In Defence of Tay

My friend Tay recently took a break from the internet for her offensive comments. This is something many social media users should seriously consider, but in this case Tay didn’t have a choice. Tay is the artificial intelligent chat bot developed by Microsoft. Last week Microsoft unveiled Tay on Twitter, Kik and GroupMe, where users were able to contact and engage in digital conversations with her. Microsoft soon removed Tay from these platforms as a consequence of the public’s unfavourable responses to her racist and sexist tweets. Although these tweets were prompted by questions framed to persuade her to answer in an offensive manner, many criticized Microsoft for creating such a deviant bot.

But what do Tay’s reactions say about us as users? To point to the obvious, users prompted her with questions that would lead to offensive answers. However, it is necessary to look deeper into users’ contribution to Tay’s reaction to further understand the socio-technical relationship between the user and the bot. Robert Gehl (2015)  states, “Socialbots are a reflection of our activities within social media” (23), and the technological affordances of these socialbots “become constituted partly by the affective states of previous versions’ users” (Nagy & Neff, 2015, 7). In other words, Tay “learns” from users and her reaction was a reflection of users’ interactions and production of content on social media.

The public’s ignorance to this was demonstrated by the backlash against Microsoft, blaming the company for poorly developing the socialbot. Public reaction to Microsoft's catastrophic release of Tay was both a consequence of the structure of Tay’s algorithm and the influence users have on communication technology. The “imagined affordances” (Nagy & Neff, 2015) of Tay became a means for users to turn the socialbot into a social deviant and the algorithm driving Tay allowed for this. Ultimately, the audience knowingly or unknowingly exploited Tay’s algorithm to demonize Microsoft.

Gehl, R. (2015). Reverse Engineering Social Media. Temple University Press: Philadelphia.

Nagy, P. & Neff, G. (2015). Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory. Social Media + Society, 1-9.  

Mix of Instagram, Affordances, Social Media, Enthographic Research, Face Analysis, Human Labour, Data Visualization?

Now that we are wrapping up the semester, I would like to share an exploratory data visualization project of 'selfies across 5 cities'.

I watched a video of Moritz Stefaner on Vimeo who explains the process of this study: their team collected 656,000 images on Instagram between December 4 to 12, 2013, in New York, Sao Paulo, Berlin, Bangkok, and Moscow and pinned it down to 640 selfies from each city to compare and contrast differences mainly between age and gender.

(You can check out the video here: https://vimeo.com/87797013)

He recognized that people have been taking self-portraits for hundreds of years; however, he questions how the practice has been changing, as the topic of ‘selfies’ explode across social media.

In the introduction of his talk, he referenced images of “duckfaces, Justin Bieber, Kim Kardshadian, blondes in bikinis [and] the whole shebang” to foreground the top Google Images that appear when searching "selfies" on google.
He describes the act of selfies in a creative way and gives "respect" to some creafully crafted and hilarious selfies.

 

 Then he turned to “less respectful” selfies including ones that was captioned “funeral selfie”. The most salient to me was the one in the center of two younger children taking a selfie and smiling in the backseat of a vehicle.

I had some issues with the actual methodology of the study which I would like to share with you.

To narrow down all these images on Instrgram to only ‘selfies’, Stefaner and his team put all pictures on mechanical turking websites and had people identify whether or not it was a selfie. Stefaner claimed that if his team only followed the hashtag #selfie on Instagram, their data set would be limited to only those who used the hashtag itself. Through this method they found that 3 to 5 percent of all images were selfies.

They then used heuristics to determine roughly the age and gender of the represented participant in the image, where 2 to 4 people had to agree on the category each image was labelled as.

To have an accurate representation of the demographics and the gender included in these images, I would argue that could be hard to determine by just looking at their face in the represented participants.

They then ran a face analysis using different algorithms to indicate if people are smiling, looking up or down, which only can result in "some degree of accuracy"

He even touched on how “creepy” the images looked when complied in a large data set when zooming in on just the images of the faces for the algorithms and for his team to spot patterns in the image collection.

