Guest Post: What’s in a Category: Definitions of Authenticity, Transparency, and the Social-Bot

Guest Post: What’s in a Category: Definitions of Authenticity, Transparency, and the Social-Bot

By Eseohe Ojo on March 30, 2020 | Tagged with , , , , ,

What’s in a Category: Definitions of Authenticity, Transparency, and the Social-Bot

by Nicholas Lindsay Lewis

After Surveillance Capitalism, Soshana Zuboff’s 2018 magnum opus on data and the platform economy, it is safe to establish two premises. The first, that the process of identifying users is how social media platforms monetize their operations and the second, that the medium of social media has encouraged users to communicate and interact with a wider range of digital actors for advice, direction, and self-affirmation. Therein lies the inherent value and danger of social media conglomerates and their monitoring of online behavior.  

In our daily desire to socialize and stay up-to-date, we leave behind digital traces and tracking these identifiable bits of information to a single device, a specific profile of user with a combination of attributes has become the lucrative practice of web platform development not only to sell us product, but to peddle influence as well. The markets have created indexes of meta-tags used to cluster individuals into groups and categories.

The Digital Privacy Act as of 2018, requires domestic and foreign companies doing business in Canada to implement better practices managing ’personal information’, data revealing” identifiable individuals” (PIPEDA, 2015) section 2 or face financial penalties for damages related to breaches. However, there exists relatively little regulations outside libel and harassment case-law (McVelvey, Dubois, 2017) for the misuse of these personally identifiable traces being used to manipulate groups of individuals abilities for informed critical decision making.

There exists no ethical framework in how data-brokers, ads agencies, and platform developers sell control on how we choose to consume product, or ideology. In many ways they have chosen it for us by repackaging the coded categories we unwittingly occupy. Getting social media developers and data-brokerages to disclose their full range of categorical listings has proven to be a legally exhaustive pursuit, awarding them transparency admirations, and small wins when they release a fraction of the lists.

Often, these companies maintain that their categories are proprietary and essential to their business funding models. Much like data-brokers, social networking sites aren’t interested in being transparent in the full range of categories they use to cluster individuals for fear of raising any red-flags to regulators and activists (Crain, 2017). They argue, this surveillance allows them ways to minimize the gamification of the social media system by disruptive actors, and by segmentation and differentiation, they may better protect the authentic user from the inauthentic. 

Though recent congressional testimony has proven that Facebook is not willing to fact check political advertisements.(Wood, 2019)  With the transparency of coded categories researchers may be able to understand how they are then operationalized against us in the form of social-bots. 

Bot-masters utilize fleets of social bots to emulate users that become instruments in messaging and advertising. (Wooley, Howard 2016) Companies have known that their reach is only as strong as their brand reputation.  In the age of reviews, comments, likes and linking through networked platforms, our collective voices have increased in scale.  User evaluations and inputs garner traction and help promote various private and public interests. These types of interactions have a profound effect on how individuals will spend and invest time in any given activity, service and product. The most valuable promotions these companies can rely on is user interactivity whether through ‘authentic’ or ‘fake’ users.

At one point, bots were messaging-games, that you could download and communicate with via MSN or Skype- largely unsophisticated and amusing. Now bots operate to fill the digital space and prompt and influence user interaction to the financial gain of both the platform and the advertisers. More nefariously, some bots operate to disrupt and dissuade collective movements. 

This is not to assume all negative discourse, is primarily generated by fake-profiles. Trolls unlike bots operate as lone actors and could be legitimate users who seek fulfillment at provoking reaction. They could be engaged in misleading other users for monetary reward indeed and also may have a grudge to settle by being purposeful combative or interruptive. 

However, the coordinated inauthentic activity that occurred in the April 2019 Alberta elections are a sign of something else, in particular the management of public sentiment (Weber, 2019).  These collaborative efforts to stimulate human agents and digital sock-puppets has become a new tool in the arsenal of marketers, political campaigners, and media conglomerates. 

Like most oppressive forces that attempt to sway or limit our ability to discern truths from falsehoods, or reality from fiction, they seek to control and marginalize us to better manage us.  Through education and organization, dissenters have peacefully and legally fought back against attempts to pacify our concerns, and muddy or manipulate our perceptions. How we educate future users of social media about the social media definitions of “authentic” behavior may be key to how we develop our critical media lens and navigate with more confidence around the activities of social-bots, but more importantly in this quest to understand authenticity is the need for these platforms to be transparent about how they categorize “behavior” and heed intervention. 

In the age of targeting-advertising, we have to begin searching for our own ways to push back against the bots and their masters, because social media sites like Facebook would rather attempt this on their own, leaving real users out of the know. 

 

References

Crain, Matthew, “The limits of transparency: Data brokers and commodification” (2017). CUNY Academic Works. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/qc_pubs/169.

Fenwick McKelvey & Elizabeth Dubois, “Computational Propaganda in Canada: The Use of Political Bots.” Samuel Woolley and Philip N. Howard, Eds. Working Paper 2017.6. Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda. comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk<http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/>. 32 pp https://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/politicalbots/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2017/06/Comprop-Canada.pdf.

Weber, Bob. “Federal Probe Finds “Co-Ordinated” Social Media Bots In Alberta Election”. Msn.Com, 2019, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/federal-probe-finds-co-ordinated-social-media-bots-in-alberta-election/ar-AAGUWfW. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.

Woolley, Samuel, & Philip N. Howard. “Automation, Algorithms, and Politics| Political Communication, Computational Propaganda, and Autonomous Agents — Introduction.” International Journal of Communication [Online], 10 (2016): 9. Web. 4 Oct. 2019 https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6298.

