https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/the-problem-with-teens-and-instagram-109530386647.html

After reading Danah Boyd’s article regarding “super publics” I was left truly reflecting just how public social media outlets like Instagram are. By simply having your profile on public literally anyone around the world can look at what you posts and get an insider look at your perceived life. Now I don’t see this as a necessarily scary or new idea but in regards to the affects it has on teenagers, I will simply say I’m glad I’m at least of legal drinking age now as these outlets become larger and larger. I say this because I was reading an article on yahoo parenting that discussed some of the issues teenagers have when they post to Instagram. In the article we presented with a 6th grade boy who posts a selfie of himself on Instagram with his fathers empty beer bottle. Now you may think this kid is just trying to be funny, he probably thought so too. However, it is in instances like these that people take no consideration for the potential consequences that may come.

In the article we find out that within minutes of posting the beer selfie, the boys parents demand he take down the picture. Now I am all for privacy do I do believe that these kids need some adult supervision online because they are not yet adults themselves. Also, had the boy not taken down the picture the consequences may have been severe and affecting not only the boy, but his parents. A simple post like this has the potential to get the boy detention, suspension, and maybe even expulsion. Worse would be a visit from child protection services. I remember when I was in high school and myspace was the preferred social media outlet. Some members of my high school soccer team had posted pictures to myspace of a house party they threw that had underage drinking. Because myspace was relatively new and it was just expected that young people used it, there was yet no regard to the implications/rules for posting and tagging. Needless to say you can expect where this story leads…. Many of the team were disqualified for that season and had further punishment by the school and parents.

When people post online, they are posting for the world to see. Quite literally they are posting not for themselves, but for others, for strangers, sometimes intentionally. With an ever growing desire to be popular or to fit in with standard norms of what is cool, the constant need for followers and likes has taken precedent over self privacy. It appears to me that some people are more concerned with having a growing fan base then they are the risk of stalkers or social/family/legal problems. I have had my photos on facebook create family drama because there are pictures of me at gay bars and much of my family lives in conservative South America. This has all led me to post much less and truly consider what I post before I do. I know of “super publics” and of the social rules and standards of social media. More importantly, we need to educate our youth of this.

Who cares about public opinion when you have God to worry about? I wrote this post at 4am in the morning and had the weirdest idea to google “what God thinks of selfies”. Interestingly, I found numerous articles on the topic, but for purposes of brevity, I will be referring to this one- http://students.opwest.org/blog/articles/2014/04/christian-selfies

The article first establishes the Christian method of questioning to all standards of behavior: “Is this a good thing? How does this affect me? What impact would it have on others?” The article also mentions that part of the “normal, ascetic life of a Christian is to be aware of, and reflect on the motives that prompt our actions”. Saint Catherine of Siena is also quoted as saying that we must dwell “in the cell of self-knowledge in order to better know God’s goodness”.

In view of this, it appears that Christians ought to abstain from taking selfies those who take them (and worse, post them) are interpreted as being narcissistic and completely lacking in self-awareness. The article elaborates by mentioning vanity as detracting from our humility and focus on God, and developing pride that challenges a willingness to serve God. It was also funny to me that they were enraged to discover that the word “selfie” had made it into the Oxford dictionary in 2013. Rather than just a social taboo, it is interesting to consider how such a seemingly harmless modern phenomenon might conflict with traditional religious teachings.

On a separate note, I was surprised that the selfie stick did not come up in this week’s readings. Given the negative hype that surrounds people who take selfies and post selfies, it would seem even more outrageous that a product was manufactured for the specific purpose of facilitating an activity and behavior that is shrouded in such negativity. On a broader scale, it is interesting to note how products are manufactured to suit our changing and evolving needs, and that products with a single use/ purpose are becoming increasingly popular.

