#PremDac16: Can you see me? with @drbexl
â˘Download as PPTX, PDFâ˘
1 likeâ˘483 views
45 minute session at Premier Digital Conference at The Brewery in London, Saturday November 12th: "Can you see me? Who or what do people see through what you create online? How open and vulnerable should we be when creating in the digital space?" http://www.premierdigital.org.uk/Premier-Digital-Conference
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to #PremDac16: Can you see me? with @drbexl
Similar to #PremDac16: Can you see me? with @drbexl (20)
More from Bex Lewis
More from Bex Lewis (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
#PremDac16: Can you see me? with @drbexl
- 2. Dr Bex Lewis, Director, Digital Fingerprint; Senior Lecturer in Digital Marketing, Manchester Metropolitan University #PremDac16 // http://bit.ly/PremDac16-Bex Can you see me? @drbexl
- 3. Who or what do people see through what you create online? #PremDac16 @drbexl
- 4. Who are you online? @drbexl Image source: http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/577/700/8d0.jpg, http://www.spring.org.uk/images/shout.jpg
- 5. Most people have an online identity, whether youâve actively contributed online or not: itâs worth checking your name on Google and seeing what results are returned. What do people see online? @drbexl
- 6. @drbexl
- 7. @drbexl
- 8. Sherry Turkle, psychologist and MIT professor of Social Studies of Science and Technology. https://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together Interview: http://drbexl.co.uk/2012/04/03/talking-about-kony2012-on-ucbmedia/ Clickbait: https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/25/wtf-is-clickbait/ Scams: http://superlucky.me/2015/09/how-to-identify-a-scam-facebook-promotion/ Rumours: http://www.snopes.com/ I share, therefore I am @drbexl Image source: http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/Photo%20of%20Sherry%202010.jpg
- 9. âYou know the sense that nowadays we always need to be improving ourselves â getting fitter, thinner, more skilled, less stressed. Society seems to have a compulsive need to see us constantly bettering ourselves. Someone argued that humanity has become nothing other than a resource to be updated.â @pmphillips @drbexl Source: http://bigbible.org.uk/2013/09/a-will-to-vulnerability-lessons-from-the-digitalhumanities-and-1samuel/
- 10. âThere is much inaccurate and alarmist information online, so churches and other trusted organisations can play their part in providing good information, or directing those affected and their supporters to pre-existing content online, or opportunities to connect.â What can we do? @drbexl 2017: âDigital Cultureâ, for Christian Handbook of Abuse, Addiction and Difficult Behaviour, edited by Brendan Geary and Jocelyn Bryan, published by Kevin Mayhew (2nd Edition) (forthcoming)
- 11. How open and vulnerable should we be when creating in the digital space? #PremDac16 @drbexl
- 15. Who sees this? @drbexl Image Source: Stockfresh 1. Parents 2. âKidsâ 3. Newspaper 4. Enemy Image Credit: Stockfresh
- 16. âEven though in practice, face-to-face communication can, of course, be angry, negligent, resistant, deceitful and inflexible, somehow it remains the ideal against which mediated communication is judged as flawed.â Prof Sonia Livingstone, Children and the Internet: Great Expectations and Challenging Realities. 2009, p26 @Livingstone_S @drbexl
- 17. â.. People find it easy and more comfortable to ask questions about faith in a private space online⌠people on social media are directly contactable in a way that has not previously been so easy; paradoxically there is a distance offered by the online environment akin to the screen in the confessional boxâ (p18) @vahva @drbexl
- 18. Conflict isnât a bad thing in and of itself, and instead can, under the right conditions, create an opportunity to work through differences in a constructive way. However, when people engage in negative conflict, theyâre less interested in trying to see if they can come to a mutually beneficial resolution than they are in maintaining power over the other side and trying to prove they are âright,â regardless of the methods used or the people hurt. Andrews, M. (2013), âIn Conversation with Author Andrea Weckerle, Civility in the Digital Ageâ, A New Domain. Retrieved from: http://anewdomain.net/2013/04/07/in-conversation-with-author-andrea-weckerle-civility-in-the-digital-age Challenge & Conflict @drbexl
