Pines and Binaries: Literature Review in Progress

The internet hates preteen girls, and everything associated with them. It hates the boy bands, it hates the makeover stuff, it hates the fashion, the books, the movies, anything that preteen girls like. And even when girls try to protect themselves by saying “no, I’m not like that, I’ve never read Twilight, see?” the internet will mock them for trying to form an (albeit problematic) defense against the waves of toxicity that bombard them. In 2012, Gravity Falls, an animated series owned by Disney and created by Alex Hirsch, first aired. The series focuses on the Pines twins, Dipper, who is eager to grow up, anxiety-prone, sometimes fully paranoid, and nerdy, and Mabel, who is deeply afraid of change, outwardly goofy, looks for goodness in everyone she meets, and is going through a boy-crazy phase as hormonal 12-year old girls often do. Both of the two make a lot of mistakes over the course of the series, but the Gravity Falls fanbase seems to be a lot harder on Mabel for her shortcomings. The creator even acknowledged this in the comic sequel, Lost Legends, in which the almost-apocalypse from the series created a fault line to open up, which was named “Mabel’s Fault,” which references that much of the fanbase blames Mabel for that almost-apocalypse happening, even though the fault technically lies more with the Author of the Journals for starting this whole thing. Mabel, to a certain extent, is the epitome of all things preteen girls are associated with. She loves boy bands, she wants a vampire boyfriend, she loves fashion (even if her ideas of what that is are a tad unusual), she wants to have fun and party and do karaoke and have loud, obnoxious sleepovers with her friends so they can talk about cute boys and read books about werewolves. I think that there’s a connection here between the way that the internet hates all things that preteen girls are supposed to like, and the way that the internet also hates Mabel Pines. And, given the all-to-often unfair world we live in, it’s important to call out societal narrow-mindedness where we see it.

A lot of people might say “Wait, do people really hate preteen girls in particular that much? Why would people care enough about hating them to lash out at a fictional character from a (technically) children’s show?” Gender, and our perception and obsession with it as a society (and yes, it is most definitely an obsession) is ingrained so deeply into everything we do that it has the ability to become completely invisible. Just look at baby books and gender reveal parties. If we, as a society, feel the need to hold parties celebrating that your baby’s gender is pink or blue, and then make an entire book about them (which it’s typically the mother’s job to make, because that’s listed under “female duties,” I guess) which is decorated with dinosaurs and firetrucks for boys and princesses and ballerinas for girls, and we don’t even think about it anymore, then what does that mean for our perception of gender? All things binary are imprinted on us from an early age. The game “Libretta” features a puzzle in which parallels are drawn between the gender binary and cats/dogs, with cats as girls and dogs as boys. The player is given several blurred out blobs which they’re asked to sort into the “Doghouse” and “Cathouse.” Most of these blobs, however, are more purple than blue or pink. This was meant to be an illustration of what I’m trying to say—the world gives us guidelines about gender that are often barely even applicable. But because the world wants to sort us into the Cathouse and the Doghouse, everyone is stuck with certain connotations and associations from birth, and it’s hard to escape. Even if you try to, you may end up being inevitably shoved into a different box within your respective house. And, as a result of sexism, preteen boy things are often looked on with nostalgia while anything that can be shoved into the Cathouse will often be looked on with contempt.

Literature Review

At the beginning of this project, I was simply looking at how the beauty community online has changed it's targeted audience and began advertising differently for themselves. Within some of the research done, I have discovered that this looks familiar in the sense of gift giving. What the data has shown within the tweets and quick five minute ads at the beginning of a YouTube video is that the idea of changing the way makeup artist Jeffree Star advertises went from a familiar "buy my product please" to "anyone experiencing issues during the corona virus, look to me for help" in exchange for views. The idea that the advertising for many brands has changed is very obvious in a pandemic like this, but to see a commonality between the change in advertising to gift giving and gift exchange is something I was not expecting to see.

Gift giving, a practice that has lived within our culture for years has never gone away but has found a way to disguise itself much better in plain sight. We can go back to many instances in which the practice of gift giving and gift receiving played a large role in our lives for example, think back to the days in which school forced children to bring a valentines day card and candy to every student in the class. This was to be fair to all the students and to make sure there is no favoritism but is that the way the world really works? We see everyday that it is not true. Recruiters for sports are a good example of this. The recruiter could have an eye for one player and offer them a gift in exchange for their talents. This is of course a simple example of how gift giving works today. We can connect this exact same idea to Jeffree Star and his business through online interactions. Not  only can we make the connections to see how others would react when being offered a gift, we can evaluate how this is in fact a business tactic to receive subconscious trust from the audience which in the long run leads to more followers as well as a potential increase in product sales. Gift giving, in the light of advertising tactics is not something we as a culture would like to think about because it makes us vulnerable but it is exactly what happens every time we see a post that goes something like this: "At noon today I am giving away $200 dollars and a custom Jeffree Star hand mirror to three lucky people in need due to the corona virus!! All you have to do is follow my Twitter, comment on my last YouTube video and like this post to be entered!!". This happens almost  everyday on some platforms.

How we analyze some of the data being collected is important because of the inconsistency within the account. Trying to find a pattern that this specific individual makes within the daily Tweets is difficult and sporadic but manageable. Since the main focus of the topic (seeing how the advertising angle has changed from simple advertising to gift giving) has only changed within the last month or so, we can only evaluate from a few weeks before the outbreak of COVID-19 to properly see how advertising was distributed before the vulnerability of the people occurred. Without the analysis of the data prior to the outbreak, we really have nothing to compare the new set of data to. Although this experiment would be better conducted if we could see the before, during and after parts of this process, we are not granted with that luxury of time so it will have to be a much more direct process.

