be fewer and fewer consequences the user can be subject to because of anonymity, which leads to more extreme opinions. While these extreme opinions might voice a user’s true emotions and opinions, I wonder how much of it is for seeking attention and intent to simply create a reaction.

Similarly, I think the presence of having Yakarma further provides incentive for users to be more sensationalistic or memorable. While that might come in the form of a hilarious comment about the tearing down of Meyer, I think it stymies the potential of Yik Yak, as an anonymous platform, to create a room for discussions and conversations. However, that also bleeds into the original layout of the app: with only limited characters per text, I also think it’s too difficult to have these conversations on this particular platform. Perhaps simply because of the layout of the app, short and spunky “zingers” are the content that are most suitable for this platform.

Finally, the 5-vote process of elimination further blocks any potential of creating meaningful conversations as long as 5 people don’t give you the time of day. I am thinking through the examples of the #blacklivesmatter protests, Tour Guide rollouts, and FoHo articles and how group polarization can occur on Yik Yak: as more and more students agree on the same issue, the opinion of that particular issue grow increasingly opinionated. This inertia seems like an inevitable snowball effect, and as a user who has had some of her comments voted off, I sometimes feel at a loss of what I can do with Yik Yak to inform the greater community or to raise awareness.

Or perhaps I am taking all of this too seriously. Maybe Yik Yak isn’t supposed to help the greater good for the community, and it’s only supposed to provide quick and laughable anecdotes. Perhaps my hopes for this particular app is misguided, and I should be considering these issues for other platforms like Facebook or Reddit.

A reading that really resonated with me this week is “The Daily We” by Cass Sustein. She talked about phenomena that we’ve already mentioned in class: self-selection and group polarization. After reading this article and reflecting on my own experiences regarding these two topics, I’ve pretty much gone nowhere in terms of finding insight. While there is the privilege to filter what you want and don’t want to see through the Internet, there is a tradeoff for perhaps a wider range of information that you receive.

For self-selection, I think a very fitting example is the recent viral phenomenon of the dress. It was either white and gold or blue and black, and that seemed to be the only thing the Internet talked about for hours. It’s crazy to me that something as dumb as a dress was not only able to make Facebook and Tumblr headlines, but even able to reach TV outlets and news channels.

I have an especially difficult time with group polarization. I have many friends who are involved in activist groups on campus, and I often feel that because I’m close friends with them I have to express similar sentiments. It’s gotten to a point where I’ve sat in on club meetings and have become, by association, administrator of Facebook events; all this while, I am still ambivalent and undecided when my peers engage in discussions around demonstrations and protests. I often feel like I don’t know enough about these issues to form an opinion as concrete as my peers’, but there’s a degree of hesitancy I face when I try to voice these concerns as they continue to invite me to more meetings.

Overall, I agreed with a lot of the concerns Cass presented in this article. I think that these phenomena happen because, well, “Kim Kardashian’s New Baby Bump” is a much sexier title than “Political Debate Continues in White House.” These sensationalist people, items, and events naturally attract attention, but I think it’s up to the individual to recognize the narrow range of news he/she is receiving. There are a lot of news outlets available at our fingertips, so it’s up to us to recognize that we’re no longer updated on the world. While it might take more time to read articles that pertain to the world, I think that’s an important tradeoff to make.

“In your most active personal digital network, why would you say you choose to contribute? Do you think of users differently based on the amount of their activity? How do you think this varies across different social media platforms?”

I decided to look at Instagram for this question, because I think it has the flexibility to exist for different purposes for different individuals. I’ll talk about why I use Instagram, how I see others on Instagram, and how it can be different for each user.