- 20. âIf you suddenly realise anything you post can show up in around 2 seconds on a Google search, under your real name and linked to your FB profile, you'll be far less likely to engage in the more controversial debates ⌠in case it comes back to haunt you later.â http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=70283991 Anonymity Online @drbexl
- 21. âIf we donât like what social media is presenting us [with], we should look at society instead, not just the tool they communicate with.â Caroline Criado-Perez, 2013 @drbexl Source: http://www.interhacktives.com/2013/12/04/5th-hackney-debate-social-media-blessing-curse/
- 22. ⢠Redeye Photography event http://bit.ly/TrollingTheArtist ⢠Donât forget the famous saying attributed to Edmund Burke: âThe only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.â ⢠http://www.stoponlineabuse.org.uk/ Cyberbullying & Trolling @drbexl Image: Sarah Maple/Bex Lewis
- 23. âUsers need to be particularly careful about the information that is shared, whether by themselves, or by their friends, and all users need to look out for clever tricks, such as âviralâ missing person posts, whether for partners, or for children. Some are a hoax, others are for people in hiding or under police protection, and others are for children who have been adopted because of the risk of significant harm. If you are even thinking of sharing, check with police or Interpol records, but in any case, notify the police, so that they have the opportunity to offer safeguarding protection if required.â Chapman, K. (2015), âBe careful about âmissing personâ postsâ, Google+. Retrieved from: https://plus.google.com/+KimberlyChapman/posts/gn8ZrgGnMXK, and Barefoot Social Work (2015), âThe Dangers of Social Media for 'Missing' Childrenâ. Retrieved from: http://barefootsocialwork.weebly.com/blog/the-dangers-of-social-media-for-missing-children Adoption & Fostering @drbexl
- 25. Dr Bex Lewis, Director, Digital Fingerprint; Senior Lecturer in Digital Marketing, Manchester Metropolitan University #PremDac16 // http://bit.ly/PremDac16-Bex Questions? @drbexl
Editor's Notes
- Remember 100-200 word overview of your session to Dave Hitchcock too - dave@hitchcockuk.com
- So, todayâs session we thought - who or what do people see through what you create online? How open and vulnerable should we be when creating in the digital space? As always â this is a huge topic⌠Want to give a few thoughts drawing on research, but also space for conversations ⌠and itâs possible you may leave with more questions that you started with, but if weâve started to think about what we do â then thatâs a good thing!!
- So, whatâs your impression of what we see of people online? For far too many people â one of these impressions comes into mind.... People being stupid, people shouting at each other online (in a way that maybe they wouldnât offline) ... Believing that old saying âon the internet, no one knows if youâre a dog...â â butoften online is the place that we first âmeetâ people (e.g. Bryony and I, and lots of other people â although this is partly an extension of my extrovert personality in which everyone is a potential friend...) This negative impression is one that I am keen on us changing, even if we can only change it in our small corner ... Letâs all quote Michelle Obama here... âthey go low, we go highâ...
- How many of you have phones with you? At this event, think I can get away with asking this!! Google your name ⌠what comes up? Are you happy with what comes up or not?
- So I thought, fairs fair â letâs see what comes up under my name ⌠interesting mix of stuff (on Google in general seems to be my website, my Twitter, and then my work profile â remember that e.g. Academic institutions have higher ranking on Google than general websites â but also self-hosted domain names are given ranking ... SEO is a real art that is frequently changed â itâs not one of my specialisms, but worth having a bit of understanding of whatâs going on. Note â one thing that happens is sheer quantity means that âgood stuffâ may well shove negative/old stuff off the scale, though not guaranteed... Feel sorry for any other Bex Lewis as only 5 of those pictures are of ones who arenât me! If youâre not happy, add more content, learn to use privacy better - search for âprivacy settingsâ on Google, or the platform in use. Once information is posted online, it can be hard to get content removed because of the global nature of the web, and often asking for removal brings more attention than would otherwise have happened.