Politics... Yay

Time to talk about everyone's favoriteeeeee topic: politics. Please, note the sarcasm. Politics really isn't my favorite thing just because I'm not very knowledgable about so I'm not always sure what to say about it. So, this post will definitely be hard for me to complete. Politics and social media are like the perfect duo. Right now, it's a huge debate about whether the younger generations are voting and using their voice through that vote.

Last election, there was only a 50% turnout among 18-29 year olds. For the amount that younger people are advocating for who they want in the election, the turnout in the last election sucked. It seems like the numbers were so low because maybe they just don't care to vote or maybe they aren't as educated as they should be (like me). I recently turned 18 and my parents have been urging me to participate and vote, but they tell me to also vote for who they are going to vote for. I think this may be an issue with a lot of newly turned eighteen year olds who don't know a lot about politics. They don't know what they personally believe in or what world issues they agree with so they just go with what their parents like or tell them to do. This is a huge issue because it doesn't allow their kids to have their own opinions and beliefs which causes votes to be taken away from who they might really want to vote for. I've seen a lot of stuff on Facebook about how "It's your fault if the person you want doesn't end up on the ballot/doesn't win" and I agree. I agree 100%. You can't just argue your opinions so whole heartedly and then not even go out and vote. It defeats the whole purpose when people are upset when the person they wanted isn't in the running or isn't in office when they didn't even go vote.

Now, obviously social media plays a huge part in political campaigning; especially right now since we are under lock down rules. Political candidates use social media of all types of platforms to get their word out to potential voters. I mean, seriously, Bernie Sanders is campaigning on Reddit. A lot of millennials and young people use that site pretty religiously so it's pretty smart that he is campaigning on there for his young audience to see so hopefully they'll get out and vote. There is also Donald Trump who is very active on Twitter. Last year Twitter had ad blocks that will block any political campaigning ads from its site. Democrats urged Facebook to follow suit and do the same. The internet has evolved in a way that is super helpful for people now. Instead of waiting around for results in the newspaper or the mail, we can get them instantly on our phones and on TV on the news.

Kristin Ausk

Social media can also be a bad thing for political campaigns. Social media platforms always have people, who may or may not be the candidate themselves, who spread fake news about their competitors to try and sway people to vote for their side instead of the competitor. There can some times be bad propaganda spread in the form of memes (yes, we're back on the topic of memes temporarily). With these being spread during the campaign, it can lead to some harmful consequences for the candidates, like losing votes.

Overall, with the whole quarantine situation and not knowing how long we will actually have to be social distancing, politics online/social media will be pretty beneficial in my opinion. It'll allow the growth of voters and provide more knowledge leading up to the next presidential election. Social media and technology will forever continue to grow and evolve itself too for the younger people who don't know how to get up and go vote but still complain when the person they wanted isn't in office.

Project Method

For my project, I am going to be looking at the hashtag #happyathome, specifically on Tik Tok. I want to gain an understanding of what people are doing to keep themselves busy while in quarantine (and also for likes if we're honest).

As far as the method goes, I will be going to the #happyathome page that Tik Tok has set up and viewing the first 100 that appear on the page. Here's a picture for reference as to what that looks like:

I will start from the first video pictured and scroll my way through 100, that way I can see the most popular videos that the most people have interacted with rather than random videos that may have no significance. When I am going through the videos, I am going to be marking them into groups. For example groups such as cooking, exercise, art, etc. so that I can see what people are doing while they are stuck at home. I want to gain an understanding of the trends people are falling into and how Tik Tok may have a role in peoples' behavior during this unusual time. I will also make note when I see celebrities participating in this trend because I want to see if that is different from other postings. My goal is to gain an understanding of the effect on people and their behaviors from staying at home. 

The Current Political Meta, and Tiger King

For the past three days, I have put aside most of my school work and other various obligations to watch a Netflix documentary I've been hearing so much about called Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness. 

Tiger King follows the life of Joe Exotic, a deranged, gay, redneck zookeeper from Oklahoma, and the drama that has ensued because of his long-time rivalry with Animal Rights activist Carole Baskin.

During the course of his career, Joe began to utilize the burgeoning social media platform to draw attention to himself by launching a vicious smear campaign, threatening and embarrassing Baskin in any way he could, stretching and manipulating the truth in order to put himself on a pedestal by putting her down.

 Public Record

Public Domain

The Tactics adopted by Exotic reminded me of those used by our current president, Donald Trump.

While Exotic used homemade videos, uploaded to facebook, on a very small scale, the Trump administration hired Brad Parscale, who pushed a quite similar campaign on a massive scale, all over the internet through targeted digital advertisements.

The 2016 election elevated a modern political tactic of propaganda by flooding the internet with a massive amount of disinformation, favorable to Donald Trump, in the form of digital ads, mass texts, fake news website, any sly tactic possible to present sensationalist information to destroy any opponent standing in his way.

Donald Trump had maintained a cultural relevance as a shady businessman for decades before deciding to run for president of the United States, and his potent, polarizing personality was perfect for catching the eyes of millions, just like Exotic's name now is nearly inescapable on social media. Initially, a veteran reality TV producer named Rick Kirkham seized the opportunity to try and profit off of the larger than life personality of Exotic, giving him a larger platform, and better grip on social media, and I find a parallel with Brad Parscale in the way that he has taken advantage of his superior knowledge in the field of social media to contribute massively to the success of Donald Trump as a conservative candidate.