On a recent trip to Disneyland, I noticed many couples and even families carrying selfie sticks. Thinking about my own practice of selfie taking, I take selfies when there isn’t anyone to take a photo for me, but I still want the moment to be captured. In a similar fashion, I imagine couples and families prefer to take their own photos, rather than have someone else take them (I always think asking is a little bit awkward and people surprise me with how bad of a photograph they manage to take). Combined with flip camera technology, it just seems a lot easier to get a sense of what your face looks like on camera before actually taking a picture, thereby eliminating terrible things like ugly drivers’ license photos. Vanity or not, I think our desire to look our best (if not better) is what drives such “self-photography”.

Within this week’s readings, the issue was raised revolving around appropriate vs. inappropriate times to take selfies. These appropriate or inappropriate times can depend on the current circumstances, the location, the people involved, and more. In Elizabeth Losh’s essay discussing feminist media theory within the Selfiecity site,  she describes the cultural conversation about when selfie-taking can be seen as taboo or one that tip-toes the line between the private and public sphere.

This question of when is it right or wrong to take a selfie in this day and age reminded me of this Buzzfeed article that reported the online reaction to people taking selfies at one of the most recent tragedies, that of the Sydney Siege in late 2014. As many recall, a cafe in Sydney was taken over by a lone terrorist and hostages were taken during the standoff, which resulted in the deaths of two and injuries in others. This Buzzfeed piece, entitled “Outrage as Bystanders Take Selfies at Sydney Siege,” collected and reported on various Twitter reactions to people, mainly tourists who were visiting Sydney, who had been caught taking selfies in front of the cafe scene during the 16-hour standoff.

Of course, most of the reactions that were screenshot and presented in this article condemned this act of taking a selfie in front of a hostage crisis. Many claimed that taking such a photograph was selfish, disrespectful, and was just plain inappropriate at such a catastrophic event as this. Some even marked this showing as the end of decent humanity. Thus, this moment in history has definitely been categorized by a majority of people as an inappropriate time to take a selfie. Like some of the case studies within the reading for this week, like those on the Auschwitz selfie and selfies during funerals, these times have been designated as not the right time to take such a photo.

So, what makes a time appropriate or inappropriate to take a picture of yourself using your phone/camera? If all selfies are seen negatively as narcissistic, selfish, or egotistical, why aren’t all times in life considered inappropriate to take a selfie? I thought that this point might be an interesting one to flesh out, as I feel like my friends and I know what could be considered the right time to take a selfie or not. We can see and understand why there would be outrage over selfies during the hostage crisis. But how have we learned to know the difference between when/where is right and when/where is wrong?

We see the idea of ‘super publics’ described in Boyd’s reading for this week defining an ever changing public. Thus using examples of Bloomberg dressing the ‘local’ paper as The New York Times, and referencing his audience as New Yorkers, not a village in Kenya.  This idea of dressing an audience is very pertinent to the selfie world.  The particular facial expression, smile, or random object in the background is  inherently trying to market and be shared with a particular public.  However, we can see this go terribly wrong when selfie etiquette is not properly met.  We often see this within the controversial Obama selfie at Mandela’s funeral or the Auschwitz selfie.  While  both may have been done in good taste, does that mean that they are actually okay?  When searching selfie etiquette on google the first thing that pops up is a list of 8 simple rules that selfie takers should be aware of and take precaution to.

1.Get permission. If you want to take a photo of yourself, with no one else in the picture, by all means, go ahead. However, if someone else is in it, make sure the other person is okay with it. Let her know what you plan to do with it and stick to your plan. Don’t post anywhere different without her permission.

2. Safety comes first. Never take a selfie in a situation that can put your life or health in danger. For example, you may think you look really cool driving along the highway with the window open, your hair blowing in the breeze. If you pull out your camera to shoot a selfie, you’re putting not only your own life in danger, you’re risking anyone else who just happens to be on the road.

3.Don’t succumb to bad taste for humor’s sake. If you are in a situation that you think is funny, stop and consider how it will appear to others. Never take a selfie in a public restroom where someone else may be in an embarrassing position or situation.

4.Be respectful. If you are at a holocaust museum, taking a selfie in front of an exhibit shows a lack of respect for those whose lives were lost in this horrific era. People’s emotions are still raw over what happened, and they are likely to be that way for centuries. There are places where selfies are never appropriate, including a funeral, ICU or critical care unit in a hospital, and disaster site where people died.

