DISCUSSION POSTS
FORUM 4:
tech and internet culture, gender and social norms
Social media has fostered a culture of “the ideal woman” and has altered the lifestyle of those pursuing this “ideal woman” into a constant lifestyle driven by appearance, perception, and accelerated social capitalism. The ideal woman, as described by Tolentino (Links to an external site.), is youthful, clean, expensive, carefree, and combines work and leisure into a pleasurable experience. Because social media is a consistent reflection and performance of our identity, we feel as if we are constantly surveilled and obligated to operate under its system (Tolentino). As Tolentino writes, “most pleasures end up being traps...satisfaction remains, under the terms of the system, necessarily out of reach”. Social media lifestyle culture has made it so experiences that might normally be pleasurable such as eating lunch or exercising or going to the beach are now performances instead of experiences where we focus more on looking good and making it look like we had a good time than actually enjoying ourselves.
In Instagram has a Massive Harassment Problem (Links to an external site.), numerous women talk about their experiences on the platform with men asking them for nudes, being photoshopped in obscene positions, and getting massive amounts of hate comments on their lifestyle accounts. I have noticed, in my own experience, that women are often expected to have put-together Instagram accounts, whereas most people expect men to have “bad” Instagram accounts that are relatively inactive and “lower-qualitiy” in posts. In The Atlantic article Why are More Women than Men on Instagram (Links to an external site.), gender researches explain how Instagram fuels gender norms by “giv[ing] you the power to modify your appearance in a way that’s practically on par with makeup and other beauty products”--thus, appealing to young women who feel the need to pursue this “ideal woman”. On the other hand, men are often observed using Instagram in a way that “reinforces the currency of female beauty on social media” by liking certain posts or following certain accounts.
Because beauty standards are nothing short of perfection on Instagram, and the app has features that easily enable harassment with no consequences, fake accounts, and easily discoverable profiles, trolls and hate is common--especially towards women. In many ways, social media is patriarchal, objectifying, and degrading for women. I stumbled upon an article (Links to an external site.) about an Instagram study that found that the app unsurprisingly caused â…“ young women to have a poor body image. Yet, because the "ideal woman" and lifestyle culture is the bread and butter of Instagram, this issue is far from being solved.
FORUM 5:
my research: tech and internet culture, gender and social norms
How is internet culture both problematic and potentially helpful in true crime cases? How is the recent viral case of Gabby Petito an example of this?
When I redownloaded TikTok for the first time in a while, my For You Page was flooded with videos about Gabby Petito, a young woman who was tragically murdered in late August. Petito, who had garnered over a million Instagram followers, was documenting a road trip with her boyfriend Brian Laundrie when she suddenly went missing on social media. Petito’s tragic death has become one of the most viral news stories this year, especially on social media sites such as TikTok and Twitter.
Social media has, to some extent, helped the case. In Gabby Petito's Disappearance and Why it Was Absolutely Everywhere, Explained, (Links to an external site.) the author describes how numerous tips came in after the case exploded, and one couple actually captured a video of Petito and Laundrie’s van right before Petitio went missing, which helped police narrow their search area and eventually find her body. It is likely this tip would not have come in had the case not blown up. However, social media has also--expectedly--been harmful towards the case. True crime fanatics have been among those spreading misinformation and creating elaborate and unhelpful conspiracy theories about the couple--including doubting Launderie’s age, believing that the Gabby Petito in the police cam footage--wasn’t actually her, and even suggesting Petito was pregnant. Social media has definitely desensitized the case, as people have been capitalizing off of the case to go viral and have been treating a family tragedy as an exciting mystery game--which might also be harmful to those actually grieving.