The layout of apps such as facebook, allow for sensationalist news and ideas to get widely spread and push by the various algorithms.  A rapidly growing number of Americans simply do not trust the mainstream media, perhaps with good cause, there has been evidence of corruption, bias, and errors in the media for as long as it has existed, however, the Donald Trump administration has flown in like a vulture to this weakness in the power of media to launch a counter-media, based on social platforms, providing "alternative facts" and researching any possible dirt on Trump's political opponents, distributing misinformation to millions.

The American people are so skeptical of the mainstream media, that many simply do not care what the fact of the matters are, so long as the person they support speaks with conviction and believes in themself.

The American people, as I have seen first-hand with some of my peers, praise Donald Trump for "speaking his mind" and his lack of political correctness, because they are tired of the mediation in the media, and any break from that seemingly deceitful power structure is refreshing.

It doesn't matter that the president says a hundred lies a minute (which is verified by websites such as snopes and politifact constantly), to his supporters, this likely makes him look more attractive. I have friends who are incredibly loyal to the president, despite knowledge of his dishonesty and crookedness. The fact that what Trump says is wrong is not a deterrent for his supporters, the mere fact that it is contrary to what everyone else is saying is what makes him so attractive.

Trump, like Exotic, has a sense of humor, is vulgar, and fiercely attacks any opponent in his way, both are extremely polarizing, but in a way charismatic, which easily entices millions, who aren't fiercely opposed to what they are doing ethically.

Using information given by Cambridge Analytica, the campaign Parscale spearheaded used emotionally manipulative tactics, such as quizzes to largely target right-leaning white Americans to feel victimized and attacked in what seems to be a left-dominated nation.

By creating a narrative of a "silent majority", which pushed the idea of a seemingly oppressed, American society whose rights are being stripped away because of the rights that minorities and women are gaining, the Trump Campaign capitalized on the fear and insecurities of conservatives, which seemingly drove them to action in a far more militant way than I've ever seen in my lifetime.

The exploitation of social media by Parscale, combined with Trump's cult of personality, has made for one of the most unusual political campaigns ever seen, and so far, has destroyed any opponent he has faced. The internet noise pollution tactic may quickly become the dominant method of campaigning for all future candidates, and the death of truth may be a nasty side effect of the adoption of social media.

Social media and Politics

Today ewe will take a look at The politics world mixed in with the social media world. Yes, no one likes to talk about "boring" politics and neither do I. This is just something that is pretty important that has to happen for the world that we live to run smoothly and how some of us want it. Now let me ask you this question, Do you vote? Now I think that this is a question that has many different answers and it stirs conversation.

If you take a look at the information from the past elections, what you see is not a pretty sight when it comes the us millennials. The 2014 election was not a good time for voter turnout amongst all
Of the ages but especially the young 18-29 year olds. During the 2014 election the ages between 18-29 was only 20 percent.... ONLY 20 percent of people that were between those ages voted in the election. That is terrible. It is sad to see that us young people seem to not care about who is going to be in power of our country. In the more recent 2018 election the numbers have had spiked up to about 36 percent of people between 18-29 had put their vote in which seems to me like even though that is one of the largest numbers and we’re living in a better direction it is still embarrassing that we are the ones complaining about how our corrupt our world is when we are the one that aren’t showing that we actually care enough to go to a voting booth and pick the person that you want to be our leader. As many of you might already know, the majority of the population that is getting out of their house and voting is the elder people or the middle aged older people that all seem to be politically correct and think that they know what is going on. The thing that annoys me is a lot of the kids or teens these days are always arguing about their beliefs and think that they are right yet they are also the ones that don’t vote which seems pointless because it is technically your fault if the person you want to win doesn’t.

Swarthmore

Now getting to the social media part of the argument. I think that social media in general can make an impact on what goes on in the political world. The political landscape has changed a lot since it first became a thing and one of the reasons for that is social media and the internet.Now, social media is a crucial part in gaining supporters and spreading the word. The reason I say so is because when you look on social media, you will see all campaigns are posting what they have to offer and what they are all about trying to bring but they sometimes talk down on whiner is running against to try to bring people to them and make others shy away from their competitors. This allows all of the people who are on these different apps (which is mostly the younger generations) and many people give their own opinions and interact with the campaigns which allows more engagement and that will be easier for us kids to pick a side on who we want to vote for. The internet also helps speed up showing the results of polls instantly on the phone rather the the old days where people would have to wait for the newspaper or the next TV show to state any type of political issue. It also helps politicians find specific target markets for who likes them so that they can continue to advertise those same things to gain more followers. You can get personal interactions with fans, critics and politicians, which is what everyone finds important in getting to know what exactly you want. I think that the internet is not always used in a good way. Apps like Facebook and Twitter often times are used for memes and could turn politics into things like propaganda. Anyone could post fake news or something that is not true, making fun of the other campaigns and this could lead to other people believing what you are saying and this could stir many arguments and everyone fighting each other behind their screens which could all turn out to be a big mess but sadly this is how things go. I think overall, using the internet and social media will continue to help the young generations who never vote, get up off the couch and take a stand for what they believe it and so far, the numbers show that it is gradually getting better as the days go on.

