0 Comments
In the article, “Showtime Thinks, Therefore I Am,” Kelly Kessler analyzes how the evolution of the L Word website, based on the television show, has created a narrow view of lesbianism because of corporate control. I agree with her argument that corporations have a particular agenda and often produce media that supports that agenda and pushes their end goal forward. This can lead to the silencing of different perspectives, voices, and opinions and that can be quite frustrating for a member of the minority group. While I am sympathetic to her experiences on this site, both her challenges trying to create an avatar that looked like her and the judgmental reactions from others on the site, I also think that her expectations are idealistic. Is it the moral responsibility of corporations to represent all people that fall under a particular category? In this case that Kessler presents, is Showtime obligated to give website users a diverse look at lesbianism that goes beyond the scope of the show? While I think that the actions taken by major corporations significantly influence public perception, I don’t think that they need to function as the standard for morality. By attempting to give them this responsibility, we are handing over even more power and control to these organizations that already control a significant portion of our culture and experiences. While I understand where Kessler is coming from, I think that hoping to nurture one’s identity from the experiences on an interactive TV show’s website, despite the nature of the show, is unsustainable and limiting. While I can see how she would hope to find a sense of belonging on this site, I think that its possible to find that community elsewhere in a digital space that is open and not controlled by an organization with a particular agenda.
I never considered myself a slave to Mark Zuckerberg, but based on the ways that Facebook exploits its users’ privacy for a profit, I might as well be. Fuchs explores this idea in “The Political Economy of Privacy on Facebook.” Fuchs reintroduces the notion of the “prosumer,” a person who both creates and consumes media on Internet platforms, and data from activities on these sites are then sold to advertising companies for a profit. It seems that part of the success of Facebook and similar Internet platforms is that they give the impression of privacy and ownership, while simultaneously stripping its users of all their rights. They contain features that allow for customizations and personal touches, all the while remaining a distant, data collecting machine. The interesting part, however, is that this exchange happens with willing consent from all parties. Are we as a society so invested in sharing (and sometimes, over-sharing) our lives with the larger public that we’re willing to sign over our personal rights so that larger corporations profit? Or is it that even though we select that we agree to the Terms and Conditions, we’re not quite sure what rights we’re forfeiting? Either way, there appears to be some lack of understanding and/or concern for the exploitation of personal information. It is nice to know, however, that organizations and individuals are working to fight against this to give users more control over their own materials. One example Fuchs shares information about is Diaspora, “an open source alternative to Facebook.” As this platform allows users to maintain all rights and ownership of the information they share, it seems like a much more socially conscious and even a safer option to Facebook. However, with the advertising and publicity resources that a platform like Facebook has, it would likely be difficult to encourage people to make the switch without adequately explaining how Facebook exploits its users. Perhaps one day a platform like Diaspora will catch on, but for now, I will definitely think more carefully about how I chose to use these Internet platforms.
In Christine Bacareza Balance’s article, “How it Feels to be Viral Me: Affective Labor and Asian American YouTube Performance,” I was struck by the complexity of Asian Americans’ relationship to media outlets. While one can assume that the majority of Americans today have some relationship to the media, such as YouTube or other social platforms, Asian Americans have used this tool as an identity shaper and cultural connector. Through their thriving media presence, Asian Americans are challenging the identity markers and racialized characteristics that have been prescribed to them. They are pushing against the limited “portrait of the Chinese and Japanese as hardworking, obedient, and self-reliant individuals” by also showcasing their talents as actors, performers, and artists. By expressing anger and rage, they counter the dominant ideas about this population and push the larger society to embrace a truer understanding of this group. These YouTube performers’ rise to stardom also indicates the deep desire among Asian Americans for relatable cultural icons. In the United States where white culture is pushed onto its inhabitants, it’s not surprising that these Asian American YouTube performers are popular among minority groups, as they show the possibility of embracing the dominant American culture while also keeping ties to their Asian roots. From my personal experiences, I understand this phenomenon, as I enjoy seeing YouTubers like Superwoman describe her experiences growing up as a first generation Indian woman in the west. I am able to connect to her stories and it reminds me that I am not alone in my experiences. As Asian American populations vary across the nation, these YouTube stars connect people to others like them and help to weave together a complex narrative, using humor and creativity, about what life in the U.S. is really like for Asian Americans.
|
Shoba JacobEmory student. ArchivesCategories |