This post will explore participatory cultures, media convergence, or divergence concerning Facebook. Indeed, Participatory culture has hidden connotations and paradoxical terminology. In addition, we are scrutinizing the word itself – whether it has become a term of convenience? On the one hand, one has also to examine how participatory it is by nature- is the participatory culture, or is it imagined? On the other hand, beneath the surface, there are lurkers -those who do not contribute back on Facebook. Horowitz’s pyramid will shed light on creators of content and synthesizers.
Social Media Culture
The first paragraph briefly engulfs the concepts of user-generated content, global convergence, and how audiences engage with each other on social media platforms.
The second paragraph will gear the reader toward the free Internet. Raising the awareness of media convergence challenges and the need for more sophisticated technology was causing the convergence.
The third paragraph refers to the producers of media content, and it is they who have to take specific responsibilities for how media content is spreading.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs reasonably explain fans and fandoms as multiple media flows of participation are happening simultaneously.
The primary device will be the mobile (smart) phone as a technological medium.
Then the essay takes an enigmatic turn as it explains the ambiguity of the word itself. The complexity of the question remains because of the saturation point by the developers, and the users still need to catch up. To what extent Facebook (FB) can be an example of media convergence? The first paragraph briefly engulfs the concepts of user-generated content, global convergence, and how audiences engage with each other on social media platforms.
The second paragraph will gear the reader toward the free Internet. Raising the awareness of media convergence challenges and that it was not sophisticated technology causing the convergence.
The third paragraph refers to the producers of media content, and it is they who have to take specific responsibilities for how media content is spreading.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs reasonably attempt to explain fans and fandoms as multiple media flows of participation are happening simultaneously.
The primary device will be the mobile (smart) phone as a technological medium.
Then the essay takes an enigmatic turn as it explains the ambiguity of the word itself. The complexity of the question remains because of the saturation point by the developers, and the users still need to catch up. Finally, to determine to what extent Facebook (FB) can be an example of media convergence. Examine the interwoven relationship between machine and human character analysis.
User-generated content
Facebook, YouTube, Myspace, and Twitter are a few examples of User Generated Content websites. All these sites are characteristic examples of social networking in the digital environment. These sites have transposed new ways of communication, thereby deliberating a process of mass communication and self-communication instantly. The user-friendly approach of these sites based on web 2.0 technology and the popularisation of a free Internet have made the compatible grounds for convergence culture to flourish.
User-generated content
Facebook, YouTube, Myspace, and Twitter are a few examples of User Generated Content websites. All these sites are characteristic examples of social networking in the digital environment. These sites have transposed new ways of communication, thereby deliberating a process of mass communication and self-communication instantly. The user-friendly approach of these sites based on web 2.0 technology and the popularisation of a free Internet have made the compatible grounds for convergence culture to flourish.
Convergence culture and media convergence
The convergence of modes on Facebook has blurred the lines of communication. Convergence culture relies upon the relationships between two concept’s participatory culture and collective intelligence. However, media convergence on Facebook differs from other approaches to the intersection.
Media Convergence is defined as the “flow of content across multiple platforms.”(Jenkins 2006a: 63). It is not a consequence of the intermingling of media forms themselves through digital technologies but rather as a new level of engagement with media by its users, “the social media encourage customers to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content.”(Flew,2008:63). In another way- advancement on a social, technological level has altered the “modes of convergence” between point to the point communication and media industries. (Jenkins,2008:10).
Historically, services were provided by a – medium. Such press, radio, and television have been replaced by “several different physical ways” on social media. Thereby “eroding the one-to-one relationship of media that existed between the medium and its use.” (In Jenkins,2008:5).” Technological digital platforms enable the same content outflows through multitudinous channels and assume many different forms at the point of reception.”(In Jenkins,2008:11).
The change triggered by the popularization of the Internet has helped media convergence on Facebook in some ways because the Internet has led to a shift in the global knowledge economy.
The ease with which media devices such as computers, mobile phones, and i-pads act as versatile transmitters of information allows consumers to access Facebook anywhere, anytime, wherever there is internet access. (Flew 2008:23).
Although these appliances and the Internet have been beneficial, convergence does not occur through media appliances or technological devices. On the contrary, the easily accessible and sophisticated media appliances act as “conduits” and are integral for convergence on Facebook.
When the brainwork and thought processes within the individual and consumer align, as a result of “social interaction” with others-. It facilitates the process of convergence on Facebook. (Jenkins, 2008:3). The new media landscape is an amalgamation of some grassroots and amateur – some commercial producing and circulating content. (Jenkins, 2013:223).
