Gift Economy or Obligation Economy?

 

What is the Gift Economy? To put it into simpler terms, its an exchange between people isn’t with tangible goods under certain conditions, but rather given as gifts without explicit agreements or future rewards.

Some examples would be video gamers receiving donations while they stream, or people who use Only Fans to generate money through donations. But is there such thing as a gift transaction without the obligatory feeling of having to give a gift in return or continue giving gifts to our favorite influencers? Another question to ask is how much does the gift economy build community between fans and companies/influencers?

Photo by Donald Tong from Pexels

With some platforms, the gift economy may feel more obligatory. For example, anyone can create a Twitch account and stream themselves gaming, and they can receive donations from the people they watch! The same thing goes for YouTubers with paid sponsorships or ads that are set to play during their videos. If you watch the ad all the way through, then they receive a donation from that ad.

Another way that influencers get a larger outreach would be from their fans! Above is a picture of Naruto cosplayers. The reason I wanted to tie cosplayers into the idea of the gift economy is because they are inadvertently helping/giving to the franchise they love! When others see a picture like this, and they’re interested in the reason behind their costumes and poses, they may look into the Anime itself, giving it more viewers. But there is a flip side that all too many fans have experienced.

The Social Exchange theory basically says that if the costs of the relationship are higher than the rewards then that relationship has to end. Some institutes with a large fan base and influencers find that their fans are valuable, in more than one way. Some followers of popular movie or TV show fandoms like to create their own spinoffs of their favorite characters, but this may come with a cost. If their spinoff gains popularity online, then they may get sued by the original show/TV series. This caused a quarrel between the Gift Economy Theory and an Instrumental relationship.

This circumstance requires a fan, who has made many gifts to their beloved fandom, to pay a fine over their recreation of their passion. This brings ethics into the equation. Are our gifts actually optional or do they come off as obligatory?

Photo by Polina Sirotina from Pexels

The gift economy can make you feel guilty. Plain and simple. Take churches for example, they have aa large following and support group, but at the end of the day we have to remember that they have employees to pay for their services too. So churches my pass donation plates around after a sermon about giving and helping one another. This altercation can make gift giving feel transactional, so is it still a gift? Or take one of my previous examples of Only Fans. This app allows people to pay subscriptions to certain individuals for explicit pictures. Some view this as a gift, but some people rely so heavily on these subscriptions and donations that they use it as a primary source of income. When one of their followers unsubscribe or fail to make a payment, it could be devastating to them, causing the donor to feel guilty for failing a direct line of contact.

So, what is the gift economy? Its not so simple after looking at it all. The gift economy exists in certain situations, but everyone views transactions differently, therefore there are different theories behind it.

4 Types of Cultural Practices

         Did you know there are 4 types of cultural practices in our societies that are practiced online? This last week of February and much of playing catch up game due to the crazy winter storm in Texas, we learned about these 4 types of cultural practices that we have seen throughout our lives. If you do know about them, then please keep reading and share your thoughts in the comments below!

To start off, there is emergent. Like the name, this is when something or someone emerges out of nowhere! For example, thinking about my old days, Justin Bieber kind of came out nowhere and took over many girls time and money! Looking further back, the group The Beatles has the same affect. They came out of nowhere and were there to stay. Lastly, a more recent example that can be considered emergent is the popular app, Tik Tok. This app took off steadily throughout the pandemic of 2020. Many who were stuck at home because of quarantine, sought out to Tik Tok for entertainment to pass the time.  Either to create their own content or just sit back and enjoy the ride. There is no pressure of being active and creating videos so it truly is an app to pass a good time. 

            The second type of cultural practice is dominant. This one sounds very familiar to emergent in a way. However, the difference for dominant type is that this thing or person(s) takes over every generation mostly. Not just one generation or one age group. An example of this could be the Netflix series, Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness. This show became very popular at the beginning of quarantine in 2020 among each generation. If you didn’t watch the show then maybe you saw the woman, Carole Baskin, dancing on Dancing with the Stars, on the television. If you didn’t get a chance to see that then maybe you heard the song, Carole Baskin Killed Her Husband, on social media. As you can see, this show and the product of some actions that were done resulted it to spread everywhere. It became a dominant practice for many people from each generation. Another example of dominant was pagers. Before there was even flip phones, the Razor or Blackberry, there was pagers. The younger generation wanted them to look cool and send cool little messages to them. The parents wanted them to communicate it with their jobs and family and the grandparents liked to have them because they were convenient. Pagers became something popular among everyone not just one age group!

            The third one is called residual. When I read this word I think of recycling or rescuable and it kind of lines up with what residual means. Residual means when a generation is obsessed with something from the past and it becomes dominant again. A fashion sense of this that spread was scrunchies, high waisted jeans, mom jeans, crop tops, some tennis shoes like Rebooks, high-top converse, and mid-thigh shorts for males.  Another thing one can think about is video games and specifically Mario Brothers. It launched in 1983, popular for about 10 years or so, died down and came back strong when technology had advanced. Gen X and millennials specifically were excited for this comeback since they experienced its first released and got the experience of the game in a new experience. Lastly, the example the book that we read gave the example of vinyl records. I found this very true as many people especially music lovers enjoy purchasing these. Then there are the people who just enjoy the aesthetic from them and like to decorate a space with a couple of them or a lot of them!

