Category: Group C

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Everyone is familiar with internet trolls; they are a nuisance most of the time and occasionally a real problem.  Sometimes friends will joke around and troll one another, but this occasional online banter is not enough to properly categorize such people as trolls. Real trolls are relentless, obstructionist and power hungry.

In her Los Angeles Times article, Patt Morrison argues that trolls are typically men from privileged backgrounds as evidenced by their tendency to attack women and minorities. This in unsurprising because most of internet trolling revolves around power. Trolls make themselves feel powerful by deliberately taking power away from their targets. By calling people names, offering unfair critiques, spreading misinformation, arguing inflammatory viewpoints, et cetera, trolls assert their ability to distract, confuse and degrade their targets. While not necessarily a precursor to supremacism, there are undoubtedly similarities shared by those who troll strangers and those who simply proclaim that other people are lesser than they are. As society has progressed, many of those who are privileged and who used to have all of the power – namely white men – have done what they can to retain their former power. Such people have lost enough power that they now choose to hide their attacks on the less fortunate behind the mask of anonymity, making the internet the perfect medium for their attacks.

By allowing people to interact anonymously with people whose identities are known, the internet creates an information asymmetry. In chapter two of Freakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner explore how information asymmetries are exploited by two very different groups: real estate agents and the KKK. While these are two groups arbitrarily chosen for analysis, information asymmetries exist everywhere and give groups that control the information a powerful advantage until the asymmetries are corrected. Following this analysis, internet trolls will continue to be a problem until the information asymmetry is corrected, and their ability to post anonymously is stripped away.

Posted from DIG101 Blog by Noah R.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

The article We’re the reason we can’t have nice things on the internet, from Quartz Media, makes a great point with the second section of the post. Part 2 is titled “Stop Incentivizing Problematic Online Behavior”, and the main argument is that media coverage creates publicity and attention for the trolls, which is exactly what they are after. We have all seen it before – the mass media fixates on one social media phenomenon for a week, never letting the subject go – but when the phenomenon is a troll, the media is doing exactly what the troll wants. Trolls rely on responses to survive, for if their is no response then their incendiary tweet, post, or share fades into ignored obscurity on the depths of the internet. Media coverage of trolling efforts bring attention to these inflammatory posts, prompting people to respond to them and thus giving new breath to it. This is what the author means when she writes, “Every retweet, comment, like, and share extends the life of a given story. So we need to pay careful attention to what we share and spread online” (Phillips 2015).

Source: http://robertcatalano.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Think-before-you-post.jpg

Fixing this problem is not as simple as it seems. The media cannot simply stop covering these stories – it is their job to do so. The author realizes this, and encourages people to look over their posts and responses so as not to unintentionally give life to a trolling maneuver. She suggests this on an individual level, however, and in our new age of omnipresent technology, we need a cultural shift to truly solve the problem. My parents used to tell me to say something in my head 3 times before speaking it out loud if I thought there was any chance of it being rude. Today’s parents need to teach a similar lesson on social media. It sounds cliche, but today’s parents will mold the next generation, so they have the ability to shape manners on social media. With any luck, they can help decrease the success of trolling in future generations.

 

Sources:

Phillips, Whitney. “We’re the reason we can’t have nice things on the internet.” Quartz, Quartz Media, 29 Dec. 2015, qz.com/582113/were-the-reason-we-cant-have-nice-things-online/.

Posted from My DIG 101 Blog by Matt B.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

 

Upon reading We’re the reason we can’t have nice things on the Internet, I found out that the umbrella term of “trolling” is much more vague than the generic 14 year old making fun of a photo on the internet. It makes sense that it actually transcends this image of the generic troll to “politicians” like Donald Trump, and even News Media Coverage.

Let’s start with the elephant in the blog, Donald Trump. It’s pretty clear that his excessive tweets for the most part “trolls” aspects of racial, gendered, protest groups and many more aspects of society. I always thought that trolls were weak little kids who hide behind their devices, and it’s true although the weak bully with tiny hands happens to be controlling the White House. And this is scary (and has been), because this just adds more evidence that Trump (also known as Troll) is so immature, yet has the capabilities of starting World War 3.

