During times of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic, digital platforms are under public scrutiny to guarantee users’ online safety and wellbeing. Following inconsistencies in how platforms moderate online content and behavior, governments around the world are putting pressure on them to curb the spread of illegal and lawful harmful content and behavior (e.g., UK’s Draft Online Safety Bill). These efforts, though, mainly focus on overt abuse and false information, which misses more mundane social media practices such as racial stereotyping that are equally popular and can be inadvertently harmful. Building on Stoever’s (2016) work on the “sonic color line,” this article problematizes sound, specifically, as a key element in racializing memetic practices on the popular short-video platform TikTok. We examine how humorous audio-visual memes about Covid-19 on TikTok contribute to social inequality by normalizing racial stereotyping, as facilitated through TikTok’s “Use This Sound” feature. We found that users’ appropriations of sounds and visuals on TikTok, in combination with the platform’s lack of clear and transparent moderation processes for humorous content, reinforce and (re)produce systems of advantage based on race. Our article contributes to remediating the consistent downplaying of humor that negatively stereotypes historically marginalized communities. It also advances work on race and racism on social media by foregrounding the sonification of race as means for racism’s evolving persistence, which represents a threat to social cohesion.
Rating and ranking devices are everywhere on social media. While these devices may seem like objective tools to measure value and rank content, research shows how they profoundly shape social interaction and emotional expression and are central to platform moderation. Yet, very little is known about how users themselves talk about these devices, much less what this can tell us about how these devices co-constitute social reality on platforms. To explore this gap, we examine Reddit’s rating and ranking device, known as upvoting and downvoting, through a textual analysis of over half a million user comments that contain keywords such as “upvote” and “downvote” and their variants. We find that Redditors (Reddit users) rarely use or talk about voting in the way the platform intends. For the most part, Redditors not only disregard the rules about voting but also make, and enforce, their own rules, norms, and ethics around it. We uncover a rich set of voting practices that we present as the following four themes in a conceptual framework: (1) platform culture, (2) prescriptive device, (3) materialization of value, and (4) ontology of self. Drawing on a sociomaterial lens, we reposition voting as a material-discursive practice that is inseparable to Reddit culture. This provides compelling evidence that rating and ranking devices on social media intervene in and perform sociality and we invite future research to apply our conceptual framework to other rating and ranking devices on social media.
An old adage about the internet goes “Don’t Read The Comments”. It is a cynical word of caution from supposedly more experienced and savvy internet users, against a slew of negative, abusive, and unhelpful comments that are usually rampant online, stemming from trolling behaviour (Phillips 2015). “Don’t Read The Comments” has become an internet meme. Alongside parody websites (i.e. @AvoidComments n.d.), trawling through the comments section in search of ludicrosity has become an internet genre in and of itself. This comprises the likes of meme factory ‘The Straits Times Comment Section’ which collates absurd comments from users on a specific newspaper’s Facebook page (STcomments n.d.), as well as internet celebrity troll commentators like ‘American Ken’ M (Know Your Meme n.d.) and Singaporean ‘Peter Tan’ (Yeoh 2018), who post comments on a network of social media and fora in stealthily satirical ways that have even been co-opted for advertorials (Vox 2016). Such vernacular practice has in turn provoked a counter-genre of memes known as “I’m just Here For The Comments” (Tenor n.d.), in which users closely follow social media posts mainly for the resulting discussion and engagement in the comments section rather than the actual post itself. It is on this point of departure that this panel turns its focus to commenting cultures across platforms.
In 2019, TikTok captivated international attention as a breakout short-video platform. A key affordance for user-generated content creators on TikTok is how easy the platform makes reproducing popular videos. The video creation interface allows users to make new videos based on the one they were just watching with just one tap. While these features make it fun and easy for users to replicate popular videos, it can also obscure the identity of the creators who created the ‘original’ content being reused. In this way, TikTok engenders a culture of misattribution. Users can freely reuse popular formats, audio clips, or even licensed music without any connection to the original source with impunity. Using a combination of an app walkthrough, a bespoke data scraping tool, content analysis, and a series of qualitative case studies, this study explores the contradictory logic of authorship and how (mis)attribution is shaping cultural production and platform practices on TikTok.
Turner's writing evokes invitational communication as his chapters seemingly invite scholars to take up the challenge of extending media and cultural studies thought to cover the gaps that he identifies. For instance, Turner identifies areas that demand increased attention, including the increased volatility of media with the shift from mass to niche audiences, networks, and followerships (see chapter 3). In addition, Turner highlights how the creative and political are being sidelined in favor of a creative economy (see chapter 11). In sum, readers in media and cultural studies will appreciate the perspective and the broad and future-oriented scope of Graeme Turner's Essays in Media and Cultural Studies: In Transition.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.