https://prezi.com/embed/7r1y2kitgfhy/?bgcolor=ffffff&lock_to_path=0&autoplay=0&autohide_ctrls=0#
There are many people, in a range of fields, with a range of interests, that have successfully created public personas. Whether that be through YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, or any of the many other choices. When successful, the uploader has forged a path for themselves that others care about, a path their followers wish to take with them, and thus begins the life of a cuber celebrity.
Transformations can be a makeover, it can be a revolution, it can cause something amazing. In the case of the Internet of Things transformations allow humans, animals and innominate objects to communicate with each other. Sounds basic, but it’s actually in incredibly intricate idea, it is an extremely fascinating technological advancement to.
Imagine waking up and your alarm has told your coffee pot to brew you a fresh cup. Imagine farmers being notified if their animals are in need of veterinary assistance. Imagine the joints of the Sydney Harbour Bridge communicating to each other. Imagine robots working together to replicate scientific experiments so precisely.
This form of communication can be achieved through sensors talking to each other and “making decisions” based on the circumstances presented. It will alter the functionality of every living and non-living thing, and it is aimed to optimise these functions. It is happening now in varying degrees. It is changing the way we think about every object, and how every object can be used.
Wikileaks is an “international, non-profit, journalistic organisation” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks) which became famous after launching a website filled with over 1.2 million documents from various governments, many which were classified documents. The group was deplored by the United States government for exposing classified information, as well as several human rights organisations for the use of names of those working with governments globally. However, many praised them, as the UK Information Commissioner stated, “wikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen.” (Curtis, 2010). The group also received several awards from the Economist and Amnesty International, among others.
Since the organisation are considered “citizen journalists”, they have more freedom than your typical journalist. Unlike journalists, they are not bound by the same code of ethics. However, it can be seen as a “public service”, and in turn, be seen as ethically right (in spite of their legal troubles).
– http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/dec/30/wikileaks-freedom-information-ministers-government
– http://waca.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/assange1.jpg
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks
Disney, and all its entities, have created limitless points of entry for audiences. This allows for optimum audience engagements through film, television, music, recreational activities, and travel opportunities.
– http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/dada32e7-8397-4036-8587-29069fd3863d/e1df0d32-2e79-4ab9-aef4-6df7946148a7.jpeg
– http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/styles/775x/public/timeline-image/1966_12_15_2.jpg
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz__bJTlOjk
– http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130721170547/disney/images/b/b3/Walt-Disney-Logo.jpg
– http://pichost.me/1869106/
– http://www.disneyinternational.com/images/globe.png
– http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/c2/8a/c1/disney-studios.jpg
When looking at singers, we the audience tend to give them the credit. Who wins the Grammy? Beyoncé, but it was Terius “The-Dream” Nash, Thaddis “Kuk” Harrell, and Christopher “Tricky” Stewart, alongside Beyoncé who wrote Single Ladies, Nash and Stewart who produced it, and Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado who mixed it. It was a team. Look at Ed Sheeran, many of his songs were written (or co-written) by himself. At his concerts he has physically made the music himself onstage with guitars and sung the songs, but he wasn’t alone when making the concert. There are his managers, his publicists, the marketing team, the choreographer, his vocal coach, and the backstage crew who put the show together.
I’m not denying the contribution, or in any way saying they are undeserving of their praise (I love both Beyoncé and Ed Sheeran). However, I do believe that the praise needs to be more evenly distributed. Which cannot be as easy as I would hope. Where does the line end? How do we know what contributions really benefitted the final product and which didn’t? Should the grammy really be awarded to Tina and Mathew Knowles for creating Beyoncé? What about The Beatles and Eminem, two of Ed Sheeran’s self-described influences? Should they all be compensated for their influence on Sheeran and his success?
Probably not. Beyoncé definitely wasn’t built alone, there’s a whole world behind her, helping her become the star we all know. So why don’t we hear about them?
The need to “express post” new blogs, new tweets and new articles can cause many, many inaccuracies, and in some cases, reports of sudden “deaths” (almost every prominent figure from Will Ferrell to Justin Timberlake have had a death hoax here or there).