It almost seems hand in hand that as we talk about the fat elephant we have to address the mainstream media. This time, however, the media outlets do have people who are wrong “on many sides”. Let’s look at a topic like conflicts in the Middle East. All the media does is shows the violence with maybe a little bit of coverage about the treaties or an armistice. Like Phillips says in We’re the reason we can’t have nice things on the Internet, most of the media uses these stories by “flattening its subjects into fetishized objects, and essentially converting bad (or tragic, or just plain gross) news into an opportunity to sell more ads.”  Below is an important video going into detail of two examples in which the media has distorted stories, this ignoring the actual impact.  The second example goes into the power that the media has to cause major shifts in economic supply in order to turn make more money (not on topic, but nonetheless very interesting!).

Posted from My blog by Will M.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

In Patt Morrison’s article, she mentions that Australia has an anti-trolling law. This interested me, because the issue seemed so novel, niche, and indescribable that the idea of a federal law against it seemed unlikely. It turns out that New Zealand passed a similar law as well.

The NZ law was instated in 2015, and according to an article by Flynn Murphy, it bans “harmful digital communications.” The initial purpose was to stop cyberbullying, and under it “trolls” can be punished by up to two years in prison. This makes it seem much more serious than the term “trolling” would suggest. On one hand, the gravity is an important change. Whitney Phillips says in her article that “the implication that trolling is playful, disruptive for disruption’s sake, or fundamentally trivial (an attitude reflected in various year-end compilations of the “best trolls” of 2015) minimizes the experiences of those caught in the crosshairs of online harassers,” so the law could potentially validate the experiences of trolling victims. This article says that within a year of the law’s passing, 89 criminal charges were filed and 7 people had been jailed under the law.

Many people found problems with the law’s broad definition of harm. It was so broad, in fact, that things that would be legal to publish in print were not illegal online, which could limit free speech. According to Murphy, “the law effectively bans online communications judged “indecent”, “false” or “used to harass an individual”, the Post asked if reports on political expense scandals, or cartoons that mock religious figures, may also be banned under the legislation.” Many seemed to express a desire for journalists to be exempt from the law.

I think that these issues go back to an issue that Dr. Sample brought up last Friday, that you should always punch up, not down. If a journalist writes something harmful about a famous politician, it is not the same as someone “trolling” someone younger or of a more vulnerable class than them.

 

Posted from Digital Studies 101 by Alivia

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

In this lab, I introduce three counter-GIFs that respond to and subvert the conventions of various GIF genres.

Reaction GIF

Example:

Counter-Example:

This counter-GIF subverts the conventions of the reaction GIF by drawing attention to the difference between the affect depicted in a GIF and the GIF-user’s actual affect. Although animated GIFs imply that the depicted action is the same as the user’s embodied action, this is often not the case. Indeed, as reaction GIFs become more dramatic, the gulf between our embodied reactions and those depicted in GIFs widens.

Miltner and Highfield (2017) claim that conciseness is a defining feature of reaction GIFs, arguing that reactions GIFs “plac[e] attention on a single visual action, feeling, or response” (5). The parallel and opposite reactions displayed in the counter-GIF subvert the notion that reaction GIFs depict singular, concise gestures.

Cinemagraph GIF

Example:

Counter-Example:

In cinemagraph GIFs, one element of the image moves while the rest remains still. Because of their aesthetic appeal, cinemagraph GIFs are often used for “higher” artistic purposes, such as visually quoting films or creating artistic advertisements.  “A Brief History of the GIF” (2014), Jason Eppink claims that cinemagraph GIFs “typically fetishize a consumer good or identity” (303). The first GIF depicts an idyllic lifestyle, complete with a candle and avocados as props. In the second GIF, there is still only one element that moves (the bags blowing in the wind) but its content, a trash can, is decidedly unaesthetic.