- So, looking at the first image that comes up (happens to be my Twitter pic, and has been since 2014 â good space for consistency) ⌠Iâm wondering what you might see into it as âfirst impressionsâ ⌠(a time when many, including Richard Branson, make up their mind about people within 30 seconds of meeting them â itâs even quicker online, and truly down to the gut instinct)... ASK â what do they think as they look at this â what might the âconnection pointsâ be? âDigitally savvy â has taken a âselfieâ, has used Instagram â with filterâ (weâll come back to that) âAuthor â book â but not shoving it in your face too muchâ (makes me easy to identify) âSmiley/bright colours â friendly, approachable â fits the tone of the book ⌠letâs be excited and positive about the digital ageâ
- Sherry Turkle, psychologist and MIT professor, and author of books such as âAlone Togetherâ (TED talk = 3+ million views) â who typically asks - as we expect more from technology, do we expect less from each other? With this quote she was referring to the âphotoshopped selfâ that we produce online â which she describes as a deliberately created self in which we share only those things that make us look good, part of a crowd, or that are easy to share, taking little time to think⌠What do you think of that idea? Is that what you do? I have a bit of a quibble with this, in that I think we have a certain amount of âperformanceâ in everything we do ⌠we need a certain amount of wisdom in what we share and engage with, and so that negative connotation that many have about a âconstructed selfâ online... As I wrote in a paper, which was published for the European Conference on Social Media a couple of years ago âWe have to argue, however, that we exhibit different âsocial selvesâ in different situations, and the online environment is simply another social situation in which we are learning what is appropriate to share, and what would be better reserved for a different social situation or a different technological medium, with questions as to whether the convergence of digital media is making it harder or easier to be âdigitally in disguiseâ and how easy it is to wear our âdigital skinâ.â The digital, however, does shape the opportunities that we have (and some things are certainly easier to share than others), although we have a lot of say in what is shared! When you like/share, etc. you are by default giving that story some airtime (even if you donât agree with it â hear radio interview re KONY video from 2012) ⌠partly where is good to have friends calling out unhelpful shares (e.g. Brexit/Trump â how does it help to laugh at/demonise others when thereâs a reason why they are where they are), but also recognise may not agree with someone elseâs opinion (so how do you deal with that with grace/love!) â and of course I want to encourage us not to sit in a filter bubble of those we know! I also want us to learn to speak out to challenge the narrative in the media, a media in which clickbait (those headlines that indicate something âspicyâ but are often an advertorial), scam competitions (free competitions in which likes are racked up on Facebook and then the page is sold on â and no actual prize ), and shares of information that hasnât been checked... Sites such as Snopes can help us identify those! Some may not know that my original PhD research was in WW2 posters â included a chapter on âCareless Talk Costs Livesâ ⌠and careless sharing can certainly shape the health of the online environment!
- To take a slight diversion - I wanted to add this interesting observation from Pete Phillips, whoâll be speaking later in the post-lunch slot⌠who agrees with this? As someone who has trained as a life coach, and has seen a range of âself-help booksâ ranging back many years â is this really new, or is this just something thatâs always being there, and the digital shows it in a different way â or makes it more obvious to ourselves. Can we kick back against any of that? Amongst Facebook giving options to edit âhighlightsâ, apps to beautify yourself on selfiesâ, and all sorts - I have loved seeing a couple of friends who are kicking back against the notion that we polish ourselves ⌠3 examples: A couple of friends with chronic illness who are showing the realities of their everyday lives (not just the good days), including blood tests, staring at the wall, the exhaustion, etc. â giving us a much better idea of their lives rather than âIâm fine thanksâ, and opportunities to pray for them A vicar friend who is â âContinuing to share life's failings: This morning I yelled at my eldest for shouting at his sister. How ironic! Once I had woken up properly I apologised to him.