5. Show kindness. When you see someone who is less fortunate than you, don’t stop and pose for a selfie. Instead, do something nice like give a blanket to a homeless man, offer to get something off a top shelf for a handicapped person, or hold a door for a young mom struggling with toddlers and packages.

6. Offer help, not a photo. If you witness an accident or someone getting injured, call for emergency help and stay with the person. Don’t whip out your cell phone and start snapping selfies as you assist. The only time you should take a picture of the situation is if it can be of some help later to show what happened. Never post the photos of a tragedy or accident on social media.

7. Don’t post intimate selfie shots. I’ve recently seen some selfies that have made me blush, and I don’t get embarrassed easily. My first reaction is to block those people from my social media feed because it’s clear that they have bad taste. It might be fun to make out with your boyfriend on the bus, but it’s inappropriate to share it with the world.

8. Don’t overdo selfies in social media. If you want to snap photos of yourself waking up, eating your morning cereal, working out at the gym, walking into your cubicle, having lunch with friends, leaving work at the end of the day, and having drinks with friends, go right ahead. Just don’t think everyone wants to see every single aspect of your day. Choose one good one (preferably one that is interesting to someone other than you and your mama) and post it. If you do more, people may see you as narcissistic.

http://etiquette.about.com/od/Manners/fl/8-Selfie-Etiquette-Tips.htm

This list seemed to me the most logical and practical way of taking a selfie.  We often see crude things such as these unfortunate photos that don’t take other human beings into consideration.  While the selfie may be for you, you need to think about the public around you before you share that photo.

(How not to selfie)

http://www.oddee.com/item_99032.aspx

While reviewing the images on the link above, I became really angered that someone would actually think it was okay to take a photo at that particular time.  Especially the selfie of the homeless man, as well as the selfie of the suicidal man.  These two examples are done in bad taste and make you question what public was there target audience?

Selfiecity clearly demonstrated the demographics of the selfie and how cities can demonstrate a particular emotion through a photo.  However, it would be interesting to see if they came across selfies in bad taste, or what they categorized as inherently a ‘bad selfie.’

danah boyd’s article, “Super Publics,” explains how much public spaces have changed in regards to “who is the public.” She states that with the internet, the public becomes much larger and much more diverse. She also mentions how there is no sort of filter when it comes to what is posted online. People post everything, and she states: “Open digital expression systems coupled with global networks took it one step farther by saying that anyone could operate as media and expose anyone else.” Everyone will therefore expose themselves. This, to me, related to blogging! I personally love blogging even if no one is listening. But the fact that so many people are blogging about their experiences, their daily lives, their feelings, etc is a way of exposing yourself. This actually reminds me of the past article we read about blogging being like modern diary writing! And the people you communicate on your blogs (I have met various friends blogging) are part of your super public! Before, people would meet friends at work, at school, through mutual friends, and maybe through family. But now it isn’t that way anymore. People make friendships online and even date online! These super publics can be beneficial in many ways. There is more diversity and more ideas being spread around. The public at my high school reflected the experiences that you were able to have in that particular setting, but this would be very different from a public in New York City. While super publics can be positive, when boyd mentioned this it made me think: What happens when you cannot predict who will witness your act because they are not visible now, even though they may be tomorrow? Who is reading my blog? Maybe a strange person who now knows I went to LACMA on this certain date. Super publics can be uncomfortable as much as they can be good.

One of the case studies included in this week’s reading, “How My Personal Photo Turned Into an Internet Meme” by John Mueller, recounts a story about how the author’s humorous photoshopped picture went viral. The final image depicts Mueller tossing his young son at an unreasonable altitude. Once available to the public, the digital manipulation went over most strangers’ heads, with some questioning his parenting and others manipulating the image further to comment (not particularly thoughtfully) on traditional gender roles.