Youn

Scroll Past the Fake News Now More Than Ever

https://bit.ly/2XCMyHE

The media has been able to create fear in the lives of civilians for just about as long as it’s been in existence. And no, I’m not talking about the media actually getting facts right to expose horrible truths to the public and shed light on real issues. While this might have been something the media did in its very early days, it’s just not true anymore. I’m talking about fake news to distract people from real issues and to create panic by blowing up and distorting small bits of fake or unimportant information. Fake news is floating around in every corner of the internet. All it takes to spread is for someone with influence to share it with their followers, or an article getting passed around many, many times for fear and panic to take root in the minds and hearts of people like you and me. 

https://bit.ly/2wz0N5k

Fake news has been a hot topic since President Trump began using the term very frequently during his candidacy and presidency over the past few years. It has become a familiar term for most Americans. And while some of President Trump’s fake news claims have been misleading and incorrect, the term still correctly applies to a wide variety of ‘news’ that has malicious intent when it comes to informing the public. We’ve all seen this numerous times in our lifetimes and already too many times just in 2020 alone. On the day that Kobe Bryant died in late January this year, there were a flurry of fake and ill informed news stories storming the internet. I remember seeing multiple articles that got the amount of people and who was in the helicopter with him wrong. These articles were horrifying to read and I had no idea what story to believe for the whole day. When it comes to deaths, especially those that are made public, the media does not always do a great job of covering the story while being respectful to the person who died and their family. We are seeing this pan out even now as the coronavirus takes its toll on the United States. 

https://bit.ly/2K2xQlj

While the COVID-19 pandemic is not something that should be taken lightly, there is a lot of false information floating around with the intent to scare and control civilians. For example, the panic that led to the toilet paper shortage had to start somewhere. There were false symptoms reported online that the coronavirus would give you diarrhea, and everyone freaked out and stocked up on toilet paper to make sure that their behinds would be okay just in case they caught the virus. This is just one example of how false reports by the media have caused unnecessary panic. There have been multiple deaths that have been reported as due to COVID-19, while in fact the people who have passed in fact died of other causes but it just happened to be during a pandemic. Journalists have taken these deaths and eliminated the true cause of death and blamed it on the coronavirus. The stories of people dying in freak accidents but being said to be related to COVID-19 have added much unnecessary panic to the lives of those that read and hear about their stories. In times as dyer as this, we must be careful of the information that we let into our minds. 

https://bit.ly/2VmCuzT

While it is important to stay connected to news sources to know about further developments with the pandemic, there needs to be a cut off point when someone knows that they have heard enough for the day. A person can only take in so much negative information at one time before it starts to become a burden, and most of the information that is connected to COVID-19 is being portrayed in a negative way with little to no hope shining through. Find a reputable news source and check it once or twice a day tops. Take a break from the nonsense on Facebook and quit looking at the doomsday links that your aunt keeps sending you every other day. Worrying cannot add a second to your life. Instead of living in fear of the outcome of the pandemic, make sure you have enough essentials to stay at home for a few weeks, but don’t stop living life. Turn off the news on the T.V. and take a walk if you’re able to, pick up a new hobby, or call your friends and family to check on them and make sure that they’re doing okay. If they are the one sending you false information online, use this as an opportunity to share with them a good, quality news source that is producing correct as well as hopeful information. Being glued to a screen can be very dangerous, especially in a time like this. Choosing to turn off, log off, or scroll past fake news is the best thing you can do for yourself right now. Stay informed. Stay safe. Stay home. Stay healthy. 

Method: Jeffree Star

There are two platforms I am going to be working with. Twitter and YouTube is the main stage for Beauty enthusiast Jeffree Star. I am going to be evaluating how much the beauty community has crashed due to coronavirus using Jeffree star as an example. 

How I will search: Going on to his twitter profile is very easily accessible, there are tweets anywhere from 1-4 times a day about random topics. On YouTube is where a lot of the focus is at, the content is what I have to be looking at as well as how much he used to post versus how much he posts now. Looking at the timeline is important because I want to begin a few weeks before everything begins to shut down in the US, both twitter and YouTube should reflect this decrease in content.

When, and when will I stop: as stated above, I want to go back to a few weeks prior to everything shutting down (3/1/20), look at the twitter content and watch the YouTube content as well. I will stop looking at the content a month after my start period (4/1/20)

What I am searching for: my goal in this project is to find a shift in advertising as well as content that is being released if any at all. Jeffree star is a controversial human being who markets his own products almost daily, but since the outbreak the content on his Twitter and Youtube have changed but how? In what ways have they shifted? Is he trying to target a different audience?

How Businesses Gain Back Trust Online

According to CBS News, a new study shows that up to 60% of people from several countries across the globe do not trust social media. However, this is no secret that people don’t have a good relationship with these online platforms. There have been countless instances of data breeching, false news being promoted, and other sorts of scandals that have tainted social media’s image in the eyes of its users.

Despite the fact that many Americans have lost trust in social media platforms, businesses have no choice but to continue to have an online presence if they want to survive. It’s nearly impossible to grow a brand without communicating with consumers on their level, which means connecting through social media pages. Billions of people are still using social media, and it would be a disastrous mistake for a company to not engage in that potential.

Response Time

One of the most important ways a company can interact with its audience is by responding to them directly. There are many brands that interact directly with consumers in the comments section of their posts or through direct messaging. When businesses respond directly to customers’ questions and comments, it builds up their reputation as a name that can be trusted.

https://www.garyasanchez.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Starbucks_Secret_Menu.png

We also see this when companies encourage user content that they then repost on their main page. It gives their audience an incentive to interact with their page and product while building brand awareness for the business. This is a medium that allows for consumers to interact directly with the parent company and shows that the company cares about its customers enough to want to interact with them. This is a great advantage that social media gives us: to allow a relationship to form from the company directly to the customers in a way that we haven’t seen.