Wood, Charlie. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez And Elizabeth Warren Got Behind The Facebook Employees Slamming Mark Zuckerberg For Allowing Lies In Political Ads”. Business Insider, 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-and-warren-back-facebook-employees-over-political-ads-criticism-2019-10.

 

Featured Image: chatbot from mohamed_hassan used under Pixabay License.

Read More | No Comments

Guest Post: Social Media Lockdown on the Job Hunt: Who is to Blame?

By Eseohe Ojo on March 16, 2020 | Tagged with , , ,

Guest Post: Social Media Lockdown on the Job hunt: Who is to Blame?

by Patty Facy

It seems as though every millennial who has gone job hunting is aware of the Social Media Lockdown. Close your accounts, hide all mentions of your name, untag yourself from unsavoury photos and content; build a fortress to protect you from the wandering eyes of prospective future employers. Most of the time, the content hidden away in this temporary lockdown is relatively harmless, hinting at hobbies and the things we do to fill the time when we are not at work. While the distinction between our personal and professional selves has long existed before the influx of social media, it is easy to see how the confluence of personal and professional content online, and the ease with which personal content can now be accessed, muddies the line between the two. 

What we don’t seem to question is the point where it became appropriate and accepted for employers to look for our personal selves on social media in the first place. Listicles and self-help articles tell us to accept the fact that employers will look for us online, and extoll the value of curating a best online version of ourselves; one that hides our “unfavourable” activities and puts forth the image that we are always on our best, professional behaviour [2][4]. 

Why is the onus on job seekers to present themselves “appropriately” to strangers on the corporate inside? To what extent is it appropriate for employers to browse through job seekers’ social media presence in the first place, and what issues arise from this practice? To answer this, I want to focus on two issues that emerge from this emerging practice of employer social media combing: the boundaries of online versus offline space, as well as the implications of judging the personal self alongside the professional self.

When we compare some common online practices with their offline counterparts, a trend emerges: certain activities that are commonly practiced and accepted online have severely negative connotations when performed offline in the physical world. Lurking and stalking online is considered a guilty pleasure and common practice within friend groups (Google “fbi meme social media” to get a sense of the in-jokes), while following people around in the real world is an invasion of privacy with legal consequences. Most millennials will recall the “Piracy is a crime” commercials that permeated movie theatres and television channels during the late 90s, urging people to recognize that pirating media online was as bad as stealing a car, a purse, or a television in the real world.  The lack of a physical touchstone to our actions clearly implies a lack of real-world consequence; or so we think. 

When it comes to employer social media combing, the real-world impacts are very clear. If the selection of the best candidate for the job is meant to be predicated on work experience and the professional self, then why do employers choose to consult job seekers’ personal social media in the hiring process? Social media combing draws attention away from the professional trajectory of an individual and onto their personal life. It is inevitable that the personal habits, values and hobbies of workers in a workplace will differ, and sometimes not align at all. What matters in the workplace, however, are the skills and experiences that individuals bring to the position. When employers allow the personal social media presence of workers to influence their hiring decision, personal biases get in the way of professional needs and goals.   

Women in particular are at a disadvantage in this practice of social media combing. Studies show how, when employers can access personal profiles or photos of candidates, female candidates are more likely to be judged by their appearance rather than their work experience [3][5]. The voyeuristic quality of social media further enables an online male gaze centred around objectifying women, instead of centering them as qualified coworkers. Rather than being judged on the experience they bring to the table, women are assessed on what is considered to be the gendered norms of appearance and behaviour for a “professional woman.” The subconscious biases of employers are likely to emerge in other spheres as well, such as race, religion, politics, sexuality, and more. The practice of social media combing, then, arguably undoes many initiatives against workplace discrimination, such as the Employment Equity Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and affects employers’ attempts to make informed decisions about a candidate’s qualifications for a position. 

So, what are the solutions?

Actions can be taken by both employers and job seekers to make the process of social media combing more equitable. One business writer and entrepreneur has advocated for a balance between a professional and personal social media presence by keeping both visible, but making a clear delineation between the two [1]; for instance, having both professional and personal Instagram accounts, but clearly stating in the bio which is which. Employers should be required to respect the personal boundaries of online content as well. While this is difficult to enforce and monitor, requiring employers to sign or claim in writing that the personal social media presence of prospective employees did not factor into their hiring decisions can help keep their combing in check. While these are only two suggestions, a general shift in the discourse is necessary to increase accountability on the part of employers to see, and ultimately respect, the boundary between the personal and professional self of prospective employees in the online job hunting process. 

References

[1] Douglas, A. (2015, January 7). Retrieved from https://www.business.com/articles/how-to-balance-your-personal-and-professional-identity-on-social-media/

[2] Gelber, M. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.monster.com/career-advice/article/social-media-tips-job-search

[3] Haughton, J. (2016, February 23). Retrieved from https://www.managers.org.uk/insights/news/2016/february/is-social-media-driving-gender-discrimination

[4] Herman, L. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.themuse.com/advice/how-to-clean-up-your-social-media-during-the-job-search

[5] Lemoniick, M. D. (2014, October 10). Retrieved from https://time.com/3478317/beautiful-women-job-discrimination/

Featured Image:Data Security by Stock Catalogue via flickr (CC by 2.0)

Read More | No Comments

Guest Post: Are Instagram Stories As Safe As You Think?

By Eseohe Ojo on March 2, 2020 | Tagged with , , ,

Guest Post: Are Instagram Stories As Safe As You Think?