â Maria, one of the Premier presenters, writes pieces like this frequentlyâ Facebook often presents a sense of perfection, but that is not the full story. I mean, who is going to post a photo of their dirty laundry pile or a picture from first thing in the morning after a late night, complete with puffy eyes from lack of sleep? We generally pick the highlights of our lives to post online, so comparison is dangerous. Just because someone takes a picture of the top of a coffee mug with a beautiful flower next to it doesn't mean they don't have their child's toy cars littered across the floor out of shot. Just because someone posts lots of images where they have a huge grin, doesn't mean that they don't have a good cry sometimes after a tough day. If you feel inadequate or left behind when scrolling through your newsfeed remember that a) Facebook only gives a small glimpse into someone's world (it's not the full story) and b) the world would be a boring place if everyone was the same! Your path is unique; cherish it.â This for me highlights the humanity of Facebook coming through the algorithms and avoiding âtechnological determinismâ (we did it because the computer made us)âŚ
- So, returning to where we were going - knowing what you stand for, the values that you hold is really important in allowing us to stand firm â although I want to put this within the context that a Barna Report gave us a few years ago â seeing Christians as hypocritical, judgemental, homophobic and obsessed with money â how can we stand firm in grace and love â as for many â the only Christians that they see are online ⌠for instance the other week, there was a story about Michael Bubleâs son â diagnosed with cancer â and the first comment was âSo they finally married? After the kid was born?â which was a) not true and b) surely not the first response of compassion Iâd want to see from a Christian (but then am I judging?!) Ensuring precision of communication, as American writer James Thurber says in the New York Times, âis important, more important than ever, in our era of hair-trigger balances, when a false or misunderstood word may create as much disaster as a sudden thoughtless act.â Dale Carnegie, Associates, (2011) âHow to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Ageâ, New York Times, Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/books/excerpt-how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-in-the-digital-age-by-dale-carnegie.html Iâve got a new book chapter coming out, I hope next spring, in which I wrote⌠âThere is much inaccurate and alarmist information online, so churches and other trusted organisations can play their part in providing good information, or directing those affected and their supporters to pre-existing content online, or opportunities to connect. Alongside this online provision, churches and their weekly groups are in a good position to raise ⌠issues within sermons or peer support groups, encouraging awareness of signs to look out for, confidence in steps to take, knowledge of support, and a listening ear for cries for help, whilst ensuring that practical provision is also clearly highlighted.â (forthcoming book chapter) Yes, note re trusted, but for many it isâŚ
- So I want to move onto the second half of this session⌠taking that notion of sharing â and of course creating our own content ... And thinking how vulnerable we should be â and also how we protect others who are vulnerable? Iâm not sure Iâve got amazing answers for this, but think we need to be thinking about this every time we press âclickâ! Another short extract from the new book chapter: âWe hear of âFacebook depressionâ, but typically social networking can make people feel more positive. It is the most vulnerable, as it is offline, that we need to offer additional support to, as they will likely experience online, as they would offline, the most negative experiences. We need to seek to understand those who exploit the vulnerable, or those who target, for example, feminist activists (who draw a lot of negative attention online) rather than putting the weight of expectation upon the vulnerable.â
- As every good academic does, always important to look at the meaning of words â what do we mean when we say vulnerable? I talk a lot about authenticity, and am looking forward to seeing what Claire Musters writes on that topic â sheâs apparently got a book in production ⌠but what about vulnerability and openness... The dictionary says that open = an unobstructed view, completely obvious, carried out in full view, without protection, whilst as we see here vulnerable says âopen to censure or criticismâ â assailable. All give a sense that we are opening ourselves up to something....
- ⌠as Iâve been writing this talk, Iâve got the TV programme âHumansâ on in the background â where artificial intelligence is being developed (can they develop consciousness/human emotions?) .. And last weekend, the sermon was âall ageâ and encouraged us to look at the range of emotions expressed in the Psalms through the medium of emojis! Emotional responses are something that weâve been given as part of the human race ... Romans 12:15 encourages us to ârejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.â Important in the context of what weâve been looking at today â as Proverbs 29:11: says âA fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it backâ. What emotions do you think are more readily accepted online? Which are more problematic to deal with?