Just Act Natural

One way we have seen brands try to win back consumers is through acting “human.” We’ve seen on Twitter when companies seem a little too human (just take a look at Wendy’s page), however it still has a positive impact on relating to their audience. For example, Wendy’s gained 970,000 new followers on Twitter as a result of an exchange with a teenager that went viral and resulted in the teen having the most retweets on a tweet ever. The fact that Wendy’s was able to connect on a human level with its followers allowed for the company to gain popularity online and resulted in a reputation that assures its audience that they can be trusted.

It doesn’t look good for a company when they try to be perfect. As consumers, we know that there are people behind a company, and it just doesn’t work when a business is a try hard. People like quality content, but also need a balance of content that is relatable and casual so that they aren’t intimidated by the agenda the company is trying to push. People are looking for products that make them feel valued and feel good, and the best way to achieve this is to keep things casual. Although Wendy’s does their job to promote their restaurant and their products, they are also able to have some fun with it that attracts the attention of millions and helps their company in more ways than product promotion could ever do.

This Ad is Sponsored by…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2019/02/01/Untitled_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqRdPLSElEmrKaK7hcQaxOdEH7rpmejMrh9F70GXkkTDo.png?imwidth=1400

Another way that we have seen businesses trying to be relatable is through brand ambassadors. Companies partner up with influencers who are well known on social media in an attempt to gain the trust of a targeted audience. These businesses partner with people who are known and trusted online to show that even celebrities and influencers are comfortable with their business and its products.

There are a few skeptics with this approach because the ambassadors are getting paid to promote these products, but I believe it helps the company a lot more than any critics can have a negative impact. The company has the potential to reach an audience that might not have heard of the company or its products/services and allows the company to expand as they reach new consumers. This approach is a game changer for advertisement that doesn’t bore its audience to death the way that TV and radio ads do. When consumers can see other customers who they know and trust, there is a much greater probability that they will also learn to love the company in the same way these paid celebrities do.

Not All Hope is Lost Yet

Although Americans are overwhelming losing faith in social media platforms themselves, that doesn’t mean brands can’t have a successful presence online. Social media is not going away anytime soon, so businesses must be willing to adapt and work hard to gain the trust of their customers if they are going to have a successful social media campaign. People are going to be skeptical of social media indefinitely, and it’s the job of these businesses to give a reason to users to stay engaged with the online world and make them feel valued. 

Social Media and the American "Left"

Woohoo, everyone's favorite topic. I'll get this right out in the open: I identify as a Social Democrat. I still hold onto Capitalism, but with regulation on corporations and social safety nets (focus on Keynesian economics.) I also believe that most social issues should be handled by people via direct-ballot boxes rather than by governments. Some may call me a "leftist," a "liberal," or even a "communist," but I assure you I am not any of these things. Frankly, I'm not all that interested in policies today. Rather, I'd like to explore the use/misuse of the terms given above.

Some basics to get out of the way before we start, I'd like to define some of the most common terms to be used throughout this post when naming ideologies.

1. "Leftist"- Someone who holds a post-capitalist ideology, usually some variant of Socialism or Communism. A rejection of Capitalism in favor of a more horizontal hierarchy. Almost always pairs with social justice, but recognizes class struggle.

2. "Liberal"- Although there are two definitions to liberal, I'll refer to a common American description. Someone who is largely fine with the economic system, but longs to see social and/or environmental issues dealt with. Largely does not understand in terms of class struggle, but rather along demographics.

3. "Socialist"- Someone who rejects Capitalism as an economic system in favor of one of redistribution of some sort, usually through a state.

4. "Communist"- Someone who rejects Capitalism as an economic system, instead abiding by a system where everyone produces the maximum they can and in turn receive what they need + leftover, usually without a state

Easily the most debatable definition here is the term "liberal." Liberal has been used to describe practically every ideology left of the standard American right. In essence, it's a catch-all term that can either be used to describe or undermine a person's political ideology, regardless of what it actually is. However perhaps more interesting than the term liberal are the other terms on this list whenever used as insults on the internet.

"Leftist," "Socialist," and "Communist" are also commonly used against people who don't prescribe to those ideologies, and is often paired with the term "Liberal." My question is this: if these terms have fairly clear-cut meanings, how can they be used so interchangeably and why is it being done? I argue that the utter polarization of our political system, decades of propaganda, and social media usage has caused not the lines between these ideologies to blur, but rather our ability to perceive them.

Propaganda and polarization has been happening long before social media. For most of our lives, there's been some politician or news network that's tried to frame any sort of activism that's remotely left of the right wing as being "socialist;" abusing the mythology of the USSR and other Socialist states to discourage support for such policies being implemented. Not only did this help to divide people to more neat boxes (the left and the right,) but it also started to obfuscate the meanings of these words.

I think it is social media that has utterly destroyed our ability to perceive the differences in these ideologies. Whereas before most people might have connected the ideologies but understood some innate differences, the overuse of the terms has caused meanings to blur into one another until they started to resemble the world's least helpful color wheel.

Overusage of these terms as insults has been an issue, especially in recent years, on social media. Instead of understanding ideologies and critiquing it, many people have instead taken to propaganda and group-think to understand the American "left" as one nebulous mass; a swarm of people with little discernable identity or an identity that deserves to be wiped out. The political divides fostered by Cambridge Analytica, online political bubbles, and increasingly divisive rhetoric has helped to fuel a tribalistic mindset: where all the right has one ideology, and all the left has theirs. Also, with the constant exposure to misuse of terms stemming from groupthink, the popular understanding of diverse ideology has started to cloud as well.

The American "Left," then, is barely a descriptor at all; it's a terrifying amalgamation of misinformation, divisive rhetoric, and a lack of political knowledge that manifests itself as a strange but omnipresent entity.

