Looking at research as a service itself to librarianship.

Who sets the criteria? Is it individual/institutional or are there national criteria to meet?

The unseen labor of maintenance.

Not acknowledging the archive as also a representation of ideological and power structures provides only a partial understanding of how archives operate and ignores their role in upholding certain monoliths.

So, this is an example of a space where social curation is mostly positive and may contribute to positive behaviours outside of its online sphere. Interesting

Example of a positive echo chamber? Was most of the content innocuous in nature though? And, are the users being observed mostly homogeneous?

Objective vs. subjective labeling

There's no censorship here but, also, no oversight. No one is checking to see what information is being curated nor affirming its validity in anyway. Perhaps this lack of supervision is mainly harmless. That said, it seems open to exploitation.

So this is a new form of communication in online spaces. It communicates something not just about culture, but about self too.

Validation

We are constantly looking for ways to discover and present ourselves and online spaces provide new avenues of expression.

Ah, so evaluative online actions can have lasting IRL effects, ones that meaningful affect interactions with and perceptions of the world.

So, it's not the same "high" as having sex but there's still a comparable degree of pleasure and validation derived from "likes". Does this mean people will chase this kind of "high" the same as they do similarly pleasurable things?

This seems to indicate to me that social media can be just as addicting as any of these things. Obsession with any one of these things can lead to a massive addiction.

stop appropriating Floridian culture

You're very welcome ^.^

It's interesting that it is our ability to change and our predilection to avoid stagnation that so often defines us. Identity is often discussed in concrete terms--where can you locate it? What groups do you align yourself with? But, identity is not a singular, cohesive entity. We are not. Rather we are this confluence of so many factors beyond pinpointing. (I'm reminded of Dr. Lector's "Nothing happened to me. I happened. You can't reduce me to a set of influences.") We happened. Whether online or in our skin, we are going to constantly grow and evolve.

In some ways, I don't fully understand the meaning here. But, I do believe that the onset of the digital age, particularly of the Internet, has made it possible to be so many more things beneath our skin than our skin would have other believe. We truly contain multitudes, perhaps now more than ever. (Will we burst?)

Interesting thought to consider in light of such nefarious online practices such as catfishing and identity theft. (Who are the modern-day skinwalkers?)

Is it not? Isn't the whole world a stage and us, merely players?

It's a very visual way to portray/convey the many layers we all assume in the construction of identity. I think this work comes across as a little eerie (in concept) because it is making the typically unseen seen. V is not only bared open but dismantled and remade. It's unsettling (but so fascinating).

Sounds like a re-emergence of happenings, just re-envisioned in a digital space

What a patriarchal approach

So there is not one performance of self; there are many performances of self, playing out in tandem with others.

Only concerned with the presentation of self and not with self itself as we may define it internally. Goffman's definition of self relies upon the reception of another interactant.

Are we then more defined by what bends or breaks our barriers than the barriers themselves?

Also known as "saving someone else's face" (cause you're not an assh*le).

That's the longest-winded way to say, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I've ever read~

You must follow-through, it seems or else the whole charade falls through.

Self, then, lies not only in one individual; an interaction seems to be required an and impression made in order for a conception of self to exist. At least, according to Goffman.

I'm not sure I wholly agree with his statement but I do believe it is important to consider. To me, I believe different environments enhance aspects of ourselves already present. I don't believe these sites are fully responsible for our own actions. That said, I agree, in some ways, that we are being incredibly manipulated into being the worst versions of ourselves in online spaces. It's more profitable to bring out the worst in us than the best--at least, that's what Big Business seems to believe. I find it hard to believe, though, that we can be all that much more fake online than in-person--if you really think about it. We are always modulating ourselves and our reactions to accommodate those around us. We are constantly being told not to be ourselves through social, academic, professional, etc. conditioning. Does anybody really know who they are? Do you? I just don't think it's apt or fair to say that we are being anymore fake online when there's no proof we were ever being real before.

I almost want to liken the concepts of "alternative facts" and "post-truth" to a kind of modern day alchemical process--in this case, the transmutation of words and semantics but also of reality and fact itself.