By Priyaa Sathiyaseelan

In the year 2006, Time magazine chose the People of the year to be You – to recognize the millions of people who anonymously contribute user-generated content to Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, and the multitudes of other websites featuring user contribution. Because without the data that we put out there, the internet would not be what it is today. Each day, 95 million photos and videos are being uploaded on Instagram and 350 million posts on Facebook. But other than recognition from Time magazine, is there anything we get? 

Yes, we do. For the content we share, we get gratification in terms of likes, comments and recognition, and that is almost instantly. This instant gratification is what encourages people to post their photos and videos. On the flip side, while we are caught up in this frenzy of sharing, we often end up leaving tons of our photos out in the online world, making our personal data available to strangers and susceptible to misuse. This instant gratification one derives from social media comes at the cost of privacy. But all that seemed to change in 2013.

In 2013, when Snapchat came up with the novel method of time-sensitive sharing (ephemeral content) through stories, everybody turned to it. Knowing that your content disappeared after a specific time period meant data privacy fears reduced, thus increasing gratification. This also removed some inhibition from users who would otherwise not actively use social media. Users’ active participation is crucial for any successful site and statistics have shown that ephemerality ensured that. So naturally, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp followed suit and incorporated 24-hour stories/statuses. (Stories in Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook and statuses in WhatsApp)

In their research paper Snap. Share. (Don’t) Care? Ephemerality, Privacy Concerns, and the Use of Ephemeral Social Network Sites, Tina Morlok, Kerstin Schneider, Christian Matt and Thomas Hess studied the effects of two determinants of ephemeral social network sites (ESNS), specifically Snapchat: perceived enjoyment (what we’ve been referring to as gratification) and privacy concerns. After a comprehensive online survey that gathered 463 responses, they found that perceived ephemerality affects individuals’ social media usage by counterbalancing privacy concerns; and thereby increasing perceived enjoyment. This finding wasn’t something new, it complements existing literature which suggests that ephemerality is linked with positive emotions and that the specific characteristic of ESNSs (i.e. time-constricted data) may lower users’ concerns.

To validate the findings of this research qualitatively, I talked to five people who used ephemeral content with varying levels of active participation. Though it was expected that they would be having lower privacy concerns, it was surprising that none of them even gave a thought about privacy concerns while posting stories/statuses. I wanted to understand this mentality and investigated further. 

On further prodding, I found that the reason they started using ephemeral content is not for its secureness, but because it gave them more exposure and subsequently more enjoyment. Another interesting finding was how they decided what qualified as a post or a story. 

  • To them, posts were serious matters. They had to be chosen with careful consideration. 

“This was going to be on my account permanently (unless I deliberately chose to delete it). Do I want it to portray what it reflects now even after 10 years?”

  • Stories could be anything, a passing thought, an opinion, a politically controversial meme that you currently find funny. 

“They will be gone tomorrow, so why care what I put out there?”

You can notice that people’s privacy concerns are lowered when talking about stories because they are certain it will self-destruct within a day. This makes sharing uninhibited, without any qualms.  

It’s important to remember that this isn’t as secure as you think, your content can still be screen shot or screen recorded. Unlike Snapchat where the concerned person is notified when someone screenshots their content, Facebook-owned social media platforms don’t have that feature. Even having that feature doesn’t necessarily mean your photo is secure. Your data is still vulnerable to privacy attacks. And by lowering perceivable privacy concerns, people let their guard down when it comes to sharing stories. This might result in them posting controversial, unsafe content that might affect them when they least expect it.

I’m not asking you to stop posting. 

All I’m asking you is to bear this in mind the next time you post a story. Stay aware and stay safe!

References

Featured Image: Instagram Social Media Symbol from geralt Used Under Pixabay License

Read More | No Comments

Time for TikTok? Security issues and the meteoric rise of TikTok

By samantha summers on February 24, 2020 | Tagged with , ,

After its launch in 2017, video-sharing app TikTok has become one of the world’s most popular apps. Filling the cultural void left by the fall of Vine in 2016, it became beloved by teenagers all over the world almost overnight. Developed by Chinese company ByteDance, the app allows users to upload videos only a few seconds long. It has become an international sensation, being the second most downloaded app in the world in 2019 with over 700 million downloads.[1]

In 2019, it saw over 500 million active users monthly, and 1 billion video views daily.[2] Its revenue totaled $179.6 million USD in 2019 and despite a $5.7 million USD fine in February 2019 for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, it has had an almost non-stop increase in popularity since it was first released.[1] [3]

Still, TikTok isn’t all fun and games. The app naturally collects a great deal of data on its users, and its security systems are apparently full of holes. A Check Point report found that TikTok is vulnerable on many levels. Between being relatively new and untested, having a website from which researchers were able to extract user data, and an internal messaging system which can be exploited for phishing purposes, there are a variety of ways for TikTok users to be made vulnerable.[4]

This is of particular concern to the United States government. With ByteDance being Chinese-owned, the belief is that if the Chinese government were to ask for TikTok user data, it would be given over. This concern about government involvement in the collection of TikTok data has resulted in the US Military putting a ban on its use by service members. There have also been reports of TikTok censoring materials which may be construed as anti-China.[4] Of course, TikTok is just one example of many on the rise of Chinese A.I. initiatives which are gaining popularity worldwide, such as Baidu, Tencent, and Alibaba.[5]

What does this mean? Well, it’s the same with any app. Be careful about what you post and with whom you communicate. Be selective about apps having access to your camera, microphone, and geotagging capabilities. If you can find the time, read the Terms of Service. Don’t share too much on the app. TikTok is really no more dangerous than any other app, but just bear in mind that that doesn’t mean it’s watertight, either.