Although “web sleuthing’s” effectiveness is unclear, something that is definitely clear is the pattern of missing white women gaining heavy media traffic over queer people and women of color. NPR has dubbed this phenomenon “Missing White Women Syndrome (Links to an external site.)”, as a sociologist at Northwestern found that missing white women were covered by the media with much more intensity and frequency than women of color. Just ten days ago, a Black trans woman (Links to an external site.) was murdered in Chicago, which was hardly covered by news and social media--except for Human Rights Campaign (an LGBTQ center). And in the few sites her case was covered, Briana Hamilton was misgendered. HRC has documented 37 murders (Links to an external site.) of transgender and gender-non-conforming people this year alone--the majority of them Black and Latinx. Petito’s case--although swamped with misinformation and conspiracies--has raised important concerns over domestic abuse and violence. But, it is evident that not all of these cases--especially those involving Black and Indigenous women--are treated the same. Many of these tragic cases turn into statistics that few know--and these issues of violence against Queer, Black, and Indigenous people are easily overlooked.
FORUM 6:
tech and body, sports
Is human enhancement cheating? I think this question is interesting, before even considering technology. For instance, take Sha'Carri Richardson, the American sprinter who was disqualified from the 2021 Olympics for testing positive for marijuana. And Namibian runners Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi were banned from competing in the women's 400m because of their naturally higher levels of testosterone. The International Swimming Federation even announced that swimming caps specifically designed for Black hair were banned. Personally, I find that these attempts are more racialized and gendered than about "human enhancement". In Brad Allenby's Is Human Enhancement Cheating? (Links to an external site.), he talks about what would happen if everything was taken to another level. He describes a world in which people could be genetically engineered to be better athletes, or better soldiers--people could have maximum muscle development or better neural performance.
As someone who competed in sports for a lot of my life, I think that what's special about sports is that a lot of the best athletes come from all different types of backgrounds and hardships, but have an immense drive and love for what they're doing. I think that adding a level of genetic engineering makes this a competition more about capital and about resources than it already is. It would be more about people competing to see who has the best technology. And, I think that kids who look up to professional athletes would get the wrong idea when their role models have gotten most of their talent from technology. In the Vice article (Links to an external site.), The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Doping they propose looking at a future in which sports accepted--or even embraced doping. They argue that there would be fewer scandals and bribery--as athletes nowadays just figure out how to pass drug tests even while doing drugs or bribe officials. Of course, this open-arms to "doping" has some plus sides, as people such as Sha'Carri Richardson would not have been banned, and other athletes who take certain drugs for health issues. But, as one professional states "the lines between enhancement and therapy are not clear"--and if you add in genetic engineering--the lines get even more blurry.
FORUM 7:
my research: tech and body, sports
What is considered human enhancement, and how could this change the future of sports?
In a Sport Journal paper called Ethical Considerations of Genetic Manipulation in Sport (Links to an external site.), Dr. Ehrbar explains many of the arguments for and against genetic modification in sports. Besides equity and fairness issues that I raised in my last discussion post, genetic manipulation could also be detrimental because a child's genes would essentially equal their destiny, and they would be obligated--if not forced--into certain sports to perform in certain ways without much choice. Although some children might like this, it is definitely unfair to have an entire career path that a child must train and work for just because they are built for it. However, the article also argues that genetic manipulation could potentially make sports fairer.
According to a Forbes article (Links to an external site.), the probability of an American man between 6'6" and 6'8" being an NBA player is 0.07% , whereas once someone is 7 feet or taller, it's up to an incredible 17%. Of course, these statistics aren't super comparable, given that there are way more men who are in the prior category, but it is still interesting. And, the same article discusses how these tall players, such as 7'1" Matt Wenstrom are given too many chances in the NBA compared to shorter athletes--as he averaged 1.6 points per game in college, yet still played two years in the NBA, as opposed to his teammate Donald Williams who won the most outstanding player in the final four and was never drafted. Furthermore, Michael Phelps (Links to an external site.) (thank you Ethan for the source) has numerous genetic advantages--such as a disproportionately large wingspan and double-jointed ankles, as well as the ability to produce only half the amount of lactic acid as normal athletes. It surely could be arguable that these natural characteristics are a huge genetic advantage in sports, and this is unfair to people who are born much shorter and have to work a lot harder. However, I think, ultimately gene manipulation could create further class disadvantages and genetically-elite rich people--which is much more unfair.