This case study really illustrates danah boyd’s concept of “super publics,” which refers to our evolving perception of audience. Boyd contends that while in the past “public” could only be defined through its association with a location, we now need to account for changes in technology that allow “public” to exist without necessarily being a coherent entity, and for content creators to broadcast without being able to identify, even in general terms, who they are engaging. Mueller’s photo, once in the hands of the public, was misinterpreted by those who used it as a basis to evaluate his personal life and appropriated to make arguments that did not reflect his own viewpoints. An argument could be made that, because of the image’s “viral” quality, it could be hard to determine the original context of the photo, and the subjects of the photo could be seen as responsible for whatever form in which the photo was being viewed.

Mueller’s story was reminiscent of other individual-based memes, like “Ridiculously Photogenic Guy” and Alex from Target, whose likenesses were broadcasted without their knowledge (until, of course, the subsequent online activity could not be avoided). These stories lead to important questions about ethics regarding technology use and ownership of digital content. In Mueller’s case, his image should have been protected by copyright under other circumstances, but the nature of the Internet made those laws hard to enforce. Because Mueller, as the subject of the photo, became a point of curiosity and scrutiny, he and others like him have been prevented from exercising control over their privacy. Their images were captured and circulated without their knowledge, and the ensuing exposure to boyd’s “super publics” was probably unsettling for them at the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

In the blogpost by Danah Boyd, she clarifies a phrase previously used in an essay of hers. Boyd had crafted a phrase of her own called, “super publics” in order to further support her theoretical topics. Boyd first defines the ever-shifting coherency of “publics”, whether it be referenced as an adjective or a entity where you can visit. The traditional, physical boundaries of intertwined publics in real life is clear, but Boyd points out that in the digital life, publics become “really screwed up”.

The digital structure of a public that can be accessed online collapses the traditional factors of a IRL public. Thus, Boyd felt it necessary to construct the phrase, “super public” to differentiate these online publics from physical ones. She begs to ask theoretical and hypothetical questions about the social consequences in a “super public”. Towards the end of her post, she takes sides with the kids of today who are considered to be shamelessly exposing themselves on the Internet. Boyd instead blames those who partake in this “paparazzi” culture that she describes, where those who attempt to hide from the super public eye are victimized. Through this construction of “super publics”, Boyd seeks to understand the behaviors people engage in while communicating within these super publics.

It was an interesting blog post so I lingered on the page a little longer and read the comments from various users. One particular comment caught my attention which was from a user named Andreas who wrote, “Ah. Yet another variation of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.” This curious mouthful was a hyperlink so I followed it until I reached a Wikipedia page called Online Disinhibition Effect. Apparently the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, which blames online factors like anonymity to turn users into antisocial psychopaths, derived from this “online disinhibition effect” theory. Mind you the disclaimer at the top of the page warning about the lack of citations and possibility of original research. Still, this so-called effect was an interesting read that raised some of the topics we went over these past weeks including cyber-bullying.

In Danah Boyd’s online post, she defines the term “super publics”. She begins by explaining that publics are the intersecting spheres we exist in. There is not necessarily one public, but multiple depending on the situation. Public could refer to a park or even a city. The definition of what public becomes completely different when something is posted online. Boyd explains that this information is now so accessible, the word public can’t even encompass it. Henceforth she refers to the digital world as “super publics”. There are still multiple spheres of the public, but there are less and they are much broader. This post reminded me of the readings in week three from Boyd’s book about teenagers posting online only to an intended audience. Because people cannot know who will be viewing what is posted, they can only aim it towards a certain public.
Although we had already addressed the broadness of the super publics in a negative light, I decided to look at what she was saying in a more positive light. We already know that the Internet has made our world even smaller and this idea of super publics helps to illustrate how easily information can be shared in a space even more than public. With the web browser Google Chrome, even language is no longer a barrier in the super publics. Google Chrome allows you to translate any webpage to your preferred language in seconds. In the example given by Danah Boyd in the post, she mentioned how a farmer in Kenya with access to the internet and knowledge of English could read the article in the New York Tjmes, but now the Kenyan farmer just needs access to the internet (with Google Chrome) and the ability to speak any language. Any person in the world can read any article or blog that is posted in any language, as long as they have access to the Internet. When pictured like this, it is obvious that the super in “super publics” is necessary.