            The fourth cultural practice that we learned is called archaic. This one in the most simple way to say it is, this thing or person is gone, there is no coming back for it. One of the first things that I thought of when thinking of what is archaic from my childhood was group forwarding chain text messages. I don’t know who started them but I would receive this long message of a scary story or something nice like “if you get this message, this person loves you”. Then it would threaten you at the end, “if you don’t send this to 10 or more people, the dead lady will haunt you tonight” or “if you don’t send this to 10 or more people, something bad will happen to you tonight”. It’s a rough draft but I still remember getting them and trying to think of what 10 people I could send them to! Another thing that I thought about was CD players. I don’t see these things coming back at all, even for the aesthetic vibe like vinyl records have to them. It was just something necessary at the time to listen to music on the go or in the car and was just simply replaced by smartphones and Bluetooth. 

            In conclusion, much of these types of cultural practices happen right in front of us and if we don’t pay attention they zoom by right in front of you or come back and give you flashbacks of the past. 

Instagram and the Gift Economy

 This past week, we read part of a book called The Gift. This book by Marcel Mauss talked on how different cultures gave gifts to each other. Some cultures competed with each other on who could give the best gifts, throw the best parties, and host the best ceremonies. We learned about how Scandinavian countries and cultures give gifts called, "contractual gifts". These gifts are given voluntarily and you do not have any obligation to give a gift back in return. But, if you don't give a gift back in return then you will no longer receive gifts from that person. It is a slap in the face to receive a gift and not give one back in return. The Samoans present gifts to each other during marriage ceremonies, childbirth, circumcision's, sickness, and funerals. They give these gifts to show that they care about one another, and that they appreciate the other person. Think about this for a second. Do we do this today to each other? Well, probably not in real life as much. But, this exchanging of gifts can be seen virtually more than anything. Since I see this in Instagram more than any other social media, I'm going to use it as the example to make the comparison. 

To understand how giving and receiving gifts IRL and getting lots of interactions on social media compare, we must first understand why we feel the same way on both occasions. People in general love to give. People like to give because we know that in the future, we may also receive. Whether this be virtually or physically. You may not know it, but every time you are going on an app like Instagram to follow, like and comment on things you are giving a gift. When people like and comment on our posts, it makes us feel the same way it would to receive a gift. The same way you feel on Christmas is the same way you feel when you get a lot of interactions on your post. This is because of a chemical in your brain that naturally releases whenever we receive a notification that correlates when we receive gifts. This chemical is called dopamine. When we get a social media notification, our brain releases dopamine. That dopamine triggers a happiness within ourselves that makes us feel valued. When we feel valued, we want to naturally make other people feel valued. 

Just like how the Samoans present gifts during important life events, we do the same on platforms like Instagram. If a friend of yours posts on Instagram a picture of her engagement ring, you are going to like it. That is your friend, and you want to make her feel valued and show her that you are excited. You might be so excited for her that you even throw a comment out there. "OMG YAS SIS!", or whatever females say to each other nowadays when it comes to that. Depending on how close you and that friend are, she may notice that you didn't like or comment on her picture. Of course, if she is a mature friend she may not think anything of it negatively. She might think you were at work, or somehow accidentally didn't see it. If she is not a mature friend and cares that deeply, she may not like your next post or maybe even unfollow you to show you that she took it personally. As your friend, she was expecting you to post a comment or show her support in front of all her followers. She expected that gift, because she likes and comments on all of your post to do the same to you. People nowadays are starting to find value in how many likes and comments they get on their posts. If you aren't partaking in the value-building of that person, they may not want to show the same back to you. It's basically a matter of "you didn't like my post so I'm not going to like yours", and "you didn't comment on my post so I'm not gonna comment on yours". Sound familiar? In the gift economy of ancient cultures, if you didn't give a gift back after you received then you wouldn't get a gift again. Kind of like if you don't start commenting and liking my post I will not be doing the same to you.

In conclusion, we can see the comparison to apps like Instagram and the gift economy of ancient cultures. Ancient cultures would give gifts to show how much they value another. If you don't give a gift back, you don't show value to them so they excommunicate with you. How scary is that? It's understandable when in ancient cultures if someone gave you a cow and you didn't give anything back how that could be taken the wrong way. But all over a like? Or a follow-back? Not everyone is like this, but I feel in the younger generations it could eventually come to this. The gift economy will continue despite technological advantages. It's just now they get a lot less sentimental. 

 

The Twitch Gift Economy

                We typically love the idea of gifts, well, except when you feel like you owe someone a gift back because you feel obligated to do it. In some cases, the overused phrase of “giving is better than getting” is true but there is also a twist to that idea that is typically not talked about. Whenever you give something to a friend or give out of generosity even though you have good intentions, selfish implications can be present as sometimes people can use that gift to feel like the bigger and better person. This of course can be on the extreme end of things, but it is important to remember that this is similar to the idea of the gift economy that Marcel Mauss talks about.

                Ok so hopefully, we are not that selfish and do not have the “so, what are you going to do for me now?" toxic mentality, but what we do know is that friendships (healthy ones at least) are built out of mutual respect and understanding. Usually, gifts are the best way to show love for another friend, and that gift is often reciprocated in the form of another gift or even time and effort for something else. This is how a typical physical friendship may work, but how does the gift economy translate into the social media world? This question becomes increasingly intriguing to dissect if one of your relationships is solely based on online interactions and not having that intimate foundation of physically being in the same room as the person you are friends with. We can see this idea prominent in many different forms of social media with one of them being Twitch as one of the biggest examples of the gift economy in action.

