User talk:Emmerloo112

Online Visibility

I am very visible on online media platforms. I have a Facebook with 827 friends, most of which I met in primary school or have only met once on a night out. I have an Instagram where I post regularly with 1,024 followers and I am following 607 other users. Another platform I go on regularly is snapchat where I have upwards of 200 “friends.” I have a reddit which I use multiple times a day, subscribed to over 50 subreddits. I have a couple of Tumblr accounts that I don’t check as regularly as other platforms. I have a Pinterest that I log onto routinely and post on. I also have a Twitch channel in which I do not post on, but I follow a few users and watch them weekly. I also used to write for the publication “The Odyssey Online” which is a platform that university students write for to share ideas, information, and personal stories.

I never really took into account that having this many accounts online under my name makes me more visible until I have taken this course. Friends on Facebook can see my pictures, posts, personal information such as birthdays, hometown, education and a list of my family and friends. Followers on Instagram are updated of my current location as I post on this platform the most out of all the others. Friends on Snapchat are allowed to see what I am doing at any given time, who I am with and access to speak to me directly easily.

This visibility puts me in a vulnerable position. Hackers, bots, and people looking to steal identities have had it easy in the recent years with effortless access to basic information on anyone who decides to follow or friend them.

When I look up my name followed by my hometown on google, my Facebook profile is the first link to pop up. Without being my friend, users can see my name, all of my profile pictures, where I am from, my home university, where I used to work, and the number of friends I have. I never put a lot of thought into how transparent I was online.

On Instagram, you will be able to see my name, my pictures, where I attend university and a link to my Odyssey Online account. I am not a private user on Instagram meaning anyone can see my profile. If I post a picture and tag a location, any user is able to click the location and see where I am at the current moment. This is especially disheartening to know if a user posts a picture and tags a location in their own home, even if they are tagging somewhere else, because anyone is able to view the location of where the photo was posted by tagging a location.

Location sharing gets even worse with snapchat. With one of the recent updates on snapchat, friends are able to see each other’s exact location. This feature called “Snap Map” is accessible when you open the app and zoom out. The feature displays a map of nearby friends, showing their latest location gathered using a smartphone's GPS sensor. This feature also includes the ability to look up specific places, homes, schools, and universities and find routes.

Like Facebook, most of my snapchat friends are people who I do not know very well or met once. The recent update for snapchat does include “ghost mode” where you can turn your location off but today, we don’t see many people doing this due to the popularity of advertising one’s own personal brand.

Branding can be seen through businesses, charities, products, and even celebrities. But with this rise of social media, we see more and more people trying to make names of their selves using this outlet. Posting about where they are, who they are with, what they buy, and how they live. Since we have the same outlets celebrities use for their branding, it is not hard to see their affects altering the public’s desire to be like them.

We create our own “brand” for ourselves using social media. Every picture we post, every status we write, every snapchat we post to our story says something about us. It is becoming so prominent in this society and generation that it is difficult not to be influenced to make one’s own brand.

Personally, I need to be more decisive and exclusive with the people I allow to see my profiles. As stated before, I do not have a specific ideal of the people who I friend or allow to follow me. Sharing this much vulnerable information to people I barely know could put me in a dreadful situation. It is even worse knowingly doing it. I have complete control over who I can friend or add and I have the ability to put my profiles on more private settings. It is not something I tend to think about on a day to day basis.

When I see a new follower, I do not look into their profile if I do not know who it is. I just think “Oh, I got a new follower” rather “I wonder who this person is and if there could be possible ramifications of allowing this person to see my information and locations.” I know I have the control to filter out people I do not want seeing my information on Instagram, but I am unsure of the amount of control I have on my profile with Facebook.

In seminar, we discussed a situation where a woman wanted to change her relationship status from “Engaged” to “Single.” She did not want all of her friends and family and ex-fiance’s friends and family to see this public post on their timelines. She went into her Facebook settings and after reading some terms and conditions Facebook gave her about making some parts of her profile private to the public, it seemed as if she could change her relationship without a post appearing on everyone’s timeline. When she went to change it, everyone in her friends list was sent a notification that she had changed her relationship status.

These types of events with mishandling private information happens a lot on Facebook. While writing this dissuasion, I became curious about what other information I have on Facebook that is visual to the public. The results scared me.

Above is a screenshot of my privacy settings on Facebook. First off, I did not know Facebook had my phone number set so my friends could access it. This was disheartening because I have become so lenient on who I become friends with on my Facebook profile. Not only was I not aware that Facebook had my phone number, but it also automatically set a privacy setting without my permission. In the screenshot above, you see that Facebook allows “Everyone” to look my profile up using my phone number. There is also a setting that automatically allows search engines outside of Facebook to link to my profile, another setting I did not approve.

When I went to turn off the setting that allows search engines outside of Facebook to link to my profile, the image above is what appeared. This was basically telling me people who try to find my profile on search engines will not be able to find it. Then again, people who are searching me on goggle, trying to find my profile are people I do not think should withhold the information that is displayed on my profile.

My collaborative essay is on convergence. This topic was heavily covered in class and relates back to online visibility in many forms. Convergence is, as stated in Henry Jenkins book Convergence Culture, the relationship between three concepts; media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence.

With that, all three concepts are applied to everyone’s online visibility. Most people in today’s culture has more than one social media platform. Media convergence is the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences (Jenkins, 2006). When you are allowing someone to follow or friend you on a platform, you are allowing them to see major life events, pictures, and even personal information. The circulation of this content is now being spread across the different media you post on. This gives the “consumers” full participation in what you display on public, or even sometimes private, profiles.