The complex range of activities enhanced by Facebook users and the interactive media technology available on this platform allows a person to “construct their own personal mythology. “As bits and fragments of information “get posted, this information is extracted and pulled out by the numerous participants according to their beliefs or traditions.
Furthermore, communication settings on Facebook may not be fully understood and can pose a problem for the participants. From the multiple media flows, the multitude of participants who interact with each other on Facebook can be affected in various ways. (Jenkins, 2008:pp3-4). Nonetheless, “The current media environment has become increasingly conducive to spreading media content and facilitating motivating and sharing. (Jenkins, 2013:298).
Media divergence and audience interaction
The convergence of modes on Facebook has blurred the lines of communication. Convergence culture relies upon the relationships between two concept’s participatory culture and collective intelligence. However, media convergence on Facebook differs from other approaches to the intersection.
The definition of Media Convergence is the “flow of content across multiple platforms.” (Jenkins 2006a: 63). It is not a consequence of the intermingling of media forms themselves through digital technologies but rather as a new level of engagement with media. Its users, “the social media encourage customers to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content.” (Flew,2008:63). In another way- advancement on a social, technological level has altered the “modes of convergence” between points to the point communication and media industries. (Jenkins,2008:10).
Historically, media services transmission through a – medium. Such press, radio, and television have been replaced by “several different physical ways” on social media. Thereby “eroding the one-to-one relationship of media that existed between the medium and its use.” (In Jenkins,2008:5).” Technological digital platforms enable the same content outflows through multitudinous channels and assume many different forms at the point of reception.” (In Jenkins,2008:11).
The change triggered by the popularization of the Internet has helped media convergence on Facebook in some ways because the Internet has led to a shift in the global knowledge economy.
The ease with which media devices such as computers, mobile phones, and i-pads act as versatile transmitters of information allows consumers to access Facebook anywhere, anytime, wherever there is internet access. (Flew 2008:23).
Although these appliances and the Internet have been beneficial, convergence does not occur through media appliances or technological devices. On the contrary, the easily accessible and sophisticated media appliances act as “conduits” and are integral for convergence on Facebook.
When the brainwork and thought processes within the individual and consumer align, as a result of “social interaction” with others-. It facilitates the process of convergence on Facebook. (Jenkins, 2008:3). The new media landscape is an amalgamation of some grassroots and amateur – some commercial producing and circulating content. (Jenkins, 2013:223).
The complex range of activities enhanced by Facebook users and the interactive media technology available on this platform allows a person to “construct their mythology. “As bits and fragments of information “get posted, this information is extracted and pulled out by the numerous participants according to their beliefs or traditions.
Furthermore, communication settings on Facebook may need to be fully understood and can pose a problem for the participants. From the multiple media flow to the multitude of participants who interact with each other on Facebook can be affected in various ways. (Jenkins, 2008:pp3-4). Nonetheless, “The current media environment has become increasingly conducive to spreading media content and facilitating motivating and sharing. (Jenkins, 2013:298).
Media divergence and audience interaction
If Facebook is considered an example of the “flow of media content, ” producers of media content on Facebook should consider how audiences will create divergences from official distribution systems; listening to such practices may provide new models for content creation.
The participation by consumers in multi-platforms of social media has fuelled a massive increase in the supply of news content material on Facebook. It is crucial here that those content creators realize if the audience will take it upon themselves to spread media content or discuss that content. Then it is because it serves some communicative purpose for them and fits in the conversation they were already having (Jenkins, 2013:297- 300).
Nevertheless, the actual development has not been an expansion of content but an insatiable demand for new content. A significant change has been the mainstream news sites’ translation of news into entertainment. Facebook has been a medium by reinvigorating the public sphere to the cyber globe through the participation of groups. An American study found that 48% used social networking sites such as FB to assist in reporting and engaging with their audiences.
The Conclusion was that the younger generation of journalists understood how to use digital technology effectively in their work—supported by the growth in content by the citizens mobilized by solid ideas from the grassroots. Citizen journalists have reinvigorated the public sphere by collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news online. (Turner, 2010: 81-88).
Shared values
Throughout the broadcast era, PC remained marginalized. Many communities (particularly fan and activist groups) developed a strong sense of social solidarity and a deep understanding of their common interest. They shared values, and they have carried these over to their interaction with web 2.0 companies (Jenkins,2013:53). Here, the emphasis is that there are different types of PC. For instance, the values associated with fan communities may differ dramatically from those of other kinds of cultural participants-activists, members of religious groups, and collectors. Hence these different types of PC need to command equal levels of respect and attention from the media industries. (Jenkins, 2013:54).
