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?

If you happened to watch the Superbowl you may have seen the following McDonald’s ad. The will be offering food and randomly ask customers to “pay with lovin'” my way of hugs, phone calls to friends and family telling them “I love you” or even selfies. This is a lot like their “I’m lovin’ it” slogan.

In Seflie City we see different trends in different cities across the globe, such as more smiles in Brazil. I’ve been to Brazil and the people tend to be very happy even if they don’t have much. One of my close friends went to Russia and told me about their culture and how men tend to be a little more reserved, which seems to follow the idea that men also take less selfies and that both men and women smile less. I think that there is an evolution of marketing with the changing technologies and customer people’s behavior.   Phone calls were once only for men discussing business, then women made it more social and eventually people started using telemarketing to sell things. I know I making big leaps in my logic here but I feel like new trends like the selfie are for a while disregarded by the media in terms of marketing, but eventually the force of the trend becomes so strong that one by one they all begin to get more involved and now I am starting to see more selfies on TV and in ads for cell phones and they tend to look at it in a positive light. McDonalds has been suffering from competition (new chains like Shake Shack and 5 Guys) and because of new health trends but this ad will be getting more people to come in to their stores because they are advertising love and showing McDonald’s in a more humanistic light.

In a strange way McDonalds is trying to play into what Foucault’s said, “different cultures have seen [technology] as necessary to cultivate (and discipline) the self” (Losh, 4). People like to think that technology is helpful and can makes them better people and McDonald’s encouraging people to take a step in the right direction by offering food. I think if they were really genuine about it they wouldn’t have needed to make an ad because (I feel like) love isn’t boastful, now that everyone ones due to the Superbowl ad, people will be flocking to McD’s hoping to be a chosen one. It takes a lot of the surprise out it it. Anyway… it’s interesting how they are promoting selfies as well as themselves.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-to-accept-selfies-as-payment-2015-1can

The article Facebook Lifts Ban on Exposed Nipples in Breastfeeding Photos reminded me about a controversial Time Magazine cover a few years ago that featured a mother breastfeeding her three-year-old son with the caption “Are You Mom Enough?” The cover shocked many, drawing both praise and criticism. There are two sides of the argument when it comes to the publication of these types of images. There’s one side that argues that the push to cover up women’s bodies is a part of a double standard attached to female nudity due to the widespread use of sexualized female bodies in advertisements and pornography, overall adding to the objectification of women in the media. The other side argues that the shock factor created by these types of images indicates that these photos should remain private and are not suitable for the public.

However, a New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/business/media/time-and-newsweek-magazine-covers-catch-eyes-and-clicks.html?_r=0) introduces a third angle to view this topic. These images are shocking, yes, and people choose to share them specifically because of this fact. Shocking images garner more attention from viewers and help spread the publisher’s name—it’s a marketing tool. The article cites other provocative covers and the huge spikes in readership that they produced. For example, David Remnant, the editor of The New Yorker, is quoted saying “the provocative covers sold like hot cakes” Perhaps people choose to share provocative posts or photos online for a similar reason—they gain more attention and stand out on social media. So there are three points of view to look at breastfeeding photos (or any provocative post) on Facebook: the argument to block them is oppressive, they are not suitable for public, and they are a ploy to gain more social media following/attention. It can be difficult to make executive decisions about these kinds of issues that have multiple sides, but I believe Facebook made the right decision. When people feel oppressed, it is important to consider their point of view. If others don’t agree, they can simply choose to unfollow those that do.

One of the focuses of chapter one–on God and relationships with God–caught me off guard somewhat, since we have not really tackled the subject within this class much as well as DH101 (except for last week when we spoke about Muslim Rage–although that still was more of a media-centered conversation). I have read a lot of Christian literature that resembles the ideas that Rettberg presented. I have often heard in order to experience growth it is necessary to reflect on the self as a whole, rather than solely the good or bad things, therefore, the concept of keeping a journal for confessional purposes rang somewhat familiar to me. One time, I heard a speaker mention that mega-church pastor Joel Osteen says that it is good to keep a diary of all the good things people say to you or about you and forget all the bad things. I understand the reasoning for something like this, although I believe we should not have these types of “filters” (like Rettberg mentioned in chapter two) on ourselves.

I found this Calvin and Hobbes comic that helps illustrate my idea further; Calvin sees himself as perfect and in no need of change. I think we can all agree that we are not perfect and that we all could improve in at least one way or another in our life. I apologize if I am sounding preachy in this post, but I believe the idea of looking at ourselves with #nofilter is very important. Most of us can probably testify that we have either taken a selfie or edited a picture of us to make us look better than we may actually appear–no one takes low angle shots for a reason. This all relates to an idea we have touched on in class discussion about how we display the best version of ourselves. But is this “best version” of ourselves truthful? Or is it no version at all?