[1] TikTok beats Facebook, Messenger in 2019 with over 700 million downloads | Digital Trends, 2020

[2] How TikTok, a new video-sharing platform, is changing the way we communicate | National Post, 2020

[3] TikTok hit with record fine for collecting data on children | CNN, 2019 

[4] Major TikTok Security Flaws Found | New York Times, 2020

[5] Joe Rogan and former CIA agent say Tik Tok is actually a “cyber-threat.” | Dexerto, 2020

[6] A.I. in China: TikTok is just the beginning | Fortune, 2020

Other resources

Written by Samantha Summers

Edited by

Feature image: Logo Tik Tok, Wikimedia Commons

Read More | No Comments

Guest Post: Look at Me! Look at Me!: Instagramming an Altered Version of Ourselves

By Eseohe Ojo on February 18, 2020 | Tagged with , , ,

Guest Post: Look at Me! Look at Me!: Instagramming an Altered Version of Ourselves

By Delicia Ansalem

Image created by freepik

Many young people, myself included, rely on social media quite a lot. As a visual platform, it’s easy to share experiences within seconds, sometimes even over-documenting.

Overall, a person’s profile and highlights can say a lot about them. When you meet someone or want to find out more about someone, we immediately look to find their Instagram page. 

Odonnell (2018) explains that we preserve and present our identities through visually documenting our lives through photography and video — an ongoing process that is readily available at any second of the day in the palm of our hands. 

This maintenance and management of an online presence could be for reasons such as career advancements and potential opportunities to name a few. Instagram is the ‘cool’ new platform for constructing an online presence, yet questions around authenticity do arise. The ideal selves that we create online — are they even authentic?

Let’s explore how Instagram plays a large part in this digital identity that we’ve created for ourselves.

It is essentially a tool for self-promotion, self-expression and social interaction. We present our ideal selves through filtering our content and we maintain social relationships through geotagging and hashtagging, which get conversations flowing.

When we post photos or videos on our story or profile, we often geotag the location and will most likely include hashtags. This opens space for many others on the public platform to find you. Through geo-tagging and hashtagging, it allows for people to take a peek into your lifestyle and the self-branding you build online. This ‘realness’ still conceals imperfections of everyday life. We only post highlights of our lives, not our downfalls. Essentially, we seek the approval of our peers.

The saying goes, “If you didn’t post it, did it really happen?” — which sadly, is quite true. We’ve immersed ourselves in a culture where we conclude that if we don’t post about whatever we did, it never happened. This goes a lot for posts around vacations and niche photo spots around the city, such as Nuit Blanche and the Christmas Market in Toronto.

In a sense, we build our online identity and brand for social validity through the sacrifice of our privacy. We document our lives whenever and wherever and will post without a second thought. 

Looking at documentation, Instagram acts as a visual album that allows users to store their pictures along with captions. In terms of the coolness factor, it comes down to Instagram being a fairly new form of social media which allows for people to self-promote and gain more ‘likes’ and comments.

The constant hunger for popularity is quite common amongst young adults who are still exploring self-identity and will do so through the approval of their peers.  

Lastly, creativity comes in the form of captions and filtering images strategically for a structured ‘aesthetic.’

Instagram has become a popular digital sphere for users to construct their own identities and it will only become larger.

Are we essentially creating a profile of ourselves that is formally and carefully constructed and not in anyway ‘authentic’ to our true selves? Not all of us do, but do we post just to keep up a certain aesthetic and image of ourselves — to be considered “likable”? 

Resources

Featured Image Illustration courtesy of Defne Inceoglu

Image in Post: Influence marketing concept with smartphone created by freepik and used under freepik license with colour redesign by author, Delicia Ansalem

Read More | 1 Comment

Artists’ Series: Implications of the Future: Hito Steyerl’s This is the Future

By defne inceoglu on February 11, 2020 | Tagged with , , , , ,

What does the world feel or look like through the eyes of a drone camera?

How has technology changed conflict?

Will robots take over the world?

How do we contend with the loss of a friend – who’s likeness becomes the symbol of a revolution?

How does AI interpret the sound of breaking glass?

Hell Yeah We F–K Die by Hito Steyerl (2016). Photo courtesy of author.

These are some questions that were posed to audiences at artist Hito Steyerl’s solo show, currently on until the end of February at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO).

Steyerl is well regarded as one of the most influential artists of our time. The AGO describes her practice succinctly in this excerpt from their website:

“Steyerl is a storyteller. Using her signature essayist documentary style – poetic narration supported by a unique blend of pop cultural images, documentary footage and computer-animated sequences – she presents a vision of our world that is at once humorous and frightening.

Her playful explorations of technology and power structures result in darkly ironic cultural critiques that feel particularly relevant today. She blends the personal with the political, the satirical with the serious, while addressing a range of topics from economic collapse to globalization. Steyerl draws us into her world, asking us to reflect on our own roles in shaping the not-so-distant future”.

Gallery installation. Photo courtesy of author.

At first, this show did not seem to strike as something I would normally include for the Digital Tattoo Artists’ Series, but hear me out. A lot of what Steyerl is talking about through her work is inherently about humanity and its relationship to technology going forward – the dangers and the wonders of it.

Take her piece ExtraSpaceCraft, a massive video installation that engulfs the room in its footage. A drone flies through the sky, observing the National Observatory of Iraq – now in disrepair and derelict.