Popular culture
For the media industry, much viral media pushed towards embracing a false model of audience behavior. The web 2.0 discourse assumes that fan participation is highly generative-yielding new insights and generating new values.
However, many Web 2.0 companies have sought to assert total ownership over content generated by their fans. In other cases, platforms too quickly sell out users’ interests to placate the contested assertion of intellectual property claims posed by other commercial interests. All of this has contributed to the instability and insecurity about the promises of Web 2.0 (Jenkins,2013:84).
In the past, media producers took steps to protect the rough handling of their franchises from their fans. Fans could depreciate the value of their intellectual property by changing the essence of the message based on their understanding. In contrast, Jenkins suggests that retro fans appreciate media properties. They like them and thus make them a site of emotional investment (Jenkins,2013:104).
Citizen empowerment
Ordinary people’s participation in the media has generated citizen empowerment (Turner,2010:171).
Participation and citizen empowerment As fans interact on the spur of the moment online (Jenkins,2006:142). Here, I will explain “Fans “and Fandom’s meanings in convergence culture as they differ. “Fans are “individuals who have a passionate relationship to a particular media franchise.”
Fandoms are groups. The members consciously identify as part of a larger group or community. They demonstrate similar traits of public bound together through their shared sociality and identity. Fandoms can get the attention of media businesses and shape their decisions.” (Jenkins,2013:166)
The power of the Fandoms amplified because of the access to networked communications on Facebook. However, some researchers have advised caution about optimistic projections of political empowerment. Despite the Internet amplifying the number of voices heard, the link between the two needs to be more vital.
Lev Maniovich (in Turner, 2010:129) agrees that the drawback is academic activists using an activist approach to champion and defend their rights on Facebook. Even though collective intelligence refers to the power of “networked communities” as a result of the impact of new media, in particular web2.0 technologies (Flew, 2008:64). The ability of the Internet has enhanced the extent of human interaction enabled by communication that can generate new knowledge and improved the capacity to codify, store and retrieve such knowledge(Flew,2008:21). Whereas, Pierre Levy contrasts “collective intelligence with the dystopian image of the hive mind.
On the other hand, bureaucratic hierarchies, media monarchies, and economic networks suppress individual voices due to asymmetrical networks. However, another alternative is “Multiple ways of knowing to enliven the new knowledge culture.” Rapid many-to-many communication has enabled broader participation (Jenkins,2006:136-140).
For Jose van Dijck, the definition of PC is ambiguous for various reasons. Firstly, the cultural complexities theorizing the current trends indicate that people using Facebook have a strong desire to share their judgment, observation, and knowledge in communities (Van Dijck, 2009:45). As a result, because of the complexities, only some are participating in Facebook.
A recent American survey showed that people who joined social networking sites were not contributing Content. The majority of end users were ‘passive spectators.’ Therefore, users’ agency comprises a different level of the implementation of web 2.0 technologies participation from creators, spectators, and inactive. (Van Dijck, 2009:45). Participation on Facebook is limited and is time-consuming as data is scattered. The second problem was that Facebook’s coherence or non-coherent aspects might “steer users” in a certain way (Van Dijck, 2009:46). The third problem is that the end users unknowingly provide personal information by revealing their unique behavior patterns to the site owners. Oblivious to user’s information traced minutely by databases on UGC sites unwillingly linking the IP addresses connecting the customer’s name and address. The owners of Facebook find such information valuable and profitable. Then the pragmatic utilization of this information is used for various purposes by targeting advertisements to make a profit.
Unknown customers on Facebook become subservient to the platform owners’ autocracy as they have no power over data distribution. (Van Dijck,2009:47). The other limitation of Facebook is its top-down push from the owners may differ from the bottom-up pull from the grassroots.
Jenkins culminated a different notion of new media and media convergence from the perspective of its users and PC (Flew,2008:62). Ideologically, FB can be an example of convergence, as Jenkin proposes. PC is a system of mass communication based on too- many message transmissions.
Media producers and consumers interact with each other. Still, the interaction is enabled rather than technologies that have driven themselves (Flew, 2008:63). Conversely, Marwick & Boyd say that every participator online has an imagined audience in a communicative act, as previously mentioned. They explain that the understanding of – the following (crowd) on FB is potentially limitless. (Boyd,2007:131).