Ah. I'm sure the Church loved this ^.^

Anyway, this definitely seems to indicate that we have always desired to transcend beyond ourselves.This kind of "escapism" is not new. Now, we may use digital means to attempt transcendence but is that really any different than alchemical intervention? Both are intended to be these conduits through which we become something more.

This is a fave text the show "Ancient Aliens" likes to reference as evidence that ancient alien travelers visited earth long ago.... Regardless of the validity of those statements >.> it sounds like an epic tale. Would love to know more about its content and significance.

The unprofessional/amateur medium actually encourages further interaction as it is indicative of a "lower bar" to clear in order for further engagement to occur.

Bot intervention increases human interaction with online content

Social interaction is recursive--meaning that it loops in on itself, the act of social interaction a symptom and a cause of social interaction

Provide information about behaviour and communication rather than about a tradition or a specific practice.

New conception of how media is spread and a new conception of ownership of content and how much it matters.

So, this definition mentions Dawkins but it does seem mor focused on the communication aspect of memes.

Meaning that we select our communication based upon the emotional impact it will have?

Affinity space?

She lost her sense of belonging

How was this "main point" determined?

Holland's tags~

Wow, much insight my dude

Too many theories but enough agreed upon assumptions to create a model that could actually be applied nor a model that would accurately represent some aspect of reality.

There is no photogrpahic memory for most people; every memory is being continuously edited in the mind,

Only pragmatic examples

Performing literature rather than reading it? Incorporating the performance of interacting with literature in a way that allows it to be more "seen", making the hidden mechanics observable?

of or relating to meaning-making

Readers decide when to end a story rather than a story providing a definite ending--closure or making peace with a lack thereof of closer is determined by/resides in the reader. So, is a conclusion really a part of a literary work or not?

Works like this really bring questions of authorship to the forefront--who is writing this work? Sure, you can design all of a work's possible permutations but if a reader does not engage with the work and generate these permutations, does the story exist?

Removing a work from its digital context removes its meaning or, at least, a large chunk of its meaning.

Dada photomontage?

Hannah Hoch's "Cut with a Kitchen Knife"

What decides meaning--the work or your experience of the work? Is there any meaning inherent in a work or is it all determined by the reader?

Or, do readers simply explore works, like detectives?

Rather than being passive observes to a story as it unravels, readers of elit participate in the creation of the story.

Navigation rather than interpretation itself assists in guiding the discerning of meaning

Agreed. The last scene was what really stuck and, to me, it's because of how dissonant our world is with the one presented by "Nosedive." In our world, we still get these private moments where we can yell "Fuck this" all we want. We still value those moments. Our entire lives are not as pervasively performative as in this world. More than all that though, I think we can all relate to how utterly fucking exhausting and stressful social media can be. We need moments where we can vent like Lacie did at the end of the episode.

This artifice was particularly powerful, in my opinion. It wasn't just about how we appeared via social media bu how we were perceived IRL that mattered and could be translated to power. One the aims of social media was to connect people and allow for a wider array of interactions with individuals and with communities. But, here, social media becomes a tool to suppress and oppress genuine interactions amongst people.

I think you can already see traces of this--with the rise of "influencers", which are typically people who promote products on social media and that's it. In the beauty & cosmetics world, influencers have become major players in marketing and in the popularity of certain brands, for instance.

That one's social media presence/score could dictate one's access to goods and services "IRL" is what I found to be most scary about this entire premise. Right now, this aspect of social media can affect the lives of celebrities but it hasn't spilled over into the lives of everyday citizens. Yet. **Edit: You see traces of it though. To access some features for things, you need the app and most of these apps have ranking systems now.

Social media and clout on it essentially becomes the new currency of this society.

The crux of the issue, I think~

I like the concept of parsing data across multiple devices. Where crypto-currency gets involved, though, is where I get concerned. I don't know a lot about crypto-currency but I know the markets for it can fluctuate drastically and that is not comforting or encouraging?? One of those. I don't want my internet to crash into a thousand pieces because overnight, Safecoin's value plummeted, you know? (Is that how that works??? Am I totally off???)