Fandom GIF

Example:

Counter-Example:

Fandom GIFs often portray the moment that a fan’s OTP (one true pairing) gets together. Looped ad infinitum, the fandom GIF provides a way for fans to relive their favorite moments in a series. Accordingly, the first GIF pictures the moment that Jim and Pam share their first kiss on NBC’s The Office.

In the second GIF, however, the happy moment is interrupted and spliced with images of the two characters’ competing love interests. First there is Pam’s season 1 fiancé, Roy; then Jim’s seasons 2-3 girlfriend, Karen; and finally Pam’s season 9 flirtation, Brian. The quality of being “stuck in time” is undermined by including characters who appear throughout the show’s nine seasons.

Posted from Digital Studies by Hannah L.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

1)

Cinemagraph GIF:

Counter:

 

Analysis:

The first GIF presents a cinemagraph. It is mainly black and white, besides the eye color change. This creates a serious mood and emphasizes tension around the GIF. Just like most cinemagraph GIFs, this one has a sense of excellence and minimalistic beauty.  The counter GIF is of a person messing up, while attempting to draw a parallel line. This GIF qualifies as a counter to the first one, since while both GIFs start off with potential for beauty and excellence, the second GIF breaks through the typical expectations. In comparison to the cinemagraph, the counter GIF does not leave the viewer with the a feeling of tension and seriousness, but rather with frustration.

 

2)

Sports GIF:

Counter:

Analysis:

The first GIF is depicting a a beautiful goal, scored by one of the finest lads in the game of soccer, Olivier Giroud. Just as most Sport GIFs, this one captures a moment of beautiful success. It is almost difficult to not watch this GIF a few times, to fully appreciate the quality of displayed skill and supreme human ability. The second GIF is a counter for many reasons. Since the depicted “players” are robots, the GIF right away misses it’s chance to impress the viewers with exceptional human capabilities. Furthermore, while the first GIF ends with a beautiful result of the ball breaking through the line of defense and into the back of the net, the expectations of beautiful finish in the second GIF are crushed with the ball stopping right on the goal line of the.

 

3)

Reaction GIF:

 

Counter:

 

Analysis:

The first GIF captures an emotion of a little boy, after the team he came out to support, scored an important goal. While looking at the GIF, not only can the viewer relate to the emotion, but the child can also serve as a symbol of innocence, and therefore reinforce the effect of this reaction GIF. The counter GIF is of a little robot driving around the table. It is a counter to the reaction GIF above, since it depicts a simple action by an inhumane object. Due to similar movements between the little robot and the little kid, a viewer might interpret both GIFs as reaction GIFs. This interesting example of a reaction GIF and its counter also raises a few interesting questions about a reaction GIF. What exactly makes a GIF a reaction GIF? Is it the presence of a relatable feeling, and if so, does the object depicted within the GIF has to be human?

 

 

Posted from DIG 101 Blog by Andriy M.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

Reaction GIF

Source

Counter-Reaction GIF

Analysis:

The typical reaction GIF emulates the raw emotion (usually exaggerated for comedic effect) that occurs the instant someone reacts to something. Reaction GIFs focus entirely on the RE part of the word reaction; that is, the GIF gives no context as to what initial action caused the reaction. This is where I got the motivation for my counter reaction GIF. My GIF displays a Newton’s cradle, which visually illustrates Newton’s third law – “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. The special part of my GIF is that I cut out the reaction of the Newton cradle entirely. Instead of showing the reaction where the stationary ball on the end flies up into the air, I cut the video so that the initial action of the first ball falling repeats over and over again, thus never allowing the reaction to happen.

