Albrechtslund (2008) Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance

Argues that social networking is anchored in surveillance practices - however a positive connotation - empowering, subjectivity building, playful - participatory surveillance

Page 1
3rd para - rejects online/offline dichotomy in favor of social networking as a "mixed world" relating to both online and offline activities

The practice of online social networking: space, place & time
cyrberspace - the spatial metaphor

4th para - "the owner of a space provides details in a profile with personal information" referring to myspace
My comment- so many contradictions there - users do not "own" the space...what about privacy policies?

Page 3
2nd para - danah boyd - online social networking as a mdeiated public is characterized by four properties: persistency (info is stored indefinitely), searchability (convenience of search terms), replicability (configurable to other texts and forms), and invisible audiences (content is available to not your network but everyone - aka who is looking at your stuff?)

Albrechtslund argues this makes relationships eternal - existing beyond the control of the involved person.  SM is thought of as "of the moment" but is actually longer lasting


Page 4
6th para - People offer their personal info on SNS (social networking service)
Lyon calls this "leaky containers" (p37-48) - data move freely between different sectors of society with the result that information from different contexts (home, work, shopping) are being mixed

Page 5
1st para - In addition to privacy policy issues & design of SNS, there are shortcomings on the part of the user - ignorance, indifferences, and dependency on others.

2nd para - education, training, and even gov regulations (such as DOPA - deleting online pred. act) try to protext younger users from the dangers of SNS

Author notes that Jenkins & boyd are against DOPA for over restricting access

5th para - Life after social networks - what are the implications of digital footprints when getting a job or what might haunt teenagers when they become an adult?  (longitudinal thinking/planning)

9th para - danah boyd - critical of hiring practices that punish SM users
author adds that it could be discrimination or ethical injustice not to hire someone that uses SNS

Page 6
5th para -  Particpatory Surveillance
Traditional surveillance - panopticon where the "watched" is in no power and their subjectivity is destroyed (dystopian view)

6th para - "It is difficult to understand the phenomenon of online social networking and related web 2.0 services and applications when we apply this notion of surveillance." (the dystopian view)

Albrechtslund is critical of scholars talking about going beyond the panopticon rather than actually doing it.
he thinks it's useful for theorizing surveillance, but calls for an expansion of the surveillance field.
(I suppose he feels that surveillance studies is stuck on the dystopian view of surveillance (panopticon) and although talks about going beyond it, continually refers to digital media as dystopian surveillance (stuck with panopticon))

Author argues that to truly understand surveillance, we need to challenge the hierarchical conception of it.  He acknowledges the dystopian view is important however.

Page 7
surveillance as a mutual, horizontal practice:
surveillance as flat - where even the person under surveillance can have agency

Andrejevic offers "later surveillance" which is peer to peer monitoring and although helpful, he brings in the Pentagon and panopticon strategies for a disciplinary approach.  Thus, it does adequately serve Albrechtslund's vision.

6th para - empowerment, subjectivity building, and sharing - under developed areas in surveillance studies.  SNS is not about destroying subjectivities, it is about mutuality and building
-uses the example of exhibitionism to "rebel against the shame associated with not being private"
-a "self construction of identity"
(Me: this is way too overly optimistic)

Page 8
2nd para - SNS empowering b/c you can be active - socialize with people and take action since surveillance now allows users to seek information and communicate.
SNS illustrated that surveillance is fundamentally social
(Me: The deep data that SNS collects is NOT the same data that users can search for on Twitter)

Defends his "participatory surveillance" against "participatiory panopticon" because he says participatory panopticon is redundant - the whole idea of the panopticon was to have the inmate internalize the surveillance and pattern self-surveillance, which is already particpatory.  Albrechtslund's particpatory surveillance is empowering and constructs subjectivities because the "inmate" has agency.

Doesn't want to mitigate dangers in SNS, but says we should also focus on the social forms of surveillance.





 

Leavitt (2011) Watching with the world: TV Audiences and online social networks

2 - Ang (1991) stated that through ratings, the actual viewers were invisible conceptually & technologically to the TV industry

Today, information sharing is valuable to defining audiences.
Lunt & Livingstone (1996) & Livingstone (1998) question the collective and unified nature of the audience

Leavitt - the label of audience is a "malleable category that encompasses varying behaviors yet unifies diverse participants around media and information while moving beyond statistical extrapolations and outdated abstractions."

Traditional ratings study audiences as a group exhibiting one behavior - watching a TV show (and by households with individual demos)

Yet with prosumption, a lot more activities take place with audiences and it's valuable to understand

Seles (2010) calls for expression over impression (exposure) because expression shows why audiences engage in 1st place (this sounds a lot like Abzug's call for psychographics)

Overview - Leavitt's article assesses the evolving technical and social ecosystem that mediates audience participation online

3 - Early Internet was textual communities of fans discussing TV
-users would go to these communities based upon the tropic, not because of social relationships - they would result from the shared interest in the topic

4 - Costello & Moore (2007) (p. 127) - how to define audiences - participatory behaviors can range from minimal involvement - gathering information to fully engaged fans interacting with celebs and other fans.
Costello & Moore assert that social connections are constructed as a result of users participating in a community interested in media

Leavitt argues that today, audiences as communities need to be reconsidered because social media are primarily personal relationships constructed in "mediated online platforms" (aka the interest driven community is not what draws people to social media 1st)

Gee (2004) - "affinity spaces" - audiences are no longer defined to a specific space. There are a wide range of behaviors spanning multiple platforms, differing in levels of engagement.

Leavitt agrees with Gee and says that this online group audience dynamic is impossible to define by typical definitions of community

5- He argues that social media have not replaced interest-based communities, but participation is affected with how users engage with media.
-the shift from interest based networks to social based
Dwyer (2007) - different behaviors - participants share information in a way reflective of their personal and social identity.

6 - Leavitt - In other words, "participation on SNS (social networking services) around television content must be understood within the context of how an individual user's network will perceive that participation."

SNS have fostered "audience information systems" (Napoli, 2011, p. 88)

7 - Bridge social media & communities to enhance the media ecosystem and formilate better experiences
-sharing is vital to growing and fostering a network
(Leavitt is a pro-configurable culture)

10 - social recommendations will play a role in users participating and consuming media

12 - It's a "heightened social system" (meaning enhanced and more democratizing)