Disinformation and You

I was going to start this blog with a standard, "We all think..." and then I would have inserted some sort of common sense argument that may not be as true as it initially appears. It's one of my go-to phrases that makes it sound like I've put more thought into my work than I usually have.

But then I thought, "I actually don't know what WE ALL think. I only know what I think, and what others have told me about what they think." Maybe I should get some better go-to phrases.

Point is: Disinformation is bad. We can talk about why it's bad, and why it's here, and that might help us try to stop the spread but at a certain point you've gotta come to the realization: your blog is not popular. Your words aren't going to reach the people in power, they're just going to go to regular people and even then, none of them will care enough to try changing the big picture.

The only thing that might even be valuable to you, that I might be able to provide, is a list of ways to identify disinformation when you see it, so that you can live and still have some semblance of trust in at least some experts out there. Cause that's the real harm.

Promoting the spread of disinformation, or even the discourse about disinformation, just makes everybody paranoid and not know who to trust. If someone you don't like is spreading facts you don't like, and you want to do something about it, you can do one of three things. You can either put in the effort to make well-reasoned argument with evidence supporting it about why you feel the way you do, you can make a bad argument (also known as common sense) where you don't support your stance with evidence or even all that strong of logic, or you can try to lie faster than people can correct you.

I'd like to think WE ALL like the first option more than the other two, but come on. I've used the second option so many times, because actually taking the time and effort to make a big huge argument is exhausting and most people don't appreciate hearing it.

If you choose the first option, you are letting your conversation partner know that you think that they are not one of you and so regardless of if you are talking up or down at someone, you are making them feel like The Other. That is not always pleasant. Additionally, it's always very unsatisfying when you do take the time and effort to make a quality argument and then... the other person doesn't agree with you. It's as if they are just being stubborn and unfair, because you spent all that time trying to convince them and yet they won't agree! And so, sometimes people aren't even willing to try the first option, because it only hurts all the worse when it gets rejected and even when it does succeed, that's not guaranteed to make you feel better. Most of the time, the best you can hope for is a compromise of ideals, where you are not entirely satisfied and neither is your partner, but you both have to be satisfied with that because neither of you can agree or disagree any further. It's almost safer to make a worse argument and fail, than to make a better argument and succeed because better arguments require a good deal of investment and risk.

If you use the second option though, it can help to strengthen the bond between you and your partner, but only a great risk. If you know you are making a bad argument and they know it too, and they follow along the path of your argument anyway? It's because they care about you or already agreed with you. Both make you feel good. But if they opt to not follow you along your argument's path of logic, it feels like they are denying you of both the good feeling of validation at being right, but also the chance to have gotten to know you better. This is why many people feel like the other person won't compromise and are being unfair. In truth, it's actually because they, in their denial of your half-assed argument, are forcing you to spend the energy to make a better one or admit defeat (neither of which is pleasant). Then you feel as if they are actively working against your interests instead of merely being unconvinced of your argument.

The third option however is way more interesting though, because it's no longer about changing the mind of the person who disagrees with you, but now it's all about making that one person who disagrees with you invisible. Think about it. If there's a dog barking at you from across the street, and you've already yelled at it and thrown your shoe to try to make it stop, but it hasn't stopped, what do you do? I would put on some music and try to drown it out. It doesn't even have to be good music. It doesn't even have to be music. It could just be a series of sound effects played at random. So long as what you were playing was louder than the dog, you'd have an easier go of it.

That's what some politicians, and some businesses and even some individuals are trying to do. If you can lie faster than the other person can correct you, you can create a situation where there are more lies flying around and being repeated than there are truths that might hurt you. The lies can hurt you too, but so long as they are lies, you can always dismiss them as such and then you don't even have to fight all that very hard.

That doesn't mean that in order to try to distinguish what is a truth and what is a lie is very simple though. Just because something is loud doesn't mean it is a lie. As lies get louder, people who are telling truth are also going to get louder to make sure that their message is heard. As a result, if you've been keeping your ears open to the news, everybody's screaming all the time! And you can't make heads or tails of it!

The only measuring stick I think might be valuable to determine what is a truth and what is a lie, is how much energy someone has put into making it look like a good argument. Like the first option. If you are listening to a person trying to make a claim of some kind, how long do they spend supporting this claim? How much time to they spend treating the claim like it has already been proven? Is the other side given the benefit of the doubt? In supporting their argument do they use any fallacies? In trying to put down someone else's argument, are they using any fallacies?

Liars usually try to make their lies look like truth all the time, but even that takes time to do, and many liars don't just tell one lie, they tell multiple.

Does the person you are listening to have a history telling lies? How about half-truths? How about mostly-truths? How quick are they to jump to a conclusion? How quick are you?

Not only are lies made more quickly than truths are, they are also made to withstand a quick judgement, but not necessarily a slow one. I hate to say it, but sometimes the only way to be sure is to double-check. Triple-check. Quadruple-check.

Many people my age (late teens to early twenties) seem to be lacking certainty, but many others aren't. It could be said that some are too sure of themselves and those they think are reputable. That's another thing. Just because someone has passed your inspection before, doesn't mean that they are necessarily telling you the truth again.

Just because something has always been done in a particular way, it doesn't mean that that way will persist forever.

Also... just use your best judgement. Be especially careful before you retweet or share a post, because you don't want to spread disinformation, and you don't want to ruin your credibility. Unless of course, you are trying to bring someone else down with you too in your pursuit of the third option.

