Category: Uncategorised

Like most people of this generation, I find it almost impossible to spend a day without using my phone.

Generally, my daily digital routine consists of me using WhatsApp throughout the day, and Instagram, TikTok, Youtube and Snapchat for entertainment or mindless scrolling. And Safari for any queries, online shopping itches, and basically anything else that might come to mind as the day goes on.

Social Media and Entertainment:

When it comes to Instagram, TikTok, Youtube and Snapchat, these apps gather data on what kinds of content they presume I like to consume. All these apps have an ‘explore’ page in which they collect data from my search/watch history to produce recommendations that are catered to my interests. Some of them even go as far as to show ads, then have a prompt that asks if I liked the ad. The more I use these apps, the more data I freely provide them on my preferences, so that they can tailor my experience. Sometimes, they can get the algorithm bang on, and I get recommended content I didn’t even know I was looking for until it appeared on my feed. But other times, the algorithm produces recommendations from content I’ve accidentally clicked on or only searched up once. Additionally, these apps have built-in notification services that I as a user did not sign up for and am also unable to turn off. These notifications can be especially jarring when they pop up throughout my day, urging me to join a creator’s Livestream, or check out something a creator I’ve only watched a handful of times has posted. In that sense, it feels much more like an invasion of my privacy rather than a reward of any sort.

The Internet:

Amongst all the digital labour I partake in, I surprisingly find the internet to be the least rewarding. If you open any news or shopping website, there is almost always an “accept cookies” prompt that dominates the page. Often because I’m desperately trying to get to the content, I mindlessly click “accept” every single time. But if you ever slow down and take a second just to look at what exactly it is they are extracting from you, you might just change your mind the next time you are prompted to “accept”.

There are many subcategories of cookies that users may be unaware of if we don’t take the time to read the prompt. And often, we are too busy trying to get to our digital destination to really care. Hence, companies are able to capitalise off of society’s laziness by offering an all-inclusive, convenient “accept all” button. By carelessly clicking accept to almost everything, I have found my emails to especially be oversaturated by companies I don’t even remember signing up for, as well as a general slowdown in the performance of my devices.

But overall, because these applications are pivotal in my daily routine, I don’t honestly see myself ever doing anything to change the way I feel. To add insult to injury, the more similar my everyday routine is, the more digital labour I produce for these companies to essentially keep track of what I’m going to do at a given time, so as to be invasive of my personal life yet somehow turn it around to try and make me feel special. But hey, don’t hate the player, hate the game, right?

User-generated content (UGC) has a dual character and is central to a digital economy. Individuals participate by creating free content for the company, while simultaneously being a cost-effective method of advertising for the brand.

Vans Global Custom Culture Contest

Vans hosted a customisation competition where global participants could submit a sneaker design, and stand a chance to win $25,000, have their shoes produced and sold by Vans, as well as tour the Vans design headquarters. On top of that, they would also be able to partner with Vans to donate $100,000 to a charity that further enables creative communities.

With this competition, Vans had the following goals:

“To create a platform that is accessible to everyone […] A barrier to creativity is having access to the tools needed to create something unique, and as a brand it’s our purpose and commitment to provide a range of platforms to empower and enable individuals.”

– April Viktus, Vans Senior Director of Global Brand Marketing

But ultimately who benefits the most?

Vans:

Throughout the competition, Vans received lots of publicity. This publicity painted Vans in a particularly good light, as not only did they offer an appealing opportunity to aspiring creatives, but they also promised rewards which would help kickstart their careers. With this publicity, Vans were likely to have garnered lots of participants, whilst also generating plenty of UGC and free advertising for their brand. Often when a brand is the ‘talk of the town’ in a positive way, product sales are likely to increase exponentially. Therefore, in this period, not only could Vans have minimised costs, but also maximised profit with their positive image. Even after the competition ends, the good publicity is unlikely to fade. Vans would have gained a brand-new limited edition design through free labour, and because of its exclusivity, continue to have a rise in profits. Similarly, because the rewards were so promising for any upcoming creatives, Vans is likely to hold a good name in society for its support in the creative community.

The creators of the UGC:

The competition offered a chance to earn fame and recognition as voting was open to the public. Even if an artist did not win, they may gain newfound customers just by having their work and name present on the voting page. For the winner, having a world-famous brand such as Vans sell your work, is a fantastic way to kickstart any artist’s career. Furthermore, with the visit to the Vans headquarters, they were likely to gain insightful tips and advice on how to eventually run their own business, boosting their career even more.

Consumers:

All consumers really get out of this is a new shoe design. However, if in this period Vans becomes high in demand due to surrounding publicity, then consumers may have the opportunity to sell their own Vans pieces for a profit.

However, there are losses for all parties too — some more than others. Vans itself may lose a big sum of money to this contest due to the prizes, but they are also likely to make it back quickly, as the good publicity surrounding its brand is one that will have a lasting effect. When people think of Vans, they will remember how they contributed to the creative community. Whereas, the winner, will likely only be remembered until Vans stops selling their design. As for consumers, the rise in popularity of Vans in this period may lead to more competition in consumption. Prices may rise, and limited quantities may pose a struggle to secure this limited-edition pair of shoes.