FORUM 8:
tech and art
The last time I went to MOMA, one of my favorite installation pieces was one that had about twenty photographs in frames across the wall. Each of the photographs had a camera on the frame, analyzing how long people spent looking at each photo. Then, a robotic arm would constantly be replacing the photographs with other ones according to the data of how long people looked at the photos. No photo would stay up for too long--adapting to our short attention spans. This piece was intriguing to me because it incorporated technology in order to convey a message about how technology has changed the way we appreciate art, especially with photographs, which we look at for a few seconds--if even that--before scrolling on Instagram.
In the Smithsonian Mag (Links to an external site.) article, it had different videos of how technology was used to create unique pieces of immersive, participatory art. The way in which people could interact with technological art was very different than the way one might interact with a painting. For instance, I personally liked watching this video of a "Petting Zoo", in which the animals are glowing electronic tubes instead that hang from the sky. The tubes read and respond to people's movements, acting friendly, affectionate, or shy. Personally, I think that making art interactive can help create emotion and experience out of art from people who may not have the same emotional response to a piece of fine art. However, I have noticed museums like MOMA being undertaken by "Instaworthy" installation pieces, such as the light tunnel. This particular tunnel has a digital line and a physical line to enter (it took me about 30 minutes to get in). Although very beautiful, it is somewhat clear that the piece was intended as a photo-op--as people spend the sixty seconds they get in the tunnel taking photos. I feel that although technology can help make art more immersive, particularly for people who don't usually enjoy art, it also can cause people to only see and experience art to post on social media. Of course, I'm guilty of taking photos of the tunnel as well (see below), but there it was definitely built and placed in perfect lighting so that it photographs better than the fine art pieces.
Another way in which tech is changing art is through a growing crypto-digital art market. Initially, I was completely shocked that a digital piece of artwork could sell for $69 million (Links to an external site.). If it's digital couldn't anyone access it and see it for free? And would you just keep this $69 million piece of art on your phone? Apparently these pieces of artwork are encrypted so that there is proof of authenticity. I wonder, if these very high markets and the pattern of museums becoming more Insta-worthy will not only change the ways in which art is consumed, but also lead to the markets and audiences favoring certain tech artists over traditional artists.
FORUM 9:
tech and society, conspiracy
From True Crime to random people going viral, why does Internet culture feel the need to intrusively dissect strangers’ lives? What does this say about human nature?
I recently wrote about Gabby Pettito, an Instagram influencer who went missing and then completely viral on social media--particularly on Tiktok. Random people came up with outlandish conspiracy theories, stalked her online presence, and even analyzed police footage frame-by-frame. However, Tiktok’s latest victim of this stalkerish behavior was a normal college couple who happened to go viral in one video that has amassed sixty million views (Links to an external site.). The video depicts Lauren--a college-aged girl with few TikTok followers--surprising her boyfriend Robbie at his college. The video went viral, but not for the reasons they expected. Thousands of videos have since been posted analyzing Robbie’s every move and accusing him of cheating because he wasn’t excited enough to see her and was also sitting on a couch with three other girls when Lauren arrived. People flooded the comments warning Lauren, have stalked all of her videos trying to pinpoint the exact instance he “lost interest”, created meme versions of the video, and have even slid notes under Robbie’s door asking them about the video. Vox (Links to an external site.) explains how when the internet creates viral moments out of normal people it “expedite[s] the shaming process” because these people are complete strangers to the general public.
Why does the internet find the need to analyze everything so forensically, even when the subjects are completely normal people? According to When Ordinary People Go Viral, Where’s the Line Between Comedy and Cruelty (Links to an external site.)?, internet culture has--in recent years--had a growing obsession with cringe-worthy content created by ordinary people. Most of this content comes from people who expect the opposite reaction of what they receive and have a lack of self-awareness about it. This has even created celebrities over the years, from Danielle Bregoli on Dr. Phil to Rebecca Black with her Friday song. People have started to go viral not because people enjoy their videos, but because they feel embarrassed by them (Jennings). Furthermore, Melissa Dahl, author of Cringeworthy: A Theory of Awkwardness states that cringe-worthy content gives our brains a dose of exposure therapy. A lot of us fear ostracization or embarrassing ourselves, so watching other people do the same is in a way, a method to face this fear.