Consequently, this raises questions about the uncertainty of participation on Facebook as the perception and incomprehension of the imagined audience might be entirely different from the actual reader of a profile, blog, post, or tweet. Therefore, the understanding of Facebook fans and social media, in general, needs to be improved. (Marwick & Boyd 2011:115). Thus, the ambiguity of PC remains, and in this sense, as only some are participating, media convergence interaction is reduced to what it potentially could be. This example also highlights the extent of participation. How participatory is PC? If we examine, Howrowitz’s pyramid went so far as to label 90% who were not actively producing Content as “Lurker.” This model suggested they wrench on the community without contributing back. Although a complex process, Lurkers may provide value to people by sharing commentary or producing multimedia content by expanding the audience and motivating their work. At the same time, critics and curators generate value for those creating material and perhaps for one another. Jean Lave and Etienne Wegner describe this process as “legitimate peripheral participation” Because newcomers integrate faster if they can observe and learn from more skilled participants.” Furthermore, As Susan Bryant, Andrea Forte, and Amy Buckman write that as a result, “through peripheral activities,” many cultures are becoming more participatory in relative terms than the previous configuration of media power (Jenkins, 2013:156-159).
While sociocultural anthropologist Arjun Appadurai(1990) argues that understanding the International social economy is by examining the disjuncture and differences that arise between the various landscapes through which culture travels(In Jenkins, 2013:271).
Even though the analysis starts with media convergence, they are diverted, often without authorization, from their country of origin. As a result, they are also diverting in so far as they are engaging meaningful and valuable new audiences that employ them for their reasons and may have little or nothing to do with their original reception (Jenkins, 2013:271-272). If, for example, Asian culture is shaping American entertainment.
Global media convergence may have the opposite effect as the media changes. So this can be destabilizing. As the media changes, it exerts an influence. Thus two effects are produced, one of exhilaration or exaltation and the other of panic or despondency. “In almost every sector of popular culture, there has been innovation and sparkling” creativity of talent. (Jenkins, 2006:156). However, the intersection of global convergence on Facebook gives rise to cosmopolitanism. As a result, when cosmopolitanism embraces cultural differences, those Facebook users interacting seek to escape the gravitational pull of their local communities.
Media convergence through Facebook allows these end users broader spheres of cultural experiences. Ethnographers have found that the same media messages are interpreted differently by readers. The complication arises when the context of how messages are perceived. The media messages can vary in other regions or national contexts according to their familiar genres, and values can have opposite reactions to the interpretation of media flow(Jenkins, 2006:156-157). For instance, in 2001, “Filipino American high school student created a Photoshop collage of Sesame Street. Bert interacted with terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden as part of a series of ‘Bert is evil’ images he posted on his home page. Others depicted Bert as Klu Klux Klansman or as having sex with Pamela Anderson.
The unpredictable and contradictory meanings ascribed to those images were de-contextualized and re-contextualized at the consumption site. This story suggested that teens and youth circulating teen’s websites become the center of an international controversy in a global network culture as the lines may get blurred across boundaries” (Jenkins, 2006:154)
PC is not new. Open-ended participation has been part of “society and can be traced back” to the 19th century. However, social interactions take different forms, and participatory activities differ substantially. Today, some people have confused participatory culture as corresponding with Web 2.0. However, Web 2.0 is a business model.
While this platform may offer a new technical affordance that furthers the goals of being friendly, friction always exists between the desires of producers and audiences. This gap has resulted in ongoing struggles (Jenkins, 2013:297). The makers of Facebook want to make the experience for the user more personalized and social. Allowing the individual to connect to game applications and other websites simultaneously. Conflicting and contradictory pulls between corporate conceptions of participation make companies more responsive to the needs and desires of their “consumers.”
In contrast, a political concept of participation focuses on the passion for all to exercise greater power over the decisions that impact the quality of everyday lives as citizens. The construction Facebook model, for example, is based on business interests. Customer demand has shifted away from consuming activities and gravitated towards producing activities as the customer has more power over Content because they may add business value beneficial to the owners and may not add any media value on Facebook (Van Dijck, 2009:46).
Both concepts of participation are at stake in the restructuring of media ecology. Grassroots circulation practices significantly influence the media content between networked publics (Jenkins, 2013:156). By adding links, notes, videos, and photos and allowing the sharing of religious and political views. With a Facebook account, members can access other websites, such as CNN, with the same password. Plugin on newspaper websites allows sharing of Content and ordinary people’s participation in the media, which has generated citizen empowerment (Turner, 2010:171). Since Levy writes, “no one knows everything; everyone knows something” (Jenkins, 2006:139). The signaling of Collective intelligence as an “alternative source of media power.” Communication on Facebook is “dispersed and decentralized.” the examination of the same question Poole raised with broader implications for media convergence and participatory culture. Today there is talk of divergence as opposed to an intersection. In this “age of transition,” reinforcing the argument as some communications technologies converged to support diversity and greater participation. The collective power on social media is exponential. Expelled through recreational life. (Jenkins:2008.4).
