Back in the day, around the time of the invention of mass communication tools, there was a preference for control. Without mass communication, like radio and newspapers, dictatorships and totalitarian states would not have been possible because audiences had no … Continue reading
This is a short film directed and produced by French filmmaker Eleonore Pourriat. The film features a matriarchal world, turning society on its head with women being presented as the dominant gender. It was originally produced in 2009 and entered into … Continue reading
When asked to pick out my best three blog posts for BCM112 and analyse them I thought, well how can I do that? They’re all so wonderful! After reading through them all I finally settled on my copyright post, “What’s in a Name?”; my clicktivism post, “Solve this problem, Facebook” and my cyberhate post, “Don’t CyberHate on Me”.
“What’s in a Name?” Focused on Shakespeare’s plagiarist history, playing on the hypothetical situation he would have found himself in if copyright was around in his time. I believe I applied copyright theory to Shakespeare in a way that is simple to understand for a broad, possibly global, audience.
I addressed the issue of copyright in a way I understood having studied Shakespeare for some years. In retrospect, I believe I could have been a lot more technical applying the copyright theory. I could have gone more in depth with some of the topics I brought into my argument and elaborated more with my views. Overall, I believe this post is easy to understand, but I definitely could have made it more technical.
“Solve this problem, Facebook” was about the concept of clicktivism and whether it helps activist groups and movements or not. I used the Human Rights Campaign on Facebook and the Occupy movement as examples, drawing on widely known and fairly recent causes.
I used reliable links to support my argument and included extra articles for my readers to consider. My introduction is quite bitter and I believe I could have improved it somewhat to include a wider audience.
I used a wide range of sources for this post and believe this is my best blog post so far. I supported my argument with reliable sources with altering opinions.
“Don’t CyberHate on Me” is my most recent BCM112 post and addresses the issue of cyberhate (obviously), sexism and misogyny online. Looking back on it, I believe I was quite strong with my opinion and could have stepped back from the issue to give both sides of the story. More links to outside sources would have supported my argument better and given more to the reader to consider.
I believe these posts are my best because they don’t go off topic as much as my others do and apply theories.learnt in the lectures to examples that are relevant to the topics and Convergent Media Practices as a subject.
In each of my posts I could have applied these concepts to the technology I am following for my final essay. If I had done this I may have understood each topic better.
I am woman hear me roar!! Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
I could write forever about the injustice of sexism, misogyny, the objectification of women in the media, trolling, cyberhate and bullying online. We all know it’s there, but are we going to do anything about it?
Only last week, a woman commented on an NRL Facebook post I was following. She was attacked for her team preference and her gender. So she did what any footy fan would, she fought back. It took another person to step in and say “seriously, you guys are fighting on facebook, no one wins”.
How right that person is – “no one wins”.
The internet can liberate. Liberate countries. Liberate groups of people. And liberate viewpoints. It provides a megaphone for opinions to be voiced. Not all opinions are useful though.
How is this conducive to an accepting society? It isn’t. It achieves nothing. This only amplifies that some people still hold views from ancient history. This is 2013, seriously, we’ve lived with each other for millions of years, why are we unable to accept each other? No one wins when opinions like this are posted for the world to see. The commenter may feel great about him/herself for a short amount of time, but when their self satisfaction wears off they’ll just move on to another victim. The people viewing this, liking this, agreeing with this discourage others with alternate opinions from speaking out against them. And we see the faults of society. I don’t want to stereotype, but every time I see barbaric views like this I think of an oily haired, overweight and dirty person living in some kind of hole in the ground (with an internet connection, obviously). But we don’t actually know who these people are. The anonymity of being online allows social media to become their playground.
There are always those that are dumb enough to use their real names though. Sexist Facebook Dudes on tumblr name and shame people who practice sexism and misogyny online. Users post names of people who post offensive, sexist and cruel comments about women on Facebook. Another group taking a stand and exposing sexism is Sexism! As Seen on Facebook.
From what happened to the woman who voiced her opinion on the NRL I am now apprehensive about giving my viewpoint online. That she was attacked for being female has discouraged me from commenting on Rugby League posts. This article outlines how witnesses can generalise if they see sexism. This is the case for many who experience or see hateful messages online.
How can this be addressed? We could delete hateful comments. We could name and shame. We could fight back. All of these are plausible, but what if deleting comments becomes so wonderful we start deleting opinions we disagree with? We’ll see less diversity of opinion. If we name and shame, there’s every possibility others will troll the commenter causing a cycle of hate. Fighting back will only escalate the problem.
In my opinion, the only way we can seriously address this issue in a way that will have lasting effects is to educate. Educate children from a young age to understand the concept of diversity of opinion and that attacking someone for their gender, sexual preference, colour or religion does not achieve anything.
How would you address these issues?