Twitch is a wildly popular streaming platform that was created in 2011

                Twitch is an online streaming platform that allows people to go live from the comfort of their home and it allows them to do numerous activities ranging from ASMR, gaming, chatting, and so on. This platform has become increasingly popular since its release and many people enjoy watching their favorite streamers with who they build relationships. These relationships are built on the foundation of an audience member to performer not unlike how a concert goer watching their favorite band member only that it is online and often times become more personal. For a world dealing with a pandemic, this is a great solution to the boredom of staying home all day and avoiding people in public. So, what exactly does this have to do with the gift economy? Well, Twitch has its own form of an economy that is separated into two parts: subscriptions and bits. These are what streamers rely on to make money for their time and effort put into streams, which is a lot more than many people realize.

                This is the type of hobby that can turn into a job as you can imagine, yet many streamers feel uncomfortable when asking for donations or subscriptions even at that because many of them claim that they are simply doing it for fun. There are still of course many streamers who have no problem asking for these things (and might even be really rude about it), but a good majority of streamers seem to hate to ask for people to give something to them. Some of the bigger streamers even cap their donations or take donations off entirely to avoid missing out on reading a donation or feel weird about it. But why is this an issue? Receiving money is something that we would all be excited about is it not? Not necessarily. From Mauss’s point of view, we create a dynamic through gifts that makes people feel as though now they owe something back in exchange for their generosity. This reminds me of the time I gifted one of my friends a game recently on Steam because I wanted to play it with her and she told me, “No, don’t do that, I don’t have the money to pay you back!”. Even though this was clearly a gift and I was not expecting anything in return, this is the perfect example of how a streamer might feel weird about accepting donations and subs as some of them feel as though they can not pay you back properly.

One of my closest Twitch friends who you should totally follow

This does not mean that this is a bad economy though and many people are appreciative of the fact that you give them something. One of my now close online friends who goes by PerditaVulpecula on Twitch is one of the sweetest people you will ever meet (y’all should totally follow her) and she is thankful for all of the donations and subscriptions she receives. By the gift economy standards, her content is what we are receiving and in exchange, we are viewing it as time is also a valuable resource on both ends. Sometimes, time can even be more valuable than money in this case as setting up the stream and overlays can take quite a bit of time and of course, the viewer themselves watch the stream for entertainment and for support of that certain streamer. This idea is taken one step further though when donations or subs are incurred. Again, we see this exchange of gifts from one person to another. In Perdita’s case, if someone donates or subs to her, she will then thank them for what they gave her. Subscriptions go one step further as they will receive custom emotes for their subscription for as long as the subscription lasts, thus further extending the gratitude of the streamer like Perdita. In this case, there is a duality of obligation and no obligation present here. Perdita does obviously not have to stream, and she does not have to make emotes for people who are subscribed to her, but she does it because she enjoys spending time with her audience and wants to make sure that they feel appreciated. This is the same concept for the viewer as well; they are not obligated to watch nor are they obligated to give any kind of money, but they do it because they enjoy spending time with her and want to make sure she feels appreciated.

This sort of gift economy is unique as it blends the idea of friendship and celebrity into one. Many viewers see streamers as this amazing individual similar to that of celebrity status but also as a friend whom they can potentially confide into about certain situations. We see that Mauss’s theory still holds to be mostly accurate even in this situation as this sort of relationship is not something we are forced into nor do we feel it to be truly necessary, but it is done out of a social obligation that does not seem so sinister as mentioned in the first paragraph due to the fact that the viewer and streamer feel a genuine human connection present. There are many viewers who donate even without being asked to, which can only be derived from a special type of relationship as in many other cases people are not willing to spend so much money otherwise. This intimacy perpetuates a dynamic that will continue to grow as the number of streamers continue to rise and so do the number of viewers which will then continue this particular cycle within the gift economy.

Social Media Influencers and The Gift Economy

 Hi!!! 

    Welcome back to your favorite blog posts ;) - JK I just thought it would be appropriate to sound like an actual influencer for my introduction. On today's agenda I am going to go deep in the topic of social media influencers and social media in regards to the gift economy. 

    Whoever is currently reading this post, I want you to think of your all time favorite social media influencer or your current favorite influencer. Questions I have learned to ask myself about these people are - "why do I like this person?", "why do I follow this person?", or "how does this person influence me specifically?". These are all good questions I would have never thought to ask myself, and they are probably questions you may have not thought about either. For starters, I am going to tell you a little bit about my favorite influencer - her name is Kylie Ross. I started following Kylie Ross almost two years ago and I can honestly say I don't remember the specific reason for why I followed her. Kylie used to play soccer at The University of Baylor, which I am guessing is what initially drew my attention to her (because soccer players are dope - ME - I am also a soccer player). Over the last year I have invested a little more time in Kylie's content than I would for most social media influencers. What I really like about Kylie is how authentic she is, she is very raw and honest - which are things that I love most about all people. Kylie and I also have the same interests in fitness, fashion, and we are pretty close in age - which makes it so much easier to relate to her. The next question to ask yourself would be, "how do you actually know when a person is being honest and authentic?" - an example for Kylie would be how she openly talks about her faith and religion, she shares personal information about her relationships, and she is very open in talking about her failures in life. Most influencers that I used to follow were not comfortable talking about religion on their platforms, so when I see an influencer posting their beliefs on social media - I respect that. Also, I feel as if most influencers have a specific way they post which is more "picture perfect" rather than their everyday lives. 