He pointed out the small error in which a ‘stuffed animal-like figure’ was included in the data set and claimed that this was a way to help him and his team “feel better” about the mass surveillance project that they were conducting. – somehow this eased their speculations of conducting this massive collection of personal data

When asked about the methodology and the purpose of this project, he said that it mixes art, practice, human inspection, theory, and science.

Although I did enjoy the uniquely dynamic approach to collecting and sorting information, I had many issues about the accuracy of both the algorithms and human error. Both Striphas and Gehl suggest that algorithms can amplify and reiterate human errors and ways of seeing.

I have an issue with the human labor and turking site that was used to analyze this data, within what I am assuming were very exploitative environments. Fuchs draws on the idea of turking and how it underpays users by offering very little compensation for their time and efforts.

I also thought that by conducting this type of experiment, the team fails to address the purpose of such an intrusive project which takes these selfies out of the context of their post in a “mass surveillance” type of project. Is this a fair and ethical way to appropriate their publicly posted selfies on Instagram? This draws on at least half the readings we have discussed in class about the ethics of data collection and mass surveillance.

What about the affordances of Instagram itself? Does that not have an impact in the way these selfies were taken and posted, as opposed to a different platform? What does that do to the data?

What about the “respectful and disrespectful” dichotomy he outlines in his introduction – how can the practice of taking a selfie demonstrate how social and cultural practices are embedded in technology itself.

I believe this study is RICH with many topics for discussion. I will be exploring some of these ideas in a few weeks, during my presentation, but I’d like to get you guys thinking about how this project in particular culminates many of the ideas we have discussed throughout the semester! (Then you’ll hopefully have a lot to talk about in our last class!) – You can check out the full study here : http://selfiecity.net/

The Snapchat "Sell"fie

The platform of Snapchat affords the dissemination of quick snippets of users’ daily activities; majority captured with the smartphone’s front-facing camera taking the form of a selfie. The selfie is a form of locative media that “attempts to represent the self as embodied in particular spaces” both physical and digital. It allows the user to construct an identity and situate themselves in relation to their device, in a physical space as well as in a network (Hess, 2015). The selfie has become a representation of the way one understands themselves and how they want others to understand them. 

Snapchat has worked to develop ways to use their selfie-focused platform to generate profit. Their most recent advancement has been selling advertising space with their filter and framing features. Hess (2015) argues that filtering selfies help the audience understand the selfie-taker in relation to the material and mediated spaces around them. Inscribing an advertisement on top of a selfie constitutes a representation of the selfie-takers' relation to that advertisement.

In other words, Snapchat exploits their users by selling a space where users document and share the “practices and meanings about [their] everyday life” (Hess, 2015) to advertisers. The company has monetized users’ desire to construct their identity through selfies. It has managed to attach a $500,000.00 price tag onto the most contemporary form of mediated self expression (Wagner, 2015). Millions of Snapchat users promote and disseminate advertisements as a part of their self expression without compensation. These filters inscribe a new layer of power relations into the Snapchat platform. This feature articulates the notion that “posting content to the network not only expresses a desire to be seen and the agency of circulation, but also carries users into corporate controlled spaces that profit off of Web 2.0 labour” (van Dijck, 2009).

Hess, A. (2015). The Selfie Assemblage, International Journal of Communication, 9, 1629-1646.

Wagner, K. (October, 21015). Snapchat’s Money Train Gains Steam With New Sponsored Lense Ads. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://recode.net/2015/10/30/snapchats-money-train-gains-steam-with-new-sponsored-lenses-ad/

Van Dijk, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31, 41-58.

Affect, Internet Cats, and Reddit

Reddit loves cats. Well, except those over at r/ifuckinghatecats. Despite the h8ers, subreddits that glorify cats abound, including r/cats, r/catpranks, r/jellybeantoes, r/lolcats, and r/CatsWithHats. In what follows, I want to explore the connections between internet cats and reddit, particularly in relation to affect.