Participatory culture is the new combination of the producers and the consumers. With technology rising we see the lines being blurred in each role. Relating this back to online visibility, the producers of the content one provides for followers and friends can be seen as just as important to the “consumers” you provide for, especially if the content you allow visible can be taken advantage of.

Collective intelligence is talked about in Jenkin’s book as “consumption has become a collective process” (Jenkins, 2006). Because most people log onto social media every day, they are getting a ticket into seeing your life in regards to what you post. There are people that use platforms such as Facebook and Instagram to share political views, religion, and personal stories. With this sharing, it provides intelligence to others on what their morals, beliefs, and experiences are and have been. This creates a collective intelligence with their audience and allowing people with opposite or the same views to comment and gain multiple perspectives. �

Work Cited

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press, 2006.

Annotated Bibliography Exercise
Sutherland, R. S, (2017). Moral Panic 2.0: White Nationalism, Convergence Culture, and Racialized Media Events.

In this article, Sutherland is arguing against Stanley Cohen’s “Moral Panic” theory by discussing the radical change into the digital age vs. Cohen’s theory that was produced in 1972. The aim of this research is to prove his newly adapted “moral panic” theory in which discourses are increasingly open to contestation, reinterpretation, and recirculation by multiple actors and groups. His research is shown through examining the web’s largest white nationalist forum, Stormfront. I can see this article being helpful for my research. Sutherland takes a very hard subject, white nationalism, something we are all aware of and discusses how media convergence has spread their agendas and deployments of contradictory repertories of race. The main limitation to this article is the lack of diversity in the examples he used. He only uses “Stormfront” as his single case, but more instances or companies could have been used for comparison. The conclusion drawn from Sutherland’s research was to demonstrate how Cohen’s originally theory of “Moral Panic” has shifted and to advertise how the white nationalist forum, Stormfront’s “collective voice” is often given expression through selective quotation by mainstream media surrounding racialized moral panics. This article will be useful for my collaborative essay because my topic is “Convergence” and Sutherland discusses the popularization of media convergence, participatory culture, and collective intelligence with his research using white nationalism. --Emmerloo112 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC) --Emmerloo112 (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
hi there, I found this annotated bibliography extremely interesting and an insightful argument on how media convergence can be used to spread racial hate propaganda. The bibliography is well written and has a clear message. This is the first time I have read an article which enlightens the negatives of media convergence, white nationalism seems to be on the rise and I wonder how much social media and other mediums have influenced this increase of hatred. Although sites like Facebook are cracking down on hate speech, do you think internet providers have a moral duty to eradicate websites or media accounts that promote a “collective voice” of racial hatred? Or would this become a slippery slope, opening a stream of restrictions to internet access promoting internet censorship? Overall this bibliography was a good read, my collaborative essay will be on online identity, so it will be interesting to find out if Sutherland has any views on how white nationalists present themselves through online profiles. Abfunkalicious (discuss • contribs) 11:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your annotated bibliography was quite interesting to read. I had never heard of Stormfront before and I am now interested in learning more about who they are and what their intentions are. Like the last comment, I also have never read an article about the more negative aspects of media convergence. I like how you are choosing to look at this side of media convergence, since most others only look at what it means as well as the positive sides to it. This approach will greatly strengthen your collaborative essay, in my opinion, because you are talking about something most others might not consider. You mentioned that a limitation of this particular article you had chosen was the lack of diversity. I think it would benefit you greatly (and the composition of your essay) if you continue to look for more articles that address the same topic, but with a wider diversity range. This was nicely written and I am excited to see what else you come up with towards the final paper! Summer.schnellbach (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Clear Fail. Assignment responses receiving marks below 30% tend to not contain any merit or relevance to the module. Contrinbutions are one-liners, sometimes made up of text-speak, if there are any contributions at all. Often they are indicative of failure to comment on other students’ ideas, and therefore do not engage with the crucial peer-review element. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement, or the user has been blocked for vandalism or other contraventions of wiki T&C. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here – only 3 days registered as having logged a contrib, 2 entries of which are meaningful (with a contrib 6400+, but this is draft work and you can’t really be marked for the same work twice). When you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward, however, this really was a case of too little, too late.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * This was minimal.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * This was minimal.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * This was minimal.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself well, based on the little evidence..

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall.

Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * This work is at the upper end of this grade band, so a little improvement would have gone a long way to attaining a higher mark. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the Grade Descriptors and (especially for this, perhaps, the Understanding) criteria in the module handbook to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets. There seems to be a lot of content missing from your wiki exercise portfolio – I am thinking in particular of the #4 exercise, which would have enabled you to reflect upon the process.


 * Additionally, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – these are fairly good, where engagement is happening, but all too brief. Remember that the comments are "worth" as much as posts themselves. The reason for this is not only to help encourage discussion (a key element of wiki collaboration!) but also to get you to reflect upon your own work. This can all, of course be used to fuel ideas that might form part of your project work.

General:
 * Reading and research: Some evidence of this in your annotated entry, however I find your reading of the chosen source is a little unconvincing in terms of applicability and relevance.


 * Argument and analysis: Again some of this in evidence, although much more could have been added through engagement to make the most of the opportunities.


 * Presentation: See above comment – much more could have been done in this respect.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 10:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)