The mobile phone is always on. Simply downloading the Facebook app on a mobile phone has facilitated some media convergence at lightning speed. Messages are sent or received instantly, eliminating time lags and space. “The rise of mobile computing intersects with another major trend in new media: access to high-speed broadband services. For this reason, the association of the cost of internet access with usage time, network infrastructure constraints, download time, and storage device capacity are all rapidly diminishing” (Flew,2008:250). The “black box fallacy” is when we speak about convergence – our discourse is on a single device, for example, today it is a smartphone. However, the change of the black box theory is an ongoing process. Therefore, eventually, it will be left to the consumer to figure out which box will allow the flow of media content. (Jenkins, 2006:154). Therefore to understand media convergence and how far Facebook will be an example is an – ongoing evolutionary process as a technological shift “process occurring at various intersections, between media technologies, industries content, and audience. Therefore, in another sense, media convergence” is more than only a technological change as at the same time it is alternating the relationship between different technologies. (Jenkins, 2006:155). As stated at the onset, I have used a mobile phone device as an example of the broader sociocultural implications of the ever-increasing speed and volume of communications or what we always term culture for users and the broader communication ecology. As mobile phones compete in their technological advancement, the best user-friendly gadget will increase business “profit from low-volume sales to a niche consumer based on a wider inventory of ‘virtual’ products” (Flew, 2008:250).
Nevertheless, in an era of digital sharing and network culture. Content is more likely shared if it is available when and where audiences want it. Audience members do not want to be stuck in one place as they enjoy their media texts “on the go.” It should be portable. Media producers and media audiences are creating material that spreads. Therefore, it should be easily reusable in a variety of ways. (Jenkins, 2013:198) As a driving change, technology facilitates and keeps pace with the social domain. The will to improve by the audiences and technology, on the other allows that change to occur. One cannot determine which comes first in the paradox of technology and culture. It could be that culture is driving this change or that the social transformation one sees is due to technology. Nevertheless, the rising demand from FB users and the converging media production modes drive the change fueled by the new forms of digital media or technology(Turner,2010:129-130).
In Conclusion, from a subjective viewpoint of the analysis, researchers in the 1990s found confirmation of the hypothesis that intensive use of media and being online, in particular, contributed to social isolation. However, in years since such services as launching Facebook, the exact opposite Conclusion tends to be drawn in studies on social cohesion and community formations. Sociologists Di Maggio et al., 2001, as well as psychologists Barg and Mc Kenna, 2004, confirm “A general conclusion seems to be that the unique even transformational qualities of the internet in particular and considering the internet’s assimilation into their media in general” encourages self-expression (which)” facilitates the formation of relationships on other, deeper bases such as shared values and beliefs” (Deuze,2012:91). The sharing of media across cultural boundaries as we can do on the “social networking site” FB because of Web2 is more inclusive, more dynamic and more participatory(Jenkins, 2013:304).
Digital Culture – What Are the Dangers of Unequal Value-Sharing-Economy and Participatory Cultures:
Bibliography
Deuze, M. (2012). No life outside media: Media life. London Polity Press.
Dwyer, T. (2010). Media convergence. Maidenhead, Open University Press.
Flew, T. (2008). New media, an introduction third edition. In Conclusion, ed. by Venetia Somerset, Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Interactive audiences? The collective intelligence of media fans: Fans, bloggers, and gamers exploring participatory culture. New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Pop cosmopolitanism, mapping cultural flows in an age of media convergence: Fans, bloggers, and gamers, exploring participatory culture. New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Where web 2.0 went wrong: Spreadable media, creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Reappraising the residual: Spreadable media, creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, New York, University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). What constitutes meaningful participation: Spreadable media, creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Thinking Transitionally: Spreadable media, creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Thinking Transitionally: Spreadable media, creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Designing for spreadability: Spreadable media, creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, New York University Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Conclusion: Spreadable media creates value and meaning in a networked culture. New York, New York University Press.
Marwick, A., & Boyd, D (2011). I honestly tweet passionately: Twitter users’ context collapse and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, Vol. 13, No.1, p.115.
Turner, G.(2010). Revenge of the nerds, in Ordinary People and The Media, The Demotic Turn, ed, by Mike Featherstone, London: Sage publications limited.
Turner, G.(2010). Redefining Journalism, in Ordinary People and the Media, The Demotic Turn, ed, by Mike Featherstone, London: Sage publications limited.
Van Dijick, J (2009) “Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content”, Vol 3, No.1, p.45-47.
The End
The Digital News 