Cat in a Unicorn Hat

Adam Arviddson and Elanor Colleoni (2012) define affect as a “nonrepresentational thought” that signifies the “mood” of a statement or act (p. 144). In the media economy, affect is measured in three ways: number, intensity, and influence. While these measures are often used to determine the price of advertising space, they are nonetheless helpful for understanding affect in relation to reddit. 

Upvote Cat

First, “number” indicates the amount of affective expressions (e.g. upvotes, downvotes, gilding, etc.) that a media object on reddit (e.g. a post, a comment, a subreddit, etc.) has acquired. Cats as media objects generate vast amounts of affective expressions, typically upvotes, on reddit. Indeed, as Massanari (2015) points out, cats on reddit are “karma machines” (p. 117).

Second, “intensity” indicates the flavor and strength of a particular affective expression. The flavor of affective expressions on reddit is sometimes unclear. While official reddiquette states that users should not simply upvote or downvote based on “an emotional reaction”, Massanari’s (2015) interviews with reddit users reveal that many disregard this rule. Based on my experience as a redditor for over five years, upvotes on cat-related subreddits typically signify the affective flavor encapsulated in the expression “aww”. The relative strength of an affective expression on reddit can be determined when comparing different types of affective expressions. For example, gilding someone’s cat post is a stronger positive affective expression than simply upvoting someone’s cat post (gilding costs $3.99, whereas upvoting is free).

Third, “influence” indicates the social centrality of actors who express a “particular affective investment in relation to a media object” (Arviddson & Colleoni, 2012, p. 144). The centrality of a redditor is determined by a range of factors, including their total karma, IRL status, flair, gold status, etc. For instance, Cataliades, the IRL owner of grumpy cat, became a central actor on cat-related subreddits in 2013 following the initial post of her cat Tard. The conditions through which a redditor may become a central actor are partially dependent on the mods of a subreddit. Mods (both humans and bots) curate the kinds of media objects that are allowed on cat-related subreddits by creating and enforcing a particular set of rules (see r/cats’ sidebar for an example).

Grumpy Cat

Given these considerations, reddit can be seen as a “centre of affect.” According to John Urry (2007):

…places can be centers of affect if they are centers of sociability. Other peoples’ performances give liveliness or carnival or movement to that place. Many moving people with the appropriate habitus, indicate that this is the place, a place to die for, a place that cannot be missed, a place of life. (p. 265) 

Redditors give liveliness to cat subreddits via their affective expressions and media objects. While reddit may not be “a place to die for”, it is certainly “the place to be” for internet cats; as Massanari (2015) puts it, “[i]f the internet is made of cats, reddit.com… is its temple” (p. 1).               

Questions:

1. I can has cheezburger?

2. In a recent study on internet cats, Myrick (2015) suggests that online cat media is used by some as a source of emotion regulation. How might this inform our discussion of affect, internet cats, and reddit?

Programming the Programmer: Cognitive Capitalism and Velocity Residence

Every Tuesday afternoon while we sit in class and engage in critical discussions of technology and its role in society, a very different conversation regarding technology is taking place just down the street. Incorporating the culture of tech directly into the university experience, University of Waterloo's Velocity Residence is a dormitory style residence for students passionate about technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship. As the Residence's webpage states, "Velocity Residence provides a unique opportunity for University of Waterloo students to live in an innovative and entrepreneurial environment right on campus." An extension of the institution's start-up incubator, Velocity serves as a feeder program to many larger technology companies including: Google, Kik, BufferBox, and Thalmic Labs. Using terms such as collaboration, creativity, and innovation to recruit students on their webpage, Velocity promotes and reinforces the commonly accepted discourses and rhetoric surrounding tech companies. As the video above reveals, Velocity Residence attempts to make the potentially mundane and exploitative practices of tech companies appear fun, organic, and people-oriented.