I would urge you though, to pursue the best argument you can whenever you can. It might not always seem like it is worth it, but for every unpopular tiny little blog post that tries to support truth over lies... an angel gets its wings.

And that's a FACT.

Selective Companies Banking off of Quarantine

As everyone else is in a total panic about COVID-19 and the state of the economy, many companies have the perfect opportunity to advertise and cash out. This of course has to be a fitting product or service due to the current situation we are in. In these times of desperation and being stuck at home, companies that allow you to continue your hobbies from home or even just get you the necessities to try and continue with a normal lifestyle are excelling. These companies are also attacking possible consumers in need through the apps we use on our phone. Everyday on Instagram, Facebook, or Spotify I see these sponsored advertisements tailored to target those stuck at home.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/12_Foot_Indoor_Golf_Green.jpg

Continuing hobbies from home is possibly one of the most entertaining activities that makes you feel like you're still living a somewhat normal lifestyle. So many people are desperately looking to pick up hobbies as well, in hopes that something new would captivate them and consume a lot of this free time we now have. Many companies were on the ball and saw this as an opportunity to promote their product and skyrocket their sales. One thing that I have been seeing a lot of I assume because of the activity watched on my phone are 'golf nets.' Personally, I know that "golf people" are some of the most obsessive people on Earth. They are constantly worrying about their swing or when they're going to get out and play again. Collectively making them an easy target audience, I know five people that have already told me they bought a net so they could hit in their backyard without leaving their home. Perfect Practice Golf is also advertising their at home putting setup all over the place as well which gives golfers the same concept that they're still working on their game at home. With golf courses collectively closing all over the country the more companies and products like these continue to advertise their sales will certainly escalate.

I recently gave in to an advertisement for an app I swore I didn't need for a very long time, due to my desperation to escape boredom. I saw a Hulu add on Facebook about a week ago and thought "I already have Netflix I really don't need another app to anxiously search for new movies or shows to watch." Not a coincidence that a couple days later I gave in and bought Hulu, since then I have spent at least a few hours a day watching the new series' I have become invested in. For me, I didn't realize how hard a bit the bait until I started thinking about examples for this paper. Just a textbook quarantine sale for an app that already had millions of users. 

EFV7mRDcYKxpFeiriMQ8unQ5NVmjSrpwgjq5fn9bXJHYnGhIOToN

Due to the attempt to practice crowd control safety many Americans are doing their best to avoid the fast food places that are still open people are using ways to get food but avoid the public. Another company I have seen placing ads everywhere is Fresh N' Lean,  this company makes pre-made meals that they will deliver to your home. Another attraction to this is eating healthy at your convenience during this pandemic. Personally, I haven't bought into this due to the copious amount of venison and pastaroni I have at my house at all times, but for others that are tired of eating peanut butter and jelly this would be strikingly refreshing. Another company excelling is Favor, which picks up and delivers your orders from your favorite restaurants. Favor was relatively popular before the pandemic but, I have seen them advertising a lot more recently doing their best to capitalize on the opportunity they have in front of them.      

The most out of nowhere explosion of an app that was rarely heard about to me was Zoom. I had personally never heard of Zoom, apps like this like Skype were very popular before Apple created Facetime. I have heard a few people say they had used it before for work but it was a relatively unpopular tool. Now colleges and workplaces are using it all over the country, immediately I wondered how Universities or companies found this. Almost overnight, Zoom exploded and every college student and workplace are using the app every day. Even though I don't believe this happened through advertising it amazes me thinking about how this app has succeeded and changed peoples' live coincidentally through this pandemic.

Although we can agree that COVID-19 is an extremely unfortunate experience, I am amazed when I think about what it has done for certain companies that have basically exploded from out of nowhere. Between people desperately trying to hold onto their hobbies, just trying to entertain themselves, trying to eat something that isn't from their pantry, keeping their schooling afloat, or keeping their companies' communication together companies like these have been the glue holding the world together. Hopefully one day soon we won't desperately need these products, services, or apps to keep us sane but, it amazes me how things that would have never sold or that we had never heard of are now nearly saving the world.  

The Political Pollution of Social Media

A few months before a major election, you will begin to see commercials for politicians all reassuring you that your vote is safe if in their hands. Some use their 30 seconds of screen time to demolish the reputation of competitors. Some show their families and an overly happy community working toward a common goal. Some fill their time with graphs and statistics, promising to make big change as soon as they are elected. Regardless of the content, you could easily see 10 commercials for the same candidate within a few hours. Lucky for us, it doesn’t stop there. Your twitter feed, Instagram story ads, and website pop-ups could all be polluted with ads, promises, videos, and surveys from hopeful politicians for months.

In the midst of this flood of propaganda, a major social class obstacle is brought to light. Candidates with billions in their pockets could easily afford to make sure you see their face constantly to the point where you become less aware that other candidates are even running for the position. Meanwhile, other candidates with less money that are an equally good choice simply can’t compete or get their message far past local communities. As much as social media can be utilized as a tool, it seems to be weaponized as a barrier far more often.

I’d like to clarify that the social class obstacle within the realm of politics is far from new. There will always be people running who can not afford the campaigning, costs of rallies, flyers, tee-shirts, newsletters, etc. However, it is difficult to disregard the effect that social media has in amplifying these abilities. Instead of knocking on doors, candidates now pay for a suggested tweet, one which could be shared to millions in a matter of hours. Instead of a billboard along the highway for local people to see on their daily commute, a candidate could purchase an ad on a site visited by millions a day and exponentially grow awareness about their mission. The price of these ads, commercials, and suggested tweets is quite expensive. The NewYorker reports that over a year before the 2016 election, candidates had already invested over 63 million dollars on marketing on popular sites such as Google and Facebook. Needless to say, the likelihood of an average American becoming a well-known candidate in a modern election is slim to none. The monetary requirements to advertise and market have become so unreachable that only a few names will even touch the ballot.

