Midterm Essay
Brianna Ormond
Keyword Medium Post
Does anyone notice when they breathe? Or how they walk? The same goes for participation. Participatory behavior is so common, it’s second nature to us now. Just as a student would raise their hand in class, people can like a tweet just as easily. Participation is often linked to physical community involvement, however, online communities exist too. Where we once associated participation as voting is now also including commenting on a Facebook post. In the context of online, users also engage by tweeting, sharing, and reposting content. But, within this digital culture are its limitations. Due to access restrictions, open interpretation, and the form in which people engage highlights the problems within our digital participatory culture.
Christopher Kelty highlights several definitions of participation including, “The action or fact of having or forming part of something; the sharing of something” (Kelty, 228). Historically, participation was “…more common as a verb, [to mean] to take part; to have a part or share with a person…]” (Kelty, 229). But what about those who aren’t part of something? Those who are unable to claim a community at which they belong to are simply unable to participate in society.
We live in a digital age, but not everyone can afford the advances in technology. According to the Pew Research Center, “… household incomes below $30,000 a year (29%) don’t own a smartphone.”(Anderson). Imagine all of the critical conversations people are being left out of simply because an iPhone costs upwards of $1000. Some trivial connections are happening on Facebook for example, but they’re connections nevertheless. Similarly, it is argued that social media supports economic inequality like capitalism due to, “…[the] uneven distribution of communicative competence, and the reduction of public debates to a legitimization of dominant opinions created by…elites” (Fuchs, 69). Our society today operates digitally, from Facetime calls to private DMs. Without the means to buy into our digital society, people are removed from discourse and interpersonal relationships.
Similarly, everyone does not engage in the same platforms. Twitter is more geared towards both younger generations and scholars, while Instagram’s audience is celebrity and influencer-based. That being said, the same conversations can’t transpire throughout multiple platforms because of different target audiences. It’s difficult to participate in a space where one may feel out of place, too old, etc. Not to mention, each of these spaces holds different means of conversation. On Instagram, people only speak through comment sections or DMs (both of which could be disabled). Whereas on Twitter, it is an open platform. DMs could be restricted but almost anyone can retweet and comment on your tweets.
That is why the idea of the public sphere doesn’t exist within this context. “The public sphere would, therefore, require media for information and communication and access by all citizens.” (Fuchs, 60). Simply put, the public sphere is how society is open to all people to freely engage with. But if all citizens don’t have the means or ability to participate, “access by all” isn’t realistic.
Another issue with digital participatory culture is that all forms of participation aren’t genuine. This is due to “involuntary participation, [which] is a frequent feature of modern technical platforms…that emerges because of the constant demand…” (Kelty, 236). This constant demand is seen especially in social media. There is an unwritten understanding that there has to be a frequent amount of posts, tweets, and status updates to signify your status on these digital platforms. These updates can become so routine and addictive that “[your] social media persona…[can overtake your] real-life personality, too.” (Dollar). The online image could become your brand, only a portion of your truest self. Therefore, one is engaged with society but it is a false contribution to their online community.
On the topic of self-branding, it has become common on social media. You can’t spend five minutes on Twitter without seeing a promoted post. Or if you were interested in seeing product reviews on Youtube, these videos are likely sponsored by companies as well. As a result, it can negatively impact the influencer’s personality. They can lose touch with their natural character and become an actor of sorts. These influencers “…create a message and a strategy to promote the brand called You.” (Peters). They detach themselves from their organic personality to create a façade that they deem more marketable and appealing — therefore, more economically beneficial.
Additionally, participation isn’t necessarily agreeance. It was already noted that participation exists in the form of reposts, retweets, etc. But, your ideology may not always align with what you allow on your timeline. For example, some people retweet tweets that they find comical or ignorant. Essentially, they are used as a public form of ridicule amongst their followers.
For example, a liberal user my retweet a pro-Trump meme in the form of mockery. According to the Washington Post, “Some Twitter users, including many journalists, routinely retweet messages that are simply notable or newsworthy. Because they do this regularly, their followers understand that retweets do not imply agreement.”
However, those who are not followers aren’t granted an understanding of one’s digital language. As a result, non-followers are left to create their assumptions. These assumptions come to fruition due to “context collapse”. Context collapse occurs when it’s hard to decipher one’s identity based on the audience or environment — or in this case, digital platforms (Marwick, 360). Relating to the previous example, a non-follower would assume that the liberal Twitter user is indeed a Trump supporter. Therefore, participatory culture allows an open interpretation of one’s identity. More specifically, you are at risk of having your own identity formed for you.
Lastly, participatory culture in our digital platforms can be dangerous, more specifically the content that people engage with. But the issue isn’t the content, it’s who’s posting it. The theory of social determinism states that the “…technology itself [doesn’t matter, only] the social or economic system in which it is embedded” (Winner, 122). Therefore, all users have the right to participate online but it becomes problematic when they engage with dangerous postings. For comparison, guns aren’t naturally dangerous. They only become dangerous when someone pulls the trigger. Incidentally, the advancement towards online groups has pulled the trigger as well.