It cleverly gives voice to this drone as it observes the landscape – the drone considers its own life as a drone, its function and its purpose. This anthropomorphized machine gives away to funny scenes of a parallel world featuring “cosmonauts from a fictional space agency [who] inhabit the observatory”.

It really implies a sort of loss of freedom or sense of self upon the oppression of a state. Politically charged, it shows a life not often seen, perspectives not covered by Western media. To give a drone a voice is to give a machine a life, therefore blurring the lines between ourselves and the potential of technology.

Image still from ExtraSpaceCraft (2016) showing the autonomous drone living its life now as an animated sheep. Photo courtesy of author.

This is echoed in the piece Hell Yeah We F— Die, “[combining] the five words that have appeared most frequently in the titles of songs on the English-language music charts over the past decade”. This work includes videos of robot technology testing labs, “in which humanoid robots are subject to abuse, both real and simulated, all supposedly in the name of progress”. These kinds of videos have gained popularity on the Internet over the past few years, with Boston Dynamic posting to YouTube their robotic development. Here again, we see this sort of collusion between humanoid robotic inventions and the advancement of technology.

Leading to satirical YouTube compilations:

The invention of humanoid robots have huge implications for us all. How does technology factor into our everyday lives, and how will it shape us in the future?

Installation view of ExtraSpaceCraft (2016). Photo courtesy of author.

The sentiment of collusion or compliancy with robot life is tackled in the piece, Robots Today, a film that looks at the ongoing conflict at the Turkish-Syrian border. In the video, Stereyl asks the popular iPhone AI Siri a number of questions, including– is artificial intelligence implicated in modern warfare? A heavy question indeed; and a timely one. How do these new technologies as helpful as Siri, but as sinister as drone warfare, create a complicated ongoing relationship with our futures – one that we will have to wait to unfold.

This exhibition made a strong impact on me – Steyerl’s themes were conveyed with playfulness and elegance. She creates an alluring atmosphere to be critical within – drawing together modern tech mixed with whimsical application. It is a real pleasure to walk around in, with many avenues, areas and artworks to interact with.

The most important element of her work, however, is narrative. Steyerl’s strong voice guides the visitor along without confusion or alienation. She shows an honest perspective that is both enchanting and alarming, something which left me thinking about the work for many weeks following my initial visit.

Check out Steyerl’s exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario, currently on until February 23, 2020.

https://ago.ca/exhibitions/hito-steyerl-future

Written By: Defne Inceoglu

Edited by: Samantha Summers

Read More | No Comments

Dealing with Online Hate

By Eseohe Ojo on February 7, 2020 | Tagged with , , ,

Quotes in the post are from Dylan Marron unless otherwise indicated.

Online Hate takes various forms. It ranges from the slightly uncomfortable to the threatening, but it is never any less difficult to deal with.

Digital Tattoo was at the 2020 UBC Student Leadership Conference held on January 11, 2020 and had a booth at the Student Involvement Fair where we talked digital identity and security issues of concern to students and gave away some cool swag.

One of the topics covered during the SLC was online discussed in the keynote delivered by Dylan Marron. He spoke about dealing with the overwhelming experience of being at the receiving end of online hate. Delegates were asked to refrain from taking videos and photos during the keynote which I believed contributed to an open and honest conversation.

 

About Dylan Marron

Image copyright to SLC 2020 Website used under fair dealing https://students.ubc.ca/slc/student-leadership-conference/conference/keynote

 

Dylan Marron, as his bio on the UBC SLC website notes, is a writer, correspondent and the most recognized face of Seriously.tv, where he has created viral smashes such as Sitting in Bathrooms with Trans People, Shutting Down Bullsh*t, and his signature Unboxing series.

In 2017 Dylan launched his Podcast “Conversations with People Who Hate Me” – in conjunction with Nightvale – where he engages his internet trolls in a lively and funny way. The podcast has been a hit and racked up 2,000,000 downloads and a New York Times magazine profile of Dylan to boot. In Spring of 2018, Dylan also gave a TED talk “Empathy is not Endorsement.” in Vancouver, BC.

He is an IFP Gotham Award and Drama Desk-nominated writer, performer and video maker. He is the voice of Carlos on the hit podcast Welcome to Nightvale, an alum of the New York Neo Futurists, and the creator of Every Single Word (Tumblr’s “Most Viral Blog” of 2016 and Short Award Nominee).

 

What Dylan Shared at SLC and Insights I Gained From It

Dylan Marron’s keynote shed light on experiences of online hate in multiple ways – in relation to who a person is as well as in relation to the work they do which can sometimes be very different but can also be linked.

 

#1 Distinguish haters from critics

He discussed how overwhelming it can be to be on the receiving end of such hate, how hard it is to deal with or sift through it and the tendency we have as humans to view all hate as the same because of how it makes us feel regardless of their varying intensities. It is important to be able to distinguish haters from critics.”

 

 when dealing with online hate, we put a lot into the bucket of hate

 

#2 We are human. Revisit that humanity

He discussed how some of the hate he has received in the past led to his podcast “Conversations with People Who Hate Me” and one of the most striking moments for me was him saying “you can hear someone’s humanity over the phone”. I think this is a very important part when dealing with online hate. Both the receiving and dishing ends sometimes blend into a cycle as clapbacks and re:clapbacks occur, forgetting that on the other side is a human with feelings, thoughts and reflections.

 

Empathize without endorsing

 

Some of the experiences from his phone calls showed that once people realized this, they were more open, listened more, and even in some cases, changed their minds on issues.