I’ve already talked about why I use Instagram on previous blog posts, but just to summarize I see Instagram as a way for me to explore my artistic potential through curating moments in my life. I am nowhere close to a professional photographer, but I think Instagram has made the idea of being a photographer very approachable for the everyday user. There is a much lower threshold with Instagram to start exploring photography than if I were to look into investing in a DSLR and different lenses should I pursue photography in reality. While I think Instagram is generally defined as a social media platform (because you are able to follow friends and comment/link their photos), I think I’m also beginning to use my Instagram profile as a portfolio of sorts. In fact the other day, I decided to delete a photo I took of Meyer because I felt like I hadn’t put enough artistic thought into that photo as opposed to some of my other photos. So I think in one sense, this social media platform has become an avenue through which I can see my own development as an “artist.” This is also not detached from the friends I follow, many of whom are also more concerned about the aesthetic of their photos.

Instagram is interesting because it can also be created for-profit. I have friends who get sponsors from clothing companies on Instagram, and they receive clothes and money if they showcase specific brands in their clothes. In fact, people can make a living on Instagram. We talked about how Facebook allows users and groups to pay for advertising, but I think Instagram showcases a more obvious form of how technology and social media can generate profit or act as a medium for business transactions.

Finally, how I view different content creators on Instagram is very similar, I think, to how I view my peers on Facebook. I pretty quickly assumed that people who post Instagram photos that are not similar to mine or my friends’ (ex: in terms of quality or what is actually being photographed) don’t share the same interests as me. I am reminded of on Facebook where maybe people whose thoughts, style of writing, or even frequency of posting statuses might deter me from feeling connected to them. All in all, I think there is definitely overlap between Instagram and all other social media platforms; but at the same time, Instagram also offers enough novelty to succeed as an additional social media platform.

A required reading for our next class is by Garrett Hardin titled “Tragedy of the Commons.” Tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon that most of us have definitely of heard, and probably know something. This article incorporates examples in philosophy and human population to explain this phenomenon, and while I found this reading hard to read through (please feel free to tell me if I misread something!), I want to talk about two things in particular. I want to talk about possible roles of government and the phenomenon of the tragedy of the commons in fishing in detail.

Freedom was mentioned frequently in this article, but I didn’t see many references to government and I wonder if government could help alleviate tragedy of the commons. I agree that “the commons… is only justifiable under the conditions of low-population density,” and am specifically thinking of China’s One Child Policy. Under rapid population growth, China decided to introduce this policy and saw population growth die down and stay down as the country developed. Population growth was a topic for my Human Biology core, and usually the cycle of a nation starts off with rapid population growth but eventually plateaus to about replacement rate. A developing nation has the incentive to have many offspring to work in the fields (in addition to poor medical care, so not all your children would even survive in the first place), but in a developed nation there is enough education and work that parents see the importance in investing in a child, which averages to a little over 2 children per family for highly developed countries like the US. What are your thoughts about government injecting itself into something that could be as intimate as growing a family in order to better the world?

Another example of the tragedy of the commons also comes from the HumBio core, and I wanted to mention it just to provide perspective on how this exists beyond what is mentioned in the reading. Fishing is a prime example of tragedy of the commons because the ocean is a public space and it’s difficult for each fisherman to internalize the environmental effects of catching so much fish. Not only might they not know how they are specifically harming the earth, but they are also pressured from their competitors to fish more extensively. Our reading talked briefly about allocation of these spaces based on money; while I appreciate this, it’s often hard for these plans to actually work. First of all, it’s one thing to have a law that states what will happen, but another to actually have someone enforce these rules and punish those who don’t follow them. Oftentimes there isn’t enforcement on the playing field, so these laws don’t cause any significant change (keep in mind all the time and money costs that would also raise to have enforcement). Moreover, monetary rank wouldn’t help much either. If I were a poor fisherman and I ended up paying a more experienced fisherman to fish for me, that’s just a shift in the responsibility of catching fish – the quota hasn’t changed. In conclusion, fishing is just one example of a modern tragedy of the commons, and I’m sure we can find others that definitely relate to social media.

Perhaps the solution is to change our attitudes about these phenomenon. Maybe the media should tell us that fish are bad for us, or that it’s socially looked down upon to have more than 2 children. What are your thoughts?

“Reflect on a time when you were part of an event (on the Internet) that was trying to establish social capital. Given our class discussion, how do you think that event could’ve been improved or gone better?”