Online communities may influence negative behaviors. Such is seen with the increase of alt-right groups. These racists and nationalist groups alike take advantage of the easy access social media provides. A major platform is YouTube, in part to their monetization of user-content. This allows these groups to earn income off of each video they upload. As a result, it encourages them to continue with their rhetoric. Plus, it also motivates them to promote their channel. YouTubers tend to end their videos with some variation of, “Thank you so much for watching. Make sure you share, comment, and subscribe for more videos.” With the promise of financial backing, they will continue to promote their channel to their growing viewership.
Not to mention, their infamous algorithm that keeps users watching related content. “The algorithm is responsible for more than 70 percent of all time spent on there.” (Roose). As a result, watchers are virtually sucked into the wormhole that is neo-Nazism. Where viewers may watch one seemingly innocent video, the suggested media increasingly gets more extreme.
Explanation of how videos on YouTube go viral and its algorithm
For example, Caleb Cain began learning about social justice warriors and in a matter of 48-hours, ended up watching racist videos and suicides (Roose). But is YouTube to blame? They do have policies against matters like hate speech, for instance. Also, controversial YouTuber Logan Paul was heavily criticized for recording and uploading a dead body, to which YouTube ultimately deleted. But with the number of uploads that website receives — “…more than 500 hours of video every minute…” — it is nearly impossible to deeply analyze every video for violations of the terms agreement (Roose).
It’s easy to say that YouTube needs to do a better job as a solution to this growing issue. And they should. YouTube is one of the largest social media platforms and they shouldn’t want their brand (or its parent brand Google) to be associated with racist, misogynistic hot takes from white men. But, they should hire a grander division towards hate-filled messages. YouTube staff has to monitor several infractions, like spam and copyright. So, there should be a division dedicated specifically to those who upload these violent images and messages. But participants need to be held accountable as well. Users need to be more aware of the posts they decide to indulge in. Neo-nazis nationally recruit online, putting younger men at risk of falling victim to these ideologies, just as Cain did. It is understandable that sometimes, curiosity simply trumps logic. However, there should be some part of consciousness that tells you a video with the word “coon” or outlandish conspiracy theories does not need to be in your watch history.
Presently, participation is defined similarly. It is still conflated with politics, such as “influencing government actions…” (i.e. voting) (Casteltrione). But as technology advances, participation is now also defined alongside social media. It seems as if ‘participation’ is understood to be something broader than its historical implications. As we as a society evolve, so do our vocabulary and its definitions. I don’t expect the classic definition to disappear, but I do expect it to be less associated with physical community action. Instead, it will reflect our new society as it continues to find solace with online mediums.
Modernly, ‘participation’ means something beyond its historical definition. Instead, it seems to coincide with the definition of “the relation between individuals and collectives” the most. That’s because participation holds various forms today. This definition holds for protesting and for conversations on social media timelines. This definition, however, still excludes the instance in which all of society’s members cannot engage and are therefore excused from said relation.
As technology advances, so does the society that created it — including language. However, despite the improvements we have made with the growing definition of participation, the culture within itself must improve as well. One suggestion would be to create more platforms that grant free access without the use of smartphones. Companies have made massive amounts of money off of the inflation of these products, so there shouldn’t be an expectation that they will reduce their pricing. Another suggestion would be for users to understand online language and etiquette. When one is more active online, the more likely they are to understand internet culture. More specifically, people would be able to decipher genuine versus fraudulent interactions. Additionally, they would be able to understand sarcasm, since that gets lost in translation online without the context of tone or body movements. Lastly, people need to participate wisely. It’s ludicrous to believe that someone won’t post something offensive. But people need to be aware of this behavior and not to succumb to it.
Not to mention, online sites should have a duty to monitor these irresponsible takes and remove them. Also, social media sites should place harsher suspensions and removals of these accounts, as seen with Alex Jones. I would like to find a definition of participation that accurately supports each of my grievances and encompasses everyone, but I don’t think it truly exists.
Sources/Bibliography:
Anderson, Monica, & Kumar, Madhumitha. (2019). Digital Divide Persists Even as Lower-Income Americans Make Gains in Tech Adoption. Pew Research Center.
Borchers, Callum. (2017). Retweets ≠ endorsements? Oh, yes, they do, say the Hatch Act police. The Washington Post.
Dollar, Clara. (2017).My So-Called (Instagram) Life. New York Times.
Casteltrione, I., Pieczka, M. (2018). Mediating the contributions of Facebook to Political Participation in Italy and the UK: The Role of Media and Political Landscapes. Palgrave Commun 4, 56.
Fuchs, Christian. (2014). Social Media and the Public Sphere. University of Westminster, London, UK
Kelty, Christopher. (2016). Digital Keywords-Participation. Princeton University Press.
Marwick, Alice E. (2013). Online Identity. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Peters, Tom. (1997). The Brand Called You. Fast Company.
Roose, Kevin. (2019). The Making of a YouTube Radical. New York Times.
Winner, Langdon. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? The MIT Press. Daedalus, Vol. 109, №1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? pp. 121–136.