Each and every person can look at the same image and come up with a different interpretation. Which is odd, seeing as the image itself is not altered or changed, it is the perspectives, views and experiences we have that shape the way we view images.
https://instagram.com/p/I546RpKeoU/
This image is of a man wearing lots of jewellery including gold chains, gold rings and a gold watch, these pieces are shown in close up images on the right side of the image. He is wearing a striped and colourful open shirt showing off his tattoos, a black hat sitting backwards on his head and black sunglasses.
It’s not enough to just have the chain, the watch and rings in his picture, but there was also a need to take shots of specific pieces and put them in a collage format. I personally look at it and immediately just think excess and in-your-face. Isn’t this what they want to achieve though, something “other worldly”, something for their fans and listeners to aspire to be? The short answer is yes.
Rappers and hip-hop artists don’t just sell their music, they sell their lifestyle and themselves, “With hip hop you’re buying more than music. It isn’t a genre—it’s a lifestyle” (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/hip-hop-bling-capitalism-business). It has been this way since the beginning of rap and hip-hop, you look at how the fashion and way in which rappers (and artists) express themselves, and how this has influenced the way in which their fans dress and express themselves. Especially in this day and age where social media is an integral part of an artists success, the saturation of images of excess wealth and exaggerated luxuries appeal to the audiences. Reading the comments, Tyga’s fans worship him, he’s built a persona for himself as a “King” (with his Instagram name being “kinggoldchains”), and this persona is what has helped him develop a strong fan base.
“Rap [and hip hop] culture in general is about flashiness. It’s not enough to “make it,” you have to show and tell everyone around you that you’ve made it” (http://www.quora.com/Why-do-all-rappers-wear-chains), this statement can be heavily supported by the images you encounter when searching “Jay Z instagram”, “Kanye West instagram”, “Chris Brown instagram”.
The image above is supposed to show off Tyga’s wealth and the lavish life he leads, a life that is well beyond what a majority of his listeners will ever lead. Realistically, most people (probably) know that they will not have as much money to spend as Tyga and all these other artists do. However, the social media platforms allow us to live vicariously through them, and while we still see these public figures as different to you or me, there is still a connection made between the artist and the audience.
“They are selling a dream to their listeners, so it is in their best interest to flaunt their wealth and success. For a rapper, it is really part of the costume, just as a country artist might wear boots or a cowboy hat.” (http://www.quora.com/Why-do-all-rappers-wear-chains) So while it is easy to think artists like Kanye West, Tyga and Chris Brown are going overboard with their personas, we need to remember that it is all part of the package and it is all part of the experience.
“The internet is now part of your body”. Lets be honest, if you were to say to your parents that “the internet is a part of me”, that it’s crucial to your existence, how will they react? Will they see that as being a good thing? Doubtful, but is it really that bad?
Obviously being glued to your phone 24/7 is not good for you, you will be much more prone to back, neck and eye problems. But really, being glued to anything isn’t “good”. Exercising 24/7 is bad for your body. Drinking water 24/7 is bad for your body. Taking vitamins 24/7 is bad for your body. In large doses everything is harmful.
I don’t think always having a phone on you is a bad thing. I don’t think always being reachable is a bad thing. I don’t think having access to all the information on the internet is a bad thing.
How many times have you quickly checked your bank balance before making a purchase? What about train times, or movies times, or how much data is left on your plan? All of these would not be possible without the help of a smartphone.
There was a time when cars and buses were new, and people found those technological advancements unnatural and difficult. This is just the next step in the technical evolution, it’s new, which is scary. But I don’t hear many people longing for the days when everybody had to walk to school and park their horse at work. So don’t fear the change, embrace it.
It is a widely held belief that frequent use of technology and social media is an anti-social activity as it generally involves zero physical human contact. This has led to the belief that social media platforms, such as Facebook, can lead to mental health issues, such as depression. In Davila et al. (2012), it is argued that ‘‘depressive symptoms were associated with quality of social networking interactions, not quantity’’ (p. 72). Meaning it’s not the amount of social media, or the technology itself, but rather the content that leads to negative, or positive, reactions.