Sport GIF

Source

Counter-Sport GIF

Analysis:

When I think sports GIFs, I think of the viral clips of incredible sports moments that circulate on Facebook, ESPN, Twitter, and other social media platforms. Every Monday morning during football season I can count on at least one play from the slate of Sunday NFL games to make its way onto my social media feeds. These plays normally fall into one of a few categories. They are either athletically impressive, significant to the outcome of a game or season, or symbolically important outside of sports. To counter this canon of sports GIFs, I found the least impressive, least significant, and least symbolic moment I could think of from an NFL game: a standard punt. Yes, a punt could be featured as a typical sports GIF, but this would only occur if the punt is blocked or returned for a touchdown, both of which are exciting moments. A successful punt, on the other hand, is the type of play a fan misses to go to the bathroom or get some food at the concession stand. Therefore, immortalizing a bland, boring, successful punt as a GIF seemed like the perfect counter to the typical sports GIF.

Wobble GIF

Source

Counter-Wobble GIF

Analysis:

I’ll admit it – I’m taking a little bit of a risk with this one. My GIF stretches the boundaries of what can be considered a GIF, but in doing so it perfectly counters the standard wobble GIF. A wobble GIF often consists of some object gyrating back and forth over and over again. Imagine jello jiggling on a plate and you get a pretty good idea of the canon of wobble GIFs. A subset of the wobble GIFs I found on Giphy focuses on the wobbling of human bodies. In these GIFs, an (usually) overweight person moves the fat on his/her body back and forth to create the wobbling effect. My GIF is made up of two identical images of an overweight man caught in the middle of streaking. It is technically a GIF because it is an endless loop of multiple images, but there is no movement in an effort to counter the typical wobble GIF. Movement is a staple of the wobble GIF, and I took a person that would usually be the subject of a wobble GIF and changed it so there would be no movement whatsoever.

Posted from My DIG 101 Blog by Matt B.

Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/digitald/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/radgeek-FWP---Add-Attribution-70acf52/add-attribution-feedwordpress.php on line 363

“an intervention into the practice of making GIFs”

Fandom

Example:

Counter-Example:

Fandom GIFs are used to highlight a specific scene from a particular show or movie and generally are either an important scene or have some sort of underlying emotion that conveys importance. An example of this is a scene from Bee Movie where Barry the bee is running into a window. This scene comes as he is first wandering around the world. My counter to this type of GIF is the entire movie. It’s sped up, so you aren’t sitting for 2 hours watching it, but it in turn doesn’t highlight a particular scene. This is, of course, an exaggeration of the idea of clipping your favorite scene from a movie — because in this case nothing is left out.

Cinemagraph

Example:

Counter-Example:

Cinemagraph GIFs are really cool. They are GIFs in which only one element of the image is moving. It let’s the creator highlight a certain part of the image. In this case, the bubbles being blown across the screen. In my counter example, however, there is no movement. I assure you, it is a GIF — and I did start with the same photo. But it only has one frame so there is no perceived motion. You are almost expecting the bubbles to move along the screen, but they don’t. They complete absence of the motion in the image takes it away from its use as a cinemagraph, but as it still stems from the original you’re almost anticipating the cinemagraphic motion. This is, like my counter-fandom example, an exaggeration: of the restriction of motion in a GIF (because in this case there is no motion).

Reaction

Example:

Counter-Example:

Reaction GIFs are images in which the action triggers some sort of reaction from the viewer — or, really, a GIF in which the subject of the image is offering an emotion or reaction. Typically reaction GIFs are used in quick conversations when words would take to long to explain your emotions. I chose a sloth from the movie Zootopia showing happiness or surprise for something that is happening. For my counter example of the GIF I added a few effects to it. First, I started by reversing the action in the image, to hopefully give the opposite reaction of the GIF. Which worked, the sloth now looks like it is going from happy to content… but I wanted to frustrate the viewer even more so I slowed the speed of the GIF down considerably. I mean, you sit there so long waiting for the reaction and it never really comes. This takes the GIF away from it’s usage as a quick reaction — and I don’t see this fitting much in conversations where GIFs replace words, because explaining the reaction in text would go much faster than this GIF.

Posted from DIG101 by Tucker C.