At the end of the day, people will always remember the cool opportunity that Vans presented, but not likely the artist that won, or the creatives they helped along the way. Even if loyal customers are unable to secure their shoes due to an increase in popularity, Vans will still be making a profit. Thus, in more aspects than one, UGC is by far one of the most cost-effective methods for a brand to adopt, as they often win on a larger scale. But even so, UGC still proves to be a win-win situation for everyone, even if it’s only for a limited time.

When you think of Malaysia, you think of lounging by the crystal-clear ocean or eating your way through all the mouth-watering local delicacies. But, beyond the lush green tropics and the bustling cosmopolitan of Malaysian cities that we all know and love, Malaysian media isn’t quite as liberalising.

Although the media adopts a mixed-market economy approach, most newspapers and electronic media outlets are state-owned. Hence, the majority are controlled by the government, or whichever political party is in the ruling coalition. These media companies are only allowed to operate if they have a government license, which must also be renewed annually. As a result, Malaysia’s mainstream media programmes and reporting are traditionally pro-government. As these companies are forbidden to publish any story that threatens the ruling party’s image, many have said that they no longer trust printed newspapers due to the aspect of government control.

However, as news sites which operate on the Internet are exempt from such restrictions, those who wish to publish stories that are not pro-government or politically affiliated, turn to online platforms with no chance of ever becoming a physical print. In recent years online media companies have produced more and more bold attempts at openly discussing issues such as race and religion relations, political unjust, the environment etc., challenging traditional government propaganda-filled articles.

An example of such would be World of Buzz (WOB). Though they are not a non-profit organisation, contrary to Robert McChesney’s argument of market systems not delivering democracy, WOB is a popular online publication with columns ranging from viral and current stories to columns on entertainment, lifestyle, technology, and local happenings. Although their main news-telling platform is their website, most readers come from their Instagram. Hence, WOB has become increasingly popular, particularly with the Gen-Z and millennial population — the leading demographic not only on social media but also in advocating for a more liberal and just society.

For Malaysia’s 15th General Election (GE15), WOB has a column especially dedicated to coverage of the occasion. From gag stories to live updates of the vote counts, this column was used to encourage people to vote regardless of their political affiliation. In contrast, traditional state-owned media was used to leverage the ruling party’s campaign or to weaken the opposition by publishing their scandals. Such as the 1998 coverage of the Anwar Ibrahim scandal, where the deputy prime minister was sacked and jailed on sex and corruption charges.

However, if we are being highly critical and follow McChesney’s definition, the ‘democratization’ of the media is a “media system that has significant non-profit and non-commercial component”.

Following the scandal, the non-profit Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) was founded by journalists, writers, and activists with the aim of fulfilling the public’s demand for critical analysis of prevailing political issues. Beginning as a website, the CIJ eventually expanded into a radio project. But even as they grew, the organisation’s core values remained intact. Today, the CIJ continues to advocate for a broader space of expression, views, and openness of information in Malaysia. They constantly give their perspective on issues of freedom of expression, media freedom and ethical journalism through the release of press statements, articles, and an annual report on the Malaysian media situation. Furthermore, the CIJ also campaigns for the repeal of restrictive media laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act, and other additional legislative curbs on media freedom. As the CIJ was founded on the basis of educating the public, they continue to do so not only through their publications, but also by raising awareness on the values of freedom of expression, press, and information by regularly organising and giving talks on these subjects.

But all in all, whether they are non-profit or not, the emergence of more and more Internet news organisations in Malaysia, and the overall increased preference for online news over print in this digital era, is definitely a step in the right direction towards democratisation, and the betterment of our country’s future.

It seems with every turn we take; we often find ourselves face to face with some kind of ‘feminist’ propaganda. The popularisation of the ‘girl boss’ persona, and the constant use of female athletes on the face of every commercial, regardless of whether or not the collaboration makes sense for both parties. Every day we’re reminded to take back the power we’ve lost to our male counterparts, to speak our minds, to love ourselves, and to be self-reliant. As much as these messages are powerful, with empowering propaganda there comes a fine line that may be crossed in which the message becomes satirical.

Take this scene from Euphoria. They poke at the overselling of feminism in society, showcasing that they not only sound incredibly ridiculous and shallow but rather that such ‘feminism’ does not actually have the effect the propaganda was hoping to produce.

Sarah Banet-Weiser’s book ‘Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny’ explores the idea of feminism as placing an emphasis on solving problems women face through the ‘lean in’ idea — ‘lean in’, and you’ll be empowered. With the expansion of neoliberal capitalism, the ‘lean in’ idea is enforced by social media being so easily accessible, allowing the emergence of more and more content to be created and consumed, that associates female issues with discourses of empowerment that are both cultural and economic. This is often seen where companies and influencers overtly suggest a certain look, lifestyle, or ideology to their audience, resulting in the dissemination of popular ideas — hence, ‘popular feminism’.