It can also be argued that those who are depressed, or more prone to depressive thoughts, would also be more prone to finding negative behaviour, and in turn being affected by them. This once again touches on the idea that it is not the media platform that can lead to negative affects, but rather the users that produce the negative content. How the users choose to interact is crucial to this idea, when looking at “unfriending” on Facebook, this action was shown to have an increased negative affect on the 334 undergraduates involved in Bevan, Pfyl, & Barclay (2012).
I personally believe that many social media platforms are given bad reputations. “Be connected” is the slogan used by Facebook, they aim to connect people with their friends and family, with over 1.23 billion monthly active Facebook users across the world. If social media is used for the intended purpose, they can lead to better social interactions and more frequent social interactions. However, individuals’ social media accounts allow to them to write freely – to a degree – so negative behaviour, and its effects, cannot be wholly blamed on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and such.
As supported by Davila et al. (2012), I believe that the most significant factor in whether social media is a positive or negative experience is our “friends”. Our “friends” are the people who we allow into our social media sites, they are going to have the greatest impact, not only in how they treat us, but how they express themselves. According to Hancock, Gee, Ciaccio, & Mae-Hwah Lin, 2008, depression is an “emotional contagion”, which basically means that people’s negativity on social media can transfer over to our daily life. If we are being bombarded with negativity it is hard to not let this have any affect.
Further looking at this idea presented by Hancock et al. (2008), they argue that technology and social media that display negative comments can have an even larger dominoes affect. Finding that those participating in the study not only had a depressive reaction to the content, but also passed this along when interacting with their partners. These partners were also shown to have been affected by this interaction, with fewer words and less-frequent responses signalling more depressive behaviour.
These studies have shown the great importance that individual feelings and expressions have on those around us, and while social media can lead to depression, there is a huge gap in the middle that has been ignored. This gap is what connects the social media and the depression, it’s the content produced by our Facebook “friends”.
In “The promise is great: the blockbuster and the Hollywood economy”, Marco Cucco referenced to Eliashberg and Shugan, 1997 which said that reviews have little impact on the revenues of films, and that reviews are more targeted at “adults”. While it was pointed out that there are increasing complications with this idea seeing as the popularity of “forums, blogs and chat-rooms”, and how quickly and easily accessible reviews are on the internet.
I believe that this article severely downplays the importance of online reviews. Disregarding films for the moment, we’ve all seen restaurant reviews online and product reviews. I personally don’t buy products (such as makeup and hair care) until I’ve read a number of reviews and watched YouTube product reviews. I want to know what I’m getting and how it will benefit me more than it’s competitor.
YouTube has allowed many people to build a cult following with loyal subscribers watching, commenting, and in turn, reviewing the content posted. These YouTube stars have earned a living out of the videos they post, constantly needing to post new, creative and innovative videos.
Many of these bloggers are sent complimentary products or previews of films and games by companies for a review posted for there hundreds of thousands, or even millions of loyal followers. While there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding these sorts of deals, regardless, millions of people will buy from or boycott companies based on the words of their trusted YouTube gurus. An example being the current (and past) controversies involving Lime Crime makeup its founder and CEO Doe Deere. Many YouTuber’s, such as Shaaanxo, have publicly condemned Lime Crime and Doe Deere, leading many (and in Shaaanxo’s case 1.6 million YouTube followers, 2 million Facebook followers and 700k Instagram followers) to shun the company.
Other companies focus less on this, and more on disabling reviews online or severely moderating them to unrealistic and misleading view of their product or service. These companies seem to not understand how vast the Internet is, and how impossible it is to hide every negative review (here’s looking at you Lime Crime).
Word-of-mouth was cited as being important for a films success, YouTube channels and bloggers are just another form of word-of-mouth. The successful bloggers will post consistently and across multiple social media platforms. This builds a connection with the audience, we see our favourite bloggers as being a friend, someone whose opinions are matter to us. Because of this, one of the best moves a business can make is to listen to these reviews online and understand that quite often change needs to happen or else they’ll get left behind.
Georgia Oke 