- As users, we need care with the âtrigger fingerâ (yes, the name comes from the gun â words can hurt!). If weâre tired, weâre more likely to post stupid things; in the heat of the moment itâs much easier to share negative content â to which some would respond âHALTâ. If youâre hungry, angry, lonely or tired, is pressing âsendâ really the most constructive use of your time, whether in personal emails, or more publicly via social networks... This may be the time that you want to reach out to people, but find the less public areas of the internet to do so⌠Typically, behaviour online can be described as âhuman nature amplifiedâ, so those who exhibit âdifficult behaviourâ offline, typically will do so online too, sometimes in an even more extreme form due to the speed, and brevity, of the messages shared.
- I use this image, description all the time, but it bears repeating until it just is accepted by everyone That feeling of âfeeling safeâ online â can lead people to publish things they donât expect ⌠itâs a PUBLIC forum, although there is a growing number of peer-to-peer networks. Emails, texting and tools such as Skype still have an important role to play, particularly in more sensitive situations where private discussion is preferable means of communication than public broadcast. Facebook âsecretâ groups where users can discuss particularly sensitive topics â particularly in establishing a sense of trust with other members of the group (things can always be copied/pasted, but that requires human interaction â and we simply canât not engage with others)âŚ.
- This is one of my favourite quotes, which encourages us to challenge WHAT it is about face-to-face that we prioritise (especially within Christian culture), and how we compensated for that with telephone, how weâre learning to with digital⌠... And just think about the changing values that we now ascribe to written comms, especially in the post, where we typically receive bills and direct mail... One of the dangers of seeing the digital as ârevolutionaryâ is that we focus on the technology, and forget that it is still human beings using the technology. Undoubtedly digital technology offers us new ways of doing things, both good and bad, but we are still dealing with basic human needs for love and connection ⌠and sometimes we arenât within geographical reach so online is the only space.. âŚ. remembering the rules for good relationships that have always existed are key.
- On some occasions, online is better ⌠Bryony wrote her dissertation whilst undertaking ordination training, and itâs been published this year (should be on the bookstall) â her questionnaire response highlighted than nearly 50% of direct evangelistic responses came via private messagingâŚ. More comfortable in your own home, can walk away, etc. Allows space for vulnerability ...
- More controversially, writers such as Martin Saunders, writing about the American election on Christian Today website, indicates that he then attracts a huge amount of hate mail for writing challenging material about e.g. Donald Trump â but thinks this issue is too important to take offence personally.
- The natural style of church fits with the creative and participatory culture of the social media world, although that requires letting go of the broadcast hierarchical structure that some have adopted. We look to see what digital technologies allow us to do differently, and capitalise upon that. We are no longer limited to our geographical or âSundayâ lives. Digital allows churches â and the people within them - to practice whole-life community, actively engaging with what is going on in the world, to listen and to respond with what is going on in our local, national and international communities in ways that are meaningful to those who are listening to us. Pastoral care reaches outside of the church walls, and technology can allow us to do more of that. Another snippet from my new book chapter: âAt present we may use sites such as Facebook and Twitter for social purposes, but must acknowledge that they are subject to economic rather than philanthropic pressures.â â we need to put the humanity back into it ⌠and evidence has shown that material that has humour or vulnerability in it are the things that most frequently get shared... With digital technology - we need to cultivate an attitude of respect, rather than of risk-avoidance. The digital is a part of our everyday lives, and itâs not going to go away. There are huge opportunities available for those who have learnt how to be critical, constructive, and confident inhabitants of the digital environment.