Now let’s consider if the message being spread to the public is one full of half-truths and even false accusations about competitors. Not only does this have a profound impact on the public perception of said candidate, but it becomes a claim that they cannot combat with the same amount of coverage. The most an individual could do if ads were created with false information against them would be to sue for defamation. We might think that executives who run these platforms would make sure that information with such immense reach and spreading power was fact-checked. However, when asked about fact-checking on political statements, CEO of Facebook, Mark Zucherberg made the vague statement that “If you were to run an ad that had a lie, that would be bad” without clarifying whether Facebook had any procedures to prohibit such advertising- they do not. Although it is difficult to pinpoint who is to blame for this abuse of social media, it can be better thought of as several contributors (candidates, lawmakers, social media executives) glancing over an issue as it manifests.

At what point does this advantage based on classism cross the line of free expression and become a weaponized tactic, not only removing competition but distorting voters’ field of vision? It is necessary to evaluate what we information we are being faced with daily. Granted, it is of equal importance to notice what, or who, is missing due to this political pollution. By overwhelming our feeds, candidates are intentionally pushing users into a certain way of thinking, and later, voting. Users’ subconscious bias formed by seeing repeated messages for months leads them to thinking there are fewer options available that what really exists.

This issue of political pollution is relatively new due to advancing technology and will only grow and become more twisted if not addressed immediately. Looking at the big picture, we are losing out on the opportunity to seek out and discover new candidates with different viewpoints and ideas if the modern prerequisite to running for office is having millions in your pocket. From an individual standpoint, the action we can take now involves researching each candidate before going to vote. This does not completely solve the problem nor does it address the bias in articles about each candidate. However, it is a small step toward increased awareness of who is running and why, regardless of their financial well-being.

Blame Ill Intentions, Not Social Media

There are social media problems and there are political problems. When they come together, the underlying nature of human intent is only intensified.

On one end, social media extends geographical boundaries to bring people together to share memories and ideologies. On the flip-side, social media can be a powerful tool of manipulation that spreads misinformation and encourages ideological and political polarization. Sometimes it seems like we see the latter more than not. The results of this poses a great threat to the American democracy. Rather than social media uniting people together, it is chipping away at The United States’ ‘unity’. However, I don’t think social media platforms should take all the blame.

Human Intent

When I was first thinking about the problem on social media and democracy, I was quick to blame social media for dividing people. After some research, I shifted my perspective to look at the root of the problem.

Social media itself is only a system. Blaming social media for political polarization is like blaming the gun for firing. It is not the gun that fires, it is the person that pulls the trigger that makes it fire.

The things we see on social media like misinformation and manipulation are not all that new. We are only experiencing them through a new medium that magnifies the problem. Facebook said it itself:

“If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent — both good and bad.”

While social media may increase the influence of ill intentions, social media is not the root of the problem. The problem lays in the intent of the person running the system.

For instance, in the Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election scandal, millions of Facebook profiles were hacked and utilize for political campaign advertisement. Not only was this performed without millions of people's consent, but it was disrupted the natural system of American democracy. Social media worked as a tool to the ill intentions of the people behind the agenda. To my understanding, this notion is not all that new. How is it that different from legacy media and propaganda?

Social media is being used the same way the press can be used to push an agenda. Propaganda is as old as time. What is new is that politicians can buy their way in front of their desired audience with personalized persuasive content. If all the content is curated to catch our attention, how do you know if you really support someone or if you were manipulated into thinking that you support someone? We shouldn’t point a finger at the medium when it’s the people that are working through the medium. 

Intensified Intent

As I have identified in my past blogs, social media curates the content on your feed. So, we know the motives are in the eyeballs and the money. The motives for politics are that in of the same but with the result being a vote. When political campaigns take on social media, they have the potential to take advantage of the algorithms. Rather than organically reaching people, it is as easy as a few clicks to get reach your desired audience.

Casey Newton interviewed Ezra Klien in her article Why we can’t blame social media for our polarized politics. He said:

"I think the move towards algorithmic feeds that select for content that triggers an intense emotional response is just a bad way to structure communication. I think supercharging our social instincts often brings out the worst, not the best, in us — few look back fondly on the social dynamics of high school cafeterias, and for good reason."

We see emotional backlash and intense polarization when things are miscommunicated or taken out of context to fit an agenda. There is not much we can do to alter deep rooted ill intentions or political corruption. However, social media corporations can design their products in a way that protects their technology from being taken advantage of. Of course, this would mean that they would have to have good intentions in the first place. Issues like this need to be reevaluated with the moral duties of social media corporations. In a perfect world, they should fulfill a moral duty that has the consent of its users i.e. a "Designer's Oath".

What's Next?

If things continue to go as they are with social media and politics, it may deconstruct democracy as we know it. In my case, the current dynamic has only pushed me further away from being politically interested. Lucky, I have not been pushed away from voting. But I am not proudly educated when I make my decisions at the polls. There is not enough trustworthy and easily accessible information. Also, I think it is important to remain skeptical of your ideologies being shaped by the information provided.

Let’s not give up our hope yet. The merging of social media and politics is still relatively new. Right now, politics are using social media to meet their needs whichever their intent are. Going forward, social media has great potential to work with politics. I would like to see both industries come together to establish a moral code that works for the people, not against them.