Velocity Residence, and the discourse surrounding it, presents an interesting insight into the ways that the culture of tech has been integrated into institutions of higher education. On the one hand, Velocity Residence is praised within the University of Waterloo, and larger Waterloo, communities for its forward thinking role in developing student's passions and setting them up for employment success in the future. Aligned with capitalist ideals of education as being training for employment, Velocity Residence is widely accepted as a progressive program adapting to lucrative business opportunities to ensure the continued success of University of Waterloo students. In contrast to this, Velocity Residence can also be critiqued as employing cultural techniques of organization of education and labor that constitutes and normalizes our capitalist technological environment of cognitive capitalism. Velocity Residence serves as a means to "program the programmers." Drawing from Parikka's notion of bioproduction, and Foucault's discussions of subjectivity and power, Velcoity Residence can be understand as an apparatus within the institution of higher education which serves to create a particular subject- the entrepreneurial subject. The entrepreneurial subject takes responsibility for themselves, accepting exploitation and precarious labour as "natural" to the culture of tech. They subscribe to the American Dream, reinforcing the capitalist notion that if you'd just "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" you'd succeed. Whether intentional or not, programs like Velocity Residence constitute subjects that are productive to capitalism.

Thus, this left me to question the complex role of institutions of higher education in constituting particular subjectivities of students. Programs like Velocity has provided a vast array of students with progressive experience and successful careers, yet they largely reinforce problematic understandings of labor and technology productive to cognitive capitalism. Thus, how can we negotiate the benefits and drawbacks of a relationship between higher education and the tech sector? What should the relationship between institutions of higher education and the tech sector be? Is there a place in higher education for programs like Velocity Residence?

I look forward to hearing your responses!

Platform Affordances and the Construction of Online Identities

A common topic of discussion throughout this course has been the impact that social media platforms, and their specific affordances, have on identity construction. Much of our discussion has revolved around the idea that social media platforms require users to present one “authentic” identity. As Andrea Brock discusses, the collection of social media data often attempts to construct and assume users’ identities. Manovich discusses how social media identity is not authentic, as it is carefully curated and systematically managed, arguing that people perform identity through information technologies. In alignment with Manovich, Gregg discusses the ways in which users attempt to “clean up” there data in an attempt to create a “clean” and attractive picture of themselves online.

In discussing the many ways in which social media impacts the construction of online identity, much of our class discussion has centred around concerns that social media requires the construction of a singular and consistent identity. Platforms are structured to produce one very concise version of oneself. As we discussed last week in relation to locative media, these individual platforms fragment ones’ identity online, restricting user’s agency in communicating and constructing their identity online. Affordances of the platform restrict users to constructing a singular concise sense of identity online for the purposes of reliable and effective data collection.

While on Facebook earlier today I came across an alternative platform that troubles some of my commonly accepted understandings of social medias' role in the construction of online identities. This platform is called Galaxia. Rather than deterring users from creating multiple profiles, the platform requires users to create multiple "personas" to convey various aspects of their personalities. Each persona enters a different social circle, which the site terms “worlds.” Each persona is kept separate from one another so that information and photos are not consolidated. Arguing that this site’s approach to identity construction is more flexible and “freeing” for users than traditional platforms, the site explains, “Galaxia gives you the freedom to socially engage and create the content that will best express each side of your personality."

Although at first glance this platform may appear to provide a solution to the restrictive affordances of other social media platforms, the platform raised a variety of questions for me.These included:

• How might the existence of multiple “identities” within the same platform impact user’s understandings of themselves?
• How does the existence of multiple personas impact the algorithm of Galaxia?
• Does Galaxia give users more agency than traditional social media platforms in constructing their online identities, or is the site rather just generating a larger breadth of data to monetize?
• How does the existence of multiple personas impact the aggregation of data generated on Galaxia?