- Iâm resurrecting a piece on anonymity online, and is one of the things that I think we need to realise â both in any negative behaviour, but also in aspects where we are allowing ourselves to be vulnerable. âThe most oft given argument for anonymity online is that people can be free to express unpopular ideas and be critical of people in power without risking censure or retaliation, protects those at risk of spousal abuse, and removes questions such as race, religion, gender, sexuality and disability. In some senses this may be true, but only really in text-only communication, and even here there are clues: the classic line âno one knows that youâre a dogâ is not always true. A slow speed of response may indicate physical disabilities, linguistic clues and exemplars drawn upon may indicate age, gender, class or geography. Overall, as we live in what Henry Jenkins would describe as a âconvergence cultureâ, the sheer volume of data available, and the inter-linking of so many online sites, can make it difficult to be anonymous without extensive planning and technological knowledge.â âAnonymity is identified as particularly important to parody accounts, those questioning their sexuality online, those searching for information on medical conditions, pregnancy or mental health, online daters who donât want to reveal their identity until they choose to, businesses who want honest feedback, gamers who wish to engage only in character, artists such as Banksy, private philanthropists, those who live in violent neighbourhoods and want to report something without retribution, those seeking to create surprises (especially surprise proposals), those who are seeking new employment, and those who simply donât want every facet of their life tied to Google.âhttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/online-anonymity-not-only-trolls-and-political-dissidents Can you see an argument for this? Technology, of course, has found new ways of undercutting this, with areas such as the âdark webââŚ
- As with most issues attributed to digital technology⌠https://asliceoftruths.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/caroline-criado-perez1.jpg
- An obvious example of this is cyberbullying (typically seen as seeking to put someone down) and trolling (seeking a reaction â not uncontested descriptions) â where, as we said earlier, those who are already vulnerable offline, become even more vulnerable online. I chaired a panel on this the other week, with a couple of feminist artists (warning, some of their work is deliberately offensive) â one Sarah Maple is currently working on looking at âfreedom of speechâ, and questioned whether it was right for moderators/sites to delete comments â where are the boundaries? She referred to the number of feminists who have given up seeking to change the conversation, because the backlash is too difficult â therefore returning to a place where the discourse is controlled. This image is from one of her public interactive exhibitions where she asked people to comment on her work, and found the reduction in negative comments because people had met her face-to-face⌠Interesting, no? We all have a responsibility to influence our culture - when a situation is already difficult, the real-time nature of social media can feed the situation, but it can also be used to ease tension and allow friends of the victim to declare themselves as âdigital alliesâ. If someone spots a hurtful comment, others can pre-agree to come in and protest against the posting. The UK Government has also recognized the need to step in, and in June 2015 set up âThe Stop Abuse Online Siteâ, providing legal advice and practical tips in responding to derogatory comments online. For those who have become victims of smear campaigns, websites can be legally required to take content down (although content may already have been copied and shared). As we said earlier, sometimes, the only effective way to remove negative content is to fill the online space with positive content related to your name (hard work, but get others to help you!). Gentleman, A. (2015) âGovernment launches anti-trolling website to help victims of online abuseâ, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/27/government-launches-anti-trolling-website-help-victims-online-abuse
- One final set of vulnerable users I wanted to mention â children who have been fostered/adopted â like to look into this more, but this a group that particularly need to ensure that photos/details are not shared online. These children are already more vulnerable, and often have been rescued from difficult situations â so, as with all children, make good use of privacy settings, think about the kind of content you share (lots of information in the press recently re sharenting, possible legal contestation of what parents have shared) to protect particularly vulnerable users (who can also include:children in the care of the state; children who have experienced prior maltreatment; emotionally immature children with learning or social difficulties and problems with peer friendships; love or attention deprived children; children with strong respect for adult status; children from single parent families; children who will co-operate for a desired reward (such as money, computer games); and, children with low self esteem). Stanley, J. (2001) âChild abuse and the internetâ, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from: https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/child-abuse-and-internet
- So, not wanting to finish on a negative side, I came across this great slidedeck, incidentally created by what appears to be a Christian marketer B I liked this â if youâre going to create content (and build up your authority online) â then give material away ⌠I learnt to do this â e.g. On training courses â people look at slides and then they come along â reach the people they need to reach (little wary this is a little prosperity gospel-y BTW, but I liked the encouragement to give material away online â participate)...
- So, remember, we should treat the digital environment with respect, recognise that it has its own particularities that we should understand as far as possible â itâs not risk free, but then nor is any part of life! Understand it, respect it, challenge it, engage with it â give stuff away, and remember â above all â youâre largely engaging with humans online â what do you want them to know about you, and how do you want to engage with them? Where would we take the discussion from here?