#3 Don’t take it personally.

This is best explained by this quote from Entrepreneur.

 

“Don’t take it personally. When people communicate online, they are not interacting with you; they’re interacting with a computer screen. The computer is great at disseminating your message to millions, but it’s terrible at making the messenger human.”

 

#4 Be realistic about what you can achieve through conversation

No matter what we do, online hate might never go away just as it hasn’t gone away offline. Dylan’s keynote was open and truthful about situations in which nothing changed despite the phone calls. He however also showed that although things might not change immediately, there it always a potential for long term change. Conversations can turn around and listening to people is important. You just have to be realistic about the change you expect to see.

 

The Internet can distort reality yet have real life consequences

 

#5 Your digital safety is important

Another interesting thing for me was Dylan mentioning how much of the lives and profiles of his “haters” he could see or gain access to. While Dylan is a more public social media figure than most, I easily assume that most people have private social media profiles especially when engaging actively with tense topics. Hearing this reminded me of the importance of securing your digital identity, online presence and engagement. It is especially important when facing online hate to enforce your online privacy and security. Protect your personal details and information.

 

#6 Your mental health is important. Explore the safety of unplugging

Take care of yourself.  Unplug and use the magic tools report, delete, block, mute, unfollow, log out, or deactivate as you please. This could be short term, long term, or forever. Sometimes, it is necessary to prioritise your safety and mental health over putting up a fight or continued engagement in a situation that is negatively affecting you. Admittedly, being able to do this can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

It is always useful to take a mental break, take your mind off the negatives and refocus on the positives.

For serious issues, like trolling, the UK’s Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) recently released “Don’t Feed the Trolls: A Practical Guide to Dealing With Hate on Social Media”. Page 9 is particularly useful for things to do immediately.

 

 References

  1. 5 Ways to Cope With Online Haters | Entrepreneur, 2016
  2. How to Deal With Online Hate | Lifehacker, 2019
  3. Don’t Feed the Trolls: A Practical Guide to Dealing With Hate on Social Media | Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), 2019

Related DT Resources

  1. Blog Post: Online Safety in the LGBTQ+ Community
  2. Tutorial: Online Harrassment
  3. Tutorial: Staying Tranquil in Your Digital Life
  4. Tutorial: Removing Myself From The Internet

Additional Resources

Project Someone https://projectsomeone.ca/

Written By: Eseohe Ojo

Edited By: Samantha Summers

Featured Image: Social Networks from ijmaki Used Under Pixabay License

Read More | No Comments

Guest Post: The Rise and Impact of Twitter Bots in Political Elections

By Eseohe Ojo on February 4, 2020 | Tagged with ,

“The Rise and Impact of Twitter Bots in Political Elections”

By Eve Cuthbertson

As the 2019 Canadian Federal election comes to a close and the 2020 US election heats up, it’s important to discuss the impact of social media on our democracies – specifically, Twitter bots. Computer scientists at the University of Southern California recently investigated the impact of Twitter bots in the 2016 US election and uncovered 30,000 likely bot accounts. A Pew Research study uncovered that “bots accounted for 66% of tweeted links to sites focused on news and current events.” While automated tweets can simply be a mechanism to spread news, they can also spread fake news, and create the impression of massive support where it doesn’t truly exist. This article will introduce the concept of political bots and consider their impact on democracy. 

 

What is a political bot? 

Dubois and McKelvey (2019) define political bots as “automated online agents that are used to intervene in political discourse online” (p. 28). They are primarily found on Twitter, and are becoming more advanced, making it difficult to tell if their message is coming from a human or machine. 

 

How do bots impact democracy? 

Dubois and McKelvey (2019) argue that Canada’s democracy has suffered as a result of political bots, through a practice called Astroturfing. The Guardian describes Astroturfing as “the attempt to create an impression of widespread grassroots support for a policy, individual, or product, where little such support exists.” This is a threat to democracy because it may contribute to a shift in public opinion, as people favour an opinion where it seems there’s a lot of support. For example, Twitter bots sent messages showing support for Brexit, just before the vote (Field & Wright, 2018). With the recent Canadian election, this concept could be applied to the act of strategic voting. For example, if you’re a Green Party supporter, and think voters in your riding will either support Liberal or Conservative, you may vote Liberal, as they are closer to your ideals than the Conservatives. 

Further, bots can be used to spread misinformation, and go largely undetected before it is too late. Gorodnichenko, Pham and Talavera (2018) found that “information about Brexit and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election is disseminated and absorbed among Twitter users within 50-70 minutes.” (p.3). Humans can also be a part of spreading misinformation, as they are likely to engage with tweets that support their opinion, and retweet without validating accuracy.

 

What can be done? 

Dubois and McKelvey (2019) point out that the platforms themselves (such as Twitter) have the most data and insight into which accounts are automated, and therefore have a duty to communicate this information to users, and remove accounts that spread misinformation. Michele Austin, head of government and public policy for Twitter Canada, was quoted in a CBC article stating, “We have a team dedicated to monitoring inauthentic and spam activity for the Canadian election and it’s something that we will be banning if we see it happen… We do take these issues very, very seriously. The public conversation is never more important than during an election.” (Rogers, 2019). 

Other policy interventions they explore include banning bots from platforms, registering bots, or providing guidelines for how political parties should use bots. While banning bots may stop some spread of misinformation, there are some bots that are perfectly harmless, or even helpful. For example, a group in Edmonton Alberta created @ParityBOT, which detects abusive tweets towards female political candidates, and sends out positive, encouraging messages in response. (Cuthbertson, et al, 2019). To actively engage against bots, online services offer detection of Twitter bots based on machine learning analysis. For example, BotCheck.me, Botometer or BotSentinel. 