    In regards to social media, the gift economy is a way that people can influence a brand by giving them a better status instead of physically giving them something. An example of the gift economy on social media would be sharing, liking, or commenting on someone's post. Girls do this ALL the time - they will text their friends and say something like "go show my picture some love" (I absolutely hate that >:(). There are times where I do share things for the benefit of someone else, like one of my friends just opened her own online boutique - so as her friend, I gave her a shout out so she could get more followers. That example kinda takes me back to middle school days where EVERYONE would post "shoutout posts'', which I would never have thought of as a "gift". Now let's go back to my favorite influencer, Kylie Ross, something I have caught myself doing is I will watch all of her YouTube videos AND I will like and subscribe to all them. This is weird for me because I am not a Youtube person whatsoever, so the question is "why do I do it"? Obviously the content she is posting is entertaining but I am not gaining anything for myself personally. I have realized that I watch and subscribe to her because I just like her as a person, not really because I am interested in whatever workout video she just posted - meaning I am actually involved in the social media gift economy (MIND BLOWN)!! Another reason that I do this for Kylie is because she is actually one of the few influencers who respond to people's dm's - well maybe not everyone, but she responds to me which makes me feel ~ cool ~. Now I wouldn't say this makes me feel obligated to engage in the social media gift economy, but it definitely makes me feel like I am supporting someone. 

    In today's society, being authentic can be really hard. Personally I feel as if society has grown to be more open-minded, but also way more judgmental at the same time. Building an authentic brand can be hard when you are constantly feeling the pressure of not being good enough or always comparing yourself to others. I know for me it would be hard to receive ugly comments or mean private messages when all you're trying to do is hustle to make a name for yourself. So I guess the next time you're on social media, at least do your favorite influencer a solid and show them a little extra love, or give them a gift I should say ;)!

    

OnlyFans: The perseverance of a Social economy

*Disclaimer: If sex is a sensitive topic you aren't interested in or easily get offended by, do not read this blog. 

Although the gift economy has oddly revolutionized how our current economy works, monetary value widely depends on the relationship between the 'consumer' (whoever is infatuated into giving money) to the person they feel like deserve these funds. A good example of this behavior is OnlyFans, since although a small part of the money comes from the monthly subscriptions and a big chunk comes directly from tips and personalized requests that customers willingly drop $40-$120 dollars. But why do these consumers choose to drop this amount of money if they could easily go on a site for free? 

OnlyFans Logo

According to a OnlyFans model who currently attends college at Texas State, she says "These requests are personalized, but getting to the point where they agree to spend any money on these requests always starts with building a relationship with the consumer. Many men on my page are lonely men who want to feel special, and I provide this service by doing whatever they want me to do. For a fee, of course". Her statement reflects back onto the gift economy, where the "gift" exchange can only be established after the character of the social relationship has already been established. These online relationships have increased tenfold with the increased use of social media where most of these models promote their pages (Mostly Twitter, due to Instagrams strict nudity guidelines). 

To establish these sort of relationships, OnlyFans workers advise to treat their page as a user democracy by asking their subscribers what they want to see. This begins a social interaction between consumer and seller, but this is only step one to the venture. This is only the tip of the IceBerg for most ventures, since good X-rated pictures don't sell, communication sells. As Business Insider states, running a successful OnlyFans is as much about good communication as X-rated content. From a simple business perspective, if you can't communicate the product or offer a reason to purchase this sort of content. If this is the case, chances are you won't do good in this economy. After all OnlyFans as any business, focuses on Effective business communication since it is essential for success and growth [...] business communication is always goal oriented.

The reason why many businesses rely on Influencers is the same reason why OnlyFans is as successful as it is, the people who purchase the product have a sense of trust which makes the purchase much easier than if they were purchasing a subscription to a X-Rated site. Even though a professional site can provide more content than a consumer could ever need, it's the personalization of content that gives OnlyFans the edge over any other site. This personalization is what greatly shapes the Gift Economy. Prior to the introduction of personalized products into the American market, we relied on a 'Henry Ford' like production line for almost everything (For my Business folk, this is known as Mass Production) to a more diverse production of products that allowed small businesses gain a huge spot in the market due to its ability to focus on smaller, more personalized orders than their big market competitors. 

If there is one concept that the American Economy has taken note of, it's the improvement of sales if the consumer gets what they want, how they want it. This is known as customization, and millennials, in particular, value customization when shopping. Customization first began with Nike and Adidas offering to design any kind of shoe to the consumers taste. This later transformed to personalization, which on the other hand caters to one specifics needs and wants of the consumer which is why many subscribers on OnlyFan pages feel cared about or feel some sort of allegiance to "Their queen" (Or king, depending on the model). With this direct form of communication between subscriber and creator, it's easy to understand why this relationship soon grows into the gift economy that many thrive on.