The most recent social capital event that I remember partly participating online for was a #blacklivesmatter protest in Paris when I was studying abroad there last quarter. I heard about the event because I was invited, and felt compelled to stand in solidarity for what was happening back home in America.

The primary mode of communication I had for this event was through a Facebook event page. It was organized by a few people (they were the administers of the event page) and they informed us of the schedule and logistics of the demonstration during the hours leading up to the event.

Because this is a demonstration, some of the characteristics that we talked about in class that stood out immediately for me were “promoting good, preventing evil,” activist, and public. However, I felt like this event was lacking in mutual assistance. I understand that for big organized events like these there inevitably are leaders and organizers. However, when they posted photos of the signs that we should hold up during the demonstrations, a question that came across my mind was why they didn’t allow us to contribute as well to making signs. I believe my questions comes from a reciprocal perspective, and I had wanted to feel more integral to this event than just a random individual who went for the sake of it. From the organizers’ perspective, I feel like this mutual assistance would have greatly helped them as well as they were given the responsibility of creating signs and contacting news channels and updating Facebook at the same time. Through an event as grassrooted as a demonstration, it seemed to me that they didn’t take advantage of how willing a lot of people were in helping towards make this event happen.

“Reflect on a time when you were part of an event (on the Internet) that was trying to establish social capital. Given our class discussion, how do you think that event could’ve been improved or gone better?”

The most recent social capital event that I remember partly participating online for was a #blacklivesmatter protest in Paris when I was studying abroad there last quarter. I heard about the event because I was invited, and felt compelled to stand in solidarity for what was happening back home in America.

The primary mode of communication I had for this event was through a Facebook event page. It was organized by a few people (they were the administers of the event page) and they informed us of the schedule and logistics of the demonstration during the hours leading up to the event.

Because this is a demonstration, some of the characteristics that we talked about in class that stood out immediately for me were “promoting good, preventing evil,” activist, and public. However, I felt like this event was lacking in mutual assistance. I understand that for big organized events like these there inevitably are leaders and organizers. However, when they posted photos of the signs that we should hold up during the demonstrations, a question that came across my mind was why they didn’t allow us to contribute as well to making signs. I believe my questions comes from a reciprocal perspective, and I had wanted to feel more integral to this event than just a random individual who went for the sake of it. From the organizers’ perspective, I feel like this mutual assistance would have greatly helped them as well as they were given the responsibility of creating signs and contacting news channels and updating Facebook at the same time. Through an event as grassrooted as a demonstration, it seemed to me that they didn’t take advantage of how willing a lot of people were in helping towards make this event happen.

The biggest reading for our next class on social capital was “Tracing Civic Roots” and one of the main points in that reading talks about the difference between horizontal and vertical structures in the north and south sides of Italy, respectively. I thought that this reading was surprisingly fitting to our discussion last class about teaching styles, and wanted to analyze that further in this blog post.

One of the main drivers for my writing about teaching styles was this New York Magazine article on Asian-Americans in the workplace (you don’t need to read it unless you have a lot of time, because it’s really long). The basic gist of this article discusses how Asian-Americans struggle to obtain higher positions in the workplace because of the education styles they were exposed to while growing up. As a culture, we’ve been taught primarily to just achieve high test scores but when it came to talking to people, we tanked hard because we never had enough practice through school (or even in our homes) to develop a confident voice.

To me, the education system I grew up in reminded me a lot of Southern Italy, or a vertical network. There was a power disparity in the sense that only my teachers had the correct answers and we, as test takers, had to obtain them. Coming to Stanford, however, I became exposed to more horizontal networks like our discussions. There is a mutual sense of reciprocity, trust, and engagement where it feels highly productive without singling out one specific person as the “leader” of the entire class. I am still grappling to come to terms with how I should view the education system I grew up with, I have no doubt in my mind that discussion groups (aka horizontal networks) really do produce high yield and high performance.