It almost seems counter-intuitive to think of digital art as temporary. Once something's on the internet, it lives forever, right? I was tripped up by this idea but then I remembered what I heart a tattoo artist say (on one of the many tattoo art shows out there--can't remember which) in response to someone who rejected tattoos on the basis that they're permanent: "Tattoos are the least permanent kind of art. We're all going to die." I got so caught up in thinking of the art itself that I forgot about its canvas--human skin. A material that will not stand the test of time. I think this is applicable to the idea that digital art is temporary. At least, as temporary as a tattoo. It will leave its mark in a moment but that moment will not last. It almost makes me appreciate the medium more, if that makes sense?

I've never thought of this word in terms of a digital context until recently. But, it really all comes down to consent. Some might argue just using the internet's service is consent to tracking cookies. Others may say visiting a site is you consenting to their tracking software. And others still may say there is no consent until a request has been made and an informed answer provided.

God forbid~

Horrifying. Absolutely horrifying. This is a problem. Forget that social media addiction nonsense. That this is allowed to happen is creating major social crises. People get trapped in echo chambers--of third-party servers' designs and there are no repercussions for this. No ethical ramifications. Where is the responsibility here? Consumer privacy is not only being neglected, it is being exploited for financial and, I would argue as of late, political gain. Where is the regulation? The oversight?

See, this is a little scary. It's one thing to be another # in a mass of numbers but an whole different matter entirely for a corporation to have access to and be able to store such personal information without any sworn responsibility to use it ethically or to protect it--how many data links can you name? Now, compare that to how many prosecutions you can name? Maybe a corporation has to pay a fine if it has a leak but little more. We're all just $$$$, commodities to trade and sell.

Ah, the ol' Trojan horse play--in this case, monitoring disguised as courtesy.

Is the self I am in my digital life/in my digital spaces not me? Not a part of me?

My work self and my student self and my home self do not behave or operate necessarily in the same ways but I would never consider any one separate from myself, any one "better". That's evaluative and, ultimately, a subjective opinion.

We could re-imagine the financial component that is driving all of social media? Incentivize social media platforms maybe to tweak their algorithms so that more truthful or factual info is being spread? (I think that's a contributing factor to this whole "lowering IQ" debate tbh) If you want some real change, most often you've got to hit someone in their wallet.

Causation does not equal correlation last time I checked~

Hello agenda~

(Studies also show that smoking cannabis increases creativity and innovation. Also, it has many beneficial health applications; it can be used for the treatment of seizures and for anxiety disorders as well as for pain. We going to look at anything complexly in this article??? Asking for a friend >.>)

I guess something else that bothers me about this whole debate is that the responsibility is placed solely on the consumers and hardly at all on the creators or designers of these devices and algorithms. But, if they never existed in the first place, what would the problem be? I think it's irresponsible to peddle messages like the one expressed in this article without looking at the source and saying, "Hey, this isn't working out well. You need to come up with something better." That's human innovation, right? Of course, because of Big Business's interests, the likelihood of any meaningful change to the current social media construct is slim to none.

Absolutely? I'd have liked if more research were provided here to support this lone professor's claim--that there is a correlation in regards to symptoms between people with ADD and people who use smartphones. Dealing in absolutes here really closes off discussion so I'm hesitant to accept this viewpoint as the reality of this situation. It's very one-sided thus far.

So clever~

This sounds like a generalization to me. Again, many people use these platforms not just for self-affirmation but for, you know, social purposes--to connect with people they otherwise wouldn't be able to. This sounds purposefully provocative, as if it wants to play on the insecurities it just pointed out, forcing me to engage in an introspection of its own design. Sounds eerily similar to clickbait~

I'll admit, this sounds very "super-villainy." I expected the corporate sphere to be more savvy when discussing exploitation of the masses for profit tbh~

Dramatic

This, I have a major problem with. I highly recommend watching this video on the topic created by one of my fave educational Youtubers. I've recommended it often but I think it's great at underlining the ethical issues with these algorithms. More, it highlights how these algorithms affect the population, how they divide us instead of provide truth as we had hoped a platform like the internet would (you know, making info and so facts easily accessible).