The gift economy was greatly impacted when actor Bella Thorne, famous from her Disney Show 'Shake it up', charged a mere $20 for what many believed what was going to be sensational X-Rated pictures of their childhood crush. To the disappointment of many, Bella Thorne posted said she would not be posting anything fully nude. More specifically, she said, “Nooooo I’m not doing nudity!!! <3.”. This soon proved to be costly to the more 'Common' OnlyFans worker, since OnlyFans posted a cap on tips due to the amount of refunds requested soon after the seeming betrayal many felt of not seeing what they thought they were paying for. Workers weren't getting the amount they used to, since the bridge between the worker and the 'gifts' was greatly diminished. 

what is that? "trending"

 We have finally arrived at Unit Two!

Woo-hoo! For the first post of this Unit, we will be talking about virality and spreadability. It’s not hard to know what's up with the world, we all know what's trending, either a song, video, dance moves, style, there are infinite things to go viral with, heck since the superbowl the number of memes have increased! From all this, I want to know your thoughts on what makes you want to share things, either with a few people, close friends, maybe even to the unknown public? Is it “friendship-based” or “interest-based”? What are the feelings you get from sharing something be it political, opinional, or simply for the sake of your personal image -even the tête-à-tête it inspires with another.

If you could post one thing to have go viral, what would it be and why do you think something like that would spread far and wide to many other people?

Social Media and our 'lack' of empathy

In the most recent tragic events that happened in Fort Worth, I caught myself thinking "This could have easily been avoided if the necessary precautions were taken". Instead of taking into consideration the lives that were lost, changed, and quite possibly forever ruined,  I was simply thinking of ways this can be avoided in the future. I first thought that I was a monster for not being able to empathize with these people, but Social Media has changed the ability to empathize with human beings. Do we simply not care, or do we choose to overlook these issues? Many researchers connect the inability to empathize directly to social media but with this technology giving us the ability to communicate with others with others with ease, why is our ability to empathize challenged?

Social Media creates this bridge between Creator and Viewer which, at first glance, should facilitate the ability to place themselves in someone else's shoes from the sheer amount of content we are presented with, but sometimes this content can harm us emotionally to the point where we view terrible things all the time. According to a blog post in Move,  we as human beings can suffer from compassion fatigue since we view the same (but different) event. Although this can be seen as indifference, it's just us shutting out the reaction since feeling bad about someone aside oneself can become emotionally exhausting, and by accepting that the world is a bad place where bad things happen, we can save a lot of emotional energy.

Candlelight Vigil held for the victims of the Sutherland Springs shooting

Empathetic concern is ironically the reason why many tend to empathize less and less with the world. In a theses by Franklin Thomas from Georgia Southern, this concern leads to an altruism that is selfless and focused more on reducing the distress of others than on reducing one’s own distress, but what happens when this concern is something that seems to be repeating itself nonstop?  It begins to become something too big to bear, and one gets tired of carrying someone's else's cross. But sometimes, we are so uneducated towards the issue at hand that we use our own personal beliefs to determine between right and wrong which results in ignorance, which tends the main issue in every aspect of social media. 

Similarity and group membership can also influence the expression of empathy and with the media portraying the fronts of war between 2 groups that are in conflict, we then begin to take sides for the group we share more in common with. The Black Lives Matter movement was a huge event that showcased peoples true color. The movement was popular amongst the common population since many were shown that life for the average African American is challenged with everyday racism, much of it that we are not aware of. This lead to the other side of the argument, with many battling the movement by saying All Lives Matter! Which although is 'true' since no life is more important than another, this hugely overlooks the issue of brutality against the African American population and creates an ignorance towards the issue at hand. People were tired of feeling like second class citizens compared to the Caucasian population, and many were aware of this negative behavior but since it was normalized in American Society, chose to overlook it. When they decided enough was enough, many took the streets to protest peacefully yet those on the other side of the argument saw these people as rioters and criminals, seemingly unempathetic towards their cause. 

University of Chicago students protesting for the BLM

Twitter is notorious for unempathetic behavior with the defense of 'Chill out, it's a joke'. At times we thrive off someone else's misery and give not much thought about it past the retweet, but this active form of social ignorance can branch out to subtle parts of our social behavior since the idea that we trade our offline personality for our online personality is myopic. We are subjects to shocking media so often that one views this media to the point where its normalized, but we have the ability to not be affected but know we have to somehow enact change in this sort of medium. We can accept that things are happening, but fighting this "Normalized" behavior can begin a snowball effect of many stating their distaste towards the media presented which can lead to major movements. 

In conclusion, our inability to empathize with others can stem from many things, ranging from the exhaustion of our empathy, choosing to ignore certain things because of its sensitive or controversial nature, to simply accepting that things happen. Although many of these actions can be perceived as negative, in the end it's how we cope with bad things happening around us and if one is used to these bad things happening, why would they choose to care if it's going to happen again?

But do you REALLY like it?

Do you ever just wonder why you have social media, why do you post pictures, why do you share pictures on your stories, or like photos of others. What is the point of it? Really think about it for a second... (ill wait................) 

...

...

Okay cool, now that we have thought about why we do it now we have to be honest with ourselves on if we do it for ourselves or if we do it for society. Because everyone else is doing it does not mean that we have to do it as well or even have the social media platform. I personally look back to all my posts and things that I share and like and I would have to say that I post to remember all the memories and fun times. I do like photos for the aspect of just liking them and to keep scrolling because I like EVERYTHING that is on my feed, even if I do not like it or like the person that posted it (WHATT?) yeah, how does that make any sense? These are the things that we are diving into and really trying to find out why we do it. I realize do not like Twitter I can not stand it and I had it when I got a smartphone because everyone else had it and all my friends used it. I never like Twitter I do not like the aspect of it and therefore I got rid of it. I do have many other social media platforms to begin with because you weren't cool if you didn't have it or it was the first thing you got when you had a smartphone. 