Yesterday, Buzzfeed released a video and article about “Things Everybody Does But Doesn’t Talk About, Featuring President Obama.” Yup, featuring President Obama. I thought that this was really good timing to write a blog post because I just finished listening to the President’s keynote here at Stanford on cybersecurity. After watching the Buzzfeed video and listening to his summit keynote, I wanted to look more into how I, as a young citizen of America, view President Obama through my various social media outlets.

A particular phrase that I found really interesting during the summit is when President Hennessey was introducing President Obama, and said that he was our nation’s first (or most) “interconnected” President. I found that extremely powerful because I think that phrase shows how powerful social and digital media have become for mass communication and connection as we think back to our discussions, readings, and examples in class.

I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone that using Buzzfeed as a medium is a strategy for President Obama to reach out to the younger demographic. And it worked for me. Not only did I find the video humorous and relatable, but seeing the President on a website that I frequent makes me connect with and trust him more. Furthermore, I was able to remember the date February 15th for enrolling in health care plan from the video, which is part of the President’s message.

Beyond Buzzfeed, I’ve seen countless GIFs of the President on my own social media platforms like Tumblr or Facebook of him talking about this wife, high-fiving Kevin Durant, or even about his State of the Union. All of these instances make me think he is, frankly, one of the raddest presidents out there, and I know that part of my feelings towards the President are undeniably influenced by what I see about him on my social media platforms. Moving forward, I am interested to see how social media can influence how we view our future presidents.

A reading that I particularly enjoyed for next week’s class is by Wellman and Rainie called “The New Social Operating System of Networked Individualism.” While there are many points that I would love to expand on (like the idea that we now “rely less on permanent membership” or the concern of us living in a “diminished world where trust is lower, social cohesion is reduced, loneliness is widespread…”) the theme that stood out the most for me was the idea that you now can’t really escape work. The article says:

“Home and work have become more intertwined than at any time since hordes of farmers were out into their fields. The interpretation of home and work goes in both directions… Their home is their workplace.”

I found this quote particularly powerful because my parents have their own business. Growing up, my parents’ business was my second home: if I wasn’t at home doing homework, I brought homework to my parents’ business. Business phone calls were sometimes conducted during dinner, or invoices would need to be prepared before bedtime. Today, my mom spends a majority of her time working at home because of the versatility of email, and upon reflection it seems like work (unfortunately) has become her life.

We always mention the possible implications of our lives as they transition onto the Internet, and I never really thought of social media (or broadly, technology advancements) as a completely negative thing. However, work was a new perspective that I hadn’t considered before reading this article. Even as college students we are already constantly checking our emails, and I think that in itself has implications and consequences for how we view work. Personally, I believe work is an area that is negatively affected by technology. Even though it has made communication easier and more efficient, it has really seeped into our everyday lives, and I don’t think that’s a tradeoff I would want to have.

“Think about the social media platforms that you use on a regular basis. What kind of image, if any, do you try to portray online? Do you create separate personas for different platforms? How representative would you say your online profiles are of you as a whole?”

I feel like I answered this question in my first blog post for this class. But to summarize, I think that I definitely have a case of “identi-frag” online; Instagram is where I publish artistic photos that I would take, but Snapchat is where I send ugly selfies to my friends when I’m bored in the restroom. Tumblr is for me to curate music or blog posts, and Facebook is where I remain updated on the social lives of my friends and communities.

One of the most resonating points that was brought up in class was the concept of social norms. While there is still an online etiquette for social media platforms, I think it’s different from the societal norms that we witness in real life. While users online can step away from an offensive comment or refrain from responding right away, it’s harder to mask a face expression or cover the awkwardness of a silence in conversation in real life and in real time. As a result, I think that my online profiles are very representative of myself as a whole, but it’s different from what I might feel comfortable sharing in public to friends. Because let’s face it, you need to have a filter for speaking in public. My guilty obsession of K-pop, for example, is something I wouldn’t want to talk about with my friends in real life. Instead, I would activate that persona when I’m on Tumblr or YouTube or K-pop blogs, where I feel like I am in a more acceptable and comfortable environment. In conclusion, I do use different platforms for different uses, and I do think my whole self is being represented online, but there is still a difference in what I would share online versus in-person.