Again, I don't disagree with ideas like these--giving yourself time to be in a moment with yourself for yourself is very important, especially to mental health. When social media is being used as a a distraction from having to be with the self, then I have a problem with it because it is having a noticeably negative impact. I don't like messages like these being used aggressively and obnoxiously, though, as if to guilt people. Maybe I'm no my phone not talking to you because you're, quite frankly, annoying and unpleasant. Ever thought of that insert nosy relative/etc? I'm just saying maybe the problem isn't always the device so much as it is the company or the environment.

This is perhaps what I am most interested in: how are we identifying what behaviors are being influenced by increased social media usage? Personally, I think the uptick in videos showing inappropriate behavior being uploaded to these platforms is indicative of impact of social media--it's made us more performative and has sold us this idea that privacy is over-rated, perhaps non-valuable. But, that seems to be a different viewpoint than that expressed in this article. This article seems more concerned with the increase in antisocial behavior it associates with increased social media usage than with the collective conscious and its relationship to digital spaces. If that sounds critical, it is. I'll keep reading but typically these kinds of articles focus too heavily on the "media" aspect and not enough on the "social" benefits these applications allow for which, to me, is an egregious oversight but whatever~

What was most startling to me upon watching the first episode is that the site knew exactly what town I was in and what time of day it was. I was not expecting that. And, then, it was interactive in that we could input info if we wanted to. That is vastly different from the current movie experience. It individualized the experience of the work but, in this context, I'm not sure if I wanted it to be individualized!

During tonight's studio visit with Brett, I found the idea of privacy and the digital landscape to be vastly intriguing. What I wonder about specifically is if this constant "watching" or surveilling/tracking has made us as a whole more performative--because we believe that we're always being watched. As evidence of this I would present the uptick I'm sure we've all noticed in "inappropriate content" being posted to these public, digital platforms (i.e. the Logan Paul & Suicide Forest video on Youtube (since removed), or the Facebook live vid of these 2 girls in Australia brutally beating up a mentally disabled girl, or the instagram live vid of a girl posted after a car accident which killed her sister). I wonder if the acknowledgment that we're being consistently watched or monitored has negatively informed our behavior in some big ways--that we feel posting this kind of content is okay and acceptable now. I guess I'm more interested in the social ramifications here of the tracking.

Lmr zjmmbw jgicjw ;N Wms'jj yjuywq zc y uyllyzc rm kc~

Kw fmu rfcqc rsplq fytc ryzjcb...fyfy

Tcpw.

Wms ylb kc zmrf...^.^

Fcw!

Wms hsqr bml'r ilmu ufcl rm osgr, fsf Qfybmu-Egpj-uyllyzc-wmspqcjd?

Nmr, wms pcyjjw lccb rm kccr rfyr icrrjc~

Wms'pc mlc rm ryji yzmsr nmlrgdgayrgml, Qfybmu-Egpj-uyllyzc~

Exactly.

Something universities and colleges want their Profs to assuage rather than address, to claim the campus as "neutral" ground when it is far from it. You cannot remove students anymore from their current political/social context than you can divorce academia (and the university institution) from its deep class (i.e privileged) and socio-economic roots. There are no impenetrable, "sacred" bubbles. We live and learn in the rawness of it all.

For further reading~ https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

How does one write this and not see the irony in their own words? Hear the pitch of their own whining? Perhaps it is too deafening.

Twitter bots, recombinatory poetry, generative fiction is infinitely fascinating because it can be so random and unexpected. It's like experimenting with how we ascribe meaning, try to find purpose in the otherwise incomprehensible.

I found this part of the discussion to be rather interesting. I never thought of something like memes as being entry points into Elit--perhaps because they seem too "simplistic." But, if interacting with Elit has taught me anything, it's that it's made to be accessible. So, maybe it's whatever works, huh?