While I was trying to write this I just posted on my instagram story about my 17s club volleyball team taking 1st place again this weekend. Its the little things that we do not notice. But i did it so everyone can see that our team is amazing, I love my players and that their coach appreciates their hard work as well. No matter what it is that you are posting are you doing it for a personal purpose or for your own self? Do you record them for the popularity, the likes and views on the pictures and videos, or are you doing it to look back on and for those who you are posting about not caring about the likes and views? It is a hard thing to realize but when we know our purpose I think we can see the selfishness in us or the selflessness in us. 

Are you a selfish person for all the likes or are you a selfless person to do it for yourself? I am interested to know based on the fact that we will be talking about this topic for the next couple of weeks. 

Why Do We Share Photos?

 Hey Everyone,

This week in class we discussed why we choose to post pictures and the importance of what it means to post a picture. This concept goes along with our main topic of the class which is Meads theory of "I" and "Me" and how we view ourselves. When posting pictures there are a lot of different reasons why we could be posting a picture (which I will talk about later on) but for the majority of reasons we are mostly posting a picture or sharing something to somebody to try and make ourselves look good or to impress. When we are posting pictures or sharing memes and tweets to our friends, we are thinking about "is this gonna be funny"? or "how would people like this"? We post and share things for the satisfaction of how people will react to the things we share and post which has become a constant norm for social media in society today. This is a direct sign of Meads theory being the "Me", because we are posting and sharing things to make people see us or to get a reaction of others which is part of that "Me" that Mead talks about. This is showing that we are wanting to see how other people see us and we want people to see us as funny or having good taste in a picture we post which is exactly what Mead talks about.

We see this in social media as a lot of different social media influencers will post crazy or random things all over there feed to try and get reactions from there followers and other influencers to boost the "clout" of there name. One person who is really good at this is Travis Scott, he will post super random things on all of his platforms such as twitter, instagram and snapchat to throw people off or get his fans guessing about what he is doing. For Example:

Travis Scott is known for posting super random things and saying random things all over his social media. He will say random things like the last tweet on the picture from up above saying "who drew the first Santa Claus". Also for example on his instagram posting random pictures of the desert or just random images like cups, glasses, fans just super random things that nobody knows why or even understands. You have to wonder, why does he do this or what is the purpose for this outlandish photos? This is exactly what we were talking about in class this week as to why do we post and share the things that we do, and for Travis Scott I think it is definitely to gain puplisety and to gain more followers as it leaves people confused and wondering what is going on. He is doing this because of Meads theory of "I" and "Me" as he is only posting these pictures for the purpose of his followers and to see how people like him. I feel like this is exactly what most of us do with our social media cites as well. We are posting for other people and the likes and follows as to what we post, rather than posting the things that we just want to post because we want to ourselves. We do these things to impress the people of social media and try tp gain this "fame" that everyone is trying to get, rather than just posting and sharing the things we like and care about and not for the likes of others.

We can see that almost all the things we go through with social media lead back to Mead theory of "I" and "Me". We are trying to impress people and see how other people see and look at us which is the "Me" rather then just focusing on who we really are and want to be, to post and share the things we want that show people who you are and not who others see you. We do so much to impress others as to posting pictures and sharing memes and tweets just to get the satisfaction of others, when in reality its our own satisfaction we really seek.

The Internet is a Disease? How Fitting...

     It just seems that talk about something spreading amongst people or something being viral cannot escape the internet these days. Fortunately, I will be talking about something that will not make us social distance or wear masks, in fact, this has been a topic of discussion for many years. Today we will be talking about the contrast of two different ideas, "spreadability" and "virality". These two concepts explain why pieces of media are shared and why people are attracted to certain types of content as well.

    Virality vs Spreadability

    We can understand the idea of a picture, video, or other pieces of media being shared because it seems entertaining or because it aligns with our beliefs. However, this idea actually goes deeper than many people realize when it comes to why we share these pieces of media. You more than likely have heard of something "going viral" as people share these pieces of media on their social media pages or with their friends and it quickly explodes on the internet to the point where almost anyone with some social media account has heard of it. Many marketers seem to want to try and reach this explosive sharing of content for their company, in a positive way of course. After all, who would not want their product or service to be shared in large numbers? This idea of "viral marketing" though is sort of an oxymoron though as viral pieces of media are not supposed to be active necessarily. The idea of virality comes from a passive audience being "infected" by a "virus", which of course would be the media itself. One reason why people share this kind of content is that they want to entertain their audience in a performative way. Think back to the GrubHub ad that went viral not long after its release. As of writing this, the video has over 9 million views, which is fairly impressive for an ad as people usually do not go out of their way to share company ads. However, that does not mean that virality will equal to follows or even people caring about your brand. As Tiffany Luther states in her article, "viral content is not great at sustaining interest for a long time, but more of a 15 minutes of fame reaction". This is especially true for the Grubhub company. They only have 44.8k subscribers on their YouTube channel and have a massive dislike to like ratio, which tells us quite simply that people thought this ad sucked and it sucked so bad that people shared it. Of course, we might be more familiar with viral content like the infamous Numa Numa kid dancing on YouTube, which really had no rhyme or reason to be shared except the fact that people found it entertaining and loved the energy of the guy dancing in the video.