Gillette “We Believe: The Best Men Can Be.”

In 2019, popular razor brand Gillette released a Super Bowl advertisement that tackled the topics of feminism and anti-toxic masculinity. With mentions of the #MeToo movement, ‘mansplaining’, the male gaze etc., there was a lot to unpack in this 2-minute video.

https://youtu.be/koPmuEyP3a0

Essentially, the advertisement encourages men to hold other men accountable for their actions and to raise a new generation of men where “boys will be boys” will no longer be an excuse for misogyny in society.

The advertisement ended up receiving very mixed reviews. Backlash consisted largely of males who called for a boycott of the company, claiming that the company “hated manly men”, and that Gillette was racist for depicting white men as the main antagonists.

“Men are saying, we feel marginalized, criticized and accused rather than feeling inspired empowered and encouraged”

– Susan Cantor, CEO of RedPeak branding

While other viewers saw the advertisement as bold and brave.

Thank you, #Gillette, for taking a chance on attaching your tagline to something meaningful, important and real. This conversation needs to happen. Why are there is so many complaints when it’s showing the good and bad side of #masculinity?

– Twitter user @happyasbarry

But no matter where you stand in this debate, can we really say that feminism goes hand in hand with Gillette’s commercial interests?

For over 100 years, the company has traditionally catered to the male population. As much as the conversation needs to be had, it is rather nonsensical to use feminism to sell men’s grooming products. Closely following the values of neoliberal ideology, the creation of such propaganda is not only a form of entrepreneurialism, but an emphasis on the importance of an individual’s responsibility in a pressing issue, in turn, ultimately governing the popular idea of ‘feminism’ and ‘anti-toxic masculinity’.

Even though Gillette sells female-targeted razors, irony largely prevails as these specific razors are cladded with the ‘pink tax’. The brand’s female-marketed razors are often more expensive than their ‘male’ razors, despite being the same product.

In maths, algorithms are defined as a sequence of rigorous instructions often used to solve calculations, a class of specific problems, or to perform a computation. But the use of algorithms expands way beyond maths. Algorithms pretty much govern our everyday routine, and how we as a society make decisions that impact different aspects of our lives. From our credit scores to what schools or jobs we will go through in our life, algorithms prevail. Algorithms are particularly found to be used in artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning, as it not only automates complex processes but also allows us to take the farthest complexities of human beings, into account.

Although a combination of algorithms and AI are not technically ‘run’ by an individual, they are still designed, used, and shaped by people. In the age of social media, we constantly feed data to algorithms, which produce a niche profile of advertisements or content that we are likely to enjoy in return.

But just how fair and impartial are algorithms really? If it’s all computer-generated, shouldn’t problems such as racism, homophobia, and ableism not be present?

Social media has seen a rise in the practice of “shadowbanning” where creators get their content partially blocked from their audience’s feed. Though mostly used on ‘problematic’ users in hopes they will get frustrated and leave the platform, many people of colour (POC), LGBTQIA+ and disabled creators have come forward with complaints about being shadowbanned.

Particularly focusing on TikTok as a platform with an anti-racist lens, below is a screen recording of my “For You Page”, a feed where the algorithm recommends TikToks to my interest.

Just from this 45 second scroll, there is already a prominent disproportionate amount of white and POC creators being recommended. POC creators were only recommended three times. The first being the @complexuk ad promoting the Bad Bunny x Adidas collaboration, where Bad Bunny himself did not even make an appearance. The second and third time, I got recommended dance TikToks, one with a group of girls in matching outfits, and the other with a male dancing alone. The rest of the videos were all white creators, in which every video was more varied, and featured a different genre. However, I must also consider this as a product of geographical location. I have noticed that when I am in an Asian country, my For You Page displays proportionately more POC’s — but I wouldn’t say it is an obvious difference as white content creators still dominate my feed.

“TikTok and other social media platforms rely on the use of algorithmic coding that literally erase the possibility for disabled, queer, trans, and fat users from full participation and visibility on a social media network.”

– Jessica Sage Rauchberg

Whether or not the algorithm intentionally shadowbans creators, this is not anything new for our society. For centuries we have always been divided by our race. The very structure of colonialism and slavery relied on racism and differences in physical appearance. As a society, so many POC communities are still working through the trauma of these incidents, as well as the racism we face in the 21st century. We as users can blame the algorithm all we like, but for as long as algorithms are constructed by humans who may be inherently biased towards certain demographics, the ‘algorithm’ is forever going to not only shape the way social media functions to their specific liking whilst giving us a false sense of ‘personalisation’, but rather also expand to becoming a part of a wider social structure. In turn, the efforts we have globally put into tackling racism could be reversed by the ‘algorithm’ unknowingly as children of our future continue to consume biased content. So as a member of a marginalised society, I urge you and everyone, to hold such platforms accountable, to demand a change.