While many interventions are possible, it is most important that voters become aware of Twitter bots, their potential influence, and ways to combat the influence. Determining whether a message comes from a human or machine is now another consideration for critically consuming information online.  

 

Resources

Bienkov, A. (2012, February 8). Astroturfing: what is it and why does it matter? RetrievedOctober 27, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/what-is-astroturfing.

BotCheck. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2019, from https://botcheck.me/. 

Botmeter (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2019, from https://botometer.iuni.iu.edu/#!/

BotSentinel (n.d.) Retrieved October 27, 2019,from https://botsentinel.com/about

Cuthbertson L. Cuthbertson E., Dawson R., Gordon A., Kearny A., Mathewson K., (2019). Women, politics and Twitter: Using machine learning to change the discourse. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Dubois, E., & McKelvey, F. (2019). Political Bots: Disrupting Canada’s Democracy. Canadian Journal of Communication, 44(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2019v44n2a3511

Kulp, P. (2019, September 6). As 2020 Election Nears, Twitter Bots Have Only Gotten Better at Seeming Human. Retrieved October 27, 2019, from https://www.adweek.com/digital/as-2020-election-nears-twitter-bots-have-only-gotten-better-at-seeming-human/.

Wojcik, S. (2018, April 9). 5 things to know about bots on Twitter. Retrieved October 27, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/09/5-things-to-know-about-bots-on-twitter/.

Wright, M., & Field, M. (2018, October 17). Russian trolls sent thousands of pro-Leave messages on day of Brexit referendum, Twitter data reveals. Retrieved October 27, 2019,  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/17/russian-iranian-twitter-trolls-sent-10-million-tweets-fake-news/.

Featured Image: chatbot from mohamed_hassan used under Pixabay License.

Read More | 1 Comment

Be a Part of Drafting Principles for Digital BC

By Eseohe Ojo on January 29, 2020 | Tagged with , , , ,

The Digital Tattoo Project was recently invited by the Government of British Columbia to review and share feedback on the Draft Principles for Digital BC and you can too!

 

The Digital Principles in Context

These Digital Principles are envisioned to be part of an interconnected set of guidance and standards for all BC Public Service employees engaged in applying the culture, processes, business models and technology of the digital era to meeting the needs and expectations of the people of British Columbia:

  • The British Columbia Public Service Oath of Employment and Standards of Conduct
  • These (DRAFT) Digital Principles, which explicitly and very intentionally incorporate the Draft Principles that Guide the Province of British Columbia’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples;
  • As called for in the Digital Framework, an in-development Service Standard, intended to guide digital era teams to create and run great public services, no matter the channel through which those services are delivered (i.e. whether digital or not); and
  • Modelled again after leading jurisdictions, for those using technology to build government products and services, an in-development Technology Code of Practice, a set of criteria to help government design, build and buy technology. This Code of Practice is intended to be used as a cross-government agreed standard for the development of new digital (IMIT) products and services.

 

Why this is important for you and you should engage with the process

The draft principles guide the government of B.C.’s digital future which youth and students are at the heart of. As digital technologies transform the way British Columbians live, work and play, the government is working to meet changing expectations.

The government is aiming to use the modern tools and technologies of the time to deliver the services people want and maximize the power of data to improve the services people need. As young people in particular, technology is involved in everything we do making this an important process to participate and be involved in.

 

About the Draft Principles

An initial draft of the principles, v. 0.1, was posted in November 2019 but this has been refined in response to feedback from the community. The latest draft, v. 0.2, is available on GitHub and future iterations will be included on https://digital.gov.bc.ca/.

British Columbia’s approach to Digital Government is a work-in-progress and as part of the work to accelerate digital change in the Government of BC, the Ministry of Citizen Services is leading the process of co-creating a set of digital principles.

The initial framework for digital government in BC is set out at https://digital.gov.bc.ca/. Following this is the draft set of principles – fundamental propositions – are to serve as the foundation for a system of behaviors to guide the work of the Digital BC community.

These principles are intended to align government organizations and partners around a common vision for digital government.  The hope is that the principles will help shape how information, technology, programs and services in the Internet age are managed.

The process has leveraged content from leading jurisdictions, input from BC public servants, and elements that are important for BC. We were excited to see connections between the principles and issues mentioned by Hillary Hartley, Chief Digital Officer and Deputy Minister for Digital Government, Ontario Public Service highlighted in our earlier blog post “Good Government in the Digital Age should be about the User”. Although in the early stages, these principles have also been linked with Alberta’s Digital Transformation Principles which are also a recent development from Alberta’s Digital Innovation Office.

For Digital Tattoo, this was a great opportunity to engage and energize students, internally and with our community to participate in the process of change. It was useful for the DT team to review the principles and share our feedback as a team.

Being recognized for our work and leadership in supporting digital change in BC was also an opportunity to reflect on our early advocacy, commitment to education on digital identity awareness, providing information about important digital issues, creating a space for thoughtful engagement, and, when the opportunity arises, being a part of processes of change and a space for digital rights advocacy.

Feedback and comments are welcome from all preferably by January 31, 2020 via GitHub, the blog post on Medium, or by email at IM.ITPolicy@gov.bc.ca. These will be used to refine the principles.