A little nostalgia for us who remember the early days of YouTube

    So, what exactly about spreadability? It's probably not exactly right to think of it as virality's opposite. Instead, imagine it as virality's more active cousin that does not rely on the terms of "infectivity" or "contamination". Audiences, in this case, play a more active role in what they want to share instead of serving as a carrier as the book, Spreadable Media by Jenkins, Ford & Green would suggest. An audience based on spreadability means that the audience shares the content because it was their choice based upon their own agendas, what they value, or for more personal reasons. With that in mind, Tiffany Luther also tells us, "shareable content is targeted to a specific group of people who overtime will trust your brand's opinions and they will continuously be inspired to take action (share)". This what companies really should be striving to achieve. It would be nearly impossible to interest EVERY single person on this planet in a certain product or service, so instead of trying to achieve virality (which is not necessarily bad, but not the right way to market), finding what your target audience is within your niche is much more effective for spreadability. 

Reacting to a Reaction Video

My favorite reaction channel, which features a couple reacting to different pieces of media

    An interesting phenomenon that seems to play off both of these ideas is reaction channels and videos. If you think about it, reaction channels like to react to content that is "viral" as many people know about it, which is how they ultimately get views and make their content shareable. More than that though, the reason why their content seems to be popular amongst people is that we love to see other people's reactions to certain pieces of media. We want to see if they react similarly to us or if they have a different viewpoint from what we have seen before. Mirror neurons might also be able to explain this as neuroscientist Lisa Aziz-Zadeh tells us in an article by arstechnia that mirror neurons '"support a system that could simulate other people's actions onto one's own motor representations, it is thought that they contribute to social understanding"'. This might explain why we resonate with people and their reactions to media, it all comes down to how we socially interact with media and want others to join in on seeing it with us. I would even argue that it really also depends on the reactor themselves. As I mentioned above, Dwayne N Jazz is my favorite reaction channel on YouTube. I even watch their videos even if I have not seen the original video because I love their energy and dynamic together. They make new content out of the content we are both viewing, which is not too distant from the feeling we feel when we are watching a movie with family or friends.

    All this talk about things spreading and becoming viral may seem a bit off in today's climate, but this is certainly a more pleasant conversation to have than talking about rising Covid cases. We see that virality is more passive and we are infected by that media, whether we like it or not. Shareability is more active as we want to share that content based upon our ideologies and interests. If you ever want to see a unique blend of these two, reaction videos are typically the best way to see these combine in a unique way. Whether you realize it or not, we are sharing content constantly and we want people to see what we see. Yes, you are actually more social on the internet than you realize, even if you never go outside and see the grass as "realistic textures".

Sharing is Caring

Hi again, 

    Today I'm going to be talking about the dynamics of sharing posts and pictures on social media. For starters, have you ever asked yourself why you are publicly sharing a post or do you just do it without thinking about it? This is something I personally REALLY had to think about. While digging into the question I looked back on the last thing that I shared on my Instagram - which was Taylor Swift's post about redoing her old album Fearless. Now I posted this because I freaking love T-Swift and I will be a fan until I die (that was dramatic I know). I shared this news of hers because I am obviously very excited to listen to her album every day, but then I started to notice that everyone and their mom was also sharing it and that made me feel cool and relatable. Now, that wasn't the reason I originally shared the post but then I shared ANOTHER one to make me feel even cooler than everyone else and their mom, right! This just goes to ask the question of- are we really sharing for ourselves or so we can be relatable to others?

    Social media plays a big part of who a person is nowadays. It is really easy to share your opinions now without them directly coming from you, which we would call this sharing. Sharing can mean retweeting on Twitter, reposting someone's picture (or your own) to your story, or sharing a post on Facebook. But something that isn't really talked about when we talk about sharing is "liking" a post or picture. Politics would be a good example for this because they will always be a controversial topic and depending on what you share or even like, people will notice. During the election I noticed people tweeting things like "Unfollowing everyone on my feed who likes Trump's posts", so even a like can count as unintentionally sharing your interest in something. It's also crazy to me that what you like is physically not a private thing on some social media platforms. Have you ever had a friend who would fight with their significant other because they would go through their followers' pictures to see what pictures they liked? BIKINI PICTURES are a very hot topic when talking about this, because some girlfriends believe it to be disrespectful if their significant other is liking a scandalous photo.

    On a deeper level, many people will share pictures and posts that are from a loved one who passed, or maybe even someone who just is not in their life anymore. I can't speak for everyone who shares these posts or pictures - but I know I do it out of remembrance. Not to get too personal here, but anyone who follows me on social media probably sees the same photos of my mom and I every year for her birthday. This is just my way of wishing her a happy birthday in heaven, so instead of reposting these pictures every year on my feed I will share them to my story instead. I especially will share things when I am sad and grieving and it's not to seek attention, it's more of a coping mechanism to help myself. I would say that this way of sharing is a very healthy thing, even if you don't want to talk about the situation or to that person - you still are able to look back on your cherished memories. 