There are several accounts of celebrities sharing their thoughts on resisting active social media presence. The reasons can be supported by many of the topics and key terms discussed in class. Most notably the term super-publics and selfie, seem to fuel the celebrity fire fight against social media and dana boyd’s “digital architectures”.

In Vanity Fair’s article, over a dozen opinions are cited and all generally conclude to a level of self discipline and disinterest in the selfie.

One of the key concerns with the “super public” is the unknown audience you reach. Now as a 21 yearold non-celebrity, my personal audience is pretty much limited to people I have allowed in my circle online. However, in the case of celebrities, they have an immense magnified surveillance in both public spheres. 

Kristen Stewart, the lead actress of the Twilight movies comments, “Twitter f—s me over every day of my life. Because people go, ‘I’m sitting next to Kristen Stewart right now’ and then [the paparazzi] show up.” In this example, the online super public is a parasite that feeds off of tangible public space.

Chris Hemsworth would argue that a narcissistic and selfie filled online presence, is abusing your success as an artist. “I think there’s a danger of being overexposed with that stuff. The mystery of who you are is what keeps people interested in wanting to see you on the screen. Also, it’s easier for them to believe you as that character if they don’t know too much about you. It’s hard not to be overexposed these days with the Internet.”

On the note of selfies, I’ll let Amy Poehler have the final word.

“Most people are so f—–g boring that they should shut up, and you should have to get a license. And I’m volunteering to be in charge of the licenses . . . Go write it in a journal and mail it to your grandma.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2013/12/amy-poehler-selfies

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2013/11/movie-stars-shunning-social-media-twitter

Selfiecity definitely poses some interesting questions within the ongoing dialogue about selfies. Gleaning over the imageplots, I noticed different overall hues for each city. Upon further inspection, the interactive selfiexploratory revealed interesting observations. These observations, however, were not made without very particular, political implications. As I continue to be surprised with how impactful – and non-superficial – selfies actually are, these perimeters for the selfiexploratory are entangled in socio-political context.

Elizabeth Losh offers common feminist critique of Selfiecity, “First, gender is presented in strongly binary terms, with “female” and “male” as the main categories separated by a territory demarcated by a question mark” (9). As it was noted, other mainstream social sites, like Facebook, have begun to include terms that span the gender spectrum (e.g. cisgender, transgender). It seems oversimplified to take these selfies (which must be from sites including Facebook) and extract them from the context set by their users.

Beyond this critique of the project, Losh herself finds the work helpful in some ways. One way in which Losh finds Selfiecity helpful in her own “articulation of media ecologies that include user-generated content from smart phones that promote the datafication of human subjects” (7). In particular, “transparent mediation” which Losh defines as “a significant subset of images on Selfiecity in which the apparatus shooting the photo is present within the frame” speaks to a very prevalent trend in selfie-taking. With the precedent of Parmigianino’s self-portrait in a convex mirror, including the way in which the selfie was achieved could be interpreted as a more honest approach to self-representation. Losh uses the example of the “come-hither look a long-haired woman in Bangkok imitates the gaze of a manufactured desire on the face of a commodified cover girl, but we also see her camera phone case covering the edge of her chin, and we can look into the glinting aperture of the lens of her device just as easily as we look into her own eyes” (9).

Losh’s example offers a deep, multilayered gateway into a larger discussion. A thick description would say that this is a self-taken image of a young girl. However, from a feminist perspective, as Losh ruminates, this means so much more. Like Losh notes, authorship is key here. A girl’s agency in taking her own photo breaks with art history’s trend of “men looking/women appearing”. Yes, the woman still appears here, but she takes the photograph, frames, mediates, and filters it. But then again, what are the social influences on these forms of mediation? I have always noticed and pondered over certain trends in facial expressions and poses (e.g. duck face, chicken arm pose). I feel like I see the same face/pose in all pictures. As Losh points out, this girl imitates the “gaze of a commodified cover girl”. This really raises the question of what it means to be a feminist today. We might be auditing our own images, but how are these images influenced?