More information on the draft principles can be found on:

Written by: Eseohe Ojo

Edited by: Samantha Summers

Featured Image from Tumisu used under Pixabay License

Read More | No Comments

Guest Post: I Have a Problem – #socialmediaaddiction

By Eseohe Ojo on January 15, 2020 | Tagged with , ,

Happy New Year from Digital Tattoo!

We hope your new year, new me resolutions are still going strong. While you’re working on those, here’s an interesting post to think about.

 

This post is part of a series of guest posts developed in collaboration with Digital Tattoo and Faculty at the University of Toronto’s iSchool as part of a class.

“I Have a Problem” – #socialmediaaddiction

By Naomi-Nicole Bramer

I need it. I crave it. I restlessly shift in my chair as I try to ignore temptation. I crack my knuckles to keep my hands busy, my concentration melting away with every passing second…

Sitting in the silent zone of my university library, I attempt to focus on the academic journals in front of me and ignore the overwhelming presence to the left of my keyboard. Even as I write this very moment, the need to check my phone makes me restless.  In a moment of weakness, I grab my phone and scroll mindlessly through Instagram for twenty seconds before I lecture myself into setting it aside again to work on my paper. This cycle repeats itself more often than it should during my evening in the library. I count myself amoung a rapidly growing population; estimates of over 210 million people worldwide suffer from internet and social media addictions, found by Mediakix, an influencer marketing agency.

The influx of social media marks a unique time in human history. For the first time, we are connected and accessible worldwide. Marshall McLuhan, Canadian philosopher and a linchpin in early media studies, proclaimed the benefits of electronic media. For him, this new media allowed for a global village, a term he coined. But for all his technological optimism, could McLuhan have predicted the magnitude to which new social media would addict people?

As soon as I wake up in the morning, I check my phone for WhatsApp messages and Instagram notifications. Checking my social media has become ingrained in my daily routine: wake up, check phone, go to bathroom, wash face, brush teeth, get dressed, run out door. In her book Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun says “Habit is the root of reason. Habit allows the mind to transcend experience, to reason about experience…” (Chun, 2016). But when does habit, an action that can be either positive, negative or neutral, move to addiction?

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Holly Chisholm (@justpeachycomic) on

Many studies on social media and internet addiction have been done and it “is a serious issue that can have a negative effect on the person’s thoughts, behavior, tendencies, feelings, and sense of well-being” (Alhassan et al. 2018). The term “problematic social media use” even has its own Wikipedia page, with a list of thirty-six references, most of which are academic journals. The common expression “too much of a good thing” came to mind when trying to evaluate my own use of social media. I love the convenience it provides for keeping in contact with my friends and family around the world, but why then, am I still checking it even when I am with some in real life?  

So what is social media addiction? Is it just too much time spent on social networking sites? Addiction usually refers to behaviours that lead to negative consequences. Social media addiction can be “expressed as a psychological problem which causes problems such as occupation, emotion modification, relapse and conflict in many areas of daily life” (Afacan & Ozbek, 2019). Some research has found that addiction to social media is stronger than addiction to cigarettes or alcohol. Social media itself is a fantastic tool for many reasons, but in moderation. Once it starts consuming other aspects of life, like taking away concentration from work or school, inhibiting sleep, or destroying relationships, then it becomes a very real medium of addiction.

Psychology Today has published a list of questions to help people check whether you may be at risk to social media addiction: 

  • Do you spend a lot of time thinking about social media or planning to use social media?
  • Do you feel urges to use social media more and more?
  • Do you use social media to forget about personal problems?
  • Do you often try to reduce your use of social media without success?
  • Do you become restless or troubled if you are unable to use social media?
  • Do you use social media so much that it has had a negative impact on your job or studies?

If you answered “yes” to several of these questions, then you may be developing a social media addiction.

How many of you would admit to a social media addiction? The idea of social media addiction is a complex matter. Theordora Sutton talks of going on a “digital detox” as a response to the concerns that this addiction “erodes meaningful or authentic connection” (Sutton, 2017). Do you think social media addiction is affecting society negatively? Is this a personal problem, or is this be something that we as a global community should be taking a closer look at? 

As for me, it took me twice as long to write this article about social media addiction with all of my needed “Instagram breaks” and important WhatsApp conversations. Needless to say, I will be taking a closer look at how social media addiction might be affecting me, my life and my mental health.

 

Resources

Addicted to Social Media? Psychology Today (2018) https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/in-excess/201805/addicted-social-media

Afacan, O., & Ozbek, N. (2019). Investigation of social media addiction of high school students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(2), 235-245. doi: 10.12973/ijem.5.2.235 

Alhassan, A.A., Alqadhib, E.M., Taha, N.W. et al. (2018) The relationship between addiction to smartphone usage and depression among adults: a cross sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 18: 148. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1745-4

Chun, W. H. K. (2016) Updating to Remain the Same: Habitual New Media. MIT Press.

Griffiths, M. D. (2018) Addicted to Social Media? Psychology Today. Retrieved October 28, 2019 from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/in-excess/201805/addicted-social-media 

Sutton, T. (2017). Disconnect to reconnect: The food/technology metaphor in digital detoxing. First Monday, 22(6). doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i6.7561

These 8 Social Media Addiction Statistics Show Where We’re Spending Our Time. MediaKix. https://mediakix.com/blog/social-media-addiction-statistics/

Featured Image: “Addicted To Social Media ?” by joey zanotti on Flickr, used under CC licensing.

Read More | No Comments

Our Podcast…

The Digital Tattoo Project Podcast raises questions, shares stories, speaks with experts and encourages us to consider our digital lives.

Listen to us on iTunes or Soundcloud

Twitter