    The big question is simply why do we as humans enjoy sharing posts? There can be many reasons for sharing a post like "the sunset looks pretty" or "Nick Jonas looks so hot so I just had to share". But would that mean that we are self centered in the fact that sharing the post was really for yourself even though it was made to be seen publicly? This is something I have spent time thinking about because I do this all the time. I will share things on my Instagram stories because I like them or because I think they are cool, even though I know that people are just going to skip over my story anyways. In all honesty, sometimes there is no actual meaning for a post at all, and that's perfectly okay. I wouldn't say that this makes you selfish at all, because it's your social media accounts and if people don't like what you post then there is a giant unfollow button right around the corner. 

    Sharing on social media is the perfect way to connect people to certain things of your interests, to share songs, to share amazing pictures, etc. Without sharing, what the heck would social media even be?! As a human, you are entitled to your own likes, dislikes, and opinions. My mom always told me "sharing is caring", so whatever you want to share on social media- go for it.

   

Mead in music

    Music is an activity that brings people of all walks of life together which means one bottom line for people who are in a space to assist with the marketing and production of the artist work, profit. Because of this many times we see a stark contrast between what an artist is prior and post record deal. There are countless examples of this throughout history like when The Beatles signed with their personal record label, Apple Records and subsequently started making more groundbreaking and psychedelic music. More recent examples would be the transition made by childhood stars such as Harry Styles and rapper Mac Miller, in Styles case choosing to defy gender norms by wearing dresses and in Mac's case leaving the space of commercial rap in order to pursue his own view of music. 

    Now you may be wondering what it is that all of these music references have to do with Mead's concept of "I" and "Me". These are proof of the concept working before our vary eyes as these young stars are many times subjected to tactics used in order to make them as commercially appealing as possible, yet reject them as soon as they find that they cast an influence and their platform allows them to call their own shots. Artist calling these shots are the "I" at work, choosing to reject what may have gained them notoriety in order to pursue a more authentic path. But one may ask what gives an artist today an opportunity to dictate terms and headlines in ways they may not have been able to in the past? The answer is social media not in just your traditionally thought of sights like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram but in your entire life. 

    For the vast majority of people I could ask where they listen to music and they would say either Spotify, Apple music, or maybe even youtube. Though these may not immediately seem like social media sights in the classic perception as you typically don't have as intimate of an experience on these forms as you would on an Instagram, Facebook, or Snapchat they are some of the most relevant and influential of all social media sights. These Music streaming services have boomed in popularity and continue to grow exponentially. Statista notes that since 2019 worldwide use of these streaming services has risen from around 300,000 to over 400,000 people. This mirrors the baby and cultural boom of post-war America in the mid twentieth century in the way that the introduction of these new ideas have significantly altered the way we intake media as a society. Contrary to prior generations, we intake music at the rate which we desire. This has lead to a cultural divide within large factions of Americans that can be attributed to the individuality or the "I" in Mead's terms afforded by the ability intake media at our heart's content. These factions can be seen in the fan bases of artists previously deemed too "out of the box" or "unconventional" for mainstream audiences. Examples include but are not limited to the ascendance of Tyler, The Creator, the rebranding of Miley Cyrus, and the onslaught of Post Malone.

 

    Harry Styles started out his professional music career as a contestant on the once critically acclaimed "X-Factor" TV show. During the show he was placed in a group that go on to be called One Direction. They were a boy band in the classic sense of the word. This of course means that the fundamental part of their marketing campaign was to sell male dominant sex to little girls. If you're feeling a bit unsettled, you should. Corporations profited off of this for over five years. As one would hope the band grew uneasy in this fact, and after the secession of Zayn Malik from the group, the band was poised for a breakup. Enter Harry's solo career. He released his first self titled album in 2017, however we would not see the transition to the more groundbreaking Harry for a couple more years. Upon the release of "Fine Line" his second studio album, he started to embrace a more free-spirited personality. For instance, he started publicly wearing unorthodox clothing for a male. His transition continues to snowball to this day as he grows further and further from the mainstream marketing gurus, opting to express what he finds in self reflection. As he puts more of his own personal touch on his music, people have responded well, shooting Harry up the pop charts and into everyone's Spotify rewind because of it's personal and intimate feel derived from Harry's "I".

    Malcolm Mccormick (aka Mac Miller, aka Larry Lovenstein) was a Pittsburg based rapper that first came on the scene in the early 2010s. His original art focused on upbeat music and good vibes. His following would grow exponentially during this phase, leading him to sign with Rostrum Records in 2010 following the lead of Wiz Khalifa, another famous Pittsburg rapper of the day. His style, however, would go through many transitions throughout his career. These transitions directly mirrored his emotions throughout his life. His music never failed to project what type of head space he was in whether that be through love, heartbreak, or his battle with drug use. He was able to do this because of the power achieved by growing his personal following as opposed to just his musical following. Though his early stuff was stereotypically commercial, as his career moved forward, there was no lack of "I" in his art. 

    Though it can be said that everybody follows a leader whenever listening to music, I believe there is a much more nuanced answer within the argument between Mead's "Me" and "I". One does not simply follow blindly, rather by assessing the situation and choosing what is appealing to themselves. Because of this the "I" is not lost, rather supported and influenced by "Me" found in the society around us. Humans are selfish in nature and as such they commit actions in hopes of gaining a certain outcome they want to achieve. With this in mind it can be noted that all humans do to express themself's whether that be making, listening to, or completely unrelated to music is done in pursuit of defining who they are and what impact they want their personal "I" to have on the world.